lf-photo.org.uk

I have two questions about camera movements that I would appreciate some help with.

1 I am planning to build a 5x4 camera with rear assymetrical tilt. On the Ebony this is below the central axis. ( Approx. 2.5" below?) Is there any reason why it can't be above the central axis?

2 To date I have mostly photographed the landscape and only really needed tilt. Now that I am also photographing buildings (barns and fishermens' huts) I was thinking of building a rising front as well as rear assymetrical tilt. But I may get more stability by ruling out a rising front and building in front tilt instead. Then I could angle the camera up, to get the top of the building in, and tilt the front and back into a vertical position. Would this method give me enough control over converging verticals? Or would I need a rising front? Or a rising front AND front tilt?

Being slightly paranoid about rigidity/vibration I want as few moving parts as possible.

Alan Clark

Alan Clark wrote:1 I am planning to build a 5x4 camera with rear assymetrical tilt. On the Ebony this is below the central axis. ( Approx. 2.5" below?) Is there any reason why it can't be above the central axis?

In theory, it shouldn't make any difference, apart from the possibility of fouling the bellows.

Alan Clark wrote:2 To date I have mostly photographed the landscape and only really needed tilt. Now that I am also photographing buildings (barns and fishermens' huts) I was thinking of building a rising front as well as rear assymetrical tilt. But I may get more stability by ruling out a rising front and building in front tilt instead. Then I could angle the camera up, to get the top of the building in, and tilt the front and back into a vertical position. Would this method give me enough control over converging verticals? Or would I need a rising front? Or a rising front AND front tilt?

You can achieve correction for converging verticals by either tipping the camera back, using base tilt on front and back standards, ensuring both are vertical, or you can simply leave the camera level and raise the front standard.

Alan Clark wrote:Being slightly paranoid about rigidity/vibration I want as few moving parts as possible.

Then, in that case, having to add tilt to both front and back standards would give you more to go wrong than a simple sliding mechanism on the front standard alone.

But, I have a, somewhat controversial, question for you:

Why do you feel you need asymmetric tilts at all? Especially on the rear standard? I agree that they are useful on a monorail with precision scales like a Sinar but, on a field camera, I have never found a need for anything other than the standard axis and base tilts provided by the SV45Te.

I use, most of the time, the axis tilt on the front standard, combined with front rise, to get all manner of different scenes in focus. If perspective doesn't matter, I would agree that asymmetric movements can be quicker but, in my opinion, they certainly weren't worth the extra spondulicks Ebony were asking.

Joanna,
To answer your question as to why I want asymmetrical tilt, all that I can say is that I have used front axial tilt a lot to get the foreground and background in focus, and know from experience that this can be a rather fiddly process. Having read that asymmetrical tilt made this process easier I thought I would give it a go. It may be an expensive option on an Ebony camera, but as I am making my own camera I should point out that it won't cost me a penny!
However, if the general consensus is that it's not worth bothering with I may have a re-think.

Thank you for answering my first question.

Alan Clark

Hello Alan,
I am v.interested in your projects. There are a few LF'ers knocking around your neck of the woods, who I am sure would willingly show you their cameras for you to get ideas.
I am not an Ebonite, nor have I ever tried assymmetric movements, but as far as I can tell, assymmetric is a nice-to-have which seems to speed up focussing for the landscape photographers amongst us. I was much less convinced of its value when it came to architecture because of the need to tilt the back - therefore loss of perspective correction.

You can achieve correction for converging verticals by either tipping the camera back, using base tilt on front and back standards, ensuring both are vertical, or you can simply leave the camera level and raise the front standard.

Or you could lower the back while keeping the camera level. It strikes me that you could have two sliding mechanisms: one for vertical position of the sheet of film and one for the bellows extension. Then some hinge for axial or base tilt on the front. You have three planes: back, bottom and front, and can associate one type of movement with each. Surely the simplest mechanically.
Personally, I find swing and shift to be essential for architecture photography. If you want to add complication, that's where I would put it.
I hope that helps.
Best regards,
Charles

Charles,

Many thanks for your suggestions, especially regarding swing and shift for architectural work. I have a lot to think about here. I wanted to make a very simple camera that would be light but very rigid - using mainly wood- but may have to modify my original ideas.

Alan