Asymmetrical Tilt (and Swing?)

[carstenw]

I am working my way through the Stroebel book, and read the description of asymmetrical tilt on the rear. It seems like a really clever idea, and would probably give more accuracy than focusing in the middle, and then tilting until something at the top, or bottom, was in focus too.

What is not quite so clear is how it works in an overall workflow. If anyone has experience with these cameras, I would love to hear a bit about it:

1) Does it often happen that there is nothing on the bottom that you want to focus on, so that the whole thing becomes overly iterative?

2) How does one combine this with the general tilt/swing/shift/rise/fall setup of the rear, without having it break down into a series of small experiments?

3) Which cameras offer this, apart from a few Sinars?

4) Is there a parallel asymmetrical swing?

 

[Jack]

This is standard fare on Sinar P series, and also the higher end Ebony models. Simple answer is it is great for many things as it can speed up focus, but can also hamper others. IMO, Ebony had the best solution with asymmetrical tilt and swing at the rear with axial up front. The Ebony site used to have a good explanation and example of using it, let's see if I can find it...

Okay, it seems they've pulled the page off their site, but do link to a pdf: http://www.ebonycamera.com/media/asymmetrical.movements.pdf

 

[Oxide Blu]

Jack, that .pdf on asym tilt is great. Thanks for posting it.

Carsten, Toyo view cameras also have asym tilt/swing on both the lens and film standards. I think Toyo calls it "full movement". Don't know if it is on all Toyo models or just some of them.

 

[henningw]

Sinar patented it when the first p came out. Linhof made a Master-L, I think, that also had it but had to pull it as it came out during the time the patent was in effect. After the patent ran out a number of other manufacturers incorporated it into their lines.

It's an excellent feature, and combined with the 'yaw free' setup that Sinar also introduced with the p makes most shots, and especially studio shots very quick and intuitive to set up. Sometimes you are fighting it though and it's not always the best for a field camera.

In a studio camera I would always want it, but in a field camera it's a toss-up and I wouldn't get it if it meant that the camera was heavier or compromised in any other way.

Henning

 

[pellicle]

having only worked with base tilts I wonder about the system too. My existing method for rear tilt (my camera has geared rear focus) is to apply tilt with one hand on the top of the back and the other on the focus knob. So while I tilt I also alter focus. Perhaps what I am doing is picking my axis point unconsciously and effectively doing an asymmetric rear tilt anyway.

perhaps (as a result) I've also lowered the axis by a mm or so (depending on the angle) but its seldom an issue with framing.

 

[Jack]

The advantage of assym is you do not need to refocus after the tilt except for minor touch-up. as the PoF remains fixed along the pivot Axes. With base tilt, you lose focus across the GG since the pivot axis is well below the GG.

 

[epatsellis]

...snip...
1) Does it often happen that there is nothing on the bottom that you want to focus on, so that the whole thing becomes overly iterative?

Carsten, it's a situation alot of tabletop shooters run into and the solution is so obvious it's silly, simply use shift and/or rise to get your plane of interest lined up on the line.

2) How does one combine this with the general tilt/swing/shift/rise/fall setup of the rear, without having it break down into a series of small experiments?

Shift and rise/fall are used compositionally, swing and tilt and used to define the plane of focus. My typical workflow is to tilt, then swing, then compose and expose. It becomes fairly intuitive after you use it a while.

3) Which cameras offer this, apart from a few Sinars?

I've only used Sinars with assym. movements and Toyos (45E+F) and a C1 (8x10) so I'm somewhat jaded, but for studio use especially, I personally wouldn't consider anything else. For field use, while I drag an F or P into the wild, I'd love a field camera, but being a full time student makes that not too likely in the near future.

erie

 

[carstenw]

Carsten, it's a situation alot of tabletop shooters run into and the solution is so obvious it's silly, simply use shift and/or rise to get your plane of interest lined up on the line.

...that seems workable, except doesn't it assume that the place is focus is flat? I mean, if you shift the front to get the subject on the focus line, focus, and then shift back to restore your composition, then you are assuming that the shifted plane of focus is the same as the unshifted plane of focus.

Of course this might always be the case, I just don't know.

Shift and rise/fall are used compositionally, swing and tilt and used to define the plane of focus. My typical workflow is to tilt, then swing, then compose and expose. It becomes fairly intuitive after you use it a while.

Are you talking about the front? If you swing the back, you change the shape of the projected image... My question was more related to how asymmetrical focusing on the back interacts with general movements on the back and front.

On the Sinars, I think there is some way to do work on the back, then transfer it to the front, freeing up the back for more movements, I just don't quite have the overview of how this all comes together.

My imagined workflow would be to set up roughly right, and get the focus close, then shift and rise/fall on front and back to set up the rough image, swing and tilt the back to get the geometry right, then tilt/swing the front to control the plane of focus. I suppose there is iteration in there somewhere, but it seems to me that the advantages of the asymmetrical focusing could easily be completely lost in such a workflow.

 

[epatsellis]

...that seems workable, except doesn't it assume that the place is focus is flat? I mean, if you shift the front to get the subject on the focus line, focus, and then shift back to restore your composition, then you are assuming that the shifted plane of focus is the same as the unshifted plane of focus.

Of course this might always be the case, I just don't know.

It is, assuming that the lens exhibits reasonable field flatness. 99% of my work is done with plasmats (Symmar-S MCs to be specific) and they exhibit good flatness of field. Ideally, a shift should cause no difference.

Are you talking about the front? If you swing the back, you change the shape of the projected image... My question was more related to how asymmetrical focusing on the back interacts with general movements on the back and front.

On the Sinars, I think there is some way to do work on the back, then transfer it to the front, freeing up the back for more movements, I just don't quite have the overview of how this all comes together.

Exactly, you calculate movements on the rear and transfer them to the front standard. Sinar used to have a manual for the P2 that you could download, apparently not anymore, I'll see if I can dig up a pdf of one for you. If you can find a copy of Urs Tillmanns book published by sinar (part of their sinar edition series), it explains it and shows examples quite well.

Even the lowly F series allows you to calculate movement via the use of a revolving indicator to indicate needed swing or tilt. Sinar's preeminence in studio work was just for these ease of use features, enabling a shooter to not have to make the iterative repetitions. Like all businesses, time is money, and the quicker you can get your chrome's back, the sooner you can break a set and move on. I find my self tremendously comfortable with my P in the field*, familiarity allows me to focus on the subject, instead of the technical aspects.

My imagined workflow would be to set up roughly right, and get the focus close, then shift and rise/fall on front and back to set up the rough image, swing and tilt the back to get the geometry right, then tilt/swing the front to control the plane of focus. I suppose there is iteration in there somewhere, but it seems to me that the advantages of the asymmetrical focusing could easily be completely lost in such a workflow.

Once you've worked with it for a while, you get quite quick at it, even to the point of using the dof calculator to set your focus point and aperture, though I feel they're typically at least one stop too optimistic, unless you're shooting 1:1 as we typically did many moons ago.

erie


*at least when I'm not carrying it

 

[aprillove20]

I agree with Jack advantage of assym is you do not need to refocus after the tilt except for minor touch-up. as the PoF remains fixed along the pivot Axes.