How does a view camera or technical camera, as compared to any other camera, help you to see/visualize?

[4x5Australian]

On page 6 of this thread, @Steve Hendrix commented:
To me, a view camera or technical camera is an indispensable aid to seeing/visualizing the photograph.

@ThdeDude responded:
??? How does a view camera or technical camera, as compared to any other camera, help you to see/visualize?
If I need help with seeing/visualizing I use the Viewfinder App on my iPhone. In the pre-smartphone era, I used a physical viewing/framing mask. I personally see no advantage of setting up view camera or technical camera for seeing/visualizing.

This is a good question, deserving of its own dedicated thread.

There might be several distinctly different answers.

Let's try to convey the reasons we use view and technical cameras.

Rod

 

[Paul Spinnler]

In my experience, the fact that you need to set the camera up and compose on a tripod makes you focus more on doing it at the right spot; ie the image capture becomes focused and pre-meditated which I personally think helps. The more effort, the more focus which I find helps.

By extension if you use an 8x10 you think three times before going somewhere and doing a picture.

The result of this are better pictures, at least I felt like that always.

Its precisely that you are not so spontaneous when setting up your Alpa camera which makes it an intriguing process to plan a shooting. Also, ofc, the real world advantages remain: higher quality optics, stitching, shifting.

Feeling of satisfaction once you capture great images.

So it helps you see because you need to think twice before unpacking, which forces you to concentrate a lot more on how it will look like from a certain spot.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

On page 6 of this thread, @Steve Hendrix commented:
To me, a view camera or technical camera is an indispensable aid to seeing/visualizing the photograph.

@ThdeDude responded:
??? How does a view camera or technical camera, as compared to any other camera, help you to see/visualize?
If I need help with seeing/visualizing I use the Viewfinder App on my iPhone. In the pre-smartphone era, I used a physical viewing/framing mask. I personally see no advantage of setting up view camera or technical camera for seeing/visualizing.

This is a good question, deserving of its own dedicated thread.

There might be several distinctly different answers.

Let's try to convey the reasons we use view and technical cameras.

Rod

I agree, it can mean different things and have different values to different people. There are objective and subjective elements that go into it.
But I'll re-post my reply to that specific question from the other thread below regarding using other framing/visualizing devices and techniques:


I don't really mean to say that the main reason to use a view camera/tech camera is as a viewing/framing device.

But it certainly is a large advantage, and here is why (IME).

If you use an iPhone app, or a physical viewing or framing mask, yes, you may be viewing the rough coverage of the image that you capture. But you will not be viewing the image through the camera/lens that you will be capturing with. And so it will not necessarily be exact. But also, you won't see the actual image that you capture at the time you are capturing it. And unless your image is straight dead ahead of you, you have no way of adjusting for that in real time (or really at all, if you don't have an X/Y shifting camera), viewing that in real time, and capturing what you are viewing in real time. Being able to not just shift to adjust for bottom/top/left/right framing, but also to view this adjustment and result in real time and then capture it, is a very large advantage for view/tech cameras over anything else.

This doesn't negate the worth of other means for visualizing or framing, but to me, this is clearly an advantage in favor of the view/tech camera.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[Pieter 12]

A camera with Live View and a TS lens? Tethered, maybe?

 

[Pieter 12]

In my experience, the fact that you need to set the camera up and compose on a tripod makes you focus more on doing it at the right spot; ie the image capture becomes focused and pre-meditated which I personally think helps. The more effort, the more focus which I find helps.

By extension if you use an 8x10 you think three times before going somewhere and doing a picture.

The result of this are better pictures, at least I felt like that always.

Its precisely that you are not so spontaneous when setting up your Alpa camera which makes it an intriguing process to plan a shooting. Also, ofc, the real world advantages remain: higher quality optics, stitching, shifting.

Feeling of satisfaction once you capture great images.

So it helps you see because you need to think twice before unpacking, which forces you to concentrate a lot more on how it will look like from a certain spot.

That is also a great drawback, because you are less tempted to spontaneously stop and take a photo or find an angle that might produce an outstanding photo. I have found that MF is just about ideal for most situations, maybe with the exception of action (sports or photojournalism) and off-the-hip street/discreet documentary work.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

A camera with Live View and a TS lens? Tethered, maybe?

Live view is ideal. Especially for view camera. But a tilt/shift lens only shifts in one direction.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[Paul Spinnler]

That is also a great drawback, because you are less tempted to spontaneously stop and take a photo or find an angle that might produce an outstanding photo. I have found that MF is just about ideal for most situations, maybe with the exception of action (sports or photojournalism) and off-the-hip street/discreet documentary work.

My in-between solution has always been the Leica S as it combines high end IQ and colour with portability.

The Alpa / XT / Arca are the big guns which require tripod and a pre-meditated approach. I think for a casual shooter it is less ideal except if you have a lot of time ... which means you are either semi-retired after having sold a business (lol) or so or in retirement or a full-time fine art or other pro photographer needing a tech cam.

For the casual holiday photographer the tech cam is maybe not ideal.

 

[4x5Australian]

For decades, whenever I attempted to photograph from close range an interesting building or structure or large impressive natural feature, I was always frustrated with the resulting images. It seemed that the situation required a really wide-angle lens, but at close range the impressive subjects became much less impressive. Moreso as I tried even wider lenses to try to fit it all in. As I tilted the camera upwards, buildings became tilted, their bases became exaggerated at the expense of their upper parts, and even large natural landscape features lost their power. These distortions and limitations became very familiar, and I knew them as intractable. Workarounds such as gaining elevation in an adjacent building or positioning myself much further back were usually impossible or unavailable.

My first use of an adjustable shift camera was spellbinding. This tool solved the problem. Why had I not heard of this before?

Well, the answer to that last question was obvious: No one I knew used one and the photo shops and magazines I visited and read didn't show them.

The view or technical camera, when equipped with lenses providing large (oversized) image fields (I prefer "image disks"), allows the user to move the sensor around inside the image field coming from the lens in ways never available - or even imaginable - with a rigid camera.

For example, when photographing a building, the only way to avoid the tilting and exaggerated convergence inherent in pointing a camera upwards is to keep the camera level (and the sensor vertical). However, when levelled, a normal rigid camera limits the view to the straight-ahead position and the top of the building is out of the top of the frame. To image the top of the building with a levelled camera, the lens needs to project a much wider imaging field than normal lenses are designed to do. Even so, the light rays coming from the top of the building will be striking the blackened interior of the camera below the sensor (as the image is inverted) unless the sensor can be moved downwards to collect them. And that is what a technical camera allows the user to do - to shift the sensor downwards so it takes in only the bottom portion of the image field, along with the image of the top of the building.

If the photographer has never experienced this phenomenon before it seems like magic. You cannot see this with a framing device or smartphone.

If we have never been anywhere different before, how can we imagine that anything can be different?

Rod

 

[daz7]

I am a sucker for the Scheimpflug principle, diagonally drawn focus lines, true to life perspective and super deep depth of field.
With a rigid frame cameras you cannot use any of the above and are limited to parallel lines of focus, convergent perspective and mediocre depth of field.
You can certainly live with that but it limits the creativity and the ways in which one can convey a mental image and emotion of a scene.
Also, the human brain does the image processing in real time - for example, it constantly corrects converging lines to make them parallel again. Look at the room you are in - the walls appear to be perfectly parallel with right angles between them, despite the wide-angle lens your eye is looking through. That's your brain processing the lines and correcting for perspective. If you take a photo with a rigid camera, the perspective is distorted. If you take it with a tech camera or a view camera, you can easily match what your brain sees.

There is nothing that a viewcamera cannot do that a rigid frames camera can, but there are things that a normal camera cannot do but a view camera or a technical camera can. So, why limit yourself? I think that the fewer restrictions, the better for creativity.

 

[Pieter 12]

My in-between solution has always been the Leica S as it combines high end IQ and colour with portability.

The Alpa / XT / Arca are the big guns which require tripod and a pre-meditated approach. I think for a casual shooter it is less ideal except if you have a lot of time ... which means you are either semi-retired after having sold a business (lol) or so or in retirement or a full-time fine art or other pro photographer needing a tech cam.

For the casual holiday photographer the tech cam is maybe not ideal.

Don't forget the Trustafarians.

And I have seen many posts on various forums taken with LF and tech cameras that unfortunately look very much like casual holiday photos.

And lastly, I believe it was Edward Weston who said something like it was not worthwhile going more than 100 yards (or was it feet) from the car to take a photo.

 

[Pieter 12]

There is nothing that a viewcamera cannot do that a rigid frames camera can, but there are things that a normal camera cannot do but a view camera can. So, why limit yourself? I think that the fewer restrictions, the better for creativity.

Try shooting sports, active children or wildlife with a view camera. It can be done (it was before smaller cameras came about) but it's no picnic.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The classic remit of tech cams has been architectural, landscape, documentary fine art. Maybe some studio people, but it is limited as soon as you do dynamic people stuff.

No one ever said it is an action camera substitute. It clearly isn’t. If you want the ability to Stich 300 megapixels and have edge to edge sharp images with high DR the tech cam is still without substitute for people active in those fields.

For anything else you can take a crop MF or Leica or CaNikon or load up that XF.

I find that the best results with a tech can come if you look at the imagery you want to capture as assignments. Ie you think ahead what you want to do and purposefully go do it.

The Leica S comes with me if I want to be spontaneous which is most of the times the case atm.

 

[rdeloe]

Thanks for starting this as a separate thread Rod. I didn't want to comment on the other one for fear of taking it off on another tangent!

I'm at the point where I don't feel it's worth the bother to make photographs if I don't have access to movement. I think this has become a pathology now and it's probably stunting my growth as a photographer. Nonetheless, I just can't be bothered to pack a camera for "serious" photography that doesn't allow movements. There's a reason I have only ever had one GF lens at a time, and almost never used any of them.

The whole "slowing down" argument doesn't even apply. In the unlikely event that I'm carrying a camera that doesn't have movements, I'm probably still carrying a tripod and my way of working isn't much different. The way I pack my gear means I can have whatever digital view camera I'm using up and shooting in less than 60 seconds, and that includes setting up the tripod and taking off my backpack.

In terms of Steve's comment about seeing/visualizing the photograph, I usually have that mostly sorted out before I look at the screen. This involves a fair amount of moving around, muttering to myself, etc. Once I'm set up, I'm applying movement to get where I need to go -- not to figure out where I want to go.

 

[P. Chong]

For a tech camera, I visualise when setting up the shot. For 4x5, the camera setup is laboriou, so I often do a recce session with either my GFX or use the Viewfinder app on my iPhone before deciding if it is worth the trouble to bring out the big gun.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The reality is that a big part of creating great imagery is logistics and planning and the effort to get to do the shot. You can do a nice shot with a lot of expensive gear, but if you don’t treat it as a real assignment you will be forever stuck in the photographing of flowers section, so to say and the gear doesn’t matter that much.

Going further, putting in the conceptual work regarding the art you want to produce with the associated messaging, symbolism, style etc requires a lot of effort and ultimately money if travel and time are involved, which most don’t make because it is precisely a hobby.

Would you travel across the country for a self assigned project which all logistical costs involved? No? Then you will probably make a nice picture of the family member, backyard or dog.

Of course you can do fine art in your kitchen with a macro setup, but I am more speaking that on general most hobbyists are forever doing hobbyist photography because after buying all the gear there is no more cash for travel, logistics, preparation and execution.

 

[4x5Australian]

I'm at the point where I don't feel it's worth the bother to make photographs if I don't have access to movement.

Yep!
Other than people shots, that comment fits me pretty well, too. And I use X-Y two-axis shift for every shot.

Rod

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Thanks for starting this as a separate thread Rod. I didn't want to comment on the other one for fear of taking it off on another tangent!

I'm at the point where I don't feel it's worth the bother to make photographs if I don't have access to movement. I think this has become a pathology now and it's probably stunting my growth as a photographer. Nonetheless, I just can't be bothered to pack a camera for "serious" photography that doesn't allow movements. There's a reason I have only ever had one GF lens at a time, and almost never used any of them.

The whole "slowing down" argument doesn't even apply. In the unlikely event that I'm carrying a camera that doesn't have movements, I'm probably still carrying a tripod and my way of working isn't much different. The way I pack my gear means I can have whatever digital view camera I'm using up and shooting in less than 60 seconds, and that includes setting up the tripod and taking off my backpack.

In terms of Steve's comment about seeing/visualizing the photograph, I usually have that mostly sorted out before I look at the screen. This involves a fair amount of moving around, muttering to myself, etc. Once I'm set up, I'm applying movement to get where I need to go -- not to figure out where I want to go.

Yes, I am not the greatest at pre-visualization. But if I am going to be shifting, which I typically do - not for stitching, I usually only take one shot, but more for framing - I prefer to view with the camera set up in the final shifted position. From that standpoint, I may have a pretty good idea of the frame before setting up completely, but rarely realize the final view, especially if I am shifting vertically to level my approach to the subject. I may be pretty picky, often I am making slight adjustments to get the preferred subject balance, and also, having done so, I add or remove subjective elements horizontally. And I cannot as effectively do so without the mechanism of the view camera revealing my true final capture and me being able to see it visually before doing so. I could do this without using the view camera to visualize, and some of the time nail it, but I rarely find that I nail it precisely enough that using the view camera/tech camera doesn't present an important advantage for me.


Steve Hendrix/CI

** I should mention that while I am frequently stating "view camera", my preferred camera outside of the studio is a technical camera, not a view camera (like a Cambo or Alpa). I almost never use a view camera on location, because the primary advantage is the bellows, which I typically do not need in that arena. And this makes a big difference in ease of use in the field.

 

[dchew]

I've made this statement many times over the last several years:
"When I use a mirrorless or SLR, I feel like I am looking and experiencing the wilderness through my camera. When using a technical camera, I feel like I am experiencing the wilderness with my camera."

The problem is, I can't really articulate why that is. Obviously I can choose not to look through the viewfinder on my mirrorless system, and look at the back screen just like I do with the digital back. So it can't be just that. Maybe because I am moving around a lot more to do some of the extra things like setting f-stop, covering the lens for dark frames and LLC's, adjusting the exposure settings, etc. These extra tasks get me involved more? But I could easily argue those tasks should take away from my experience / focus, not add to it.

Regardless, the experience for me is different, more enjoyable and more tactile. Not tactile as in just touch; all my senses feel more tactile and engaged. That elevates the experience and, in my opinion, improves my photos.

Dave

 

[darr]

I've been working with technical cameras since I was 22, and now, at 65, I continue using them with both film and digital backs. A question I've encountered frequently in recent years is why I persist in shooting film when I have the option to go digital 100%. The response I've provided, which is posted below and taken from my website, not only answers that question but also sheds light on why I derive ongoing satisfaction from using a technical camera, whether with film or digital. My ability to perceive is heightened when working with a technical camera because I become deeply engaged in the act of perception. If you are crafting an image, you pay closer attention to what you are creating.

"When asked about my continued preference for shooting film, I frequently offer this analogy: Imagine someone who takes pleasure in fishing, finding delight in the tactile experience and the serenity of being in nature. Can this truly be compared to simply retrieving fish from a freezer? I'm not implying that digital photography is akin to frozen fish; rather, I'm underscoring the idea that shooting film is a journey, not solely a means to an end." ~ darr almeda

 

[dchew]

These distortions and limitations became very familiar, and I knew them as intractable. Workarounds such as gaining elevation in an adjacent building or positioning myself much further back were usually impossible or unavailable.

I'm at the point where I don't feel it's worth the bother to make photographs if I don't have access to movement. I think this has become a pathology now and it's probably stunting my growth as a photographer.
...
Once I'm set up, I'm applying movement to get where I need to go -- not to figure out where I want to go.

Technical cameras allow me to get the perspective I want in-camera, in the field. Sure, we have the tools to straighten buildings in C1, LR, PS, whatever. With buildings, it is pretty easy after the fact because you have reference lines all over the place. But Rod's comment about perspective works for other more organic subjects too. When I size up an image with the framing square hanging around my neck, I usually go through some process like this:

1. I see something interesting, walk a few steps and/or move my head around by stooping down or standing up, moving a little bit left/right forward/back until trees, branches, rocks or whatever line up and arrange themselves into something I think works.
2. Then the framing square comes up and I do the same thing with that. I move it back and forth (focal length) and move it up, down, left or right (rise, fall, shift), to get the image I want. It's an iterative process but the point is when I'm using the framing square, it is a conscious decision to either move my head (lens position = perspective) or move the framing square (focal length + digital back movements = framing).
3. I usually do this with my tripod in-hand or close by. I set up the tripod and get it close to my view, estimating how much lower the tripod head needs to be to get the camera where my head is. I might use the viewfinder app to understand exactly what my angle of view is with a specific lens.
4. Everything after that is just setting up the camera to mimic what I just did with the framing square. I love the way Rob put it above: applying movements to get where I need to go.

A camera with movements is the only way I know of to accomplish this process in the field. If I instead tilt the camera to get the framing I want, the perspective changes. I could change that back by warping in post but, as Rod points out, without those buildings I have no reference.

Is this process stunting my growth as a photographer? Probably. But I suspect this whole process contributes to my other point above: experiencing the world with my camera instead of through my camera.

All this applies much less to far-reaching grand landscapes. Although, I have a similar feeling about the panoramas I do. I could stitch by moving the camera around and let PS blend them together by warping them all. I much prefer moving the back to get the two images that will become my pano; I choose the "reposition" option in PS that does not warp at all. I found that again using the framing square, and closing one eye then the other, gives me a very good estimate of what the final 2.25-2.35 : 1 pano will look like.

Gosh, I hope I got my Rod and Rob references right!

Dave