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

[4x5Australian]

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 suggest that, in reality, the exact opposite is true.

When I am out making images with my technical camera, I find my subject as quickly as I can and then immediately look for the viewpoint I want and the place where the tripod and camera need to be to get it. I know from experience that where I decide to place the camera is the most important decision. Getting it wrong will doom the image to failure. Getting it right - along with the light - can make the image spectacular.

Having found the location, I place my tripod and camera there, level the camera carefully, and then apply the rise/fall and lateral shift needed to compose the image exactly as I visualised it.

It's very satisfying to bring the elements together in such a precise manner. Every time I compose, I give thanks - silently - to my technical camera.

In contrast, most photographers with normal rigid cameras start shooting soon after they see the subject and then refine their composition with successive shots.
I used to do this too, and, as a result, most of my images were failures.

My technical cameras have enabled me to make many outstanding photographs, almost none of which could have been made with a normal rigid camera.

Rod

 

[dchew]

From the other thread:

Hi Steve - I'm not asking this question to poke holes in what you wrote, it's just genuine curiosity - wouldn't you get the same benefit from something like a GFX II with the their new tilt-shift lenses?

Fuji did something that really helps: adding the lens collar where they did. You can shift without changing perspective (if you accept my definition of perspective above). So for me, the answer is yes! At least I think so because I don't actually have one. That is, yes with a few obvious limitations:

• Only on two lenses vs all your lenses
• You can only shift in one dimension, but that is really just workflow if you position that dimension correctly
• A somewhat limited range of movement

But for the most part, I think these Fuji lenses are a wonderful addition to that system, and Warren's switch is the ultimate testament to that. Not to mention the good results from his testing.

Dave

 

[akaru]

I feel the same. As a hypothetical, if the camera had a button to “fix” perspective in live view, the resolution was high enough to not be throwing much away, and focus stacking was as easy as tilt, would you take a smaller camera without movements?

I suppose I would like that option, but would probably still use the tech cam. Even though I don’t use big perspective changes often, and am already choosing a smaller camera without all the movements of a bigger view cam, I still like the option. And I do think there’s something about the tactility, and a bit of magic in the movements as you see them change before your eyes. The first time I saw through a ground glass was certainly magical, and a little bit of that still exists on the little lcd screen.

 

[MGrayson]

I feel the same. As a hypothetical, if the camera had a button to “fix” perspective in live view, the resolution was high enough to not be throwing much away, and focus stacking was as easy as tilt, would you take a smaller camera without movements?

I suppose I would like that option, but would probably still use the tech cam. Even though I don’t use big perspective changes often, and am already choosing a smaller camera without all the movements of a bigger view cam, I still like the option. And I do think there’s something about the tactility, and a bit of magic in the movements as you see them change before your eyes. The first time I saw through a ground glass was certainly magical, and a little bit of that still exists on the little lcd screen.

I also prefer a tech camera to keep verticals vertical, but with lenses like the XCD 21/4 on the Hasselblad, you can get a lot in the frame. For "pre-visualizong" the corrected result, I first choose where the bottom of the image will be. Where that line intersects the sides of the frame, extend lines along the leaning "verticals" in the image. Those will be the boundaries of the final corrected image. Of course, adding a bit extra helps.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I feel the same. As a hypothetical, if the camera had a button to “fix” perspective in live view, the resolution was high enough to not be throwing much away, and focus stacking was as easy as tilt, would you take a smaller camera without movements?

I suppose I would like that option, but would probably still use the tech cam. Even though I don’t use big perspective changes often, and am already choosing a smaller camera without all the movements of a bigger view cam, I still like the option. And I do think there’s something about the tactility, and a bit of magic in the movements as you see them change before your eyes. The first time I saw through a ground glass was certainly magical, and a little bit of that still exists on the little lcd screen.

Leica Ms have this feature built in. In camera live view perspective correction

 

[jng]

My move to medium format digital from Nikon full frame ostensibly was to slow down and be more intentional. Having cut my teeth on 6x6 film, I also prefer the rendering from the larger film/sensor format. Of course, there's no reason why I can't slow down and be more thoughtful with a smaller camera. For me perhaps the difference is attaching whatever camera I happen to be using to a tripod. This allows - even forces - me to be mindful and precise about my framing. And the ability to use movements (often) and tilt (occasionally) on a tech cam elevates my experience to a level I just can't achieve with a fixed body camera. I also shoot tethered in the field so I can check focus, exposure, composition, etc., which perhaps gives you an idea about how slow my process can be.

My two main platforms are the Cambo + IQ4 and Hasselblad X2D. I mainly use the Hasselblad when traveling or in conditions where setting up the Cambo seems a bit too risky for me (poor weather, proximity to ocean surf, sketchy environs). The little Hasselblad is a delight to work with but I almost always miss the Cambo when I'm using it.

John

 

[cunim]

My eyes are old, or maybe they've just seen too much. For me, the crude little displays on our digital backs are rudimentary focus tools and next to useless for visualisation. See the thread about good EVFs for a deeper treatment of that.

In the field, I have to create the image in my head and adjust the camera to see it - more or less. Then I use the display to focus and hope to have enough pixels to later crop out what I saw in my head. So, @Steve Hendrix , tell Phase, Hassy and anyone else that will listen that their backs are crappy visualisation tools until they add a better display. To the extent that their client base is made up of crotchety old guys with bad eyes, this is key product development advice.

Of course, there are ways to make the sensor (doesn't matter what camera it's on) a great visualisation tool.

1. Tether. How I live in studio. Good luck doing it in the field.
2. Shoot large format film. Go @darr and, if I still had patience for a dark room, I would be there with you.
3. Buy something like the GFX II with a good EVF and live with the smaller formats and limited or absent movements. Aaargh.
4. Whine and rant at the MF back makers, hoping they will correct the problem.

 

[rdeloe]

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

Easy!

Rod:

• Debonair
• World traveller
• Wrestles crocodiles
• Owns a jacket he made from a crocodile he wrestled

Rob:

• Scruffy hat
• Beardy
• Throws thing at squirrels
• Owns a bellows he made from a squirrel he threw a lens at

 

[rdeloe]

Years ago I picked up the idea of the "shooting envelope" from a blogger/photographer named Ming Thein*.

Every camera/ lens/ system has a range of conditions under which it will work optimally and be able to deliver the best image quality it can. This is its ‘shooting envelope’. It isn’t just the amount of available light, but also takes into consideration other factors such as ease of use, stability, and even to some extent, subject matter. The wider the shooting envelope of a camera, the more versatile it is; however, the tradeoff is almost always that cameras with a very wide shooting envelope in one direction are severely limited in others. ​

The parameters he used to define the shooting envelope didn't include movements, but for me, movements (what kind, how implemented, etc.) are central to how I use the term.

At a basic level, digital view cameras and technical cameras expand the shooting envelope considerably -- for all the reasons discussed in this thread. That's easy enough. What is more interesting to me is how these tools expand how we think about photographs. Simply put, if you don't know about movements, "you don't know what you don't know". If your understanding of photography comes via cameras that fix the lens relative to the sensor, then that's the baseline for your definition of what is possible. You don't expect things to be any other way, and you may not even know they can be any other way.

Technology trains us to expect thing to be a certain way. For example, most people have been trained to accept that in some kinds of images, parts of the image are going to be out of focus -- and we should want it to be that way because that's how cameras work. We even fetishize out of focus because it's normal. It's only normal because the ability to put the plane of focus where you want it is not in the shooting envelope of most photographers.

Before I knew about view cameras, the plane of focus was this fixed, immutable thing in front of the camera and parallel to the film. After I learned view camera movements, the plane of focus is something I put where I want it to be. My shooting envelope became much larger.


* If Ming Thein wasn't your cup of tea, don't focus on that. The idea of the shooting envelope is still useful!

 

[Steve Hendrix]

From the other thread:

John Black said:
Hi Steve - I'm not asking this question to poke holes in what you wrote, it's just genuine curiosity - wouldn't you get the same benefit from something like a GFX II with the their new tilt-shift lenses?

From the other thread:


Fuji did something that really helps: adding the lens collar where they did. You can shift without changing perspective (if you accept my definition of perspective above). So for me, the answer is yes! At least I think so because I don't actually have one. That is, yes with a few obvious limitations:

• Only on two lenses vs all your lenses
• You can only shift in one dimension, but that is really just workflow if you position that dimension correctly
• A somewhat limited range of movement

But for the most part, I think these Fuji lenses are a wonderful addition to that system, and Warren's switch is the ultimate testament to that. Not to mention the good results from his testing.

Dave

I am personally and professionally ecstatic about the Fuji Tilt/Shift lenses and what they mean for the industry. I think they are distinctly ground breaking. And I will certainly use them. But to answer John's question - tilt shift lenses are only a partial benefit, because the shift is only in one direction. They can be used for many things, correcting vertical lines, horizontal stitches, etc, but it is not the same as X/Y shift. For me, in terms of visualization, let's just say framing, the X/Y shift is essential (or ideal, for situations when I can use it, compared to other cameras), because my composition benefits from fine tuning to be complete. Not just less foreground, or less sky, or less one side or another, but I want control over all of that. Having control over only one of those axis feels to me like having one hand tied behind my back.

They way that Rod descibes it, is exactly what I value about it and pretty much right in line with my process.

"Having found the location, I place my tripod and camera there, level the camera carefully, and then apply the rise/fall and lateral shift needed to compose the image exactly as I visualised it."

Shooting this way, after I capture the image, I feel like the master of my accomplishment, and I don't feel that way with other cameras. Which is a misleading emotion, perhaps, but the photographs also seem to reflect that. The end results feel more like intentional compositions than they do from other cameras (not that photographs from other cameras are not).


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Anyone doubting the benefits of tripod-based view camera photography should at one point in their life try to shoot 8x10. Each sheet is like 20 bucks to shoot, 20 to develop and 20 to scan or sth like that. Don't pin me down on current lab numbers.

The constraint is extreme. It does something to how you go about making the photo.

One is maximally constraint in terms of cost, weight, time, etc. But, and this is key, once you thought about where to "apply" your film and 8x10 ... the results are often magical. Even the amount you wait before "using" the 8x10 sheet – less risk of disturbing elements in the photo.

I feel the digital view camera process with a digital back and a tripod is a softened extension of this. It is more cumbersome to lug around a tripod, setup, compose – but so much more rewarding both in the results – I feel – and the sense of accomplishment as Steve describes.

So constraints breed a different kind of approach and results.

The LF experience made me a true believer in the view camera way of life, so to say.

 

[4season]

I've owned 4x5 field cameras in the past, and have enjoyed them, even if I never accomplished anything of particular note. But the elemental simplicity and ease of manipulating perspective and depth of field still intrigue me. Inspired by an exhibition of Edward Weston's works, I've toyed with the idea of producing contact-printed 5x7 black and white photos: The power of smaller prints ought not to be underestimated!

As far as slowing down, being more deliberate and in-the-moment, it doesn't seem to matter much to me whether I'm composing via an inverted image projected onto a piece of ground glass, or an OLED: A sense of stillness is not really something that I can get from the equipment, it needs to come from within me.

The first digital camera that I really liked was the Panasonic DMC-LC1. By today's standards, it's outdated. But prior experience with composing via inverted image projected on ground glass helped greatly: With a defocused eye, I concentrated more on light and dark forms, rather than fine details (which really weren't visible in that low-res EVF). And this technique worked so well for me that I continue to use it, even as EVFs have become much brighter and clearer.

 

[jng]

My eyes are old, or maybe they've just seen too much. For me, the crude little displays on our digital backs are rudimentary focus tools and next to useless for visualisation. See the thread about good EVFs for a deeper treatment of that.

1. Tether. How I live in studio. Good luck doing it in the field.

My eyes are old and have always been a bit crappy, so for me the hassle of tethering in the field outweighs the downsides. It also opens up opportunities for me to be contemplative, as shown here (BTS shot courtesy of @diggles), although TBH in this particular instance I was just tired after being out in the field all day and had just enough length on my tether cable to sit down on a conveniently located log. But I was able to just sit and watch the light dance between the trees as I squeezed off the shots, and pick my favorite one after I got back home (see here). I think the ability to tether to iPads makes things a bit easier as well.

YMMV, of course!

John

 

[Pieter 12]

I suggest that, in reality, the exact opposite is true.

When I am out making images with my technical camera, I find my subject as quickly as I can and then immediately look for the viewpoint I want and the place where the tripod and camera need to be to get it. I know from experience that where I decide to place the camera is the most important decision. Getting it wrong will doom the image to failure. Getting it right - along with the light - can make the image spectacular.

Having found the location, I place my tripod and camera there, level the camera carefully, and then apply the rise/fall and lateral shift needed to compose the image exactly as I visualised it.

It's very satisfying to bring the elements together in such a precise manner. Every time I compose, I give thanks - silently - to my technical camera.

In contrast, most photographers with normal rigid cameras start shooting soon after they see the subject and then refine their composition with successive shots.
I used to do this too, and, as a result, most of my images were failures.

My technical cameras have enabled me to make many outstanding photographs, almost none of which could have been made with a normal rigid camera.

Rod

Weather, lighting, wind conditions, cloud movement, presence of people, animals, vehicles all can change in the time it takes to properly set up a view camera. And the shot is missed. For portraits, the patience of the sitter, the fleeting expression, spontaneity can all be lost to the cumbersomeness of shooting large format. It is not the ideal set-up for many situations, although it excels at many.

 

[diggles]

For me, I just have to start. Quite often the first image is the most obvious choice and not my best composition, but once the first one is out of the way then I start to feel it more and become immersed in the process.

Whether I'm using a tech cam or a "rigid" cam body the process a scene is the same for me, which is very similar to others…

1. First, I'll locate a scene. It could be a group of trees or light that catches my eye. If it is a set object(s) like the group of trees then I go to step 2. If it is light that catches my eye then I evaluate the scene to see if I think I'll be able to work with the interplay of light and illuminated objects to create a composition that is interesting to me. If I believe I can, then I move to step 2. If not then I just appreciate it and keep looking.
2. Once I've found a scene that I would like to photograph then I find the general spot I want to stand.
3. Like others have said, I'll stand tall, squat down, move a smidge to the left, right, step a little forward, or back until I find the sweet spot. I define the sweet spot as the angle with the most impact and the least amount of distractions. Things I may think about are…I can put the camera a bit higher and rise the camera to get more of the foreground. Or I can stand directly in front of the doorway to keep it straight and shift the lens left and up to get the rest of the building in the shot.
4. If lens choice is not obvious to me then I'll use the viewfinder app to help me decide.
5. Once I've made my lens choice then I'll set up the camera and fine tune my composition– e.g. turn the camera clockwise/counterclockwise, raise or lower the tripod, shift the camera or lens, tweak tilt adjustments, etc.

Even though I go through these steps to fine tune my composition, I generally don't nail it on my first try.

My next step is to take an image and review, be it on a laptop if tethered or through the viewfinder if using the Fuji or on the back with a loupe when using a tech cam. If I notice something that bothers me, then I make adjustments and take another shot. Then rinse and repeat until I am happy with what came out of that composition. I do tend to overshoot, so many times the last image of a composition isn't my best either. If I get it right, it is usually somewhere in the middle.

When the scene is complicated, like an aspen grove, I "see" images everywhere…when this happens I find it difficult to identify exactly what it is that I am "seeing" and simplify the scene to capture it in a single exposure. Under these circumstances I will photograph a lot of different compositions with different focal lengths and run through the process I described above on each one. It's really easy to spend an hour in a small area. Sometimes I end up with an image I really like, other times I don't.

 

[4x5Australian]

Weather, lighting, wind conditions, cloud movement, presence of people, animals, vehicles all can change in the time it takes to properly set up a view camera. And the shot is missed. For portraits, the patience of the sitter, the fleeting expression, spontaneity can all be lost to the cumbersomeness of shooting large format. It is not the ideal set-up for many situations, although it excels at many.

It all depends how you do it. When I am looking for images, my lightweight Cambo WRS is already mounted on my tripod, and I walk with the tripod over my shoulder. When I have seen the viewpoint that I want to photograph, it takes me only moments to plonk the tripod down and level the camera. At that point, I think that you and I are neck and neck.

In any case, it is often the case in the architectural situations I frequent that I am waiting for the couple with their smartphones to compose and execute their stupid selfie shots and depart from my frame. And then wait longer whilst they hand their phones to some bystander to get themselves in one shot full length, twice. I have learned to contend and calm myself by examining the magnificent object of our mutual attraction minutely, in the hope of embedding it forever in my mind.

Rod

 

[jng]

Weather, lighting, wind conditions, cloud movement, presence of people, animals, vehicles all can change in the time it takes to properly set up a view camera. And the shot is missed. For portraits, the patience of the sitter, the fleeting expression, spontaneity can all be lost to the cumbersomeness of shooting large format. It is not the ideal set-up for many situations, although it excels at many.

I tend toward shooting at twilight or blue hour, so as long as I arrive on site early enough with time to do a little scouting, I can take my time assembling the kit, which for me involves setting up the tripod, mounting the tech cam (with digital back already attached), and affixing a lens. If I'm in a rush (because I overslept or just left too late), I might squeeze off a shot before hooking up my laptop. And then I can concentrate on watching the light and scene etc.

I'm not the speediest when it comes to setting up, as I work deliberately to avoid dropping anything, but with a good routine in place it doesn't take me much more time to set up the Cambo compared to when I'm shooting with the Hasselblad, especially if I need to change lenses on the latter.

One downside, however, is that once I get set up it's easy for me to get locked in to a specific composition.

John

 

[4x5Australian]

For portraits, the patience of the sitter, the fleeting expression, spontaneity can all be lost to the cumbersomeness of shooting large format.

In all seriousness, if we're wanting to capture a fleeting expression, then it's going to be the one that happens after the camera is in shooting position, not before.

As in this one, with its well-known back-story: A Gallery Overview of Portraits – Yousuf Karsh

Rod

 

[ThdeDude]

Never thought that my somewhat off-the-cuff remark will start a whole new thread.

Maybe Steve Hendrix's comments were a veiled reference to IQ4-150's exposure simulation!

The technical camera community is somewhat anxious and frustrated, as expressed in the previous thread, because P1's current digital back is already more than five years old, with no roadmap or info from P1 as to any future digital backs. The only new digital back on the horizon, HB's CVF-100C, when finally announced early next year, will be close to two years after announcement of the corresponding X-System camera (X2D 100C). Why then even bother. That HB's H System is now also finally officially discontinued seems just to follow the general trend. This is in marked contrast to the rapid development of the camera system in smartphones.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Always a random comparison.

That's also in marked contrast to the evolution of large language models, MRNA vaccines and new exploits from Eastern European hacking groups. It is also a totally angst inducing standstill very comparable to the lack in cycling accessories inventions, public square management philosophies and most importantly new elements in the elements table.

... The point is: P1 is releasing a host of new products next year and they wouldn't do this if there wasn't the perspective of continuing the business line. IQ4 has not seen a development because essentially it is so advanced that no new components are available to this day to make a worthwhile successor. You could "plus" it, meaning add some I/O, CPU tweaks, but this is hardly a selling argument if it ain't broken and you want 25k upgrade fee / 45k retail. So we wait.

There's no substitute for the IQ4 which still stands tall at the top of the hill.

Your smartphone comparison makes no sense on so many levels.