Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 54

Thread: Advise on Tilt

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Advise on Tilt

    I was shooting the Narrows last weekend. It was a stunning location and used all of the limited skills I have - both photographic and physical

    A lot of the scenes were challenging for both exposure and focus, so I bracketed for both.

    Question I have is on use of tilt. I was using my RM3Di/32HR which allows for 5mm tilt/swing in either direction. In scenes like the one below, which is typical of the location, I was trying to get the foreground and back ground in focus. Foreground is just a few feet, and the background is in the 100's, and in other cases close to infinity.

    With downward tilt, I was losing the focus at the top of the image (distant part of the image). I ended up bracketing for focus and will be stacking. However, is there a solution with tilt in this case?

    On exposure, some of the scenes were 6-8 stops off, so I don't think there is any way around it than bracketing and blending.

    Appreciate your thoughts.

    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #2
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    That is a problem.
    Looking at the image, you have essentially three planes that are orthogonal to one another that you would like to be sharp from near to far.
    tilt alone on the floor will of course make the top of the image worse.
    What you might have tried is to shoot three images, one with tilt and two with swing to get each of the three planes in focus and then to re-assemple them in post for a composite image.

    It might be a bit simpler to use two un-tilted images in a focus stack to capture the canyon walls then one with tilt for the floor.
    First blend together the focus stacked images and then add the floor to the composite.
    There are times like this when I might be tempted to just shoot with some very small apertures and stack about 2-3 shots if necessary.
    -bob

  3. #3
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Agree this is a tough one. I would like Bob mentioned take several focus stacks than use a program like Helicon focus which blend them very nicely. Tilt alone is tough because the sides would not fall into that plane
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  4. #4
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    i wonder if a swing would have helped with the canyon walls, picking a vertical plane that falls between the walls and picks up the near rt wall and far end of the rt wall/edge of left wall? at the expense of the rocks in the foreground and no tilt at all
    Last edited by jlm; 12th November 2014 at 14:08.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #5
    Senior Member Jamgolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    516
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    I am just trying to learn from jagsiva's excellent illustration and question...

    In this case, since an ultra-wide angle lens (32mm => 20mm in 135 terms) is being used, the inherent DOF would be high. Would a using max tilt (5 degrees for RM3di) @ f16 or f22 with focus point at a moderate distance say 6 feet not be the right thing to do - to get everything sharp?

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post

    It might be a bit simpler to use two un-tilted images in a focus stack to capture the canyon walls then one with tilt for the floor.
    First blend together the focus stacked images and then add the floor to the composite.
    There are times like this when I might be tempted to just shoot with some very small apertures and stack about 2-3 shots if necessary.
    -bob
    Thanks Bob. This is what I ended up doing. This is image is just at one focus point, but the final version will be stacked. My head was spinning after the long hike, standing in the middle of a cold river trying to figure this out.....with a small fortune sitting on a tripod in the water.

    On f-stop, I always stayed at f9. The 80Mp back starts diffracting on the Rodie beyond this, and since I was not shooting LCC's at the time, I wanted to keep all of what I shot in my head!

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamgolf View Post
    I am just trying to learn from jagsiva's excellent illustration and question...

    In this case, since an ultra-wide angle lens (32mm => 20mm in 135 terms) is being used, the inherent DOF would be high. Would a using max tilt (5 degrees for RM3di) @ f16 or f22 with focus point at a moderate distance say 6 feet not be the right thing to do - to get everything sharp?
    Not really for a couple of reasons.

    1. the 32mm lens still has a DoF of a 32mm lens, just the FoV is increased with a larger back.

    2. The back is raised, so the foreground is almost at the base of the tripod, so very close. When the lens is tilted, the focus plane/cone drops from the vertical plane to a horizontal plane, so to top of the frame is de-focused.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Just a thought, perhaps I should have lugged the Monolith, I could have had up to 45degrees of tilt and swing at the sametime to work with....or wait, I don't think they allow mules in the narrows!

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by jlm View Post
    i wonder if a swing would have helped with the canyon walls, picking a vertical plane that falls between the walls and picks up the near rt wall and far end of the rt wall/edge of left wall? at the expense of the rocks int he foreground and any no tilt at all
    This would likely be the best I would think, but again dependent on the width of of the subject at the near-distance. I fooled around with this, but did not get a workable DoF.

    Another problem was practicing this prior to the trip, there aren't too many subject that lend themselves, short of a very long corridor.

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by jagsiva View Post
    Not really for a couple of reasons.

    1. the 32mm lens still has a DoF of a 32mm lens, just the FoV is increased with a larger back.
    Format does change DoF. A 32mm will have different DoF depending on the format is used with or cropped to--the larger the format, the greater the DoF. Basically because the permissible circle of confusion changes with format.

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by jagsiva View Post
    On f-stop, I always stayed at f9. The 80Mp back starts diffracting on the Rodie beyond this, and since I was not shooting LCC's at the time, I wanted to keep all of what I shot in my head!
    I would shoot at f/16 easily with this. You can recover much of what is lost, which is not much, through unsharp masking. I also have no issue with using f/22 and on occasion f/32. The effects of diffraction are overstated.

  12. #12
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    The walls make it so only stopping down or focus stacking practical.

  13. #13
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by jagsiva View Post
    Thanks Bob. This is what I ended up doing. This is image is just at one focus point, but the final version will be stacked. My head was spinning after the long hike, standing in the middle of a cold river trying to figure this out.....with a small fortune sitting on a tripod in the water.

    On f-stop, I always stayed at f9. The 80Mp back starts diffracting on the Rodie beyond this, and since I was not shooting LCC's at the time, I wanted to keep all of what I shot in my head!
    I have done some diffraction tests, and yes, it does begin to show, but nonetheless it is better than something way out of the DOF.
    -bob

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Format does change DoF. A 32mm will have different DoF depending on the format is used with or cropped to--the larger the format, the greater the DoF. Basically because the permissible circle of confusion changes with format.
    I think we have had this discussion before. My understanding is CoC is largely determined by pixel pitch (hence the difference in CoC between an IQ260 and IQ280 with the IQ280 have a smaller CoC).

    So if I am taking an image from the same location with two different backs with different formats, but the same pixel pitch, I don't see how the DoF would change. The framing, of course would be different.

    For example, 32mm on IQ180 pixel pitch 5.2microns vs. 32mm on IQ250 pixel pitch 5.3mm. Scene taken from the same spot, I would think the DoF would be identical, except that the IQ250 with a crop factor of 1.3x will be cropped to the center.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Back in the film days CoC was sort of well defined and was based on viewing conditions. Nowadays in the digital pixel peeping era we all have personal preferences of what the CoC should be, some say 2x pixel pitch, some say 1x Airy disc (I like that), and some stay with the traditional film definition.

    In any case the scene you're shooting is not easy to make any gains with tilt, unless you choose to make a compromise. Perhaps it's more worth having sharp pebbles in the foreground than sharp on the upper part of the image, then you could gain by using some forward tilt.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    Back in the film days CoC was sort of well defined and was based on viewing conditions. Nowadays in the digital pixel peeping era we all have personal preferences of what the CoC should be, some say 2x pixel pitch, some say 1x Airy disc (I like that), and some stay with the traditional film definition.

    In any case the scene you're shooting is not easy to make any gains with tilt, unless you choose to make a compromise. Perhaps it's more worth having sharp pebbles in the foreground than sharp on the upper part of the image, then you could gain by using some forward tilt.
    I agree. I think focus stacking is still the easiest given the shooting conditions. I just found it tedious since I had to bracket exposure as well for the rear wall. At least, I left LCC's for a later time

  17. #17
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    Back in the film days CoC was sort of well defined and was based on viewing conditions. Nowadays in the digital pixel peeping era we all have personal preferences of what the CoC should be, some say 2x pixel pitch, some say 1x Airy disc (I like that), and some stay with the traditional film definition.

    In any case the scene you're shooting is not easy to make any gains with tilt, unless you choose to make a compromise. Perhaps it's more worth having sharp pebbles in the foreground than sharp on the upper part of the image, then you could gain by using some forward tilt.

    It is always based on the viewing condition. The very nature of DoF is how sharpness is perceived by the viewer. Even in the good old days of film, the CoC was defined differently. The effect does not change--take any image and redefine the CoC and the image will look the same. The CoC is just a variable to help you model perceived sharpness.

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by jagsiva View Post
    I think we have had this discussion before. My understanding is CoC is largely determined by pixel pitch (hence the difference in CoC between an IQ260 and IQ280 with the IQ280 have a smaller CoC).

    So if I am taking an image from the same location with two different backs with different formats, but the same pixel pitch, I don't see how the DoF would change. The framing, of course would be different.

    For example, 32mm on IQ180 pixel pitch 5.2microns vs. 32mm on IQ250 pixel pitch 5.3mm. Scene taken from the same spot, I would think the DoF would be identical, except that the IQ250 with a crop factor of 1.3x will be cropped to the center.
    DoF and CoC are defined by perceived sharpness. Since the pixels are unresolved by the viewer, a image taken by a larger format with the same focal length will have a greater DoF regardless of pixel pitch. Pixel pitch, just like granularity, has nothing to do with it.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    DoF and CoC are defined by perceived sharpness. Since the pixels are unresolved by the viewer, a image taken by a larger format with the same focal length will have a greater DoF regardless of pixel pitch. Pixel pitch, just like granularity, has nothing to do with it.
    Assuming you increase the SUBJECT DISTANCE to achieve the same framing. We are talking about same subject distance here, so DoF should be the same, not sure what I am missing.

    If you look at the original question, it is implied that the camera to subject distance does not change.

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by jagsiva View Post
    Assuming you increase the SUBJECT DISTANCE to achieve the same framing. We are talking about same subject distance here, so DoF should be the same, not sure what I am missing.

    If you look at the original question, it is implied that the camera to subject distance does not change.
    This would be from the same exact place. The larger format with the same focal length lens at the same subject distance would have greater DoF.

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    This would be from the same exact place. The larger format with the same focal length lens at the same subject distance would have greater DoF.
    So are you saying that if I take my Sony A7R, FF camera, stick it on a tripod with a 55mm lens and shoot a subject. Then put the camera in crop mode (APS-C) - same camera, same lens, same camera position, same subject position. Only difference now is that the sensor is a different format, as in cropped to 1.6x), I am going to have a different DoF in the resulting image?

  22. #22
    Senior Member danlindberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Spain & Sweden
    Posts
    1,195
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Tricky image. As others have mentioned I too believe in this case a focus stack is the better solution at f-stop just before diffraction. The one 'tip' I can share is that you say the cam is close to the ground with rise. I would go the other way around and put cam higher and introduce fall instead until I get a similar perspective - this would mean a greater distance to the first objects and a lot less exposures for the stack! With my SK28 I would probably only need three exposures in this scene. (not counting exposure bracketing)
    Alpa FPS MAX TC | Alpagon 32Hr | Helvetar 75 | Schneider 120N | Leaf Aptus II 5 Leaf Credo 60 | www.danlindberg.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    I think Shashin is making it more confusing than it needs to be, although what he says is correct. Anyway, there's no free lunch. You can't "win" depth of field by shooting a smaller or larger format.

    The only thing you gain by shooting a small format is that you can get the same FoV and DoF with a shorter focal length and larger aperture combination which means shorter shutter speed. In some cases short shutter speed is important of course.

    The traditional view on DoF is based on a specific viewing distance and a model of vision, and to make the story short everything above 4 megapixels or so is a waste with the old-school model. However, when people print large and watch close you resolve a lot more than 4 megapixels. For 645 film the CoC was traditionally 47um, which is a blur corresponding to the diffraction you get when you shoot at about f/32.

    The depth of field calculators becomes pretty useless as a tool for optimizing your deep depth of field focusing if you put in that large CoC, you end up shooting with less than optimal settings.

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Thanks Dan. That would definitely help.

  25. #25
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by jagsiva View Post
    So are you saying that if I take my Sony A7R, FF camera, stick it on a tripod with a 55mm lens and shoot a subject. Then put the camera in crop mode (APS-C) - same camera, same lens, same camera position, same subject position. Only difference now is that the sensor is a different format, as in cropped to 1.6x), I am going to have a different DoF in the resulting image?
    Yes.

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by danlindberg View Post
    Tricky image. As others have mentioned I too believe in this case a focus stack is the better solution at f-stop just before diffraction. The one 'tip' I can share is that you say the cam is close to the ground with rise. I would go the other way around and put cam higher and introduce fall instead until I get a similar perspective - this would mean a greater distance to the first objects and a lot less exposures for the stack! With my SK28 I would probably only need three exposures in this scene. (not counting exposure bracketing)
    Would that actually change anything? If you see the same objects in the foreground, it's the same distance regardless if you have rise or fall. You would need to have field curvature working with you to make a difference, and I don't think the HR32 has much of that :-)

    Sure if you change field of view to cut away foreground it becomes less problematic, but then it's not the same framing.

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    I think Dan meant to drop the lens (or raise the back in the of case RM3Di). This would frame the lower part albeit with a different perspective at a longer distance.

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by jagsiva View Post
    I think Dan meant to drop the lens (or raise the back in the of case RM3Di). This would frame the lower part albeit with a different perspective at a longer distance.
    Ahhh... you're right I was not thinking straight :-). As it's an ultra-wide it can have a significant effect.

  29. #29
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    I think Shashin is making it more confusing than it needs to be, although what he says is correct.
    What am I making confusing? Someone said that sticking a particular focal on any format camera would result in the same DoF. That is not true. What is actually confusing? Especially, since you just admitted it was true.

    Anyway, there's no free lunch. You can't "win" depth of field by shooting a smaller or larger format.
    Well, you need to make up your mind. You can't in one sentence state DoF is a product of format and then say it is not.

  30. #30
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    The traditional view on DoF is based on a specific viewing distance and a model of vision, and to make the story short everything above 4 megapixels or so is a waste with the old-school model. However, when people print large and watch close you resolve a lot more than 4 megapixels. For 645 film the CoC was traditionally 47um, which is a blur corresponding to the diffraction you get when you shoot at about f/32.

    The depth of field calculators becomes pretty useless as a tool for optimizing your deep depth of field focusing if you put in that large CoC, you end up shooting with less than optimal settings.
    Sorry, that is not what the model actually says. Many film-based systems out resolved 4MP and the modeling of DoF was still valid (actually, resolving power is not part of the model). All of this works at any defined viewing distance. And there are several standards. And you can make your own, like new-fangled digital viewing distance of pixel peeping, which is not a real-world viewing condition.

    Photography is more than an exercise in resolving power.

  31. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Well, you need to make up your mind. You can't in one sentence state DoF is a product of format and then say it is not.
    Because the example of just changing the format and keeping all other parameters the same is useless, you change the field of view and get a different picture. If you change format you need to change focal length to get same FoV and voila you end up with the same DoF challenge.

    Traditional CoC was set so you fit the same amount of CoC's on the format area, regardless of the resolving power capability of the format, ie the traditional view on DoF says you would have no more difficulties with DoF with 8x10 (220um CoC) than 135 (29um CoC). The traditional DoF model I'd say that is just as relevant as saying that 8 bit sound is all you need.

    If you want to maximize resolution your system is capable of the old way of defining CoC won't do you much good. Anyone that uses a DoF calculator in the field knows that. Jagsiva's challenge is pretty clear, maximize resolution in the image in the best possible way, not lower the standards by bringing in a 47 um CoC from back in the days.

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Photography is more than an exercise in resolving power.
    I agree. In general I think people should dare to shoot at smaller apertures than they do.

    However, if you have very expensive gear which one of it's key advantages actually is resolving power I think it's a good idea to perfect your shooting technique to make the best out of that.

    DoF calculators can be good at optimizing your focus distance and figuring out if tilt is going to help or not, but not without adapting the CoC to something that's better suited for your system's capabilities. If you feed your DoF calculator with a traditional 47um CoC for your 80 megapixel 645 back, the results out of your calculator won't give you much guidance at all, it will practically say it won't matter much where you focus. That's not contributing to good shooting technique. MF tech photographers have of course noticed this and have therefore figured out alternate models that actually help them to make sharpest possible images, and this includes having a smaller CoC.

  33. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by jagsiva View Post
    ...

    With downward tilt, I was losing the focus at the top of the image (distant part of the image). I ended up bracketing for focus and will be stacking. However, is there a solution with tilt in this case?

    On exposure, some of the scenes were 6-8 stops off, so I don't think there is any way around it than bracketing and blending.

    Appreciate your thoughts.
    It's a tough one but if you had to use tilt instead of focus blending you can think about the problem in terms of 'psychological sharpness'.

    In other words you take a combination of where people's attention will be in the picture and what 'edges' you have to play with to signal sharpness to a viewer.

    In this picture the sharpness is indicated by the pebbles in the foreground and where the river crosses rocks and possibly by the right hand side wall. I would use a combination of tilt and swing to bring these areas into focus with the depth of field projecting at about 45 degrees from horizontal...



    I would probably do this AND stop down to f/11-f/16

    You could alternatively use tilt and then take one shot at f/8 and one at f/16 or more. Blend these two together and you end up with your important stuff on the right plane and sharp at f/8 and everything else at f/16.

    Tim
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  34. #34
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    Because the example of just changing the format and keeping all other parameters the same is useless, you change the field of view and get a different picture. If you change format you need to change focal length to get same FoV and voila you end up with the same DoF challenge.
    I do not NEED to do anything. I could have a larger field of view. There is not "correct" way of taking any particular image. The is no pre-determine variable. Photography is not an exercise in comparison images.

    Traditional CoC was set so you fit the same amount of CoC's on the format area, regardless of the resolving power capability of the format, ie the traditional view on DoF says you would have no more difficulties with DoF with 8x10 (220um CoC) than 135 (29um CoC). The traditional DoF model I'd say that is just as relevant as saying that 8 bit sound is all you need.
    DoF models the human perception of sharpness of an image. It does not say that higher frequency information is not significant nor imperceptible--you can resolve details smaller the the resolving power of a system, you do not conclude that that information is irrelevant. It is false to say DoF and CoC is saying there is a base minimum like 8-bit sound or 4MP images--that is your false assumption.

    If you want to maximize resolution your system is capable of the old way of defining CoC won't do you much good. Anyone that uses a DoF calculator in the field knows that. Jagsiva's challenge is pretty clear, maximize resolution in the image in the best possible way, not lower the standards by bringing in a 47 um CoC from back in the days.
    You are just maximizing the resolving power of the focal plane irrespective of what that context is to the entire image. That is not the same as maximizing the resolving power of the image--DoF actually adds resolution to parts of the image.

    CoC does not indicate that you need to use any particular aperture. All it is doing is define what is being perceived as sharp--the part of the image smaller than the CoC is still significant and still perceptible. Your method of saying the only definition is at the focal plane when viewing at 100% is just as false as how you are trying to portrait what you think DoF and CoCs are about. And if you knew anything about DoF calculators, you would know you can actually put in your own CoC definition that you think models the DoF for you. But it all comes back to how an image is perceived and those relationships don't change.

  35. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Tim, now you're thinking like a large format photograper, I like that :-). But unfortunately the RM3Di can't do tilt and swing in combination.

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    And if you knew anything about DoF calculators, you would know you can actually put in your own CoC definition that you think models the DoF for you
    Well, I have actually coded a few of them, always with custom CoC of course... far from all DoF calculators have that though

    It comes down to how you use the tools. Some just put the focus where they want it sharpest and stop down with some sutiable amount. Traditional DoF/CoC would work for that. It seems to me that is your way to go. With this way of work you typically can do without a DoF calculator at all and just go by experience.

    If you however use things like hyperfocal and want "everything about equally sharp", and want to know which distance to focus at then there's a great need to adjust the CoC. This is the context I'm referring to, and in this context the traditional CoCs don't work very well.

  37. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Leeds, UK
    Posts
    127
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    Tim, now you're thinking like a large format photograper, I like that :-). But unfortunately the RM3Di can't do tilt and swing in combination.
    well that's not very good is it - can't you just set some tilt and then rotate the lens? :-)

  38. #38
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    I agree. In general I think people should dare to shoot at smaller apertures than they do.

    However, if you have very expensive gear which one of it's key advantages actually is resolving power I think it's a good idea to perfect your shooting technique to make the best out of that.

    DoF calculators can be good at optimizing your focus distance and figuring out if tilt is going to help or not, but not without adapting the CoC to something that's better suited for your system's capabilities. If you feed your DoF calculator with a traditional 47um CoC for your 80 megapixel 645 back, the results out of your calculator won't give you much guidance at all, it will practically say it won't matter much where you focus. That's not contributing to good shooting technique. MF tech photographers have of course noticed this and have therefore figured out alternate models that actually help them to make sharpest possible images, and this includes having a smaller CoC.
    There is not much I disagree with here. But just as I would not say only shoot at f/8 because you have 5um pixels, I would not say f/32 is irrelevant either. Aperture is a tool. It has effects. Understand the process and make the compromises with that.

  39. #39
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    If you however use things like hyperfocal and want "everything about equally sharp", and want to know which distance to focus at then there's a great need to adjust the CoC. This is the context I'm referring to, and in this context the traditional CoCs don't work very well.
    Macro at f/16, effective aperture much more.



    100% crop.



    I guess I don't agree.

  40. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    I guess I don't agree.
    try to compare an 80MP back at f/9 or f11 against f16 or f/22. You may think differently.

    Take a look at the post at f22 where the poster was losing resolution. Also, this was with a 60MP back, it only gets works with an 80. The original images have been taken down, but you can get the conclusion from he comments.

    http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-f...urs-iq260.html

    Torger mentioned expensive gear and getting the most out of it with optimal f-stops, I would add to this, the effort of getting to a location. Specifically, I wanted to get the best I could given the trouble I had taken to get there. Had this not been the case, I would have taken my A7R or D800E. I didn't have to lug an MFDB kit and heavy tripod with CUBE. So while all the advise on resolution not being the be-all and end-all is great, it is a little motherhood and apple pie without context. Surely, we are all beyond a first year college course in photography. We all realize that we would still rather have the shot.

    My question was how to maximize DoF in as few shots as possible given the subject.

    In any case, we are way off topic. To wrap up the recommendations here:

    1. Focus stack is likely still the best option
    2. Could play with tripod hight and use back rise to get similar framing with longer subject distance
    3. Play with multiple swing planes (vertical focus planes on the sides) and stack in post.

  41. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    Ahhh... you're right I was not thinking straight :-). As it's an ultra-wide it can have a significant effect.
    Wait a minute, I was thinking straight I think :-). If the lens is flat field it's the horizontal distance that counts, right? So raising the tripod and shifting down won't help.

    You will indeed get longer distance from camera to foreground diagonally, but if you don't move your tripod back the dof near limit plane will cut through the same position in the scene.

    It would be easy to show with a diagram, but I am unfortunately too lazy to draw one :-)

  42. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by jagsiva View Post
    2. Could play with tripod hight and use back rise to get similar framing with longer subject distance
    I've attached some fantastic artwork showing why I think this won't work.

    I've assumed that the camera is kept level, the tripod is at the same position but at different height.

    You do get a longer diagonal distance to your nearest foreground as seen in the diagram, but the horizontal distance, which defines where the DoF near limit will be, stays the same.

  43. #43
    Senior Member danlindberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Spain & Sweden
    Posts
    1,195
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Funny that! It works fine when I'm out in the field. Instead of 6 focus stacks I need 3 with the method I use. But then I'm not into diagrams - I'm a photographer.
    Alpa FPS MAX TC | Alpagon 32Hr | Helvetar 75 | Schneider 120N | Leaf Aptus II 5 Leaf Credo 60 | www.danlindberg.com
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  44. #44
    Senior Member stngoldberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    newport, RI
    Posts
    801
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    I really enjoy reading threads like this one as it prepares me for the complex photographs I hope to encounter in the future.
    I can also identify with Jagsiva shooting in a difficult environment with expensive gear as I live near the ocean and often photograph standing on uneven rocky ledges with very windy conditions.
    Based on the work that Dan Lindberg posts, I would tend to follow his advice.
    Because of the availability of tilt on the rm3di that I use, in many instances I employ moderate tilt and focus stacking at the same time
    Stanley

  45. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by danlindberg View Post
    Funny that! It works fine when I'm out in the field. Instead of 6 focus stacks I need 3 with the method I use. But then I'm not into diagrams - I'm a photographer.
    Actually you can be both into diagrams and be a photographer at the same time ;-)

    I think I need to conduct a real-life test on this with my SK35 and see what happens, it's surely a technique that could be useful to me too if it works with my lens. Field curvature could have some effect, but if I think that would actually make it worse as the near limit would be further away closer to the image circle edge... or maybe I'm getting it the other way around. I need to test.

  46. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Now I'm going to have to go test this out. I'm quite sure that what Dan suggested will work.

  47. #47
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,575
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't moving the camera here result in a very different composition?
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  48. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by MGrayson View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't moving the camera here result in a very different composition?
    Dan's suggestion was not really to move the camera wrt to subject distance, but rather to put it higher on the tripod and use back rise (lens fall) to get a similar composition.

    Net result would be a longer working distance to the closest part of the subject. The question raised above is whether or not this will work given that only the vertical distance is changed, and not the horizontal distance to the nearest part of the subject. Will need to shoot a test and see the result.

  49. #49
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,575
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    If you're willing to change the composition, then I can see it. Raising the camera and shifting will preserve the foreground, but it will change the position of the horizontal bands on the walls, and the proportions of the foreground to distance. If that is less important than DoF, then sure. I thought you wanted that particular low camera angle.

    Nice shot, BTW!

    --Matt
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  50. #50
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Advise on Tilt

    Quote Originally Posted by jagsiva View Post
    try to compare an 80MP back at f/9 or f11 against f16 or f/22. You may think differently.

    Take a look at the post at f22 where the poster was losing resolution. Also, this was with a 60MP back, it only gets works with an 80. The original images have been taken down, but you can get the conclusion from he comments.

    http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-f...urs-iq260.html

    Torger mentioned expensive gear and getting the most out of it with optimal f-stops, I would add to this, the effort of getting to a location. Specifically, I wanted to get the best I could given the trouble I had taken to get there. Had this not been the case, I would have taken my A7R or D800E. I didn't have to lug an MFDB kit and heavy tripod with CUBE. So while all the advise on resolution not being the be-all and end-all is great, it is a little motherhood and apple pie without context. Surely, we are all beyond a first year college course in photography. We all realize that we would still rather have the shot.

    My question was how to maximize DoF in as few shots as possible given the subject.

    In any case, we are way off topic. To wrap up the recommendations here:

    1. Focus stack is likely still the best option
    2. Could play with tripod hight and use back rise to get similar framing with longer subject distance
    3. Play with multiple swing planes (vertical focus planes on the sides) and stack in post.
    Actually, I would still not agree. You are still getting a better image than a a7r and D800 at small apertures. You are still not putting the image scale into perspective.

    Yes, focus stacking is an option. I think I said that. How it works with flowing water, I am not sure--do you? Stopping down is still an option--which means you can do both. You can maximize DoF in one shot with your aperture.

    So this is my question. You lug all this equipment into a remote area to get this shot, yet trying some images at smaller apertures is not possible? Not enough card space? What exactly do you lose by making a few more frames at different apertures and then deciding the "best" outcome from everything you have when you have time to look at all the results and process them?

    Shoot how you want to shoot. You asked for advice. We have taken the time to give you what we think is good advice. And advice that comes from a lot of time and experience. I really don't understand how these basic technical issues become such a battle.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •