Some examples of Tilt (or shift) with Sony A7rII and the HCam Master TSII

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

These images were shot with the Sony 70-400/4-5.6 at 75 mm f/11 on the A7rII and with the Contax 28-85/3.3-4 at 75 mm f/11 using about 1.5 degree of tilt on the HCam master TSII.

The 70-400/4-5.6 is a great lens, but in this case it is limited by depth of field, while the slightly tilted Contax is sharp from foreground to background.

Top:

Center:

Bottom:


Best regards
Erik

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Another example

Hi,

The reason I bought the HCam Master TSII and the Contax zooms is that I wanted to take images like this. Not that the image is that great…



The flower in the foreground is crazy sharp. The mountain side is still in good sharpness. The top of the mountain is somewhat out of sharpness. That could depend on it being outside the Sheimpflug plane of sharpness, or just the Contax zoom loosing sharpness at the edge.

Why Contax zoom? Well, it has manual aperture. The Canon zooms have electronically controlled apertures.

Best regards
Erik

 

[ErikKaffehr]

A third example

Hi,

I am planning an exhibition tentatively named "A Forrest of Trees". Previous week I was shooting in the Dolomites, and tried to shoot some images for that theme. One of my images was the one below:



What I have found looking at the image in post was that the roots in the foreground were out of focus, that happens easily with the A7rII even at f/11.

Fortunately, I had the opportunity to go back to the same spot for a reshoot. This time I still used f/11 (or f/13), but used some tilt to put focus on the top of the trunk and on the root. The result was much better:


This shows that tilt can be useful on pretty mundane pictures. I don't know the focal length, as it is not recorded with the lens and adapter used, but I guess it is between 50 and 80 mm.

I have two Contax lenses for this kind of shots, the 28-85/3.3-4 and the 35-135/3.3-4.5, both are very sharp and easy to focus. No, they are not perfect but I find them very practical with the HCam Master TSII, at least with regard to tilts. Shifting is very limited due to the small diameter of the Contax mount.

Best regards
Erik

 

[ErikKaffehr]

An example with shift…

Hi,

Most images I have shown used tilts, to expand DoF. Sometimes the HCam can be quite useful as a shift device. The example below, the Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII was not wide enough and it was not feasible to move back. So I resorted to my Canon 16-35/4 on the Master TSII, using about seven millimetres of vertical shift.

The 16-35/4 has quite generous image circle, that can be increased by removing the internal baffle at the rear of the lens. In this case the baffle was still in place, but the lens hood was removed.

This image is not entirely truthful. There was a lamppost I removed in post:

Best regards
Erik

 

[MrSmith]

This image is not entirely truthful. There was a lamppost I removed in post

have you though about going on a photoshop course?

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't see the relevance of your response. Anyway, I am not very interested in Photoshop as I prefer doing my processing in Lightroom. But, there are things that are not really doable in Lightroom, like using content aware fill and other pixel level manipulation.

It is of course possible to do keystone corrections in PhotoShop, or for that in Lightroom, but you need to leave more space to crop, as bottom part is contracted.

Best regards
Erik

have you though about going on a photoshop course?

 

[MrSmith]

Hi,

I don't see the relevance of your response. Anyway, I am not very interested in Photoshop as I prefer doing my processing in Lightroom. But, there are things that are not really doable in Lightroom, like using content aware fill and other pixel level manipulation.

It is of course possible to do keystone corrections in PhotoShop, or for that in Lightroom, but you need to leave more space to crop, as bottom part is contracted.

Best regards
Erik

Briefly as I'm just running out the door, there are a few errors that would be rectified by a bit more practice/use. The sky where the lamppost was shows signs of being retouched, the shadow of the post is still on the kerbstone, the roof line is very kinked under the soffits (word for the panels under edge of tiles may be called something else on old building) and areas of brickwork have not had enough work and show signs of repetition, this was just looking on my iPad screen. I guess if it's not being printed or published it doesn't matter but if like me you are not interested in 'authenticity' then decent retouching technique is a handy skill in the imaging arsenal.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Thanks for explanation, it makes a lot of sense now.

I am still not very interested in joining some Photoshop course, but it is good to know that I need to work on my technique. On the other hand I seldom use Photoshop and prefer to get the images right in the camera. On the other hand, object removal is something I do quite frequently, so it is quite clear I need to work on my technique.

The images here were intended to demonstrate shifting on the HCamMaster TSII / Canon 16-35/4 combo. The lamppost was clearly disturbing in the image so I removed it. The reason I included both images was really because of full disclosure. I found the retouched image is better, but it is not the out of camera image.

You posting gives some incentive to spend some more time on that image and improve my technique, so thanks a lot. I may add that I like that image, I always wanted to shoot that building.

Best regards
Erik

Briefly as I'm just running out the door, there are a few errors that would be rectified by a bit more practice/use. The sky where the lamppost was shows signs of being retouched, the shadow of the post is still on the kerbstone, the roof line is very kinked under the soffits (word for the panels under edge of tiles may be called something else on old building) and areas of brickwork have not had enough work and show signs of repetition, this was just looking on my iPad screen. I guess if it's not being printed or published it doesn't matter but if like me you are not interested in 'authenticity' then decent retouching technique is a handy skill in the imaging arsenal.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Here is another example, this time with horizontal tilt (what they call swing?)

I wanted to have the statue in the foreground to share focus with the house in background. Using a wide angle would change proportions.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/TS_Stuff/TSExample_Nynas_Slott.png



Not a great image, I know…

Best regards
Erik

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Some shift examples...

Hi,

This was shot on Gotland with the Canon 16-35 at 20 mm with some shift:

https://photos.smugmug.com/Technical/HCam-MasterTS/i-L3xWms4/0/O/_DSC6699.jpg


The same subject and lens but with software correction:

https://photos.smugmug.com/Technical/HCam-MasterTS/i-xpm7Vvt/0/O/_DSC6698.jpg

Another Gotlan church (there are about 100 of them), with Contax 28-85/3.3-4 at around 28 and some shift.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Technical/HCam-MasterTS/i-8MCcTVQ/0/O/_DSC6742.jpg

Some ugly chromatic aberration in the corners on that Contax, but it can be handled by the defringe tool in LR:




Best regards
Erik

 

[ErikKaffehr]

A tilt example

Hi,

This is a tilted shot with the Contax 35-135/3.3-4 at 135 mm

https://photos.smugmug.com/Technical/HCam-MasterTS/i-FPVf79W/0/O/_DSC6703.jpg

Best regards
Erik

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

This is another example of tilt, also showing some limitations. The subject is the statute of 'Knäcken' an cat also known as the 'Red Baron of Visby' with Gutekällaren in the background. The image is shot with around 50 mm on a Contax 28-85/3.3-4 zoom. I could have used a wide angle, but than I would need to move much closer to the cat to get a good crop and the building would be much smaller.

Hopefully it is obvious from the size reduced image that both the head of the Knäcken and the text "Gutekällaren" is pretty sharp, but the person at center is very unsharp. So, we can tilt the plane of sharpness, but that plane is still very thin. That is a reason to stop down quite a bit.



Best regards
Erik

 

[pegelli]

Re: Some shift examples...

Hi,

The same subject and lens but with software correction:

Thanks for posting all these examples Erik, very illustrative.

Only one question on this specific image, it looks you did a much more "aggressive" software correction as compared to your shift example above. In my eyes the shifted example is still leaning back a tiny bit (which makes the scene look quite natural) while the software corrected version seems over corrected, with the left of the tower leaning left and thereby make the whole church seemingly leaning forward. Was this on purpose?

 

[ErikKaffehr]

A quite obvious hint…

Hi,

Getting focusing right with tilts. I always use peaking as a tool to get tilt approximatively right. The steps are:

• Open the lens to full aperture
• Focus on something that should be in the plane of focus at the centerline of the image.
• Activate peaking
• Tilt until peaking indicates sharpness along the intended plane of focus
• Activate magnified live view and check focus on intended remote point of focus
• Check intended near focus point, adjust tilt if needed. Check remote point. If it is not in good focus, refocus and iterate.
• Stop down to f/11 (or something like that, diffraction starts to seriously degrade the image at f/16 but f/11 is still safe)

Best regards
Erik

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Re: Some shift examples...

Hi Pieter,

You are right.

The software correction is a bit over aggressive, as you say. I think I used guided correction in LR and that should be quite accurate, but it is often better to let some keystone effect left, it is more natural. Getting a natural image by correction is a bit tricky, a fully corrected image is often unnatural.

In addition, I posted those images when I was on travel, so it was made on my Macbook using the touchpad and may be less accurate than doing it on the workstation at home.

Getting perspective correction "right" is a bit tricky. Fact is that "perspective correction" actually violates "perspective". There was an extensive discussion on that issue on LuLa, I will post a link to it.

Best regards
Erik

Thanks for posting all these examples Erik, very illustrative.

Only one question on this specific image, it looks you did a much more "aggressive" software correction as compared to your shift example above. In my eyes the shifted example is still leaning back a tiny bit (which makes the scene look quite natural) while the software corrected version seems over corrected, with the left of the tower leaning left and thereby make the whole church seemingly leaning forward. Was this on purpose?

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Some lenses I have used with the HCam…

Hi,

My major interest is using tilts. Shooting architecture I mostly use my Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII. Sometimes 24 mm is not right so I revert to the Canon 16-35/4L.

Here are some of my lenses with some comments. Tilts are unproblematic, with shifts we often run into image circle limitations. Canon lenses have apertures controlled by the camera, so they need to be stopped down on another camera and removed under exposure. That works but it is a bit cumbersome.

So, here are my lenses:

• Canon 16-35/4L: It is an incredible lens. Image circle is quite large and offers significant shift from 20 mm and up. Shift is limited to perhaps 3mm at 16 mm though. This lens is very sharp across the field.
• Contax 35-135/3.3-4.5: This lens is very good, especially at the long end. The main reason I bough it is for the manual aperture. It offers minimal shift, but is very useful with tilts. The lens is used with a Leitax EF mount. Close focusing limit is a bit long, but has a macro range.
• Contax 28-85/3.3-4: This is also a very good lens that has very good correction at short focal lengths. Good close up range.
• Pentax 67 45/4: A lens with ample shift and good sharpness across the field. Focusing gears have some small play.
• Hasselblad Distagon 40/4 FLE: Somewhat problematic as image quality deteriorates towards corners. The Pentax 67 45/4 is a better lens, but central parts of the mage may have more snap than the Pentax.
• Hasselblad Distagon 60/3.5: Image quality is quite OK across the field, but cannot touch the Canon 16-35/4. Ample shifts.
• Hasselblad Planar 120/4 CFi: Very usable for close up shots with tilts. Focuses to scale 1:5.

I decided to buy the Contax lenses for travel. It is easier to carry one or two zooms than three primes and they are more flexible.

The Canon 16-35/4 L and the Contax lenses are incredibly good. I also have a P45+ for my Hasselblad and image quality from those lenses competes with the Hasselblad head on, although the P45+ has twice the sensor area compared to the Sony A7rII.

The medium format lenses have a large image circle and that means that there is a lot of light hitting the inside of the adapters. So, the adapters need good light absorption on surfaces visible to the sensor. Novoflex adapters are quite good at this while Kipon needs to improve.

The medium format lenses allow for "shift panos". This way the image useful image circle is around 48x36 mm, good enough for around 84 MP on the Sony A7rII.

Best regards
Erik

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Re: Some shift examples...

Hi,

This thread on LuLa covers some ground relating to keystone correction.

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106747.0

My image is missing, I will try to fix that.

Best regards
Erik

Thanks for posting all these examples Erik, very illustrative.

Only one question on this specific image, it looks you did a much more "aggressive" software correction as compared to your shift example above. In my eyes the shifted example is still leaning back a tiny bit (which makes the scene look quite natural) while the software corrected version seems over corrected, with the left of the tower leaning left and thereby make the whole church seemingly leaning forward. Was this on purpose?

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Here is another one, from one of the 92 medieval churches in Gotland. Here the plane of focus lays along the artwork on the pews leading to the altar.
https://echophoto.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Sweden/Gotland/i-RHwc2v6

Best regards
Erik

 

[pegelli]

Here is another one, from one of the 92 medieval churches in Gotland. Here the plane of focus lays along the artwork on the pews leading to the altar.
Best regards
Erik

Thanks for all the explanations and pictures Erik, even though I'm not using these techniques currently they're interesting to watch and (try to) understand.

Btw this last picture is a good example (I think) of what tilt can do and cannot do, the pews and altar are in focus, while the stones of the arch behind (in the middle) isn't sharp because that's too far left and further away in the frame. It looks a bit strange, but is understandable once you realize what's happening.