Does anybody know

[mysteryscribe]

I have to admit that I am a neuby this time. I just built a view camera and have never owned or used one before. So I have a question.

When you swing and tilt it does it change the exposure requirements. Thanks in advance

[terri]

Charlie, I'm thinking you might get better views, and hence replies, in the film forum. :) Here you are!

I've never used a view camera personally, so I'm in the dark as well. I thought you'd shot with it a couple times.

[markc]

I haven't used a view camera myself, but based on theory, I wouldn't think so. The center of the image remains at the same distance from the center of the lens to the film. Even a shift would have to be rather extreme to change the distance much.

Here's something I came across that you might find handy for short distances: http://www.salzgeber.at/disc/

[journeyman]

A great thing for you to look at is Ansel Adam's book the camera it has a whole chapter on view cameras. I'm looking in to getting a view camera soon and I would have had no idea what I was doing if I hadn't read his book.
(As a matter of fact I wouldn't know a lot of things if wasn't for that whole seris of books)

[Philip Weir]

Hi "mystery scribe" No, it makes no difference whatsoever. All that can happen is you may get cut off on the edges if you swing/tilt too much. One of the capabilities of a lens is its covering power. i.e. A lens on a normal 35mm film or digital camera [same with medium format] is only made to cover the film plane or the sensor. With a view camera, lenses are made to cover a larger area to compensate for camera movements. The only exception is a shift lens[perspective control] made for 35mm pro cameras. One important point to remember with large format view cameras is compensating for bellows extention, which obviously comes into play when shooting studio or close up work. I have been shooting on a large format Sinar camera for over 35 years, so am happy to advise you from my experience. Coincidentally, I am just restoring an old view camera that is about three feet long with twin bellows extended. I will post a shot of it over the next few days. Philip.

[Torus34]

No change at all. But as Prof. Weir [NOT a put-down - rather, an acknowledgment of expertise] notes, beware of close close-ups. The same increases in exposure will occur when you get into the 1:1 ratio and beyond that you run into in 35mm work with extension tubes and a flipped lens. You can use the same tables, too. Just measure the image on the ground glass.

[mysteryscribe]

cool beans guys. It didn't look like the intensitiy on the ' 20 century Sanded plastic ground glass replacement but I wasn't sure.

I have found the neatest thing since I am using a lens with a movable front element that I can get right down there amongst them, even with the normal polaroid bellows.

Im thinking now I need an infinity stop on this lil mutha. It is almost impossible to focus outside. I built a folding thing but I guess I'm gonna have to go with the cloth.

But this is a heck of a lot of fun. The small format should give me a chance to experiment. I'm going paper negative for while with it I think.

Anyway thanks I shot one with a tilt today and it didn't seem to be any different.

[Philip Weir]

Thank you for the kind words "Torus34" and good advice for "mystery scribe" to you "mysteryscribe" where you mentioned shooting one with a tilt, but didn't notice any difference. The front tilt controls focus, but has no effect on the image. [I am assuming your camera has front not back swings] You would then not notice the difference if you were stopped well down.The back tilt is for correcting perspective or similar, and will affect the final image. Trust this is of some help.

[mysteryscribe]

Let me go at this a different way...

What I noticed was that I was a little lower than the vase I was shooting. My lens pivots both forward and backwards. LIke this.
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/1191/drawaj7.png
Im not sure what exactly did it the forward or rear tilt but the vase went from being an upward angel shot to a straight on shot without elevating the camera. Or did i just imagine it.

[Philip Weir]

Hi "mysteryscribe" will attempt to answer you Monday, I'm going home now for a peaceful weekend away from the computer.

[mysteryscribe]

well damn you're no fun at all... Have a good weekend philip... in the mean time I might just read a book parish the thought.

I did some quick reading and found that I put the absolute wrong controls on the camera lol. I wanted to be able to do the lift and shift functions but that okay I'm gonna do them anyway. I can wedge up the yoke to get rise, not much i can do for fall at this point. Next one will be different. This was a prototype anyway. This has been a fun project and not over yet.

I also wonder what effect the lens board tilting from the top has since it would cause the lens to rise and fall as it tilts as well as change the angle. Wierd stuff I done done.

[Philip Weir]

Hi "mysteryscribe" Saturday night, wanted to catch up on some work. Go to
<toyoview.com/LargFrmtTech/lgformat.html> trust I got it correct, this should help you. Philip.

[mysteryscribe]

Thanks philip, I had to reinfoce the bed. I think that was my real problem but I still need to figure out why I even bothered to buld this thing. I really don't need it. I expect it was just to see if I could do it. And of course I had the parts laying about.

[Philip Weir]

Hi again "mysteryscribe" You are correct, you must reinforce the bed. As you get older, a middle age spread develops, and the bed you had cannot handle the added weight. The answer is to trade the wife/girlfriend in for a lighter model or if you you are talking about the camera bed, well that's a different matter.

[mysteryscribe]

I sleep alone... as my uncle said how cruel would it be to have your wife go to bed with a man and awake with a corpse. Seems like a good idea to me.

As for the camera it is the only reason I can think for the soft indoor lowlight shots being soft and the outdoor ones being fine. If this doesn't work to heck with it, life is too short.

Actually its fun to mess with this thing.

[journeyman]

The link didn't work for me so i'm not quite sure what your asking. What i think your saying is it went from where your perspective was looking up at the vase to looking straight at it.

From my knowledge this is from adjusting the back. If it is at an angle that is parrallel with the subject it will give you the impression it is striaght on.

This can be used for when photographing tall buildings. The back stays parrallel and the front adjusts to capture the area of the building you want. If you shot it with just a 35mm or medium format then it would give you that look as if the building is falling over on you.

And if your gonna give up on the view camera there is always someone willing to take up the job. hin hint. cough give it to me cough.

[mysteryscribe]

the one i built does not have a lens that rotates from the center axis. It rotates from a pin in the top of the lens board so as it rotates it also changes its relation ship high and low to the film back. I think that is what is happening

[ksmattfish]

the one i built does not have a lens that rotates from the center axis. It rotates from a pin in the top of the lens board so as it rotates it also changes its relation ship high and low to the film back. I think that is what is happening

You have combined the front tilt with a bit of rise. The more you tilt, the more rise you'll have. Also as you tilt/rise on an arc you would be changing the focus, and bellows extension. I would think that if you are regularly using the movements that this would become problematic.

[mysteryscribe]

yeah what you all said....

Still it is a fun experiment if I don't go nuts in frustration. It does okay outside. but in the studio it looks sharp on the glass but isn't sharp on the paper negative.

So I going to check the glass depth against the distance from the film to the edge of the holder. With the fact that the lens is hyper extended past the way 'closer than the normal focus point', and the aperture set at 5.6, and my lousy vision, and the fact that it is on a paper negative, is all conspiring to make me a babling idiot. Well an even worse one. It's probably a combination of all of them. First is to check the glass distance from the camera frame to the negative material distance of the holder. If they are about the same I'm going to try shooting with a small aperture and see what that does. I have rebuilt the camera to get rid of camera shake so I'm pretty sure that isnt it, but I might just take it outside and shoot it close up in the daylight to see.

Hey, it keeps me from spending real money.

http://img271.imageshack.us/img271/2055/testcp6.jpg
okay I checked the glass = okay
I shot it again using a longer depth of field after I refocused it. This is the result. I'm satisfied.

Ps paper negative