Tilt: a mini tutorial

It's vector [tilt+angle] or cartesian [tilt + swing]
Polar vs cartesian? Vectors can be expressed either way.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/converting-cartesian-polar-coordinates-d_1347.html
Quite right - most careless of me
I was starting to get Tilt abit after Rob and Kieth did their tutorials but now I'm starting to freak out again.
The good news is you can figure it out without any of the math or diagrams. The step-by-step instructions in Keith's book are sound. When you get your lens, set yourself up at home in a long hallway or open area and see if you can get the whole length of floor you can see on the screen in focus. It all builds from that.
 
Thanks Rob for work explainingl. With my large format camera I am mostly using the rear standard as that causes less movement on the image plane compared to the front standard which has to be compensated with shift. So using a shift lens mounting the camera on a tripod is like moving the front standard and having a collar mount on the front of the lens (as you did) is like the back standard but as I can see from attempts using Fuji's 30mm TS that looks more than an afterthought.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Rob for work explainingl. With my large format camera I am mostly using the rear standard as that causes less movement on the image plane compared to the front standard which has to be compensated with shift. So using a shift lens mounting the camera on a tripod is like moving the front standard and having a collar mount on the front of the lens (as you did) is like the back standard but as I can see from attempts using Fuji's 30mm TS that looks more than an afterthought.
An afterthought?? In what respect?

Having used it, the collar is rather useful...

I do have a few minor practical quibbles, but my suspicion is that only some regular large format users will find it limiting, but that was [I'm minded to think] almost a given for any T/S solution for such cameras [I include the Canon TS-E lenses and TSE frame for example]
 
Thanks Rob for work explainingl. With my large format camera I am mostly using the rear standard as that causes less movement on the image plane compared to the front standard which has to be compensated with shift. So using a shift lens mounting the camera on a tripod is like moving the front standard and having a collar mount on the front of the lens (as you did) is like the back standard but as I can see from attempts using Fuji's 30mm TS that looks more than an afterthought.
When a tilt-shift adapter is mounted to the tripod with a collar, as in my pictures at the top of this thread, there's a lot less need for correction after shift with lenses that have a focal length a lot shorter or longer than the system flange focal length.

For example, the Pentax-A 645 75mm is close to the Pentax 645 flange focal length, so it's nice for tilt because there's little correction needed. That's handy because the Fotodiox adapter doesn't allow rise with tilt. There's a Kipon adapter for Pentax 645 to GFX that provides two separate shift mechanisms, which adds useful functionality.

The collar solution on my Fotodiox Tilt ROKR makes the 35mm a lot more usable because that setup minimizes the need for recomposition after initial tilt.

Both Cambo (on the Actus) and Arca-Swiss (on the F-Universalis) removed tilt and swing from the rear standard. Someone coming from view cameras might see that as a limitation, but in practice I haven't found that to be the case. In between my Toyo VX23D outfit and my Arca-Swiss F-Universalis outfit, I used a lightweight digital view camera setup I built that had all the movement on the front standard; I did a summer's fieldwork with that setup and never found it limiting to have a fixed rear standard.

The geometric implications of tilt and swing on the rear standard that are quite evident on a view camera with film are much less obvious on the smaller sensor. I don't know why that is the case; it shouldn't make a difference. But I've tried to replicate some of the obvious ones that you'll see in a typical view camera book without success. There's a post over at GetDPI you might find interesting: https://www.getdpi.com/forum/index....-geometry-with-rear-standard-movements.75002/
 
The geometric implications of tilt and swing on the rear standard that are quite evident on a view camera with film are much less obvious on the smaller sensor. I don't know why that is the case; it shouldn't make a difference. But I've tried to replicate some of the obvious ones that you'll see in a typical view camera book without success.
I still haven't figured out what's going on with this. Guessing it has to do with the geometry of the t/s adapter (we use the same one). Like, where the tilt axis is relative to the optical center. I've been doing more shifting than tilting, so haven't played with it much.
 
A very common use case for tilt is pan focus, or "getting everything in focus". There are other reasons for using tilt that are not about pan focus. For example, you might want to use background or foreground blur as a compositional device, but you want to control where the plane of focus is in the image to control what parts are blurred.

In this post, I show a few examples to illustrate what I mean.

In this first image, I wanted the plane of focus to run along the lip of the waterfall so that the edge and face of the waterfall and that little plant at bottom-left would all be acceptably sharp. A bit of swing (sideways tilt) let me do that. If I'd shot it straight on (no tilt), neither the plane of focus nor the background blur would have been what I wanted.

Mamiya G 150mm f/4.5 L on my MAB Camera with GFX 50R. I didn't record the aperture, but it was probably f/8
Mamiya G 150mm f/4.5 L on my MAB Camera with GFX 50R. I didn't record the aperture, but it was probably f/8

In this second example, I wanted an angled viewpoint on this rock (so not straight down from above). I also wanted the blue rock to be in focus, and the red rock underneath to be softer. A bit of tilt let me place the plane of focus parallel to the blue rock's surface, blurring out the underlying red rock. The wedge of acceptable sharpness wasn't thick enough to get the visible side of the blue rock, but I'm still happy because it got the face and a bit of the top edge. With this perspective, focus stacking simply would not have worked. Had I been shooting straight down, focus stacking would have worked well.

Schneider-Kreuznach APO Componon HM 90mm f/4.5 with MAB Camera and GFX 50R, probably f/11
Schneider-Kreuznach APO Componon HM 90mm f/4.5 with MAB Camera and GFX 50R, probably f/11

The scene in this third image is a similar situation as the above image, in that I wanted the plane of focus to run over the top of the stones so that the water, the leaves, the stones and the pine needles were all in focus and sharp. Locating the plane of focus across the top level of the scene would leave the lower left section out of focus, which I liked. I didn't quite get the leaves at upper-left in the wedge of acceptable sharpness, but they are at a slightly lower level than the two yellow leaves, and in the shade, so I'm happy enough.

Schneider-Kreuznach APO Componon HM 90mm f/4.5 at f/11 with MAB Camera and GFX 50R
Schneider-Kreuznach APO Componon HM 90mm f/4.5 at f/11 with MAB Camera and GFX 50R

For me, this is a big part of what tilt is all about. In each of these images, I wanted the plane of focus in a specific location as part of the design of the image.

When I can't have this kind of control, I can't make the picture the way I want to make it. I find that very limiting. There's a reason I only have one native lens for GFX, and almost never use it. It doesn't let me do what I want.
 
The geometric implications of tilt and swing on the rear standard that are quite evident on a view camera with film are much less obvious on the smaller sensor. I don't know why that is the case; it shouldn't make a difference. But I've tried to replicate some of the obvious ones that you'll see in a typical view camera book without success.
I still haven't figured out what's going on with this. Guessing it has to do with the geometry of the t/s adapter (we use the same one). Like, where the tilt axis is relative to the optical center. I've been doing more shifting than tilting, so haven't played with it much.
Shift/Tilting the front standard changes the parallax of the fore/back-grounds (because the lens node has moved), and hence changes the composition. In the field, it's not a big deal, but in the studio, especially on a close-up tabletop, it makes a big difference. Changing the rear shift/tilt does not change the composition, only the framing.

LF is a much bigger format, and hence the parallax from and equivalent shift/tilt is much larger. Also, lenses like the Canon TSE are designed to compensate for this by automatically shifting the front while tilting, and hence maintaining the composition. It mimics rear shift-tilt, but not quite, as there is still some parallax change with fore/back-ground. The downside of this is that if you mount the lens to a tripod instead of the camera body to mimic rear shift/tilt, you can't get a pure tilt, as the mechanism will still shift the body when you tilt, forcing you to re-shift to compensate.

Tilt/swing vs Tilt/angle, or Cartesian vs polar coordinates, I find using swing or cartesian easier - saying something needs a left swing is more natural than a tilt at 270deg . Even when I work with a TS lens rotated obliquely, I still think of my corrections as Tilt and Swing. It'll take me a while to think of these things a "always tilt".... but I was able to switch from English to Metric (Canada!) so...
 
The geometric implications of tilt and swing on the rear standard that are quite evident on a view camera with film are much less obvious on the smaller sensor. I don't know why that is the case; it shouldn't make a difference. But I've tried to replicate some of the obvious ones that you'll see in a typical view camera book without success.
I still haven't figured out what's going on with this. Guessing it has to do with the geometry of the t/s adapter (we use the same one). Like, where the tilt axis is relative to the optical center. I've been doing more shifting than tilting, so haven't played with it much.
Shift/Tilting the front standard changes the parallax of the fore/back-grounds (because the lens node has moved), and hence changes the composition. In the field, it's not a big deal, but in the studio, especially on a close-up tabletop, it makes a big difference. Changing the rear shift/tilt does not change the composition, only the framing.
Two points. The “no-parallax” point in a lens is the entrance pupil, not the node, Ninjas notwithstanding.

If the front standard pivots around the entrance pupil then the composition will be stable with regard to parallax, etc.
LF is a much bigger format, and hence the parallax from and equivalent shift/tilt is much larger.
With equivalent lenses and equal image dimensions, why would the format size affect the parallax - why isn’t it simply a geometric scalar?
Also, lenses like the Canon TSE are designed to compensate for this by automatically shifting the front while tilting, and hence maintaining the composition. It mimics rear shift-tilt, but not quite, as there is still some parallax change with fore/back-ground. The downside of this is that if you mount the lens to a tripod instead of the camera body to mimic rear shift/tilt, you can't get a pure tilt, as the mechanism will still shift the body when you tilt, forcing you to re-shift to compensate.

Tilt/swing vs Tilt/angle, or Cartesian vs polar coordinates, I find using swing or cartesian easier - saying something needs a left swing is more natural than a tilt at 270deg . Even when I work with a TS lens rotated obliquely, I still think of my corrections as Tilt and Swing. It'll take me a while to think of these things a "always tilt".... but I was able to switch from English to Metric (Canada!) so...
Canada - the home of 454 gram metric pound!
 
The geometric implications of tilt and swing on the rear standard that are quite evident on a view camera with film are much less obvious on the smaller sensor. I don't know why that is the case; it shouldn't make a difference. But I've tried to replicate some of the obvious ones that you'll see in a typical view camera book without success.
I still haven't figured out what's going on with this. Guessing it has to do with the geometry of the t/s adapter (we use the same one). Like, where the tilt axis is relative to the optical center. I've been doing more shifting than tilting, so haven't played with it much.
Shift/Tilting the front standard changes the parallax of the fore/back-grounds (because the lens node has moved), and hence changes the composition. In the field, it's not a big deal, but in the studio, especially on a close-up tabletop, it makes a big difference. Changing the rear shift/tilt does not change the composition, only the framing.
Two points. The “no-parallax” point in a lens is the entrance pupil, not the node, Ninjas notwithstanding.

If the front standard pivots around the entrance pupil then the composition will be stable with regard to parallax, etc.
Yes, but very few set-ups (LF bellows or TS lens) tilt on the entrance pupil. And if you tilt on the front entrance pupil, you need a lens with a large image circle. If you tilt on the back standard, not so much.
LF is a much bigger format, and hence the parallax from and equivalent shift/tilt is much larger.
With equivalent lenses and equal image dimensions, why would the format size affect the parallax - why isn’t it simply a geometric scalar?
The shift and tilt is part of that geometric scalar, so the unless you increase the subject distance (and hence the composition) you end up with a larger shift or tilt for the same FoV.
Also, lenses like the Canon TSE are designed to compensate for this by automatically shifting the front while tilting, and hence maintaining the composition. It mimics rear shift-tilt, but not quite, as there is still some parallax change with fore/back-ground. The downside of this is that if you mount the lens to a tripod instead of the camera body to mimic rear shift/tilt, you can't get a pure tilt, as the mechanism will still shift the body when you tilt, forcing you to re-shift to compensate.

Tilt/swing vs Tilt/angle, or Cartesian vs polar coordinates, I find using swing or cartesian easier - saying something needs a left swing is more natural than a tilt at 270deg . Even when I work with a TS lens rotated obliquely, I still think of my corrections as Tilt and Swing. It'll take me a while to think of these things a "always tilt".... but I was able to switch from English to Metric (Canada!) so...
Canada - the home of 454 gram metric pound!
... and the 1.2 gallon (US) ... gallon.... ;)
 
The geometric implications of tilt and swing on the rear standard that are quite evident on a view camera with film are much less obvious on the smaller sensor. I don't know why that is the case; it shouldn't make a difference. But I've tried to replicate some of the obvious ones that you'll see in a typical view camera book without success.
I still haven't figured out what's going on with this. Guessing it has to do with the geometry of the t/s adapter (we use the same one). Like, where the tilt axis is relative to the optical center. I've been doing more shifting than tilting, so haven't played with it much.
Shift/Tilting the front standard changes the parallax of the fore/back-grounds (because the lens node has moved), and hence changes the composition. In the field, it's not a big deal, but in the studio, especially on a close-up tabletop, it makes a big difference. Changing the rear shift/tilt does not change the composition, only the framing.
Two points. The “no-parallax” point in a lens is the entrance pupil, not the node, Ninjas notwithstanding.

If the front standard pivots around the entrance pupil then the composition will be stable with regard to parallax, etc.
Yes, but very few set-ups (LF bellows or TS lens) tilt on the entrance pupil. And if you tilt on the front entrance pupil, you need a lens with a large image circle. If you tilt on the back standard, not so much.
Arca cameras with Orbix (tm) approximte this with regard to tilt.
LF is a much bigger format, and hence the parallax from and equivalent shift/tilt is much larger.
With equivalent lenses and equal image dimensions, why would the format size affect the parallax - why isn’t it simply a geometric scalar?
The shift and tilt is part of that geometric scalar, so the unless you increase the subject distance (and hence the composition) you end up with a larger shift or tilt for the same FoV.
Good point on shift.
Also, lenses like the Canon TSE are designed to compensate for this by automatically shifting the front while tilting, and hence maintaining the composition. It mimics rear shift-tilt, but not quite, as there is still some parallax change with fore/back-ground. The downside of this is that if you mount the lens to a tripod instead of the camera body to mimic rear shift/tilt, you can't get a pure tilt, as the mechanism will still shift the body when you tilt, forcing you to re-shift to compensate.

Tilt/swing vs Tilt/angle, or Cartesian vs polar coordinates, I find using swing or cartesian easier - saying something needs a left swing is more natural than a tilt at 270deg . Even when I work with a TS lens rotated obliquely, I still think of my corrections as Tilt and Swing. It'll take me a while to think of these things a "always tilt".... but I was able to switch from English to Metric (Canada!) so...
Canada - the home of 454 gram metric pound!
... and the 1.2 gallon (US) ... gallon.... ;)
That’s been a while, though thankfully there is the 3.785 litre U.S. gallon.
 
Last edited:
The geometric implications of tilt and swing on the rear standard that are quite evident on a view camera with film are much less obvious on the smaller sensor. I don't know why that is the case; it shouldn't make a difference. But I've tried to replicate some of the obvious ones that you'll see in a typical view camera book without success.
I still haven't figured out what's going on with this. Guessing it has to do with the geometry of the t/s adapter (we use the same one). Like, where the tilt axis is relative to the optical center. I've been doing more shifting than tilting, so haven't played with it much.
Shift/Tilting the front standard changes the parallax of the fore/back-grounds (because the lens node has moved), and hence changes the composition. In the field, it's not a big deal, but in the studio, especially on a close-up tabletop, it makes a big difference. Changing the rear shift/tilt does not change the composition, only the framing.

LF is a much bigger format, and hence the parallax from and equivalent shift/tilt is much larger. Also, lenses like the Canon TSE are designed to compensate for this by automatically shifting the front while tilting, and hence maintaining the composition. It mimics rear shift-tilt, but not quite, as there is still some parallax change with fore/back-ground. The downside of this is that if you mount the lens to a tripod instead of the camera body to mimic rear shift/tilt, you can't get a pure tilt, as the mechanism will still shift the body when you tilt, forcing you to re-shift to compensate.

Tilt/swing vs Tilt/angle, or Cartesian vs polar coordinates, I find using swing or cartesian easier - saying something needs a left swing is more natural than a tilt at 270deg . Even when I work with a TS lens rotated obliquely, I still think of my corrections as Tilt and Swing. It'll take me a while to think of these things a "always tilt".... but I was able to switch from English to Metric (Canada!) so...
The part that isn't making sense to me concerns image geometry. With a view camera, tilting the front standard leaves the angular relationship between the subject and the film plane the same, so you don't see any changes in geometry. Tilting the rear standard affects the framing less, but changes the geometry significantly.

With my GFX setup (using a t/s adapter that places the tilt axis behind the whole lens) this distinction doesn't apply. I see the same result if I mount the camera to the tripod and tilt the lens, or mount the lens to the tripod and tilt the camera. Even though the angle between the subject and sensor plane is changing. The only difference is that it's quicker and easier to make it work when tilting the camera.

It's possible that the geometry is in fact changing, but the effect is so subtle I'm not noticing it. Even this is curious.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top