Leveling a field camera

[Leigh B]

This thread was started to discuss leveling a field camera, one with movements.

Whether or not a camera has movements is absolutely irrelevant as regards leveling in the general case.

The only case in which it does matter is using front and back tilts to restore those planes to vertical after the bed has been tilted.

- Leigh

[Diapositivo]

Mark, in post #1 the user basically wondered about the reliability of spirit level when on the field. He posed a question about levelling and about levels accuracy.

In post #17 the question is raised again about discrepancies between what the picture says and what the instrument (level, camera) says.

In my post #20 I said that I do observe discrepancies between what the level says and what the image says. My remedy is to adjust the image after the fact, using the "vertical line in the centre" rule. This was perfectly on topic.

In post #21 Clive asked an explanation about that rule. A legitimate question!

In post #22 I answered Clive's question! That's certainly not off-topic. It's all about levelling an image. Post #23, 24 and 25 dealt again with the simple rule.

In post #28 you said that the rule was wrong. Which is wrong because the rule is right. And the matter is in topic.

The rest were boring posts in which you applied geometric principles to things I had not said.

Fabrizio

[markbarendt]

Whether or not a camera has movements is absolutely irrelevant as regards leveling in the general case.

The only case in which it does matter is using front and back tilts to restore those planes to vertical after the bed has been tilted.

- Leigh

Absolutely

[markbarendt]

Mark, in post #1 the user basically wondered about the reliability of spirit level when on the field. He posed a question about levelling and about levels accuracy.

In post #17 the question is raised again about discrepancies between what the picture says and what the instrument (level, camera) says.

In my post #20 I said that I do observe discrepancies between what the level says and what the image says. My remedy is to adjust the image after the fact, using the "vertical line in the centre" rule. This was perfectly on topic.

In post #21 Clive asked an explanation about that rule. A legitimate question!

In post #22 I answered Clive's question! That's certainly not off-topic. It's all about levelling an image. Post #23, 24 and 25 dealt again with the simple rule.

In post #28 you said that the rule was wrong. Which is wrong because the rule is right. And the matter is in topic.

The rest were boring posts in which you applied geometric principles to things I had not said.

Fabrizio

So yes I did miss the comment in 31 where you said not parallel to subject. In that case a vertical line dead center can provide a reference to square up to.

My apologies for not reading that close enough.

Still the "ps" statement in 20 is just wrong, the format has nothing to do with the problem. The lenses you describe in 31 prove that. It falls back to the orientation of the film to the subject.

[Diapositivo]

Still the "ps" statement in 20 is just wrong, the format has nothing to do with the problem. The lenses you describe in 31 prove that. It falls back to the orientation of the film to the subject.

I see what you mean, yes the film format has nothing to do with geometry. That "while using small format" meant "when there is no way to tame lines" (camera movements) but the principle holds true in any case. The "while using small format" was meant to avoid objections of the kind "while using movements all lines can be made vertical regardless of camera orientation".

[Alan Klein]

I shoot MF but was wondering if ball heads are easier to use then three way head for leveling and keeping the tripod level?

[Leigh B]

[personal opinion]
Ball heads are a total fraud as regards still photography. They're designed for video cameras when you don't care which end is up.

Pan/tilt heads are much easier to set up for any format that requires leveling because you set each axis individually and it stays put.
[/personal opinion]

I too shoot MF (Hasselblad both film and digital) and would never consider using a ball head for it.

- Leigh

[Diapositivo]

Video cameras typically use 2-way heads because they must never loose "horizontality" once properly set. You can move the camera while "filming" on two axes without undergoing the risk of a movement on the third axis.

Ball heads are certainly faster in use as all three movements are performed at the same time. I personally find that for urban landscape / architecture photography accurate levelling is important. Ball heads don't allow a precise levelling just because all movements are "moved" at the same time. If you reach "perfection" on two of the three axes, as soon as you try to adjust the third axis you loose the set of the first two.

Three-way heads are apparently slower as you spend a lot of time manipulating knobs, but if you need to work with a certain precision they end up being faster, because you do the work only once.

If I had to draw a line I would say that ball heads are probably better suited for all those works, such as naturalistic photography / birdwatching, where readiness is more important than correct levelling and precise framing.

[Kevin Kehler]

I can't stand ball heads, for the exact reason listed above - as soon as you want to make a minor adjustment to any one angle, all angles need to be re-adjusted. It is not so bad when the camera is <5-6 lbs. but put a 13-14 lbs. camera on a ball head with any sort of angle to it, it falls over as soon as you loosen it for a small adjustment (notice I didn't say falls over due to the weight of the camera as there as some very heavy duty ball heads but you have to loosen the head to adjust it and there is no easy way to do that while holding the camera and re-locking the knob). I have several 3-way heads and as they say "slow is smooth, smooth is fast". Yes, it is not instantly locked to the ideal position but when does it ever get to the ideal position the first time, every time? I prefer the ability to make small adjustments easily.

[Dan Fromm]

I shoot MF but was wondering if ball heads are easier to use then three way head for leveling and keeping the tripod level?

Absolutely not. Neither type will do the job. If the tripod's platform isn't level, the head's pan axis can't be made vertical. This is true for ball heads and for pan/tilt heads.

With a pan/tilt head (two- or three-axis) the camera's orientation on one axis can be adjusted without changing its orientation on any of the others. This is impossible with a ball head; when the camera is free to move on one axis, it is free to move on all. What can move, will move. That is the pan/tilt's head advantage over a ball head.

Real cinematographers (spelled "Hollywood") use tripods made for cinematography. These tripods incorporate a ball leveler (also called claw ball) that sits under a pan/tilt head. The leveler is used to make the head's pan axis vertical.

Still photographers rarely pan while capturing an image but cinematographers sometimes pan during shots. If the pan axis is vertical, the horizon won't move (rise or fall) during a pan. If the pan axis isn't vertical, the horizon will move during a pan. I think you can see why cinematographers regard the ball leveler as essential.