I think Stone may be spending too much time around models
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
Yes, this is kinda what I thought. Maybe others can speak to why a level necessarily corrects the issue?
It doesn't neccesarily correct the issue, especially if it isn't calibrated to the filmplane.But a lot of folks seem to think it's magical! By this I mean the bubble being centered when the filmplane is perfectly vertical and level left to right. If you are photographing a building (for instance) which is perfectly plumb, level, and rectilinear, just true the filmplane with your level. But what if the buliding isn't perfectly plumb? This is where the gridlines save you.
Unless one is doing science there comes a point where being correct doesn't necessarily make the best picture. That's where art comes in.
That's why I've been suggesting that the OP find somebody with a view camera and go play.
One truly fun aha moment I had was when I figured out I could, in the right scene, skew the perception of how tall a mountain looks and make a more interesting print by manipulating the tilt (front to back pitch) of the back to get an effect similar to what a painter like Georgia O'Keefe could get and still get a visually level horizon by manipulating the tilt of the film right or left (roll).
With a bit of experience using a LF camera and then seeing some of O'Keefe's paintings that were next to her own photos of the same scene it suddenly clicked for me and opened a whole new set of opportunities. One where level by the bubble isn't even relevant.
Last edited by markbarendt; 08-06-2013 at 07:19 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin