Leveling a field camera

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Klein

One question about three level control head on my MF camera. I never can get the horizontal exactly level especially in the field with all that unevenness. So when I pan, I have to readjust the the other levers to get the horizon level again. What are you methods?

---

I simply relevel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

I find a ball head only practical when using a waist-level finder.

To set the panning axis to plumb, most people just adjust the tripod legs so the platform is level, but for more precision there are leveling heads that go between the tripod and the head for making fine adjustments. Dan Fromm mentions the Bogen/Manfrotto leveling head, and I have a smaller Acratech leveling head. There's also one called the Levelhead, and some recent ballhead designs from Arca-Swiss and RRS put the panning platform between the ball and the camera instead of putting it under the ball, so if you level the camera, you can pan level.

The recent popularity of pano stitching has created demand for new solutions to the problem of level panning.

Sounds great. Look forward to viewing the image some time. I imagine there is a great deal of light wrapping on the pipes in the refinery. Even if you missed it this time, it might be worth a reshoot.

Were you elevated or on ground level? I've seen a few large format users on top of vans and such to clear fences. Beds of pickup trucks help too.

Thanks for sharing about the image.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevin Kehler

It is interesting - first off, the resolution of a 5x7 fine grain negative negative (FP4+) absolutely blew me out of the water - the pictures were of an oil refinery where I was in the parking lot about 500-600 feet away; my really cheap scanner set on medium resolution allows me to read the warning sticker attached to the cabinet at the top of the structure.

However, the negative is slightly cockeyed, which the basis of my question as I remember struggling with getting it level while taking the shot and being unsure which level to use. Also, I was trying to capture the 2-3 minutes before the sun went down and the whole structure glows for a couple of seconds. My only available location (the parking lot) didn't allow me to capture that glow, which would have been better seen from inside the structure, where I don't have permission to enter.

So yes, it is important (in the end, it is all that matters) but was not a photo for my portfolio of "keepers".

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daleeman

Sounds great. Look forward to viewing the image some time. I imagine there is a great deal of light wrapping on the pipes in the refinery. Even if you missed it this time, it might be worth a reshoot.

Were you elevated or on ground level? I've seen a few large format users on top of vans and such to clear fences. Beds of pickup trucks help too.

Thanks for sharing about the image.

---

I was on ground level with the camera head high and front rise applied - part of the problem is that all of the good areas which would provide the best angles are either behind security fencing or have storage tanks (the 3-story building size) blocking the view. I have inquired several times with their public relations department about taking pictures from closer up or on a tour only to be rebuffed (they don't believe I am an amateur photographer without an agenda). I keep coming back to these locations for about 3 years now - my ex-wife worked on the expansion to the refinery but couldn't get me a pass with a camera - she could take me for a tour but not with a camera. However, consulting the Photographer's Ephemeris, the glow may be more visible from this location in mid-October. I only noticed it because I live in a high-rise about 5 miles away and you can see the glow from my house at certain times of the year but too far away to photograph effectively.

Please forgive the crappy stitching - my $150 scanner can only do medium format (and not well) which means multiple scans to try to show the image and the exposures never line up between the two scans. I did a little dust removal and removed the more obvious parts of the joint but nothing else (if I was going to spend some effort on the image, I would lighten the trucks considerable and darken the sky but this is just a quick preview because you asked). I have several others but this is fairly typical of this outing's shots - I think the right side tilt might be from the scan but I was trying to have the center tower vertical when I shot the image.
Attachment 56408

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Fromm

Re Manfrotto levelers, see my post #12. I have Manfrotto 138, use it under my still cameras as well as under my cine cameras.

That manufacturers of "video" tripods for amateurs make and sell bad products is unfortunate. That amateur videographers don't know the basics is lamentable. They're no better than amateur cinematographers, but that doesn't justify either's ignorance.

Your comments betray a major shortage of working memory. That, or a major lack of intellectual integrity.

---

Dan, I would like to end it here. Amateur videographers buy what they can afford. Not everybody owns a Hollywood studio. They buy a 2-way head because it makes sense for video. What is so difficult to understand?

My memory works very well. Your comment on my "intellectual integrity" is a personal attack and shows your scarce level of politeness in a public discussion.

Re-read the thread and understand by yourself how off-mark were your considerations about highly professional Hollywood gear in response to a simple remark saying that 2-way head are typically used for video.

I hope not to have to rebuke further personal provocations.