Talk:View camera

message: There's a small error in the article concerning film sizes: 9x12 [cm] is not "equivalent" to 4x5 (or 5x4, if you prefer the backwards Brit way of naming things) inches: it's its own size, still available. Film holders made to take one size won't take the other. I know; I've shot both 4x5 and 9x12. So I'll fix this if there's no disagreement, OK?--66.52.186.111 07:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Film Sizes

message: The article states, after introducing the Copal series of shutters, widely used for lenses in view cameras:
"The lens is designed to split into two pieces, the front and rear elements mounting to the shutter and lensboard."
More typically, with a Copal (or similar) shutter, the two portions of the lens (which might each comprise more than one element) are mounted to the front and rear of the shutter, which is itself mounted to the lens board.
If the rear portion is of large diamater, it must be mounted to the rear of the shutter after the shutter is mounted to the lens board.
The shutter (which usually includes the aperture iris) can thus quite properly be called a "between-the-lens shutter", a term that is actually broadly used to distinguish any shutter of the familiar type, located within the entire lens, from a "focal plane shutter".
--Doug Kerr 12:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two portions of the lens 

message: While this article is very well illustrated, a photo of a view camera would add to it. Ehn 13:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a victorian field camera and there is a nice Sinar in a local shop - will try to get some pictures. Justinc 12:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have recently created a color illustration for the dutch wikipedia: View Camera.svg, allthough it's not a photo it might be useable here too. DutchSnaily 13:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo request 

message: This is a good article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Make No Name (talk • contribs) 20:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article

message: The assumption that tilt/shift and PC lenses for small cameras provide only limited adjustment is somewhat of a misnomer, especially with regard to tilt and swing. The current Canon and Nikon lenses provide tilts of 8° and 8.5°, respectively. With a 24 mm lens, a tilt  of 8° puts the PoF rotation axis at 172 mm from the lens axis—that’s getting pretty close to the ground. Taking an equivalent picture with a 4×5 using a suitably scaled lens would require over 30° of tilt, which strikes me as quite a bit. I’ve left the statement as it was, but we might want to consider revising it. JeffConrad (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movements on small- and medium format cameras. 

message: The section titled "Pros and cons compared to medium & 35mm formats" is making a systematic mistake: confusing View camera, which is a camera design, with Large format, which is a film size.  There exist large format cameras that are not view cameras and view cameras that are not large format.
Several of the advantages and disadvantages listed, however, are about film format and not about the camera design.  For example, "improved image quality for a print of a given size" is an advantage of large format, not of view cameras in general.  63.80.102.4 (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pros and cons compared to medium & 35mm formats 

message: It's been noted that there's a fair amount of duplicated material among articles such as this one, Perspective control lens, Tilt-shift photography, some articles on individual lenses (e.g., Canon TS-E 24mm lens), and perhaps some others. I think there is much to be said for a real article on tilt/shift lenses; among other reasons, I think there's general agreement on what such lenses are, which I don't think can be said for “tilt-shift photography”. Such an article would of course necessarily increase the duplicated material.
What do people think about having a dedicated article on Camera movements that would be general enough to cover view cameras and tilt/shift lenses for medium- and small-format cameras? JeffConrad (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a lot of duplication with large format (photography). I think we should rationalise but I am not quite sure how to split it best. Maybe I will bring up on the project page. Justinc (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue has been raised again in Talk:Tilt-shift photography. I think “camera movements” is a better term than “tilt-shift photography”, which is in most cases a misnomer anyway. The neologism is usually used to describe software simulation of selective focus achieved by use of tilt and large aperture, supposedly to simulate a miniature scene (which it doesn’t really do, but it’s occasionally used to describe use of movements on small-format cameras. The difficulty, as you mention, is just what to split from what. JeffConrad (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on ''Camera movements''? 

message: I think it would be incredibly instructive to have several images of a single subject (building probably) taken under all the modified lens positions described in this article, to help illustrate the effects. Meekohi (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More photo requests 

message: Figure a) in the section entitled Rise and fall is incorrect. The red rectangle should be centred within the image circle. As it is currently shown, figure a) illustrates fall, just as figure b) illustrates rise. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 01:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rise and fall 

message: In the section entitled Tilt the sentence
By using the Scheimpflug principle, the "plane of sharp focus" can be changed so that any plane can be brought into sharp focus.
is meaningless. I see two errors. Firstly, the plane that has been "brought into sharp focus" is, by definition, the "plane of sharp focus". Secondly, it simply isn't true that any arbitrary plane can be brought into any kind of focus at all. There is an infinite number of planes that can not be brought into focus using the Scheimpflug principle. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 02:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tilt 

message: I was thrilled to find this article with sections by 'tilt', 'shift', ... - almost a choreography for a dance photographer ('turn', 'dip', 'sweep' - I have assisted one at a Case-Western dance school in Cleveland shooting dance improv )
I so hope edits preserve this articles layout in that regard !
Just a great article to open while chatting with a young photographer about perspective and tilt-shift equipment.
142.167.169.192 (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  why to love wikipedia: this article 

message: I moved this list from the lens section to talk: RJFJR (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: List

message: I'm not sure why the Sinar arTec deserves to be listed as a unique, separate type of view camera. It is essentially a digital field camera designed for architectural work. The list includes the general categories of view cameras (monorail, field, press and technical), which are generally accepted in recognized reference texts, e.g. in Adams' "The Camera". The only source I find for the uniqueness of the  arTec is on the Sinar website, which seems to be more promotional (see: WP:NOTADVERTISING). I think the Sinar reference should be removed from the list of view camera types, and maybe put in a footnote. Any other input? Thanks. N0TABENE (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it should be moved to Camera; I don't know what it is. - NewageEd (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

text: I studied the manual and agree with you. The arTec should not have it's own category and we should not advertise/promote products until there is a change in Wikipedia policy to do so, we also should not generate descriptions based on grossly limited studies of sources. Deleted the promotional item. - NewageEd (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinar arTec view camera

message: It seems like a fourth view camera type is the Process camera. It has been important to civilization throughout the 1900's, and they have a ground glass to compose and focus. It would be nice to find a useable picture of a big horizontal one that has a vacuum to hold the film in place, and a vacuum to hold the artwork to the copyboard. I don't know whether any of them have movements. What do others think? - NewageEd (talk) 07:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process camera is missing