Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: stacibeth on February 11, 2008, 05:07:28 pm
-
I have been shooting tons of architecture (interior and exterior) these days and I am wondering what is the best digital setup? I've been looking at the canon 1ds mark3, any advice???????
-
I have been shooting tons of architecture (interior and exterior) these days and I am wondering what is the best digital setup? I've been looking at the canon 1ds mark3, any advice???????
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174055\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The best digital setup? Probably something along the lines of an Alpa XY with P45+ back and a nice selection of wide angles. You could obviously substitute one of the other plate cameras for the alpa. Get that credit card warmed up
You did ask in the MF forum.
-
Perhaps a view camera with a 33 or 39MP digital back, and lenses as wide as 24mm (18mm equiv on 35mm format) with tilt and shift. What more could you want!
-
I have been shooting tons of architecture (interior and exterior) these days and I am wondering what is the best digital setup? I've been looking at the canon 1ds mark3, any advice???????
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174055\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Google up Alpa, Cambo Wide, Silvestri or Gottschalt.
-
http://www.alpa.ch/en/ (http://www.alpa.ch/en/)
They have an XY on the way.
Hasselblad CF39 for the back. If you have questions on the back email me.
Alex
Pittsburgh Digital Tech
http://alexrjones.com/alexrjones/digitaltech.html (http://alexrjones.com/alexrjones/digitaltech.html)
-
Thank you all for the advice, keep it comming.
I've been doing alittle research on the cambo wide ds, which is beautiful!!! does anyone know anything about the cambo x2pro?
what about the canon 1ds with a tilt shift?
Or is dslr out and a view camera is the way to go?
-
I think your budget might have a lot to say about what is "best."
There are lots of paths to what ever your final photographic destination is for architectural photography - most are excellent and still continue to improve. One has to split hairs to differentiate between many of them.
Richard
I have been shooting tons of architecture (interior and exterior) these days and I am wondering what is the best digital setup? I've been looking at the canon 1ds mark3, any advice???????
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174055\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Stacibeth,
It all depends on the level that you want to work at and how much you are willing to spend. The choices you make will have a great effect of the work you do beyond resolution and the tech stuff. How does it handle and how versatile is it. If you are going to invest in a back then the Hasselblad is one of the more flexible ones in terms of what will it work with, in it's case nearly anything and easily. I have an upgrade on the way and that is another point to consider. How good is the future upgrade path. All of the backs are good at the price range that they are in. Dealer choice is also something to consider on the service side. Some backs do somethings better than others.
Best,
Alex
-
I think your budget might have a lot to say about what is "best."
There are lots of paths to what ever your final photographic destination is for architectural photography - most are excellent and still continue to improve. One has to split hairs to differentiate between many of them.
Richard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174066\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
if 11x17" 300dpi files are what your clients are hoping for, then the 1ds3 with a "good" 17-40 L and photoshop with crop/perspective will do the job nicely.
a good hdr workflow for unforgiving indoor/outdoor ratios as well.
-
Show us your work. What camera do you shoot with now? What lenses do you have? What lenses do you use for the majority of the work you shoot? What kind of clients do you work for? Just saying you shoot architecture doesn't really describe what you do and what kind of camera you'll need.
The Alpa XY, Phase One P45 route is no more expensive that shooting film with a 4x5 camera, and the quality is very good.
-
Hi Alex
I haven't seen much posted here about the 39MP backs in relation to Architecture work. Do you have any experience with how well they behave with very wide lenses like the 24mm Apo digitar in regards to any colour shifting or other side effects of using such wide lenses?
regards
David
.
Hasselblad CF39 for the back.
Alex
Pittsburgh Digital Tech
http://alexrjones.com/alexrjones/digitaltech.html (http://alexrjones.com/alexrjones/digitaltech.html)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174064\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I am currently shooting with the canon 5d and a 24mm tilt shift, I have found that I am just spending way to much time in post production retouching the perspective.
I was thinking of upgrading to the canon 1ds mark3, but then discovered the cambo wide ds and maybe a phase one p25 back, there is a large price difference though. But if the cambo is going to produce a better image then i can eat the extra cost
i don't know anything about digital backs though?????????????
-
www.stacyzarinphoto.com, click on environments,
the images at the end are the newest.
currently most with the canon 5d and 24mm ts lens
-
i'm shooting for architects and interior designers mostly for their portfolios.
I also shoot for Home/interior/regional magazines
so the need for digital over film is a big deal.
stacy
-
i don't know anything about digital backs though?????????????
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=174078\")
There is allot of info on this forum on your topic if you type architecture and do a search. For starters: [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21188]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=21188[/url]. Then, for what you don't find, you can ask more specific questions.
-
Hi Alex
I haven't seen much posted here about the 39MP backs in relation to Architecture work. Do you have any experience with how well they behave with very wide lenses like the 24mm Apo digitar in regards to any colour shifting or other side effects of using such wide lenses?
regards
David
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=174077\")
David,
No, I wish I could give you some specifics on that one. Most of what I do is with a 555ELD and Superwide 903 SWC. Some of it is with a Horseman Digiflex. With the lenses that I have it has been very nice so I would expect that to carry over to that range of lenses as well. It would certainly be something to test and compare. What I have seen is that the 132c does not seem to add any problems of its own. The fringing or aberrations that are there I believe are due to the optics. Architecture is I believe the most demanding discipline for digital capture. Lens aberrations of all kind and a host of other limitations to work around. One of the advances that the new CF39 has is a new glass that is supposed to minimize the ghosting around bright light sources which is one of the challenges with windows and lighting. The majority of what I work on is people and product with some architecture in the mix. Below is a link that shows the kit.
I like Stacy's question. Open ended and a good conversation starter. No need to dig through countless posts bogged down in small detail at this point.
Best,
Alex
[a href=\"http://alexrjones.com/alexrjones/camera.html]http://alexrjones.com/alexrjones/camera.html[/url]
-
I have shot with the cambo x2-pro - really a slick setup - with a 1DSxx or a 5D - I have shot mostly still life with it, but have done some architecture with it. very portable, construction is good.
- the "digital" LF lenses are amazing on it, but not cheap and you are limited to front standard movements only. due to the sensor size, VERY small movements can make a big difference - nothing like LF movements
- the biggest drawback IMHO is the 35mm viewfinder and focusing - you need to shoot tethered
and a 2x Canon eyepiece is a must
-
Thanks for showing your work Staci.
The MF choice is difficult for many. When working with 4x5 film it was common for the film and processing bill to be in the range of 500-1500 dollars for one day of work. To roll this expense into a fee for the digital camera is a no brainer. You essentially buy many many jobs worth of film, processing, and polaroid up front when you get a digital camera rather than paying over the long term.
It is important to also start charging clients for the time spent processing and retouching each image at the studio. They used to spend good money to have every piece of film scanned in the past.
The Alpa/P45 slows me down over using a 5d, but makes every lens a shift lens, gives me great quality, and saves me time retouching the day after the shoot.
If you are in a market where every other shooter is charging $100.00/day for using their 5D or worse yet not charging at all, then charging $500.00 for your fancy Alpa will be more difficult.
You might also want to buy an H1, Hy6, or Contax to shoot your portraiture and other jobs with your MFDB. Once you have the MF option it would be a shame to shoot those other jobs with the Canon.
-
Eric is spot on. Couldn't say it any better.
-
i don't know anything about digital backs though?????????????
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174078\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Then you need to read every thread on the forum - then you will know too much !
-------
Your 'problem' in you first post is time saving - so save that time another way - pay someone to do your retouching !
----------
The whole digicam thing is a minefield
The MF costs are stupid - but so are the costs of upgrading a DSLR every year if you feel that need
I own a D3 which is an amazing camera to use it is so fast and flexible the AF is great, the live view fantastic there are loads of cheap lenses and the ISO amazing
I own an H1, the AF is poor, the live view non existant, the range of lenses poor, the lenses are a rip off and my 22mp back is only good for 100 ISO max so its tripod time all the time indoors
but the files from my 22mp back are more than twice as good as the D3
I own a sinar P2 I have never really used it (on location) because shooting with my H1 and correcting the perspective is so much faster and easier
Every bit of kit there are pros and cons
Canons may be OK, but they have a wierd reputation for thier wide lenses, the AA filter makes the files soft compared to a MF back of the sime size and you cant clean the sensor easily
Hassies - no shift lens - great camera expensive
Mamiya - cheap but crap shutter flash synch (there is a shift lens from the 80s) and the 28mm lense is so expensive you can almost buy a cambo and a better lens for the price
Rollei - Expensive no wide or shift
Mirrorless cameras (alpa/horseman/cambo) - great lenses - very expensive and slow to use
What would I recomend?
I have no idea every solution has an up and a down side
SMM
-
Eric,
what model/body alpa are you using? And how does the alpa compare to the cambo?
Thanks for your imput
stacy
-
nohing more to say than i already did here:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....37&#entry165937 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=22266&st=0&p=165937&#entry165937)
-
stacibeth,
The architecture question is, as you may have now guessed, a loaded one. Two major questions must be asked: What does your budget allow, and what output do you need.
For many, the Canons with the PC lenses are perfect, and still some like to get very wide with their SLR and "Fix perspective in Post". Certainly it can be done, but is not the best way to get the best quality.
For the best color rendition, most angle of view options, and the ability to shoot corrected perspective at the location with much less time and effort in post production, many will agree that a digital back with a camera capable of perspective control is the ideal solution, budget allowing.
Three components must be considered - the digital back, the box (camera) and the glass.
For the digital backs - I have tested basically all of the latest and this is my run down:
-The 22 or 33-39MP backs have physically larger sensors (48-49mm) and will allow for the greatest angle of coverage with wide angle lenses. The 17-18 and 28-31MP chips have a much larger crop factor that will limit wide angle ability. Of these larger sensors, the Kodak chips tend to lend themselves better (in my professional opinion) than the Dalsa sensors because they display little to no noise at low ISOs for long exposures (>8 seconds). The Dalsa chips are incredibly sharp, but have not been able to hold up to even a 10 second exposure with the smooth tones and lack of artifacts that the Kodak sensor can. Each chip has it's strength, and long exposure capability is a strength of the Kodak sensor. It can be found in the Phase One and the Hasselblad digital backs. Factory refurbished backs in the 22-39 MP sizes can be had now for mid to upper teens in price.
Second, the box: cameras with perspective control is the purist's way to do it. This can take the form of a 4x5 or a 2x3 view camera, but as the group has displayed the new series of XY cameras are gaining a LOT of popularity. They lack selective focus features (swing and tilt) but usually have ample rise, fall and shift, and allow setting up for stitching of images for larger file size or wider effective lens focal length. I have worked the most with the Cambo Wide DS. It is small enough to fit in a brief case, and has a lot of movement. Entry cost is roughly $6k to $9k for a starter kit (depending on initial lens choice), or can be bundled with a new Phase One P25+ or P45+ back for as little as $3500.
Last is the Glass. Lens focal lengths available for use on just about any XY camera or view camera include 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 47mm, 55mm, and on up. The greatest interest is in the wider glass, but use caution: the wider lenses tend to have much smaller image circles and don't allow for much if any movement, making perspective control an moot point. The 24mm and 28mm from Schneider have a 60mm image circle putting it right at the corners of the chip, vignetting will occur with movement. Rodenstock came up with a new 28mm that is very popular, with 70mm circle, allowing for a bit of movement.
My favorite for architecture is the 35mm from Schneider. It has a huge 105mm image circle, and if you stitch two shots together (shift 15mm right and 15mm left) you will end up with a shot effectively wider than you could achieve with the 24mm, encroaching on the Canon equivalent of about a 14mm lens.
Some photographers also do chose to go longer on lenses in the 55-74mm range and stitch two shots to gain their wide angle coverage when a 35 or wider lens could have done it - Why? Because they then avoid obvious wide angle distortion of the chair in the foreground being huge and the detail on the far wall being minuscule.
I hope this helps.
Josh Marten
Global Imaging
joshm@globalimaginginc.com
800-787-9802 x2
www.globalimaginginc.com
-
I have the XY because the side to side shifts are a must for me. The Alpa Max will be out soon and will likely be a better choice.
At the time I bought into Alpa (almost 2 years ago) They had a very complete website with a very wide selection of lenses and multiple bodies to choose from.
The Calumet website had very spotty info about the Cambo, it's lenses, and accessories. Lenses were often listed with 12 week order times.
With the MF route you should price out a P25 at a good price (or even a traded in P45) with a camera (Alpa or Cambo or Other) with a range of lenses. 24, 35, 47, 72, 100. Figure out a schedule of how long to pay off the system, what you can charge for it, and how many days a month you have to bill shooting architecture to make it work.
There is of course a whole debate about Phase-Leaf-Sinar, and also Alpa-Cambo-Gottshalk-Silvestri-Linhof-Arca. But before you spend too much time on that the finances should be considered.
Lets say an architecture shoot racks up $500.00 of film, processing, and polaroid on a 4x5 camera. Shoot 4 days a month and you will pay off a $50,000.00 setup in 25 months.
-
If I was in your shoes and I looked at your style of work,I would try or wait for the new Nikon
range of Tilt Shift lenses to come out and get a Nikon D3.
Nikon is now at the top with their new 14-24 etc.
If the new 24 TS is as good,Canon is not an option.
However I would expect to Canon to release a new range of their 24-45-90 TSE lenses,
to be able to be used with the new 1Dsmk3.
In that case,you would be wasting $ going MFDB.
My 2CW.
N.B I just ordered at Hy6 and yes I own a e-75LV and will order the new Alpa Max.
-
Rollei - Expensive no wide or shift
Wrong, there is a 55mm tilt/shift lens.
(http://www.macrolux.nl/images/rollei/prolens/pqwide/pqsupan55.gif)
-
Wrong, there is a 55mm tilt/shift lens.
(http://www.macrolux.nl/images/rollei/prolens/pqwide/pqsupan55.gif)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174161\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
oops -
S
-
The Alpa XY, Phase One P45 route is no more expensive that shooting film with a 4x5 camera, and the quality is very good.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174075\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am working since 15 years as an architectural photographer, but I am still working with film. The Alpa, a back and the digital environment is too expensive for my work. You have to make a lot of pictures/year to think that a MFDB is not more expensive than film.
I know the ALPA Peoples and their cameras. Its really a perfect camera, but meanwhile they haven`t a sliding adapter the workflow is not really perfect.
Also I can`t imagin to buy a MFDB for 30k and get a system with bugs (casts, centerfold) and less possibilities than film. (Wide Angle, Movement, Tilt)
For details and documentations I have a Canon with shift lenses. But the better pictures I always made with film. That might be personal, but I will wait annother year for the change...
Michael Heinrich
www.michael-heinrich.com
-
if you use Polaroid to proof, you might start looking at digital a little faster. Polaroid goes bye bye (http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2008/02/08/polaroid_shutting_2_mass_facilities_laying_off_150/)
I am working since 15 years as an architectural photographer, but I am still working with film. The Alpa, a back and the digital environment is too expensive for my work. You have to make a lot of pictures/year to think that a MFDB is not more expensive than film.
I know the ALPA Peoples and their cameras. Its really a perfect camera, but meanwhile they haven`t a sliding adapter the workflow is not really perfect.
Also I can`t imagin to buy a MFDB for 30k and get a system with bugs (casts, centerfold) and less possibilities than film. (Wide Angle, Movement, Tilt)
For details and documentations I have a Canon with shift lenses. But the better pictures I always made with film. That might be personal, but I will wait annother year for the change...
Michael Heinrich
www.michael-heinrich.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174246\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
The Dalsa chips are incredibly sharp, but have not been able to hold up to even a 10 second exposure with the smooth tones and lack of artifacts that the Kodak sensor can. Each chip has it's strength, and long exposure capability is a strength of the Kodak sensor.
Josh Marten
Global Imaging
joshm@globalimaginginc.com
800-787-9802 x2
www.globalimaginginc.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174149\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i cannot confirm that.
with 20sec. exposure @ iso50 i cannot see any image degradation with my eMotion75lv ( dalsa ),- and with 30seconds image quality still is very good.
-
Stacy, I'm not really sure what you are hoping to gain. Perspective correction in PS is very fast and easy. You have a very good camera lens setup right now. I know your not wanting to hear what I have to say and I hope you don't take this wrong but I think you would be better off to keep using the system you have now, hone your skills, learn and practice. A better camera does not go very far in making someone a better photographer. I think the best thing you could do would be to invest that money not spent on an expensive camera and immerse yourself in education. I see your technique and your composition as your weaker links.
Peter
-
Hello Stacy,
I don't think you'll ever be truly satisfied with your photos unless you do invest in a digital back. In my opinion, which back you choose is not so important. More in a minute.
The moment you see your first shoot with your digital back you'll be so excited at the quality that you'll forget the expense. If you've managed to beg, borrow or steal enough to own one then life goes on but with the pleasure of photographing with a digital back.
I was shooting MF, mainly with a Pentax 67 system before digital came along. I bought myself a 10D when it came out thinking that I would do not so important (magazine!?) work with that and good stuff on film. But, we all know the story... the advantages of being the master of my own retouching, colour, exposure tweaking, not to mention the extra cash that stayed in my pocket from not having to buy, process film, meant that I stopped using my medium format camera.
Slowly but surely I stopped feeling like a photographer. I didn't get anywhere near the pleasure of shooting with a DSLR that I used to get from shooting with my pentax 67. I was spending a lot of time in photoshop (which was an important phase), and the pleasure I was getting as a photographer was really infront of the computer, but not so much while I was shooting.
Two and a half years ago I decided that the only way forward, for me, was to take 30 000 I did not have and invest in a phase one P45, which I put on a contax 645. I remember that first shoot and looking at the images in capture one (P25 back at the time, before they gave me the P45), and then once processed and being blown away by the quality. I also loved the heavy feel of the shutter and the big mirror slapping inside the contax. More to the point though, the images were far beyond anything I was taking with various dslr cameras I had tried to use.
If a pro shot on LF before digital came along then I imagine they have moved onto shooting on a large format camera with a digital back. I shot everything on MF and can't imagine shooting on anything else. I thought of trying to shoot with my P45 on a LF camera, but, because I hardly ever shot any LF before digital then it is still alien to me.
If you have never shot on LF then I would recommend first trying out a MF system with a digital back with a 35mm lens and use photoshop for the perspective. If in time you start shooting only architecture then you'll probably want to put your back on a LF camera. LF lenses are better than MF lenses are better than dslr lenses - I don't think too many people should argue with that. But, and I think it's a big but, LF photography takes time to set up a shot, and if you're taking the kind of interiors you show on your web then looking through your viewfinder, taking a couple of shots, moving down a bit, across a bit, taking a few more shots, then moving a bit more...is a lot easier with a medium format camera.
From the work you have on your website I think you don't necessarily have to shift and tilt to get what you're after. I think your images are good in regards to composition and architectural feel. If you shot them on a digital back then you would suddenly get detail in your highlights and lowlights, and there would be more tones to your colours. You won't have to do anything different to what you are doing now, but you'll feel that your photographs are much more to your liking.
Stacy, please feel free to take a look at my website. www.stefansiba.com. It's a prototype which will be changing in the next month or so, but the portfolio section and the client section have an example of architecture work taken with my contax 645 and 35mm lens with the P45 phase one back. I've been rambling a bit so will wait for any reaction to carry on. And, without the couple of glasses of wine. Good luck with your decision making.
My answer to your initial question is that if you invest in a MF digital back then you won't be disappointed, and you will most probably start taking the kind of photos you want to be taking. IMHO, if you try to take architecture images with a dslr you may never be satisfied. Tilting and shifting, whether done in camera, or in photoshop, is not as important as the feel of your images. The perspective you will sort out one way or another.
Just a quick further point while I have it on the tip of my brain - when I started using my P45 I kept on wanting to go to photoshop to retouch and finish my images as I'd been used to doing. But, once out of capture one there was often very little to do.
cheers
Stefan
-
Stacy,
After looking at your site, I think Peter's right on about this. You're obviously very comfortable with 35mm digital - looks like you have an editorial background, not architectural. I suggest you stay with 35mm for now, get a 1DsII or III if you want, but MF is extra money you don't really need to spend, and it won't change the way you compose, light, style, etc. Working on those things will be far more rewarding - the extra bump in res and color engine from MF will likely not. Hope this doesn't sound harsh, it's not meant to be, just a bit of reality.
Richard
Stacy, I'm not really sure what you are hoping to gain. Perspective correction in PS is very fast and easy. You have a very good camera lens setup right now. I know your not wanting to hear what I have to say and I hope you don't take this wrong but I think you would be better off to keep using the system you have now, hone your skills, learn and practice. A better camera does not go very far in making someone a better photographer. I think the best thing you could do would be to invest that money not spent on an expensive camera and immerse yourself in education. I see your technique and your composition as your weaker links.
Peter
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174341\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Thank you all so much for your advice.
Peter, I agree that I need to improve my skill, not just the camera. I am always trying to learn more and try new techniques.
I have recently gotten in to architecture within the last year and I am still learning. Not only do I want to learn about the technique, lighting and composition, but the technology that is available and what is the best tool for the job.
I appreciate the constructive critisim and no offense is taken.
I would love to hear whatever advice you have regarding technique/lighting.
Thanks to all,
Stacy
-
I certainly myself need to improve my images in a lot of aspect but as you asked for yours I would say that your flash are too present too strong. I guess you use an umbrella you may want to lower down the power and/or use a softbox...
-
By powering down the strobe and shooting at say f11 my exposure time gets to be quite long and then the colors of the image turn yellowish,
How can I maintain those crisp whites
-
if lower down the power a little bit and give a longer exposure the ligth will be a little bit softer and the yellow come from the light bulbs, so you have few options.
put a flash directed to the ceiling to create the natural light and keep your exposure short but again you have to chose the right spot to put the flash and you have to play with it because it can be too obvious, and then the yellow will be less present but still here and I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
you can also get rid of the yellow with your white balance, in camera or after in post - process, there is a thread about that somewhere here,
but you can then ended up with too much blue, so try to find a medium way.
You can also remove some yellow or some of the blue with the saturation tool set for those color.
By the way I am far from the best in term of post-processing.
-
Like Rainer, this cannot be confirmed when using an eMotion: unless you are working in a hot location (> 30°C), 30 sec are not a major problem.
Best regards,
Thierry
Of these larger sensors, the Kodak chips tend to lend themselves better (in my professional opinion) than the Dalsa sensors because they display little to no noise at low ISOs for long exposures (>8 seconds). The Dalsa chips are incredibly sharp, but have not been able to hold up to even a 10 second exposure with the smooth tones and lack of artifacts that the Kodak sensor can.
Josh Marten
Global Imaging
joshm@globalimaginginc.com
800-787-9802 x2
www.globalimaginginc.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174149\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
You'll get some very good advice here, but there's no substitute for practical experience. I'd suggest a doing a week in architecture at The Maine Photographic Workshops, the Santa Fe Photographic Workshops or one of the other well known workshops in the US. Spend an intensive week with your peers, learning some technique from an established architectural shooter. You'll learn a whole lot more than you think, make some good friends and come back inspired.
-
sounds like a great idea
-
You'll get some very good advice here, but there's no substitute for practical experience. I'd suggest a doing a week in architecture at The Maine Photographic Workshops, the Santa Fe Photographic Workshops or one of the other well known workshops in the US. Spend an intensive week with your peers, learning some technique from an established architectural shooter. You'll learn a whole lot more than you think, make some good friends and come back inspired.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174386\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is the kind of education I referred to earlier, just didn't have the names. I think that would be money well spent. If money is not a factor as if in you have plenty then a upgrade in equipment is good too. I wish I could justify the expense of a higher end digital system. Up until a couple of weeks ago all my work has been with a 1Ds. It is capable of very good work. Often print them to 16 x 24 and if your careful during capture and then in processing the images are striking.
-
I have myself nothing against DSLR quality it's up to most of the needs. Though the 35mm proportions are not my favorite far from that and for interior the MF it way better, you can still crop, I do it, I don't have my DB yet, but cropping is not something I like to do as when I shoot it took me more time to figure out my crop... don't ask why it's like that.
and right now I am shooting products and I figure out that MF proportion would have been better here again to avoid the big empty space at the top of the frame...
-
how are you guys lighting, I've heard of several different techniques, one of my main issues is getting those crisp whites without getting too yellowish, and overpowering my strobes. Are you doing alot in post with color management?
-
Hi
oops -
S
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=174170\")
look at my right picture in my post ...
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=22425&st=120]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....ic=22425&st=120[/url]
-
Stacy,
With lighting, like cameras, there is no one right solution.
Personally, I like to travel light, and with interiors I always like to make use of the existing light, sometimes to reveal the lighting design itself, but also to capture a mood, a sense of the space as it is, not how I can make it, and then I help it out, with....
Several cases loaded with a large variety of tungsten lights.
Multiple cases of strobes (Comet) 2400ws and 1200ws (some bi-voltage) - for spaces predominantly daylit.
BUT I always start with the existing light. I admit, that can take some planning because different times of day will provide dramatically different light in a space, but that's the way I see it.
I should add that I do a fair amount of layering of various exposures to produce each shot. Ah, the beauty of shooting digitally!
Other photogs I know will choose to re-light the entire space, others will use HMI's, still others, for speed, will shoot available light only and layer. There's no right or wrong, just a particular style of shooting.
Trying to decide which lighting to use to shoot a particular space comes with time and experience. As I said, it's good to actually see how others do their work (workshops). Some solutions you'll like and adopt, others not. Your style will evolve. Mine certainly did.
To answer your last question, "Are you doing alot in post with color management?" The problems you don't solve while shooting, you have to solve in post. So the broader your knowledge of lighting technique becomes, the easier post production will be.
One last thing for you to think about with architecture, concise composition.
Hope this helps.
Richard
how are you guys lighting, I've heard of several different techniques, one of my main issues is getting those crisp whites without getting too yellowish, and overpowering my strobes. Are you doing alot in post with color management?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174420\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
You do Amazing work Richard, what is your standard camera outfit "Lenses, bodies & Film or Digital backs for a average architectural shoot. I know there is nothing average about your approach to architectural photography. .
Thanks,
David
Stacy,
With lighting, like cameras, there is no one right solution.
Personally, I like to travel light, and with interiors I always like to make use of the existing light, sometimes to reveal the lighting design itself, but also to capture a mood, a sense of the space as it is, not how I can make it, and then I help it out, with....
Several cases loaded with a large variety of tungsten lights.
Multiple cases of strobes (Comet) 2400ws and 1200ws (some bi-voltage) - for spaces predominantly daylit.
BUT I always start with the existing light. I admit, that can take some planning because different times of day will provide dramatically different light in a space, but that's the way I see it.
I should add that I do a fair amount of layering of various exposures to produce each shot. Ah, the beauty of shooting digitally!
Other photogs I know will choose to re-light the entire space, others will use HMI's, still others, for speed, will shoot available light only and layer. There's no right or wrong, just a particular style of shooting.
Trying to decide which lighting to use to shoot a particular space comes with time and experience. As I said, it's good to actually see how others do their work (workshops). Some solutions you'll like and adopt, others not. Your style will evolve. Mine certainly did.
To answer your last question, "Are you doing alot in post with color management?" The problems you don't solve while shooting, you have to solve in post. So the broader your knowledge of lighting technique becomes, the easier post production will be.
One last thing for you to think about with architecture, concise composition.
Hope this helps.
Richard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174528\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Stacy,
If you can figure out what you might want or afford . You should rent it for a day and see if it fits in your workflow. An older Phase H back that needs to be tethered to a computer to operate, might not be right for your shooting style and the newer 'P' much more similar to a DSLR camera, so they might be a much better fit for you.
The Cambo wide Ds and Alpa are kind of 'expensive point and shoot' cameras. Combined with a high end back and a good digital lens they can produce incredible images. The add on 'viewfinder' is how accurate. I would think that the only way to know what is 'exactly' in your frame is to make an exposure and check the image in lcd screen on the back. Does that chair need to be moved in or out of the frame? Do you need more at the top to show the crown molding? You would rack the lens up and do another exposure and check it. It might be a trial and error type arrangement to get the right composition. If you switch from an image of a long view of a deep restaurant to a detail of a bar stool and tile counter, how easy is it to change your focus. I have never used these cameras but have been very interested in them as they have a lot of potential and can be used to stitch photos with the right lens. I use a 4x5 sinar p and a Hasselblad with Phase and Leaf backs, as well as the Bettterlight Scanning back.
If you can't rent the exact combo of camera and back - at least rent the back that you are interested in and put it on a Hasselblad so you can experience the workflow, especialy if leaning towards an older 'H' Back.
Brian Woolf
-
You do Amazing work Richard, what is your standard camera outfit "Lenses, bodies & Film or Digital backs for a average architectural shoot. I know there is nothing average about your approach to architectural photography. .
Thanks,
David
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174533\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
David,
You're very kind. Thank you.
I'll keep this short since this is Stacy's thread....
Early on I shot 4x5 with Linhof Kardan B, then Sinar P2. Travelled more and more, so that got way heavy, switched to 6x9 Arca (much easier for travel).
At those times lenses were 47, 58, 65, 75, 90, 120, 150.
Also carried Hasselblad FE203 and added Nikon D1 when it came out, then D1x, switched to Canon 1Ds, then 1DsII (all for details only.)
So, now you might expect me to use an Alpa, which I've considered, but in fact, I shoot with Hasselblad H3DII-39 tethered (mostly) - I like the integration (DAC), with 50-110, 35, 28. Also have the 1DsII for a backup - but never touch it! MF is a must for me because I want 16 bit for exteriors. It's the only way to get a decent sky.
At times I shoot with the expectation of a fair amount of perspective control in post, and have to compose the exposure in expectation of that, so I prefer the larger 39mp file. Over the years, I've found no perceptible issues shooting this way vs a camera with movement, BUT I have urged Hasselblad to develop a TS lens or two. With DAC it's a no-brainer.
As I said, shooting styles evolve. I'll likely get a multi-shot with the next upgrade.
Richard
-
Richard,
I am also sorry for highjacking Stacy's thread......... but.......... your answer to my first question has most likely saved me a ton of money & time.
Now if I could be your UNPAID ASSISTANT for a month or two.......... I may reach Photo Nirvana............
Best,
David
David,
You're very kind. Thank you.
I'll keep this short since this is Stacy's thread....
Early on I shot 4x5 with Linhof Kardan B, then Sinar P2. Travelled more and more, so that got way heavy, switched to 6x9 Arca (much easier for travel).
At those times lenses were 47, 58, 65, 75, 90, 120, 150.
Also carried Hasselblad FE203 and added Nikon D1 when it came out, then D1x, switched to Canon 1Ds, then 1DsII (all for details only.)
So, now you might expect me to use an Alpa, which I've considered, but in fact, I shoot with Hasselblad H3DII-39 tethered (mostly) - I like the integration (DAC), with 50-110, 35, 28. Also have the 1DsII for a backup - but never touch it! MF is a must for me because I want 16 bit for exteriors. It's the only way to get a decent sky.
At times I shoot with the expectation of a fair amount of perspective control in post, and have to compose the exposure in expectation of that, so I prefer the larger 39mp file. Over the years, I've found no perceptible issues shooting this way vs a camera with movement, BUT I have urged Hasselblad to develop a TS lens or two. With DAC it's a no-brainer.
As I said, shooting styles evolve. I'll likely get a multi-shot with the next upgrade.
Richard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174567\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]