Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: liac on November 11, 2010, 04:37:03 pm
-
Hi,
most MF digital backs are not full frame, i.e. they are smaller than 60 x 60 mm and we lose part of the image.
Are there any zeiss lenses specifically designed to get rid of the cropping?
I know for example that there are such lenses for DSLRs. And what about the medium format?
And guys, how do you shoot wide angle if there are no such lenses for MF?
-
No lens will get rid of the cropping - the viewfinder will still be the same size as before.
-
Can't we put a black mask on the viewfinder or mark the frame? I think this problem can be solved. I heard somewhere that you can order to zeiss to modify your lens to get rid of the cropping. But this must be very expensive for average user.
But probably we can buy a kind of a filter or wide-angle adapter and to screw it on the lens to fight the cropping problem. Has anyone tried this?
-
Can't we put a black mask on the viewfinder or mark the frame? I think this problem can be solved. I heard somewhere that you can order to zeiss to modify your lens to get rid of the cropping. But this must be very expensive for average user.
But probably we can buy a kind of a filter or wide-angle adapter and to screw it on the lens to fight the cropping problem. Has anyone tried this?
I'm not sure I understand you original question, but why would you have a lens destroyed when you can make your own screen mask?
Rob C
-
why would you do anything to the lens ?.....just use a viewfinder mask...I use one with my rig ...works like a charm
D
-
Hi,
most MF digital backs are not full frame, i.e. they are smaller than 60 x 60 mm and we lose part of the image.
Are there any zeiss lenses specifically designed to get rid of the cropping?
I know for example that there are such lenses for DSLRs. And what about the medium format?
And guys, how do you shoot wide angle if there are no such lenses for MF?
I'me guessing that you are referring to a 6X6 camera (56mm X 56mm) ?
If so, a 645 back such as the Aptus-II 12 or the P65+ will give you roughly 1.15 crop and will come with a cross-shaped mask. Your wide angle 40mm lens will become effectively 46mm so still fairly wide
Alternatively you can opt for a 645 camera with lenses as wide as 28mm, see this page (http://www.leaf-photography.com/products_aptus2645df.asp)
HTH
Yair
-
The matter is that that this cropping turns normal lenses into long focus lenses and it means that we cannot get wide angle and enough perspective and lack of perspective means that shots become flat. They lack volume. That's why probably photographers using digital backs shoot only in studios and mainly people models coz long-focus lenses are needed for portraits and it is ok. But as far as artistic photography other than portraits, fashion and glamour is concerned, wide angle is required! Why? Coz you can crop images later in photoediting software. But you image will not look flat, coz when you were using wide angle you could shot far objects and close objects simultaneously, while you cannot do it quite well with long-focus lenses. That's why i am thinking hard what is better to buy canon mark II or digital back H20.
If i have canon, i can use even fisheye, any angle i want and 35 mm full frame is still good to have good tonal ranges. I don't actually know if such backs as H5, H10, H20 have richer tonal range than canon, i doubt that. Some people claim that no DSLR including mark II is capable to create such tonally rich image like even the cheapest H5 digital back but they only claim and do not present any evidence of that. Of course, P65 back will be superior than mark II coz it's almost full frame MF but who can afford this?
Some people think that MF zeiss lenses have best Boke. But boke is the last thing which makes a good photograph. the main thing is composition and to make a good composition you will need a wide angle lens.
Some people think if they get the lens with good boke all their shots will automatically become masterpieces. By my own experience i may say it is far from the truth. I think most art photographers will agree with me about this frustration.
-
I believe the Hasselblad 28mm was designed specifically for the H3D and marketed as "full-frame" ;)
-
Leaf Aptus II is far beyond the budget of a poor photographer. Otherwise the question about lenses would not be raised here.
-
Could you explain what is H3D?
-
@liac Maybe tbosley is referring to Hasselblad H3D (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0701/07012902hasselbladh3d-31.asp) It reads somewhere in the article that "the world’s first 48mm full-frame DSLR camera system."
zenny
***http://www.thehumanape.org***
-
Liac, If you are referring to the lens cropping with the older 35mm sized chip digi backs (H5, H10 etc) then there is no possible way to get true wide angle and you would be better off sticking with the Canon.
Getting true MF (well 645) wide angle mean a huge investment in kit and purchasing equipment like the Hasselblad H4D-60, Phase One P65+ and the new leaf Aptus II 12.
-
No way, huge investment is out of question. I think the best thing will be to buy canon or H20 back with installation of the so-called 2x teleconverter on the filter thread to fight against cropping. This is the only way to get normal angle of view. Probably this method will also work well for H5, h10 backs. This will involve some loss of light, probably 0.5 stop, but all the benefits prevail.
One guy showed me his pentacon 6 mf camera with such teleconverter. It gave super wide angle. There must be such also for hasselblad.
-
How does a teleconverter give you a wide angle ?
Reverse it ?
????????
-
i made a mistake, i don't remember how these converters are called. i know that they increase angle by 2x. should be wide-angle converters.
-
With small backs you can look at some of the "specialised" solutions such as the Kapture Group TrueWide (Nikon F mount), Horseman DigiFlex (Nikon F mount), Hartblei (currently Canon EOS mount) or maybe the Cambo Miniwide (Canon mount I think). You can then use almost any Nikon/ Canon wide angle lens
Note that not all of these products are available new but since you're after a low budget solution it might be worth doing some searching
HTH
Yair
-
No way, huge investment is out of question. I think the best thing will be to buy canon or H20 back with installation of the so-called 2x teleconverter on the filter thread to fight against cropping. This is the only way to get normal angle of view. Probably this method will also work well for H5, h10 backs. This will involve some loss of light, probably 0.5 stop, but all the benefits prevail.
One guy showed me his pentacon 6 mf camera with such teleconverter. It gave super wide angle. There must be such also for hasselblad.
Ah, so you are actually referring to front-of-lens conversion optics (your references to cropping seems to have confused a few respondents, who thought that you meant doing something at the other end: the sensor/format or the viewfinder).
Well there is no reason why a front-of-lens wideangle converter made for 35mm systems shouldn't help a MF lens to cast a wider angle image onto a digital back. The optical principles are the same (this is guaranteed by the fact that infinity focus is preserved), and it shouldn't matter what brand of lens you are mounting in onto (Pentacon, Hasselblad, Mamiya, ...whatever). Whether you are happy with the edge performance of the image is another matter.
I used one of these cheap converters, picked up 2nd hand in a Series VIII fitting, with some success on my Minolta 35mm rig in the very early 1990s; it worked best on my 35mm f1.8 if I recall correctly. It gave me a look somewhat like a Peleng 8mm lens (round image, hitting the frame edges top & bottom, strong rectilinear distortion), but not nearly as wide as a real circular fisheye. My standout memories are using it for some Milky Way shots and some pretty cool candids of my college mates in their grungy band practice sessions and gigs, on films like P3200. Damn, I must get around to scanning those! :D
-
I don't think it gives any distortion. Any wide-angle lens gives distortion and the reason of it is that the objects which are closer to you are taken in the shot. Actually no distortion takes place. The objects which are closer to you become bigger in shot due to laws of perspective. If you take any image shot with wide-angle lens and crop its central part, you will notice that there is no any distortion in that part. So what will be projected on the sensor will not have any distortion at all.
This is the common myth that wide-angle lens distorts the perspective.
-
You're talking about perspective distortion, and I was explicitly talking about rectilinear distortion: straight lines are not reproduced straight. It is very difficult to design this into non-symmetric lenses, and those front-of-lens converters make lenses extremely non-symmetric and far from optimized. That's not to say that they're not interesting and useful for the look they deliver.
-
Maybe you are right about rectilinear distortion. This definitely takes place with fisheye but i don't think that 2x converter will cause this distortion. I saw through my friend's 2x converter attached to pentacon 6 and have not noticed any rectilinear distortion. But even if there is such distortion it tends to be located closer to edges of the frame, definitely not in the center. And if we have 36x24 mm sensor in the back, we will probably get no visible linear distortion since it will be cropped. Moreover, this linear distortion takes place with objects located close to the camera but it does not apply to distant objects. So for shooting portraits we can remove the converter, for shooting landscape we use the converter.
I wonder if you shoot the starry sky with fisheye will you get any rectilinear distortion? Probably not, coz all the stars are so far from us that no perspective distortion could take place. And it's a myth that wide-angle lenses involve any distortion. It sees just the way human eye sees.
I will buy H20 some day and make pics with converter on to show if there is any distortion. Probably I need not 2x but a kind of 1.5x converter to get full-frame with minimum distortion for close objects. If anyone can make such pics right now that would be great.
-
liac,
the only real issue is whether you can get the focal length you need to provide the angular field of view you want with a given sensor size: the fact that a lens might project an image larger than is needed by the sensor is not in itself a problem, so long as flare problems are avoided. If for example the new Pentax 55mm lens gets a job done with the 44x33mm sensor of the 645D, it hardly matters whether that lens is producing an image that is only good over an image circle of 55mm diameter (just enough to cover that sensor diagonal, so "non-cropping" or "44x33mm full frame") or if it is instead producing an image that is good over a circle of larger diameter, say 70mm or more so as to cover 645 format (so that the image is "cropped" --- shock! horror!).
In fact:
- Most Mamiya lenses for the RB67 and RX67 have image circles significantly larger than needed by 6x7 format.
- Many LF lenses used with 4x5 format have image circles significantly larger than that format.
- The new Pentax 55mm MF lens, although designed primarily for its new 44x33mm format digital camera, apparently covers the full 645 format. (Perhaps Pentax expects to sell a good number of them to users of existing Pentax 645 film cameras.)
- Most telephoto lens optical designs naturally produce an image circle larger than needed (about 40-50º coverage is natural for the basic optical designs, even for super-telephotos intended to work with a far smaller angular coverage) though this excess is often reduced significantly by baffles in the lens or by the narrowness of the opening at the back of the lens.
But in none of these cases do I hear people complaining that the lenses are suffering from a "crop", and demanding new lenses of the same focal lengths but with smaller image circles, so as to "fix" this "problem".
And as to getting the "right focal length": yes MF lenses systems are often missing the focal lengths hat would be needed to achieve much-wanted FOV choices with used with DMF backs, and wide-convertors attached to the front could provide those focal lengths, but they have a rather bad reputation for optical problems, as discussed above. Wide-convertors seem to be a tougher design that the tele-converters you are discussing.
I suspect that in the already high-priced world of DMF, most users would prefer a small percentage increase in the total gear budget to "do it right", by getting lenses that have the needed focal length to start with. ... Or at worst are a bit shorter than needed, so that one needs to crop a bit to the desired FOV, given how many posters complain about recent MF sensors having more than enough pixels!
-
I don't know why people use not full-frame sensors and are satisfied with it. I used fuji s3 pro with usual 35 mm lenses and could not shoot in rooms with lack of space. So i bought a lens specifically designed for cropped sensors. And what i got: greater sharpness, wide-angle, ability to shoot inside of houses. So if i use 36x24 sensor of H5 for example, i will get the same problems. In order to correct this and to get the ability to shoot inside i will have to use the 1.5 or 2x converter. Converter is equal = to wide-angle lens in quality, it may be considered as part of the lens without degradation to quality and it does not bring more distortion than the wide-angle lens with the same angle. I don't know why people are not using this effective tool. The guy who showed me his converter on pentacon is world famous photographer and if he uses converter it is worth it I am sure.
I would buy canon mark II instead of a cropped MF sensor back but I still want to have the ability to shoot 6x6 cm at least with film. What makes me angry with the film is that it requires an expensive scanner which i cannot afford either.
I want to sell fuji, rolleiflex camera and epson scanner which i have and to buy hasselblad with one or two lenses and a digital back. So my budget will be 2500-2700$. What can i buy on ebay with this amount?
-
In order to correct this and to get the ability to shoot inside i will have to use the 1.5 or 2x converter. Converter is equal = to wide-angle lens in quality, it may be considered as part of the lens without degradation to quality and it does not bring more distortion than the wide-angle lens with the same angle. I don't know why people are not using this effective tool. The guy who showed me his converter on pentacon is world famous photographer and if he uses converter it is worth it I am sure. I want to sell fuji, rolleiflex camera and epson scanner which i have and to buy hasselblad with one or two lenses and a digital back. So my budget will be 2500-2700$. What can i buy on ebay with this amount?
I'd love to see this "effective tool" and the results you get from your new $2,700 camera, no pun intended
Yair
-
I'd love to see this "effective tool" and the results you get from your new $2,700 camera, no pun intended
Yair
Yair,
Aren't we being snippy today? :)
Don't forget I get to buy you lunch or dinner next time you're in Paris.
Edmund
-
I dont think you could even get a H20 for that price, even the Old Kodak DCS 16mp backs are going for 3-4k on e-bay. The 6 MP Leaf Velo (dont remember how to spell it sry) made some nice quality files, bet you could find one with a Hassy V for 3k or so.
I think I would look for good a Used DSLR and Lens with that Budget in mind though, more bang for the buck if you are on a budget IMO
D
This just in......Kodak DCS Back on Ebay.. Buy It now $2495.00
-
Or get a cheap 8x10 field camera, one lens and make contact prints ....
-
That's too big, heavy and requires film. I will buy one of the following H5, H10, H11, H20 or equivalent.
-
That's too big, heavy and requires film. I will buy one of the following H5, H10, H11, H20 or equivalent.
I still don't understand how are you planing to get wide angle with any of these backs on a Hassy...
-
I will use 2x or 5x wide-angle converter.
-
I will use 2x or 5x wide-angle converter.
Do you have a link or a picture of one of those handy?
-
Are we talking like a 14mm lens on a 35mm dslr equivalent?
I said this before - for interiors, I cant see the need for anything wider than a 35mm lens on a 48x36 sensor, or a 24mm lens on a 35mm dslr.
In my opinion, anything wider doesn't usually provide realistic results. When photographing interiors, accuracy is very important.
Sounds like you should stick with whatever you are doing. Even if you find a wide angle solution to your liking, you still will lack the ability to use rise/fall. Might as well just stick with the canon and TS lenses.
-
Moreover, this linear distortion takes place with objects located close to the camera but it does not apply to distant objects.
It's not generally true to say that it "does not appy to distant objects". Distortion curves in optical data sheets are usually presented for infinite objects. Depending on the optical system, distortion may be better or worse with decreased object distance. Have a look at http://toothwalker.org/optics/distortion.html (http://toothwalker.org/optics/distortion.html) .
Certainly, looking back to photos I took years ago with that front-of-lens converter on my Minolta, there are gobs of rectilinear barrel distortion for relatively distant objects - such as a window frame at the other side of a large room.
I wonder if you shoot the starry sky with fisheye will you get any rectilinear distortion? Probably not, coz all the stars are so far from us that no perspective distortion could take place.
I've done this; I love to do it - see the attachment below. You get severe rectilinear distortion - of the coordinate grids which we use to describe stellar positions. But of course you cannot see those. You get no visible distortion because the stars themselves are point sources, not linear ones. But even if the image has no visibly distortable content, the lens projection is still distorting like hell! If the quarter-phase moon was in the shot, for example, it would not be reproduced with a straight-edged terminator.
Again, when you say "will you get any rectilinear distortion? Probably not, coz all the stars are so far from us that no perspective distortion could take place", you are clearly confusing perspective and rectilinear distortions. They are completely unrelated.
[As a side issue: one can argue that the way that a fisheye renders the celestial sphere is actually a lot close to the way that the eye sees it. The scale magnification in the corners of a rectilinear ultra-wideangle shot stretches constellations and the angular relationships between stars in a visually odd manner. That's the price for keeping lines straight, when projecting a large portion of a sphere onto a plane sensor or film.]
I will buy H20 some day and make pics with converter on to show if there is any distortion. Probably I need not 2x but a kind of 1.5x converter to get full-frame with minimum distortion for close objects. If anyone can make such pics right now that would be great.
I'm not saying that it cannot deliver good results - just that I am doubtful based on my past experience. I am genuinely interested in how this converter would perform, especially at wide lens apertures. Maybe they've got better over the years. Could you point us to a link for the type of converter you're thinking of getting?
Ray
-
I don't know why people use not full-frame sensors and are satisfied with it. I used fuji s3 pro with usual 35 mm lenses and could not shoot in rooms with lack of space. So i bought a lens specifically designed for cropped sensors. And what i got: greater sharpness, wide-angle, ability to shoot inside of houses.
Just get yourself a Sigma 12-24, that's a full frame lens that is still pretty wide angle on a crop sensor.
So it's not by definition that a full frame lens cannot be wide angle, only the choices are limited.
-
Anyway i do not need very wide-angle and fisheye. I prefer creating panoramas by stitching multiple files into one in software.
I need a converter which would have the factor opposite the crop factor of the sensor, no more. I am sure it will not give any visible bending linear distortion. It may give some stronger perspective which will only add positive features to the shot. This is probably not desirable for commercial shots when a close-up is shot but for art photography is good.
This "converter" solution will save me much money I guess. There are many of them sold on ebay. I need to know the filter thread size on the hasselblad lens to buy a suitable converter. I definitely know there are converters for medium format lenses coz i saw such when visiting my friend owning MF pentacon six camera.
I don't know if there are converters for hasselblads or if the pentacon's converter is suitable. Probably, they can be modified for hassy. Another way is to buy wide-angle lens for hassy and it automatically becomes a standard lens for the cropped sensor.
I saw some old hassy models sold at 600$ if you are lucky. The other negative thing is that some cheap digital backs require tethering to PC. I will have to buy a small laptop, a belkin firewire hub and ask a local electrical engineer to build a kind of "portable mains" for powering the belkin hub. I think this solution is possible within 2700$ budget.
-
The milky way by the way does not look like bended or distorted.
-
Can i install that sigma lens on hassy?
-
The milky way by the way does not look like bended or distorted.
That's because I framed the shot so that the MW is running through the centre of the frame: Rule 1 of fisheyes! "Lines radiating from the centre of the field remain straight. All others are bent".
-
Can i install that sigma lens on hassy?
Not if you want to get even moderately distant objects in focus. The thicker Hassy body will act as a built-in extension tube. No small-format lens will do for anything but closeups when mounted on a MF SLR.
-
Can i install that sigma lens on hassy?
You would also have to get a Hassy with a focal plane shutter - the 2000 or 200 series. None of the 500 series or H series would work - no shutter.
-
There are some adapter rings with glass allowing to use M42 thread lenses on Nikon mount bodies. Are there any adapter rings to use 35 mm lenses on MF. Theoretically nothing prevents from building such.
-
Actually, what the hell, just about any crappy lens should be fixable by software nowadays.
At the very least, I'm sure one can get cameraphone quality out of a back with lens and adapter.
Edmund
-
IMO For a $2700 budget the clear choice for panoramas would be a DSLR .. My original rig for this was a D200 with Nikon 10.5 and Stitcher Unlimited. You could probably get this combo for Under $1500 . You could even get a better body and still be under budget.
Dont get me wrong I love MFDB - It just seems like a poor fit for your budget. I can tell you the shots with the Nikon 10.5 and D200 are Razor Sharp ....I doubt you will retail MF lens image quality with a "Converter" ...Just a guess though.. I have never seen the type of converter you are talking about.
-
Actually, what the hell, just about any crappy lens should be fixable by software nowadays.
At the very least, I'm sure one can get cameraphone quality out of a back with lens and adapter.
Edmund
LOL ....Too funny
-
Actually, what the hell, just about any crappy lens should be fixable by software nowadays.
At the very least, I'm sure one can get cameraphone quality out of a back with lens and adapter.
Edmund
I used such an adapter and the quality was OK.
-
There are some adapter rings with glass allowing to use M42 thread lenses on Nikon mount bodies. Are there any adapter rings to use 35 mm lenses on MF. Theoretically nothing prevents from building such.
Theoretically, you're right. But look at the huge difference between the registration distances, and you'll see why it is not done in practice:
http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/mounts-by-register.html
To put it another way: there are millions of 35mm/DSLR lenses out there. There are hundreds of thousands of MF bodies out there. If such an adapter was practical in price and especially in quality, there would be a huge ready market for it. The fact that there is no such device on the market is telling.
-
It's really strange. I searched in google for a wide-angle converter for MF lenses and could not find a single mentioning about their existence. That's quite weird coz my friend own such for pentacon 6. Probably that was made on special order. I should ask him.
-
Theoretically, you're right. But look at the huge difference between the registration distances, and you'll see why it is not done in practice:
http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/mounts-by-register.html
To put it another way: there are millions of 35mm/DSLR lenses out there. There are hundreds of thousands of MF bodies out there. If such an adapter was practical in price and especially in quality, there would be a huge ready market for it. The fact that there is no such device on the market is telling.
Ondebanks
Who says there isn't? There are some devices to use Nikon/Canon lenses with a DB. Image circle isn't always sufficient though. Horseman also make conversion lenses. Was a time when conversion lenses were used as reporting aids by a lot of broadcast video stations.
Just because you and I don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
http://www.komamura.co.jp/e/CVL/index.html
Edmund
-
Ondebanks
Who says there isn't? There are some devices to use Nikon/Canon lenses with a DB. Image circle isn't always sufficient though. Horseman also make conversion lenses. Was a time when conversion lenses were used as reporting aids by a lot of broadcast video stations.
Just because you and I don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
http://www.komamura.co.jp/e/CVL/index.html
Edmund
Edmund,
That Komura link is for front-of-lens converters. Sure they exist, and Horseman's ones too. I was saying that what does not exist, to my knowledge, is any "rear-of-lens-adapter-with-glass" to make a 35mm format lens reach infinity focus on a MF SLR. And that was in response to liac's "if there are M42 to Nikon converters with glass, why not for MF?" question. S/he had swung the thread away from front converters to a different thing entirely.
Yes as you say, "There are some devices to use Nikon/Canon lenses with a DB" - but that is not with a bulky MF SLR body, like a Hasselblad, interposed between lens and MFDB. Liac's heart seems to be set on a Hassy body. I'm just trying to answer his/her questions as factually as possible. There may be an uncomfortable collision between his/her dream and the reality of available photographic equipment, but we have to be honest about it.
Ray
-
It's really strange. I searched in google for a wide-angle converter for MF lenses and could not find a single mentioning about their existence. That's quite weird coz my friend own such for pentacon 6. Probably that was made on special order. I should ask him.
That would probably be because, as I said earlier in this thread, there's no reason for them to be brand-specific or even format-specific. A front converter for 35mm should behave the same on a MF lens. They're just like filters - independent of the lens used, as long as the filter thread matches.
BTW, take a good look at Edmund's link to Komura just above. Every sample image with a straight-line feature (building, lawn) shows strong barrel distortion. It's a pity. But Raynox claims an impressive 0.9% distortion for their 0.79x converter - http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/dcr7900zd/index.htm (http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/dcr7900zd/index.htm). That might be the one your friend has.
-
Don't confuse wide-angle converters with adapter rings. Wide-angle converters are installed in front of the lens and change angle of view. Adapter rings are installed between the lens and the body and do not change angle of view, sometimes they have a glass to provide infinity focusing.
I would prefer 35mm and an adapter ring but you say it is impossible to make such a ring for MF and 35 mm lenses. However, someone somehow made a camera to use 35 mm lenses on MF http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09091503hartbleicam.asp but it is costly and is sold nowhere.
-
I have already visited the link and had to admit there is a distortion at the edges. Probably it will not be so visible close to the center within the sensor's area.
-
Which software is the best for correcting linear distortion? Probably, i can create a template and just process all the pics with a single click.
-
There are a few lenses for 24 * 26 mm that cover MF, the Canon 17mm in particular, and there are pancake cameras like the Hartblie that will let you use them.
... or you can get wide-angle with shift-and-stitch.
-
Can i install that sigma lens on hassy?
Nope, but it will fit the Fuju S3 pro you were talking about (in Nikon mount)
-
I use with fuji Tamron DX lens specifically designed for cropped sensors. So no need to buy other lenses.
-
After reading this http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=42074.0 i finally decided to buy canon mark II :)) Thanks to everyone.
-
you mean the canon 5d mark II? You aren't going to be able to buy much else than the camera body for $2700. The TS lenses you would want to use are another $2k a piece. Sounds like you plan on using a non-shifting wide angle lens for interiors. Yikes!
-
Hi, body can be bought cheaper on ebay than you say. I will use old cheap canon or soviet lenses in manual mode if possible. Old soviet lenses were designed based on german planar and tessar designs which were obtained after invading Germany in 1945. They lose in boke quality to modern zeiss lenses but are still good. I neither shoot interiors, nor make commercial photography. I shoot outside for own pleasure and artistic purposes.