Does the shooting process matter, or only the end result?

[torger]

Since the release of IQ3 100MP a question has returned to me, namely how important the way I shoot images matter to me compared to the end result. Using a Linhof Techno with sliding back and a bunch of Schneider Digitars it's as close as you can get to traditional large format view camera photography in the digital world. I think this has its days numbered and we're looking at more rigid cameras with ultra-high resolution and you use cropping and keystone correction instead of camera movements, automatic focus stacking is probably coming eventually. At some point that new way to shoot will surpass the quality I get out of my gear.

To me this is a bit scary development though. I don't even stitch with my tech cam as I feel it takes away some of the shooting magic. And then pushing this further to shooting in the general direction and finalize the composition in post-processing sounds awfully unsexy to me, although I see the huge workflow advantages for a professional photographer. You could create several different compositions out of a single wide angle image, to fit different needs in magazine for example.

How do you others look at this, does it matter how you capture an image, or is it only the most efficient way to get the highest quality that matters?

[bassman51]

When I look at someone else's image on a website or a wall, I clearly care about the image first and only entire about the technique in a feeble effort to  improve my skills. 

When I'm shooting, I'd be kidding myself if I didn't admit that some cameras provide a more enjoyable experience than others.  It's hard to pick apart how much of that is the ergonomics of the equipment vs. how easy the gear makes it for me to create the image I like. 

[torger]

I think it's deeper than being an enjoyable experience or not.

The "large format style" of photography is in a way a limited way to shoot. I can't hand-hold the camera. I can't react fast on some quickly emerging wildlife. Workflow is slow. I feel or imagine that makes me more focused on the type of photography I want to do.

And then I feel it's a difference to frame the image at the scene with camera movements, press the shutter and voila the finished image. I'm no purist and I do crop when I think it's needed but I have noted I feel much more satisfied when I can leave a photo uncropped.

I was looking into getting a Aptus-II 10 at one point (great price/performance), but I couldn't swallow the 56x36mm image format knowing that I would crop it hugely most of the time. I've found that the 4:3 format is a sweet spot for my taste.

All those little things that make me feel that this is my "brush", a tool that not only helps me capture the images but also improves my emotional connection to scene I'm shooting. Therefore I think the move towards other more high tech solutions feels a bit scary...

[JoeKitchen]

I could never give up shift in camera for doing it in post.  First, the results are not the same, and I am not talking about IQ.  I mean the proportions are not (or should I say "less") accurate with correcting the keynoting in post.  I know most would not know, but I would, and that's all that matters. 

Second, you typically need to shoot wider, correct and then crop if you perform corrections in post, and usually this is done back in studio.  This means that when you are constructing your image, you really do not have a complete visual of what the final image will look like.  Not to mention, wider lenses cost and weight more. 

I don't know about you, but I carefully compose my images while shooting.  I even prefer to know the aspect ratio of the final use, since that too effects how I compose.

Beyond keeping shifts and tilts part of my on site workflow, I am for what ever makes my life easier and more efficient.  In the end, this could mean having a HDMI connection with great live view while sacrificing some quality.  Or it could mean dealing with crapping live view while maintaining an acceptable quality in the image. 

Don't know yet.  All I do know is that with pour and splash shots, needing to use a wake-up cable is pretty impracticable compared to just setting the back to Zero-Latency. 

[Theodoros]

I could never give up shift in camera for doing it in post. 

Obviously... Visualization of the shot is the fundamental behind photography and it is part of the capturing process. After all, most photographers that shoot with movements do some detail corrections in post, but this is to refine some details as to perfect things out, it's not the same as loosing 12-18% of the frame that the respective post than good moves will cause... and then, other than shifts, there is DOF too...

[MichaelEzra]

I think it is all about various approaches to dealing with the always-present constraints that ultimately lead to the characteristics of the final result. A universal approach is quite unlikely as initial conditions for everyone are different, and so is the the end result in majority of cases... All we have in this world is time, space and energy. The rest are the balancing acts. I would imagine if we were machines the perfection of the end result would be of ultimate importance, in solo. For us, sentimental beings, so is the journey. Yet, in majority of cases we can't care less about someone else's journey... we judge by the end result and only when that is compelling enough it may invite a viewer to pay sentiments for that journey. So... if using an instrument in a specific way helps one to enjoy the journey, just enjoy it!:)

I am looking at some of my earlier work, selecting the better images. Honestly, its an ice-cold approach. I don't consider how my knees hurt or how wide the lens was, I am just selecting the best shots. If sentiments at the time of shooting let that shot to be created, good. If something else was a factor... good as well. But there are countless factors as always. I remember when I got seriously interested in photography, it was unbearable... too many factors, too many parameters. So I made a decision to fix some of the key technical parameters, so I could focus primarily on the content, and I am glad I did. No number of megapixels will make a bland image more interesting. If you can make a beautiful work with a single shot using the sentimental process that lets you feel and convey your feeling through the work, why seek anything different? There will always be bigger and bigger than that yet almost 100% of the digital content is still primarily shown as web images at a fraction of the HD resolution... What remains is not what is bigger or better, but what survives time. The sentiments of your journey make you who you are and what your work is about ultimately. If crop factor and single shot approach are the key, just ignore the marketing hype.

[torger]

Technically you shouldn't lose anything with keystone correction, as all information is there. As far as I understand if done right it should produce a 100% equivalent result to shifting, or am I missing something? But it could be some issues with the algorithms employed today. I haven't really tested it myself so I don't know how well it works. Maybe DxO viewpoint is the software to use, I'm not sure.

DoF is a problem, but not so much in deep dof photography like landscape and architecture if you just have some general idea of what to focus at, and I think we would have at least that. I also see focus stacking being more and more used.

What's happening that we get so many megapixels on the sensor that the crop becomes more feasible from a quality perspective. Lens quality is still a question mark, but to support anything later than the 60MP Dalsas off center without issues we need new more retrofocus lens designs. It seems to me that it would be simpler and more robust to make just a center frame wide lens and crop, and I've heard even Alpa thinks that's the future.

So while there may be some technical issues today, I think we're quickly moving to at least surpassing the 60MP systems. I think it would be interesting and possibly scary to see what you can do with a Digaron-S 28HR center-frame only on a IQ3 100 compared to a Digaron-W 40 with movements on 60MP.

[JoeKitchen]

DoF, as you mention, can be very important. 

This is a macro shot where I used about 18mm of shift up (to partially correct the keystone) and 4 degrees of tilt, to get the entire glass in focus. 

I can't imagine how to reproduce this in post without a lot of work, not to mention, due to the cream slowly dissolving into the coffee, not even sure if it would be practical. 

[torger]

If you can make a beautiful work with a single shot using the sentimental process that lets you feel and convey your feeling through the work, why seek anything different?

I'm thinking in a longer term period, say 5-8 years from now where I think that no new systems of the type I use will be sold. A digital back can easily hold up 10 years so I may very well stay on the current system way past it's discontinued. Oh well, all my lenses and my digital back already is :-).

If we look at photography as art and at the older masters they had quite some focus on "feeling" the image at the scene and visualizing it, understanding the final result at the scene was important to them. Some even stated that cropping was cheating as it was manipulation of the original experience. To them the way they shot the image was clearly a part that made the resulting photograph art rather than snapshot.

I see many art photographers here in Europe use film, although I'm sure there are lots of different reasons for that I get the sense that there's some of the above in that.

[torger]

DoF, as you mention, can be very important. 

This is a macro shot where I used about 18mm of shift up (to partially correct the keystone) and 4 degrees of tilt, to get the entire glass in focus. 

I can't imagine how to reproduce this in post without a lot of work, not to mention, due to the cream slowly dissolving into the coffee, not even sure if it would be practical.

Great example! Many use stacking, but still they can't exactly copy that shot. So what they do they get a different look, and may satisfy with that. But I do think for product photography the view cameras are quite safe for quite a while, and lens compatibility is good with the highest end backs. I'm more worried about the developments in tech cams in wide angle architecture and landscape photography.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Anders,

My take has always been that the image cares little about the means that has been used to take it.

On the other hand, we now can generate images without even being there, or even without that "there" actually existing. Obviously some need of discussing the future.

For me, it is much about credibility. I don't want to over process images. But, there is a considerable amount of artistic freedom.

As it happened, I was thinking about these issues this morning and happened to make two exposures one with camera tilted and one using shift. On the shifted image I missed focus totally for some reason, so no good comparison.

Best regards
Erik

Since the release of IQ3 100MP a question has returned to me, namely how important the way I shoot images matter to me compared to the end result. Using a Linhof Techno with sliding back and a bunch of Schneider Digitars it's as close as you can get to traditional large format view camera photography in the digital world. I think this has its days numbered and we're looking at more rigid cameras with ultra-high resolution and you use cropping and keystone correction instead of camera movements, automatic focus stacking is probably coming eventually. At some point that new way to shoot will surpass the quality I get out of my gear.

To me this is a bit scary development though. I don't even stitch with my tech cam as I feel it takes away some of the shooting magic. And then pushing this further to shooting in the general direction and finalize the composition in post-processing sounds awfully unsexy to me, although I see the huge workflow advantages for a professional photographer. You could create several different compositions out of a single wide angle image, to fit different needs in magazine for example.

How do you others look at this, does it matter how you capture an image, or is it only the most efficient way to get the highest quality that matters?

[MichaelEzra]

Anders, I share the purist approach when it is concerning street and documentary photography. E.g. none of my 9/11 images are cropped, all full frame 35mm film.

However, when it comes to landscape photography, I do find that nature IS bigger than any camera or technology, and being faithful to the subject matter, I am open here to stitching to get the angle of view wider than any of the lenses I own and then adjusting cropping in post. 

[torger]

I'm no purist. It happens that I sometimes make a misjudgment when shooting, end up with a suboptimal composition but then by cropping it differently I get something new I like, but didn't see at the scene.

I've attached one such image, it's in 6:7 format and the rightmost part of a 4:3 shot. Had I known what I was doing when shooting the camera would be directed so the crop would have been in the center of the frame.

The image result doesn't suffer from this, and I like the image, but still the shooting experience was not as satisfying. I just love that "hole in one feeling" when I feel full connection and get everything right at the scene, and I'm afraid that when a camera is constructed in a way that leaves more of the image-making to post-processing that feeling can get lost.

When I try to "sell" large format style of photography to someone, it's this feeling I'm talking about, much more than image quality as I really think the smaller cameras does adequate quality these days for almost any need.

Note that I'm not intending to criticize other people's shooting techniques, I have no problem with any ways others make images and we're all different, I just have some feelings connected to my own ways and interested to hear the views of other photographers.

[Theodoros]

My opinion is that view camera photography was late (and still is) to adapt it self to modern developments... If there was interface communication with modern lenses, LV and size was reduced to the available image areas with digital, view cameras would have been much more popular than they are today... IMO, it is to the nature of a photographer to research and add solutions that can cope with more tasks... Take the recent success of Cambo Actus for instance... It only added compatibility with mirrorless (thus great LV) and small size to the equation... the price of it can't be considered as an advantage as one can safely buy a S/H 2x3 at half the price and mechanical condition of view cameras can be easily examined.

I strongly believe that if one could use his existing MF lenses (with electronic aperture) and a mirrorless with a view camera offering that would be interface compatible with them, there would be great demand for the view camera as one would only have to add the view camera to his existing system... If additionally the same view camera would be compatible with MFDBs, so much the better, another reason why I think that makers of FF MFDBs should have added crop area selection in the menus of their equipment (40.4 x 40.4, 36x27 and 44x33 comes to mind), that would make their products better compatible with view cameras and peoples existing (MF) lenses... That said, I expect modern view camera sales to rise in the future, as long as they ask nothing more than for one to add the mechanical part in his existing equipment...

[alan_b]

No comment on whether it's better, purer or more fun doing things in camera vs post! 

Using the right post tools however, it's not a problem to correct geometry exactly as in-camera shift movements would.  Of course, experience w/ a proper view camera helps one know what shape things "should" be. 

Transform > Perspective in Photoshop and Lens Corrections > Horizontal/Vertical in LR and ACR are frustratingly inaccurate.  (Don't even bother with the joke Upright in LR!) 

In PS, try Transform > Distort rather than Perspective.  Or, start with Perspective, then tweak w/ Distort and/or Skew.  Perspective Crop in PS is also useful for straight-on square or rectangular elements (much like the Keystone tool in Capture One). 

I could never give up shift in camera for doing it in post.  First, the results are not the same, and I am not talking about IQ.  I mean the proportions are not (or should I say "less") accurate with correcting the keynoting in post.  I know most would not know, but I would, and that's all that matters.

[JoeKitchen]

No comment on whether it's better, purer or more fun doing things in camera vs post! 

Using the right post tools however, it's not a problem to correct geometry exactly as in-camera shift movements would.  Of course, experience w/ a proper view camera helps one know what shape things "should" be. 

Transform > Perspective in Photoshop and Lens Corrections > Horizontal/Vertical in LR and ACR are frustratingly inaccurate.  (Don't even bother with the joke Upright in LR!) 

In PS, try Transform > Distort rather than Perspective.  Or, start with Perspective, then tweak w/ Distort and/or Skew.  Perspective Crop in PS is also useful for straight-on square or rectangular elements (much like the Keystone tool in Capture One).

I have looked at the keystone tools on post, and they just do not produce the same result.  It has to do with how the lens renders the subject towards the edge of the IC. 

Not to mention, tilt and swing is impossible to reproduce; the nuances of how different planes within the image come in and out of focus are just too advanced to reproduce accurately.  Even getting close requires a lot of work, especially with macro photography. 

[alan_b]

Agreed - subtle nuances/aberrations/bokeh/etc. across the image circle are another thing altogether. 

I should have clarified I was only talking about shift movements, and general geometry for subjects w/ deep focus.  Noise texture interacting with fine subject texture gets wonky with perspective corrections in post as well.  (Which may or may not be seen in the final use.) 

I have looked at the keystone tools on post, and they just do not produce the same result.  It has to do with how the lens renders the subject towards the edge of the IC. 

Not to mention, tilt and swing is impossible to reproduce; the nuances of how different planes within the image come in and out of focus are just too advanced to reproduce accurately.  Even getting close requires a lot of work, especially with macro photography.

[Theodoros]

One can't overlook the superiority of view cameras for panoramic (up to 360") photography... where one has to calculate the nodal point for each lens he is using once and for all, then use the scale of the camera's rail as to accurately set the rotation (without having to recalculate) point at the nodal point and ends up with perfect panorama shots of up to 360 degrees... If additionally combines that with shifts, the benefit for panorama shots even for architectural interiors exceeds that of the best dedicated tripod heads for the job.

I know most prefer to stitch within the (limited) AOV of the available image circle, but the result of stitching by rotation with respect to the lens nodal point leads to much wider angles and even allows for sharper results since one is using the best part of the image circle... Not to mention the fact that one can shoot UWAs using whatever lens focal length the height of the scene requires and the ultra fast setting up (since the nodal point is known).

[EricWHiss]

Considering the billions of images available and presented to viewers, the idea about what camera and process is never even considered except in a few forums. The public at large could care less, and most images are seen for second before people move onto to something else. There is a smaller group of people who are interested in photography enough to pay attention to what makes a compelling image and which photographers they like, but most of them also do not consider the process.  A very small subset of those people do wonder about what equipment and process was used, but its hard to say that to those few what is more important - the end result or the process.   There seems to be a group of "technologists" who do spend a lot more interest and time in the process than the final image, and that group is very well represented here on LuLa, but it would be a mistake to think the rest of the world is similar.   

I jury a photo contest which awards cameras and cash to the winners, and as much as I enjoy technology and gear that never factors into my decision on the winners and runners up. In the end what matters most to me and my fellow jurors is the final image, the idea.  The technique or execution only comes into play when it's not well done and even then a better idea, or simply being in the right place and time can win over a better technically executed image.   The technique or process has a way of spoiling images when the image becomes more about that than about the subject or idea. 

[razrblck]

How do you others look at this, does it matter how you capture an image, or is it only the most efficient way to get the highest quality that matters?

When I take pictures for myself, process is part of the experience. Sometimes I feel like shooting film, so I pick up my Bronica ETRS and go out taking more time to find something to shoot, frame it and expose it correctly.

If I had to deliver something to a client I wouldn't waste time just to make myself feel relaxed.

I wouldn't mind a technical camera for medium or large format personal works. I can found some for very little, though the lenses are expensive. I always take time with my pictures, I'm not going around shooting 12 frames a second to everything in sight, so slowing myself down even more wouldn't really bother me much. In fact I'm always trying to slow me down, as I've noticed I take pictures people like a lot more when I spend more time on it. Part of myself always wants to rush things and get the results asap, but this year I'm changing many things in my life and taking a more thought of, relaxed and slow stance on photography will definitely help.