Topic: Equipment recommendations... (Read 12955 times)

Bevan.Burns · « **on:** July 18, 2007, 03:31:07 am »

Hey all, a question for all the architecture pros here:

I'm a young student, extremely interested in the field of architectural photography. I was interested in what sorts of setups that you pros started out with. Eventually I want to be shooting with something like the Cambo WDS, or Alpa 12, with a high end MFDB, but that sort of gear is out of my price range now. Currently I have a modest Nikon setup (F100, D70s, 28-105 and 20, 35 and 50 primes) but would like to upgrade my setup over the next few years.

So what did you guys start out with? I assume I'm best off sticking with a film solution at first, but what's the best way to go to leave myself with a simple upgrade path to a digital workflow in the future? Should I look into getting a good pano head for stitching photos as an alternative to the high-res, wideangle solutions that the Cambo/Alpa provides? What do you all think?

I really appreciate the help!

Bevan

Morgan_Moore · « **Reply #1 on:** July 18, 2007, 03:47:31 am »

I would concentrate on stitching.

THe cheapest fastest way IMO is to use the 50 prime - handheld can work fine !

You should also consider the purchase of a 54 view camera with maybe a 65mm lens (cambo. sinar F etc) (you probably wont get infinity focues with a wider lens than this (with a DSLR) on the back (mug up on the rear focus to flange distances by getting deep into the schneider lense website PDFs (google)

You could shoot polaroids on that which would have a very cool look

You could also mash a lensboard and a lens back cap so you can stick your D70 on the back

check the D70 fires with no lense mounted !

Shoot 9 exposures by moving the rear standard around for p45 topping quality for around $500 US

FOTOMAN do cheap film rigs too but the market is flooded with bargain S/H film gear

Good luck

S

Dustbak · « **Reply #2 on:** July 18, 2007, 08:30:13 am »

Stitching is a very good alternative. The 50 with a good multirow panohead will get you very far.

pixjohn · « **Reply #3 on:** July 18, 2007, 09:38:23 am »

That info seems like bad advice to me. As an archtecture photographer I would make it simple and get a used 4x5 and a few used lenses (58xl 65 and a 90. The going rate of used equipment, would give you a much higher quality images and be easier to use. I stared out shooting 4x5 them moved to the Cambo Wide DS and digital back.

Geoffrey · « **Reply #4 on:** July 19, 2007, 05:48:41 am »

I second the advice about 4x5 camera: the need for perspective control is well met with this approach and the range of lenses you can use with it are inexpensive with very high quality.

The market disfavors this now, as everyone has run to digital, so there are some great buys. And the image quality and control is fantastic. Its also a great discipline to learn and understand: I don't think I really understood photography until I shot view camera, and large format.

Bevan.Burns · « **Reply #5 on:** July 19, 2007, 03:16:34 pm »

I was leaning in the direction of 4x5s as well. What sort of workflow would you be looking at when working with large format film? Do most clients expect digital scans? What resolution? Do most of you shoot neg or slide film?

Kirk Gittings · « **Reply #6 on:** July 19, 2007, 03:42:53 pm »

I agree with the guys above on learning with 4x5. It teaches you so much about seeing architecture that will translate well to whatever cameras you end up using. I still use my 4x5 heavily and scan the film in-house. It is a very cost effective way to shoot architecture. I also use FF Canons, which with TS lenses are better designed to shoot architecture than the Nikons. I shoot all my magazine shoots now with the Canon 5D which is more than adequate for magazine work.

Virtually all clients want files now. On 4x5 I usually scan trans and color neg film on a Epson 750. I primarily shoot color negatives now. They scan well. Resolution depends on final use. I only spring for a drum scan when I need really large prints.

pixjohn · « **Reply #7 on:** July 19, 2007, 04:55:49 pm »

Even though I shoot digital, I still miss the easy workflow of shooting film sometimes. I can setup and shoot a 4x5 faster then my current workflow with all the little fixes. The nice thing about digital I don't have to scan. If you start shooting 30 - 40 shots a week with the cost of Polaroid, Film and processing my new system is much more cost effective.

Quote

I was leaning in the direction of 4x5s as well. What sort of workflow would you be looking at when working with large format film? Do most clients expect digital scans? What resolution? Do most of you shoot neg or slide film?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129055\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

BernardLanguillier · « **Reply #8 on:** July 19, 2007, 11:22:44 pm »

One thing to consider is that Epson 750 scanned 4x5 is probably not sharper than Imacon scanner 6x9 slides.

I'd reallt consider carefully going with a 4x5 camera with a 6x9 roll film back.

Considering the huge price gap between 4x5 sheets and 220 roll film, a quick computation will show that buying a second hand Imacon III scanner on ebay and working mostly with 6x9 instead of 4x5 will quickly be an economical solution.

Just my 2 cent.

Regards,
Bernard

Kirk Gittings · « **Reply #9 on:** July 20, 2007, 10:25:44 am »

Quote

One thing to consider is that Epson 750 scanned 4x5 is probably not sharper than Imacon scanner 6x9 slides.

I'd reallt consider carefully going with a 4x5 camera with a 6x9 roll film back.

Considering the huge price gap between 4x5 sheets and 220 roll film, a quick computation will show that buying a second hand Imacon III scanner on ebay and working mostly with 6x9 instead of 4x5 will quickly be an economical solution.

Just my 2 cent.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129094\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

All true but...............I have gone that route. Architecture is a volume image business. The dust issues with an older Imacon means you spend enormous hours spotting. Hence shoot digital DSLR when it is appropriate, scan film with Epson 750/Silverfast Digital Ice (Best DI combination and OK for most clients) or get a drum swcan when you need it and have them spot it.

BernardLanguillier · « **Reply #10 on:** July 21, 2007, 10:59:16 am »

Quote

All true but...............I have gone that route. Architecture is a volume image business. The dust issues with an older Imacon means you spend enormous hours spotting. Hence shoot digital DSLR when it is appropriate, scan film with Epson 750/Silverfast Digital Ice (Best DI combination and OK for most clients) or get a drum swcan when you need it and have them spot it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129149\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yep, dust is indeed a problem with Imacon scanners. I only scan very small volumes for fine art, but would indeed probably become crazy if I were to scan larger volumes.

Cheers,
Bernard

Kirk Gittings · « **Reply #11 on:** July 21, 2007, 02:29:59 pm »

Bernard,

I agree. I really like the Imacons and have access to them where I teach. For my personal B&W (which is by nature small volume) I routinely use the Imacons as they give me a superb file on 4x5.

Kirk Gittings · « **Reply #12 on:** July 21, 2007, 02:57:44 pm »

I've been at this for 30 years as a career and taught it at two universities, currently at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. The market has changed dramatically since clients started requiring files. Before digital the standard was 4x5 and that was easy for clients to see the difference when you showed them transparencies vs. MF or 35mm. With the advent of files no one cares about the source as long as the file looks good on their monitor and works well for their intended purpose. This has opened up the field considerably, there are now many ways to skin this cat. Not to say that quality files are any easier to do than film (more work in some ways), but that there are considerably more options and resources. Prior to adding FF DSLR to my kit, I was primarily shooting 6x9 color neg roll film in a 50 year old view camera and scanning in my office. All the scanning got really old. At 57 dragging a view camera around every day has gotten old after thirty years and the opportunity to do all my magazine work with a DSLR is a real treat and aesthetically invigorating. I personally now like all the changes in the field though I resisted them for years.

Bevan.Burns · « **Reply #13 on:** July 22, 2007, 01:29:54 am »

Hmmm... I'm wondering now if maybe I should just move straight to something like a 5D/Tilt Shift combo? I agree learning film will be a huge benefit, and I'm going to learn alot of that, and work alot with 4x5 view cameras at school. I'm just not sure it's worth investing my own time and money into my own system, the market being what it is... thoughts? I really appreciate all your feedback, Kirk. You've given me much to think about!

Bevan

marcwilson · « **Reply #14 on:** July 22, 2007, 05:47:43 am »

Bevan,

You just need to realise that whilst something like a 5d with shift lenses etc will certainly be enough in terms of both movements and quality for many jobs it will not be for others..and it is for those with extreme shifts and rise and/or where very large prints are required or detail that you will need 54 view cameras wether with sheet or roll film.

Therefore to work successfully you need to be able to use whatever equipment is necessary to get the job done and that means at the very least knowledge of both dslr and 54 view cameras.
Remember these view cameras can be hired if necessary for specific jobs but in general, and some may argue with me here, to be able to successfully cover the field of interiors, exteriors and architecture and all the different jobs you may have to do, you have to be able to use both of these very different systems with utmost confidence.

The clients do not care about what you use, they just need you to produce what they require.

Marc

Gary Ferguson · « **Reply #15 on:** July 22, 2007, 08:03:04 am »

I shoot architectural on a semi-pro basis. I use a digital back on a Linhof M679cs for most of my work, but also a Canon DSLR with their T&S lenses, and sometimes a digital back on a Hasselblad Flexbody. Given that you're just strarting and money's tight I'd recommend a Canon 5D with the 24mm and 45mm T&S lenses.

Firstly the commercial architectural market is now overwhelmingly digital based, that's what most of your likely customers are geared up for and what they expect. Sure, there's a "fine art" architectural sector where film still plays a role (I use 6x9 film myself on occasion), and film may have a place away from the big cities, but basically digital is becoming the new standard. And that means delivering an un-rezzed file capable of 300dpi across a double page spread. You're in that territory with a 5D. It may not be quite as good, nor quite as flexible, as a digital back on a technical camera, but it's close enough that great execution will overcome any technical shortfalls.

Secondly, outside the hobbyist/fine art end of architectural most of the shots you'll take will be interiors rather than exteriors, certainly that's the case if you expect to earn a living from architectural work! And it's with interiors that the digital advantage becomes clearer. Colour temperature balancing, mixed lighting, huge light-to-shadow ranges, all these are a lot easier to deal with when you're working with digital. And digital's a lot cheaper too, I found with film that my largest equipment expense, and by far my largest luggage item, was lighting. Remember, you'll need an assistant and the means to be independent from mains electricity with most film lighting set ups. Increasingly I find I can handle most interior shoots single-handed, with only a pair of Canon flash guns, when I'm using a Canon DSLR and Photoshop.

Thirdly, at least here in crowded Europe, shooting exteriors often means extensive retouching to remove road signs, street furniture, inconveniently parked cars etc. This is a lot easier and a lot cleaner, when you're working in an all digital environment.

So, my advice is a 5D, 24mm and 45mm T&S lenses, Photoshop, a polarizing filter, a Canon flash with remote triggering cabability, a couple of large white reflectors and a couple of light stands to hang them on, and you're in business!

Kirk Gittings · « **Reply #16 on:** July 22, 2007, 03:13:33 pm »

Gary, while I agree with much of what you say, I find your lighting recommendations very inadequate. While it is true you need less light to shoot digitally, we have only gone from 8 heads and 4 2000w and 4 800w powerpacks to dropping two of the 2000w and still 6 heads with digital. We don't always need that much light, but we need it enough to carry it on every job. In addition you still need quartz halogen lights for accents on occasion or depending on the existing sources in the structure we may need it to match existing light.

Also when we are shooting cutting edge architecture, especially for magazines, the exteriors are as important as the interiors.

sgphoto844 · « **Reply #17 on:** July 23, 2007, 10:21:53 am »

Hi all,
Looking for a place to jump in here, the young photographer touched on a similar topic of interest for me. I am an experienced magazine photographer of architectural and decorative interiors for magazines everywhere, but mostly in the US. My dilemmea is that I am being pushed by the magazines to submit digital files in all future assignments. I work with the Mamiya RZ system and would love some feedback on how ell the Hasselblad/Imacon CF22 back works with that system. The ADs are "putting up" with the 35mm format, but it is not ideal for interiors which is why I am considering the digital back alternative.

Cheers

David WM · « **Reply #18 on:** July 23, 2007, 10:23:28 am »

Hi Kirk,
How many assistants do you work with?
David

Quote

Gary, while I agree with much of what you say, I find your lighting recommendations very inadequate. While it is true you need less light to shoot digitally, we have only gone from 8 heads and 4 2000w and 4 800w powerpacks to dropping two of the 2000w and still 6 heads with digital. We don't always need that much light, but we need it enough to carry it on every job. In addition you still need quartz halogen lights for accents on occasion or depending on the existing sources in the structure we may need it to match existing light.

Also when we are shooting cutting architecture, especially for magazines, the exteriors are as important as the interiors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129415\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Kirk Gittings · « **Reply #19 on:** July 23, 2007, 10:31:19 am »

Quote

Hi Kirk,
How many assistants do you work with?
David
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129512\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Usually just one, though on magazine shoots we often times have an art director and a stylist helping too. My assitant and I have been together for along time and have it down to a science. I also direct video architecture shoots, which is a real zoo with a dozen people.

Author Topic: Equipment recommendations... (Read 12955 times)