Equipment recommendations...

[Kirk Gittings]

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
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129511\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nice work Sam by the way.

BTW, I have had 0 complaints about shooting tethered FF DSLR for my magazine clients. I have no direct work experience with the I/H setup you suggest except demoing it for my class at SAIC. As opposed to the setup you suggest, like 4x5 and Polaroid with The FF Canon TS, we see perspective corrected images on the screen without having to fuss with them before letting the client see them. That is the only drawback I see, which may or may not be an issue with your clients. It is with mine. The FF Canon is the exact same setup that a friend of mine who is staff at Arch Digest uses.

[Gary Ferguson]

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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129415\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I take your point, but I tried to emphasise that it was a recommendation for someone in their first year or two of commercial operation, no "cutting edge architecture", no six head lighting set ups with assistants, in fact no assistants. Just simple jobs on minimal budgets.

[sgphoto844]

Nice work Sam by the way.

BTW, I have had 0 complaints about shooting tethered FF DSLR for my magazine clients. I have no direct work experience with the I/H setup you suggest except demoing it for my class at SAIC. As opposed to the setup you suggest, like 4x5 and Polaroid with The FF Canon TS, we see perspective corrected images on the screen without having to fuss with them before letting the client see them. That is the only drawback I see, which may or may not be an issue with your clients. It is with mine. The FF Canon is the exact same setup that a friend of mine who is staff at Arch Digest uses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129521\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for your compliment, Kirk. Not sure what "FF" means, but you peaked my interest with your AD friend. Is he/she one of the regulars we see in the magazine? I have done two stories for AD and a bunch of "front of book" stuff, but that's about it. Most of the work goes to the staff/contract guys anyway.

[Kirk Gittings]

I understand your point, but a story.........

!978, when I started, I called a salesman at Calumet and asked him what kind of strobe I needed to shoot architecture. He told me to start I needed at least 2000w with three heads. I did not take his advice and bought a 283's---a total waste of money. He was absolutely right and after one botched commercial shoot because I did not have enough light, I took his advice and bought what he suggested.

Used strobe is cheap right now because there is a belief that you don't need it with digital. It is so cheap on Ebay that it is cheaper to buy it than get our equipment repaired! As a result we have a stack of power packs and heads that need repair, but good used units are cheaper.

[jonstewart]

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.


Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129380\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So Marc, just a thought here, what about a 5d (or 1Ds Mark2) with TSE lenses and a Pano rail...In your opinion, would it be feasible to produce larger detailed files this way, or are there other technical considerations that are not addressed here, but would be with a 5x4?

Thanks in advance

PS Kirk, thanks for your input here...I'm surprised that magazines are happy with 5d output! You learn something new every day. I'm still leaning towards Mamiya 645 and Poss Hartblei solution.

[Kirk Gittings]

So Marc, just a thought here, what about a 5d (or 1Ds Mark2) with TSE lenses and a Pano rail...In your opinion, would it be feasible to produce larger detailed files this way, or are there other technical considerations that are not addressed here, but would be with a 5x4?

When I need something wider than a 24, I use Jack Flesher's method of using a sliding head and shift, slide left shift left expose, slide right shift right expose. Works well for the purpose. No parallax problems.

[jonstewart]

When I need something wider than a 24, I use Jack Flesher's method of using a sliding head and shift, slide left shift left expose, slide right shift right expose. Works well for the purpose. No parallax problems.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129540\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks again, Kirk, I read up that technique last week, but having neither the experience or equipment at the moment, didn't completely fathom it out! Experience is a great teacher, when it comes to understanding theory. In my chemistry classes, we try and burn things or blow them up regularly! :-)
Jon

PS Don't bother to try and explain the method; I do need to buy some kit, and when I get stuck... don't worry, I'll ask! (I only say this because, you're so helpful on these matters, you would probably continue if I didn't ask you to stop!)

[Kirk Gittings]

I'm surprised that magazines are happy with 5d output!

They are, but you have to work very very carefully, very professionally. There is no room for much cropping, bad lighting (that must be corrected in PS etc.), or crappy zoom lenses. This is not an easy, cheap or casual approach. On every job I carry maybe $20,000 in camera and computer gear and an additional $10,000 in lighting. When I was exclusively shooting 4x5, I got by for 28 years with a 50 year old 4x5, a few good lenses, a Polaroid and roll film backs, but more lighting. I don't want to have to think whether I have the right gear to shoot a space. With this set of gear I can do anything. It is way too much to fly with, but I rarely take jobs anymore that I can't drive too. I hate flying to jobs anymore.

Of course. It can be done much cheaper and entry level people should not let this scare you off. Build a kit of gear as you develope a need for it. I am into redundancy. I carry multiple back ups for power to the camera and computer, an extra camera, enough lighting to fill the Albert Hall, etc etc.

[jonstewart]

They are, but you have to work very very carefully, very professionally. There is no room for much cropping, bad lighting (that must be corrected in PS etc.), or crappy zoom lenses. This is not an easy, cheap or casual approach. On every job I carry maybe $20,000 in camera and computer gear and an additional $10,000 in lighting. When I was exclusively shooting 4x5, I got by for 28 years with a 50 year old 4x5, a few good lenses, a Polaroid and roll film backs, but more lighting. I don't want to have to think whether I have the right gear to shoot a space. With this set of gear I can do anything. It is way too much to fly with, but I rarely take jobs anymore that I can't drive too. I hate flying to jobs anymore.

Of course. It can be done much cheaper and entry level people should not let this scare you off. Build a kit of gear as you develope a need for it. I am into redundancy. I carry multiple back ups for power to the camera and computer, an extra camera, enough lighting to fill the Albert Hall, etc etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129546\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes I thought that the 5d option might require utter precision. I liked the way that another poster commented that art directors are 'putting up' with dslr files at the moment. I know that the (very) few people who do this work in my area all use MF (or presumably larger)

I, and I'm sure most, would take a view that excellence and technical precision should always be the target, no matter what kit is being used, but it confirms my view that MF digital would in the longer term be a sounder proposition, as it offers a little more leeway, while inexperienced in the field of architectural photography. I think this is also true of other areas within commercial photography as well.

The other thing is that I completely agree with the idea of redundancy, and the values you quoted for cameras & lighting etc are uncannily similar to the budget I need to spend on kit. (I would be doing a reasonably wide range of work with it, so it would be well used)


Now, where did I put that lottery ticket...? :-)

Thanks Kirk
Jon

[Kirk Gittings]

In the end, my personal and professional life have been greatly enhanced by architectural photography. I did not intend to become one, but I have been very grateful for the luck. It is a great way to make a living and immerses you in an environment with like minded creative people.

[sgphoto844]

Yes I thought that the 5d option might require utter precision. I liked the way that another poster commented that art directors are 'putting up' with dslr files at the moment. I know that the (very) few people who do this work in my area all use MF (or presumably larger)

I, and I'm sure most, would take a view that excellence and technical precision should always be the target, no matter what kit is being used, but it confirms my view that MF digital would in the longer term be a sounder proposition, as it offers a little more leeway, while inexperienced in the field of architectural photography. I think this is also true of other areas within commercial photography as well.

The other thing is that I completely agree with the idea of redundancy, and the values you quoted for cameras & lighting etc are uncannily similar to the budget I need to spend on kit. (I would be doing a reasonably wide range of work with it, so it would be well used)
Now, where did I put that lottery ticket...? :-)

Thanks Kirk
Jon
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129583\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I was the poster who mentioned the art dir. issue, but I am going to bite the bullet and commit to MF digital imagery. I have been shooting arch/interiors for magazines and clients for 15years and film is my first love, but I figure it's "get on board or get out of the way". Good luck.

[MarkWelsh]

Speaking as an architectural photographer from a slightly later generation, I think I might be able to offer a useful perspective on this: like many of the experienced respondents in this thread, I'm glad  I had the opportunity to serve some time with a view camera early in my learning curve. It's a beautifully direct and simple method, and a great tutor of proper technique.

However, starting out now, shooting in today's digital landscape, investing in such a system would be misguided. Borrow one for a weekend; put some film through it, build a mental model of how all the movements affect the recorded image, then buy a Zörk PSA and MFS system and get busy making digital pictures with all the same flexibility and control. Film is a dead end.

Not only will a modestly priced camera like the 5D give you MF back quality (and better) when used with the right medium format / enlarger lenses, but everything we learnt from our 5x4 cameras can be deployed, without reference to film, in the digital domain. The Canon TS lenses just don't cut it: the image circles are too small, and unless you use JF's method, parallax is inevitable.

A 5D-based system is easy to use with a panohead for 7000px+ ultrawide images with natural perspective, and not expensive to put together. Remove the shift and pano apparatus, and you've  still got a fine general purpose, high ISO kit for working in low light, or handheld with IS.

Much to the chagrin of some (not all!) older photographers, much of what separates top notch imagery from the run of the mill is now done in the digital domain: you should also be concentrating on learning proper sharpening technique, RAW processing, colour manipulation, distortion correction, multiple white balancing, and noise control, in the same way that earlier generations of professionals vexed over film choice and darkroom techniques.

It is no longer even clear that excellence in lighting is a requirement: those of the 'exposure blending' school (especially now with HDR), feel that interiors and exteriors are more naturally 'lit' with multiple ambient light exposures.

For better or worse - and it's easy to get nostalgic on this point – I don't believe that shooting film teaches you want you need to know about working today. And it no longer holds the aces when it comes to image quality.

If in the future you feel the need to upgrade beyond the production of critically sharp 7000 pixel images, or you are drawn to the aesthetic and technical benefits of a larger-then-36mm sensor for particular clients, the cost of the latest MF digital backs, complete with an array of lenses, is now comparable to that of a Pro Canon DSLR. And the same stitching and panning techniques you cut your teeth on with the 5D can still be used with the bigger camera for sheet-film-excelling IQ.

[rethmeier]

Well said Mark!
WR.

[Dustbak]

Speaking as an architectural photographer from a slightly later generation, I think I might be able to offer a useful perspective on this: like many of the experienced respondents in this thread, I'm glad  I had the opportunity to serve some time with a view camera early in my learning curve. It's a beautifully direct and simple method, and a great tutor of proper technique.

However, starting out now, shooting in today's digital landscape, investing in such a system would be misguided. Borrow one for a weekend; put some film through it, build a mental model of how all the movements affect the recorded image, then buy a Zörk PSA and MFS system and get busy making digital pictures with all the same flexibility and control. Film is a dead end.

Not only will a modestly priced camera like the 5D give you MF back quality (and better) when used with the right medium format / enlarger lenses, but everything we learnt from our 5x4 cameras can be deployed, without reference to film, in the digital domain. The Canon TS lenses just don't cut it: the image circles are too small, and unless you use JF's method, parallax is inevitable.

A 5D-based system is easy to use with a panohead for 7000px+ ultrawide images with natural perspective, and not expensive to put together. Remove the shift and pano apparatus, and you've  still got a fine general purpose, high ISO kit for working in low light, or handheld with IS.

Much to the chagrin of some (not all!) older photographers, much of what separates top notch imagery from the run of the mill is now done in the digital domain: you should also be concentrating on learning proper sharpening technique, RAW processing, colour manipulation, distortion correction, multiple white balancing, and noise control, in the same way that earlier generations of professionals vexed over film choice and darkroom techniques.

It is no longer even clear that excellence in lighting is a requirement: those of the 'exposure blending' school (especially now with HDR), feel that interiors and exteriors are more naturally 'lit' with multiple ambient light exposures.

For better or worse - and it's easy to get nostalgic on this point – I don't believe that shooting film teaches you want you need to know about working today. And it no longer holds the aces when it comes to image quality.

If in the future you feel the need to upgrade beyond the production of critically sharp 7000 pixel images, or you are drawn to the aesthetic and technical benefits of a larger-then-36mm sensor for particular clients, the cost of the latest MF digital backs, complete with an array of lenses, is now comparable to that of a Pro Canon DSLR. And the same stitching and panning techniques you cut your teeth on with the 5D can still be used with the bigger camera for sheet-film-excelling IQ.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129663\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I second this (but did that already in the 3rd post).

I am one of the in-between generations having worked with film as well. Today everything is digital for me.  Even better for stitching would be a camera with a stitching back or shift ability on the back (like the flexbody). Stitching is a breeze with these setups. I feel as well that blending exposures and blending several different white balances to even out differences in colortemp of available light is the way to go at least for me it is but than again to each his own. The end result is the only thing that counts and not the way you got there.

I notice that techniques like stitching, exposure blending and white balance blending appear to be very underestimated by many?

[jonstewart]

I was the poster who mentioned the art dir. issue, but I am going to bite the bullet and commit to MF digital imagery. I have been shooting arch/interiors for magazines and clients for 15years and film is my first love, but I figure it's "get on board or get out of the way". Good luck.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129618\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks, couldn't remember who it was when I was writing that. Think you might be right about going digital. It seems to me that shooting digital with the mindset of shooting film probably works best!
Jon

[TorbenEskerod]

xx

[marc gerritsen]

Hi Bevan

I tell you how I did it,
I got a Sony 707 and traveled Europe shooting all things architecture and design.
Got a portfolio together and showed prospective clients what my architectuar/design vision was.
With my first assignment I bought a Nikon D100 and used it for about 2 years servicing upcoming architects and designers and getting my photos published in magzines.
Then I upgraded to The Nikon D2X while upgrading my clients as well. I used that camera for about 2 years. Last year I felt the need to upgrade to a Hasselblad H2D 39 which I am still using. Just in the last year I shot 30000 frames and must have sold one in each ten frames.

I think the key to my fast upgrades was firstly and formostly my interest in architecture and design and my ability to talk to the client, secondly photoshop skills and thirdly my photographic technique.

So forget about the gear, go shoot with what ever you can lay your hands on and create your vision
 
content sells more than technique, anytime of the day!

Marc

[sgphoto844]

I second this (but did that already in the 3rd post).

I am one of the in-between generations having worked with film as well. Today everything is digital for me.  Even better for stitching would be a camera with a stitching back or shift ability on the back (like the flexbody). Stitching is a breeze with these setups. I feel as well that blending exposures and blending several different white balances to even out differences in colortemp of available light is the way to go at least for me it is but than again to each his own. The end result is the only thing that counts and not the way you got there.

I notice that techniques like stitching, exposure blending and white balance blending appear to be very underestimated by many?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129679\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So I think what I'm hearing here is that a canon 5D and a pano-head would be a less expensive alternative to a Hass. CF 22 back with all the trimmings provided size of imagery outside magazine format is not required? The pano-head would solve the wide angle "zoom" effect I have mentioned as being a detrement to composition, but I have a hard time thinking that if I'm going to commit to digital, why not start with the the better system.
Thoughts?

[Kirk Gittings]

Not only will a modestly priced camera like the 5D give you MF back quality (and better) when used with the right medium format / enlarger lenses.

If you are talking about MF film back I might largely agree with you in terms of everyday practicality and useful output. If you are talking about a MF digital back there is no comparison.

[sgphoto844]

If you are talking about MF film back I might largely agree with you in terms of everyday practicality and useful output. If you are talking about a MF digital back there is no comparison.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129707\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think for a variety of reasons I'll commit to the CF 22 and scream for help!