Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: are tech cameras still usefull today?  (Read 5226 times)

fredjeang

  • Guest
are tech cameras still usefull today?
« on: April 16, 2010, 12:51:15 pm »

What can be done nowdays with a tech camera that can not be acheived in digital post-production?

Thank you.

Logged

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
are tech cameras still usefull today?
« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2010, 12:55:49 pm »

Quote from: fredjeang
What can be done nowdays with a tech camera that can not be acheived in digital post-production?

Thank you.

You can't achieve a tilt effect in PP. Certain scenes can be faked to some extent but it's not the same thing.

You can also shift a sensor in a view camera and stitch images without distortion correction, which can't be done with a regular DSLR.
Logged

michele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
are tech cameras still usefull today?
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2010, 12:59:03 pm »

Quote from: Graham Mitchell
You can't achieve a tilt effect in PP. Certain scenes can be faked to some extent but it's not the same thing.

You can also shift a sensor in a view camera and stitch images without distortion correction, which can't be done with a regular DSLR.

Take a look at the alien skin bokeh plug-in... no need for a tilt lens. In the bokeh range photoshop is not usable...

JonathanBenoit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 414
are tech cameras still usefull today?
« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2010, 01:02:28 pm »

Quote from: fredjeang
What can be done nowdays with a tech camera that can not be acheived in digital post-production?

Thank you.

Correcting vertical lines with software creates an unrealistic shape. I'm not sure if I can describe it. You cant just distort a digital image in software to get the same effect as lining up the verticals with a view camera. I saw a comparison somewhere on this. Anyone have a link to supply?
Logged

michele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
are tech cameras still usefull today?
« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2010, 01:08:05 pm »

Quote from: JonathanBenoit
Correcting vertical lines with software creates an unrealistic shape. I'm not sure if I can describe it. You cant just distort a digital image in software to get the same effect as lining up the verticals with a view camera. I saw a comparison somewhere on this. Anyone have a link to supply?

Better then nothing, it's in italian, no english version but it has images...
http://www.silvestricamera.it/ita/tecnica/tecnica1.htm

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
are tech cameras still usefull today?
« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2010, 01:11:03 pm »

Quote from: michele
Take a look at the alien skin bokeh plug-in... no need for a tilt lens. In the bokeh range photoshop is not usable...

Thank you for proving my point - that's not the same thing at all! I suspect you don't fully understand what a tilted focal plane is?
Btw, that effect is very easy to achieve without the plug in.
Logged

michele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 230
are tech cameras still usefull today?
« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2010, 01:18:16 pm »

Quote from: Graham Mitchell
Thank you for proving my point - that's not the same thing at all! I suspect you don't fully understand what a tilted focal plane is?
Btw, that effect is very easy to achieve without the plug in.

yes it's very easy, but it's a awful, you can see a strange soft effect in the defocus passage... by the way i know what a tilted focal plane is, and yes, you are right, it's not the same thing but it works...

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
are tech cameras still usefull today?
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2010, 02:28:40 pm »

Hi,

I guess that making things unsharp is easy, making them sharp is not.

I have looked into depth merge solutions and they work.

My impression is that we can achieve the same effects that are possible with shift and tilts by merging multiple exposures, under certain conditions. This page offers some discussion on the issue:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...ng-the-dof-trap

As I see it, you can carry a decent equipment,  a P&S, a DSLR or an MFDB and a few lenses and achieve a lot of effects in post processing. The approach based on post processing allows you to makes best use of the equipment you happen to have at your disposal in the shooting situation.

For optimum quality, precision is essential. Having a lot of degrees in freedom may reduce that precision. How do you know that all your equipment is aligned within ten microns?

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Graham Mitchell
Thank you for proving my point - that's not the same thing at all! I suspect you don't fully understand what a tilted focal plane is?
Btw, that effect is very easy to achieve without the plug in.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2010, 02:37:30 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

JonathanBenoit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 414
are tech cameras still usefull today?
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2010, 02:46:23 pm »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

I guess that making things unsharp is easy, making them sharp is not.

I have looked into depth merge solutions and they work.

My impression is that we can achieve the same effects that are possible with shift and tilts by merging multiple exposures, under certain conditions. This page offers some discussion on the issue:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...ng-the-dof-trap

As I see it, you can carry a decent equipment,  a P&S, a DSLR or an MFDB and a few lenses and achieve a lot of effects in post processing. The approach based on post processing allows you to makes best use of the equipment you happen to have at your disposal in the shooting situation.

For optimum quality, precision is essential. Having a lot of degrees in freedom may reduce that precision. How do you know that all your equipment is aligned within ten microns?

Best regards
Erik

Then you are getting away from being a photographer and turning yourself into a graphic designer. I'm not convinced it's even possible to simulate either shift or tilt in post. A photographer's principles and time would suffer. It makes more sense to focus your time and effort on photography.
Logged

Terence h

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
    • Terence Hogben Photography
are tech cameras still usefull today?
« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2010, 02:48:45 pm »

Hello i have been using Helicon Focus for the last year , and yes it works , but it is a pain in the rear and you have to spend a lot
of time finding the images  and stitching and painting away areas that the program has decided are correct. And if for some reason
one or more exposures are different it becomes a real problem.

A present i am deciding weather to buy a Tilt lens for my 5D MK11 or my Leaf , i suppose it is really a debate with myself which system is
going to win out for me in the future.
I need to be able to tilt shoot done instead of going home and spending the evening fiddling.
Or even worse cutting into my surfing (kneeboarding ) time the next day :-)

Regards
Terence
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

I guess that making things unsharp is easy, making them sharp is not.

I have looked into depth merge solutions and they work.

My impression is that we can achieve the same effects that are possible with shift and tilts by merging multiple exposures, under certain conditions. This page offers some discussion on the issue:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...ng-the-dof-trap

As I see it, you can carry a decent equipment,  a P&S, a DSLR or an MFDB and a few lenses and achieve a lot of effects in post processing. The approach based on post processing allows you to makes best use of the equipment you happen to have at your disposal in the shooting situation.

For optimum quality, precision is essential. Having a lot of degrees in freedom may reduce that precision. How do you know that all your equipment is aligned within ten microns?

Best regards
Erik
Logged
Terence Hogben. Durban. South Africa. ht

CBarrett

  • Guest
are tech cameras still usefull today?
« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2010, 06:54:50 pm »

Personally, I find I already have enough post work without having to worry about straightening out the picture.  I'd rather work with a tech/view camera and get it done right the first time.  Also keep in mind that when you are "fixing" a tilted picture you are also degrading it, introducing a lot of interpolation.

I did this experiment a few years ago.  I ran into a situation where I needed more rise than I could get with my Rodenstock 35mm before diffraction hit, so I decided to tilt the camera up, going out of square instead of using rise.  I corrected the perspective later in Photoshop.  The image featured a large window wall with a grid of rectangular windows.  On the shot where I corrected the perspective, the rectangles looked much more like squares.  So in the end I had to first distort the image for perspective and then stretch it to achieve the proper ratio for the architecture.  A nightmare indeed.  As for me, I'd rather not turn my pictures into Silly Putty.

Of course we all have differing budgets and equipment at our disposal so it really becomes about making the best picture possible with the given parameters.  There's more than one way to skin a cat.

-CB
Logged

JeffT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
    • http://Emerginglightphotography.com
are tech cameras still usefull today?
« Reply #11 on: April 17, 2010, 11:41:54 am »

Quote from: GBPhoto
1. On-site WYSIWYG
2. Tilt/swing effects
3. Time savings in post
4. System modularity

I would certainly agree with all of those points, and add that the usefulness of any of those added benefits varies depending upon what you are shooting (e.g. studio still life vs. fine art landscape, etc.) and film vs. digital back. I personally went with a tech camera for use in the field for landscape. They are not much heavier than a dslr or certainly not more so than a MF digital cam. The lenses are lighter. The work flow is more old school, slow and plodding. The other thing to consider is that the different manufacturers (Alpa, Arca, Cambo, Hartblei, Sinar) all implement tilt/swing and shift in different ways. Cambo probably got it the most right with the capability to tilt/swing simultaneously and yet there are not equal amounts of shift from center in the vertical axis. Alpa got the vertical shift right with the 12Max and shift adapter. Sinar may also have simultaneous tilt/swing, but I am not sure.

Also, focusing on a ground glass is a unique experience, good for some, not so good for others I imagine. The other thing to consider if shooting digital is that only three of the listed manufacturers have sliding backs (Arca, Harblei, Sinar). But then that is more weight and more possibilities for a decrease in precision parallel alignment of the back to lens over time. The degree of system modularity also varies amongst the manufacturers. Again, each system has strengths and benefits, and weaknesses with regard to the listed functionalities.

Regardless, I love using a tech camera in the field mostly because it fits my more contemplative work flow...and it is a heck of a lot lighter than any 4x5 I have ever owned...a good thing for any aging back.  
Logged
JeffT

Jeff Turner's Emerging Light Photography
http://www.EmergingLightPhotography.com

Anders_HK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1010
    • andersloof.com
are tech cameras still usefull today?
« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2010, 12:42:01 pm »

Quote from: fredjeang
What can be done nowdays with a tech camera that can not be acheived in digital post-production?

Thank you.

Very SHARP lenses.

Shift + rise/fall. Flat.
Logged

JonathanBenoit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 414
are tech cameras still usefull today?
« Reply #13 on: April 17, 2010, 12:56:23 pm »

Quote from: JeffT
I would certainly agree with all of those points, and add that the usefulness of any of those added benefits varies depending upon what you are shooting (e.g. studio still life vs. fine art landscape, etc.) and film vs. digital back. I personally went with a tech camera for use in the field for landscape. They are not much heavier than a dslr or certainly not more so than a MF digital cam. The lenses are lighter. The work flow is more old school, slow and plodding. The other thing to consider is that the different manufacturers (Alpa, Arca, Cambo, Hartblei, Sinar) all implement tilt/swing and shift in different ways. Cambo probably got it the most right with the capability to tilt/swing simultaneously and yet there are not equal amounts of shift from center in the vertical axis. Alpa got the vertical shift right with the 12Max and shift adapter. Sinar may also have simultaneous tilt/swing, but I am not sure.

Also, focusing on a ground glass is a unique experience, good for some, not so good for others I imagine. The other thing to consider if shooting digital is that only three of the listed manufacturers have sliding backs (Arca, Harblei, Sinar). But then that is more weight and more possibilities for a decrease in precision parallel alignment of the back to lens over time. The degree of system modularity also varies amongst the manufacturers. Again, each system has strengths and benefits, and weaknesses with regard to the listed functionalities.

Regardless, I love using a tech camera in the field mostly because it fits my more contemplative work flow...and it is a heck of a lot lighter than any 4x5 I have ever owned...a good thing for any aging back.  

Don't forget Toyo-View. They also have a sliding adapter. And Kapture Group makes sliding adapters for many tech cameras.
Logged

JeffT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
    • http://Emerginglightphotography.com
are tech cameras still usefull today?
« Reply #14 on: April 17, 2010, 02:07:14 pm »

Quote from: JonathanBenoit
Don't forget Toyo-View. They also have a sliding adapter. And Kapture Group makes sliding adapters for many tech cameras.

I wasn't aware that Toyo View had a plate-style tech camera...interesting. I was specifically addressing what is most commonly called a tech camera (plate, no bellows). Expanding the definition of a tech camera you could certainly add Silvestri Flexicam, the Linhof Techno, and the Arca M line Two, all of which offer sliding backs. You could throw in the Cambo Ultima 23D, Sinar P3, Rollei X-Act-2 as well. All of the plate tech cams are significantly smaller and lighter than the last five examples, however. Certainly any of them can be used quite well for architecture and one of the better examples of talented use of the larger bellows tech cams is Christopher Barrett using his Arca M line Two.
Logged
JeffT

Jeff Turner's Emerging Light Photography
http://www.EmergingLightPhotography.com

JeffT

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
    • http://Emerginglightphotography.com
are tech cameras still usefull today?
« Reply #15 on: April 17, 2010, 02:08:37 pm »

Quote from: Anders_HK
Very SHARP lenses.

Shift + rise/fall. Flat.

Those are exactly the reasons I bought the Alpa 12 Max for landscape work. So easy!!
Logged
JeffT

Jeff Turner's Emerging Light Photography
http://www.EmergingLightPhotography.com

JohnAONeill

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 154
    • http://www.johnanthonyoneill.com
are tech cameras still usefull today?
« Reply #16 on: April 17, 2010, 08:01:11 pm »

Lenses that are designed for viewcameras are significantly sharper as they are not "Compromised" by the requirement to have a mirror box inserted between the film plane and the lens. Also using post production techniques to achieve similar goals often leads to lower resolution files to work on. For example using perspective cropping in PS to correct converging verticals both removes pixels from the original file and interpolates additional pixels resulting in lower IQ.

Regards

John

Landscape photography of Ireland
www.ireland-images.com
Logged

jonstewart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 435
are tech cameras still usefull today?
« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2010, 05:58:03 am »

Sliding backs:
Add Silvestri and Linhof to the list!
Logged
Jon Stewart
 If only life were so simple.

rhsu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 148
are tech cameras still usefull today?
« Reply #18 on: May 08, 2010, 06:13:26 am »

Quote from: JonathanBenoit
Correcting vertical lines with software creates an unrealistic shape. I'm not sure if I can describe it. You cant just distort a digital image in software to get the same effect as lining up the verticals with a view camera. I saw a comparison somewhere on this. Anyone have a link to supply?

Schneider webside (http://www.schneideroptics.com/) and download their digitar lenses brochure PDF.  One of the pages in the beginning explains it.  You can correct vertical distortion but the height per ratio to bringing the verticle line in-line must be in porportion otherwise, you have a Cereal Box looking like a "drawf".

There are many pros with tech and cons (ie certain DB just don't work well!).  

LF lenses are designed differently to reflex lenses so one cannot get the same quality as per the former.
Logged

Dick Roadnight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1730
are tech cameras still usefull today?
« Reply #19 on: May 08, 2010, 04:14:25 pm »

click here
In the picture above they have the verticals vertical, but the back wall is not rectangular, and the arches seem asymmetrical... keeping the rear standard vertical and parallel to the back wall would have sorted this... and I think it would be difficult or impossible to sort it post... but most people would not even notice.
Logged
Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up