Digital Tools for Architectural Photography...

[archivue]

is it a joke ?

this photographer should try an RM3D and stop writing such things...

There are a number of MF camera solutions geared specifically to architectural shooters... all these systems rely on the traditional ground glass.

i used to have a 5D mark II as well, i've never touch canon stuff for architecture after having bought the RM3D and my aptus back.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/techniques/digital_tool_for_architecture.shtml

[Christopher]

While I think the RM3D is amazing, a Alpa or Cabmo does very well without a groundglass.

[archivue]

i was talking about RM3D because that's my tool, but any of these technical cameras is better than a canon for architecture !

[Christopher]

Well, nobody said you can't use Canon, it get's the job done. However, I would still say any of these technical cameras are better when it comes to final image quality. Only most clients really don't care enough.

[tho_mas]

There are plenty of talented experienced professional architectural photographers earning their keep using Canon. To suggest anyone doing so is a joke is disingenuous and naive.

I think the question "is it a joke?" was referring to the quote "...all these systems rely on the traditional ground glass."
At least that was my reading...

In fact there are several ways to focus these plate cameras with helical focus mounts... the groundglass is just one of them.
I do use the groundglass for compostion. I also use it for focusing - but only for relatively close distances (and that is working quite good if the lighting is okay and the motif shows appropriate contrast).
I also use a laser distometer and have taped additional distance indications on my lenses - I am using this method for mid distances.
The upcoming "high precission focus rings" of Alpa will further improve this method ( http://www.alpa.ch/docroot/tmp/940x550_stamp/articles/2010/photokina-news/news_pics/500200010_DSC4693s.jpg )
Of course this is where the Rm3D with its ultra high resloving focus ring shines.
Very often I shoot at infinity... and if the lenses are accurately adjusted to the sensor plane this way of focusing is absolutely no issue (of course).
Other photographers guess the distance (or adjust it on the groundglass) and check focusing on the LCD of their DBs. That is certainly also okay if the LCD is good enough (and if you know how to judge focus on the LCD). The LCD of my back totally sucks (I use a P1 non-Plus back)... so for me the latter doesn't work.

[archivue]

I think the question "is it a joke?" was referring to the quote "...all these systems rely on the traditional ground glass."
At least that was my reading...

yes, i was referring to it !
I've found that in this domain, LL reviews are not really accurate... for example the video about the RM3D and the amount of shift...
i had a chance to test a RM3D from a close friend, and was satisfied, so i bought it... and still happy with it... by chance, i didn't have to make my decision from this kind of reviews...

[archivue]

If that is the case then I apologise for the misinterpretation.

sorry about my english... i'm just a french photographer, it doesn't help...

[archivue]

Even if some clients can't see the difference, i do... and i'm pleased with my files now... that's important also !

But keep in mind, that for architecture photography you are dealing with available light, and this varies from place to place... i wasn't really satisfied with the colors from canon, not to mention problems with distorsion and 2x3 ratio...

[tho_mas]

I've found that in this domain, LL reviews are not really accurate...

I have the same feeling.

[Kirk Gittings]

But I agree with his conclusion.......after 27 years making my living exclusively with a 4x5 shooting architecture, I tried out DSLRs when the 5D came out and I have never looked back. It was liberating. I am more productive and creative with the DSLR and at 60 I am doing the best commercial work of my career.

[uaiomex]

Canon colors don't suck. MF db's may have better colors, wider DR and better resolution but in practice these marginal advantages are opaqued by all the shortcomings of db's. And for god's sake, since when it is necessary to spend $50kusd to photograph a kitchen? Maybe the Sultan of Dubai's. World gone mad.
Eduardo

[tho_mas]

for god's sake, since when it is necessary to spend $50kusd to photograph a kitchen?

it is not necessary. No one has said so.
Is it necessary to use a Canon for everything?
Obviously some prefer MFD... even though the workflow is quite cumbersome and even though there are shortcummings. There's nothing wrong with that.

[fredjeang]

My feeling about arquitecture photography is this one: I don't shoot arquitecture but started to studdy it before fine arts and worked in several agencies.
Arquitecture is precision, static, there are materials, structures, lights, patterns etc...arquitects tend to be more demanding with purity of the render.
I guess that the system that is naturally closer to those values are Tech cameras with high resolution backs.
If I where an arquitecture photographer, I'd use those precise systems. German equipment and optics.

[craigwashburn]

My feeling about arquitecture photography is this one: I don't shoot arquitecture but started to studdy it before fine arts and worked in several agencies.
Arquitecture is precision, static, there are materials, structures, lights, patterns etc...arquitects tend to be more demanding with purity of the render.
I guess that the system that is naturally closer to those values are Tech cameras with high resolution backs.
If I where an arquitecture photographer, I'd use those precise systems. German equipment and optics.

I suspect the majority of working arch photographers would agree with you, the main limitation being the cost of the systems and convincing clients to pay the premium.  $50k on a typical 2 year lease is a hefty charge per job to cover.   The majority of clients don't care what equipment is used and for their purposes, it would be splitting hairs at a significant cost.  35mm at the moment is more than adequate, in skilled hands.

I can't think of any architectural photographers that I personally know who are going the MFDB route and aren't being subsidized in some fashion.  Breaking the 10k barrier could change this though and inspire more mass adoption.

[Professional]

All what i hope is that i can get that Hasselblad HTS 1.5, but i really wish if my Hasselblad H series digital back can work with any technical camera, because i am not going to buy Phase One DB for example to use with that technical camera, so is it possible to use Hasselblad H4 digital back on a technical view camera?
And the question is: which technical camera is great for arch. work?

[tho_mas]

The nice thing is the look and feel of the two work well together (even thought Final Cut sucks when using stills, no good color management method that I can figure out for video to be consistent with the stills. The stills are good, the video clips are good, but together in Final Cut they lose the matching I assume to do with the gamma bizarreness that Apple has yet to solve.)

In which color space do you create the stills that you are importing into FCP?
Try to convert stills to HDTV Rec.709 in Photoshop prior to importing (rel.col + BPC). Also check the import settings on FCP (RGB 0-255 vs. 16-216).

[Kirk Gittings]

love what Chris Barrett shoots and Rainer and others very dedicated to arch work only. But while would satiate me for the moment, I NEED other genres of shooting to balance what's in my head. Architecture alone is a cold and lonely genre to me.

Me too-that is in large part what my b&w work is about, which currently is still done in 4x5. If I were to get a nice technical camera I would most likely only use it for that.

[Kumar]

To each his own.
Twenty years ago, as soon as I could afford it, I moved from 35mm to 6x9 film on a Sinar. Five years ago, I bought a Betterlight scan back, and three years ago an MFDB. With all formats, I've maintained an average of 12~15 images a day. By far, the most enjoyable process is the Betterlight, with its wonderfully simple workflow. The SuperView aka Live Focus makes focusing a breeze. And for those times when the Betterlight can't be used, the MFDB or Fuji Reala is great.

Kumar

[uaiomex]

Ok.
Ed


it is not necessary. No one has said so.
Is it necessary to use a Canon for everything?
Obviously some prefer MFD... even though the workflow is quite cumbersome and even though there are shortcummings. There's nothing wrong with that.

[fredjeang]

Canon is a sort of digital age icon: it works for all, they have a perfect distribution. digital photography is a lot Canon and for a reason. But thank god we have other alternatives, wide range of choices because it would be a dictature, and boring like hell.