The large format sacrifice

[Lorenzo Pierucci]

Hi everybody,

for who read this forum often you might had see all my "pilgrimage" from buying my first Valeo 22 and then my TOYO VIEW.
Im now happily using it for some months, and i have to admit it: i learn more in this few month that in 7 years ( I'm a young photographer ) with my 5DII then D800. I feel that the photos turns out different, more tridimensional. Im attaching 2 shots. One is a interior for a lounge bar, the other is my first ever real architectural assignment. I shoot it today, a university in Tainan, south of Taiwan. I never ever had such image with my D800 ( never used tilt shift lens tho, only monstrous the 14-24 ). But this is consequential to the major dedication and attention that the 4x5 push me to. But this images comes to such a prize:

-the system itself is around 5-6 kilos ( guessing ) plus mac
-25 ISO of the Valeo, bad in low light situation or extremely long to use.
-live view only tethered, extremely hard to find focus ( not a problem if i set it to infinity, but It really make me think twice before move the focus)


After edit my photos today, i come across at some post about the new TS lens ( especially canon one ) and how now days 35mm camera just are the way to go.
I don't care about the hard work and the "sacrifice" but did anybody feel that stitching 4 to 9 MF shots give a better result of a 35 mm camera?

Is not about resolution ( nowadays all my clients go straight for my "internet ready JPEG" and totally ignore the 10000x7000 TIFF), what i talk about is feel, color   and distortion. There is no difference from a shoot with at 90 mm Large format and a 24 mm on a FF  35mm ? The same photos took at the same camera position, will look the same? or 35 mm will look more flat.

This question is puzzling me a lot. Maybe my ignorance is at the base of it.

Any comment or constructive insult is more then welcome

[SZRitter]

Is not about resolution ( nowadays all my clients go straight for my "internet ready JPEG" and totally ignore the 10000x7000 TIFF), what i talk about is feel, color   and distortion. There is no difference from a shoot with at 90 mm Large format and a 24 mm on a FF  35mm ? The same photos took at the same camera position, will look the same? or 35 mm will look more flat.

This question is puzzling me a lot. Maybe my ignorance is at the base of it.

Funny, I have suffered a similar question as of late. Not so much in the distortion area, but more from the feel/color perspective. Mostly in a film (Ektar and Portra) vs digital realm.

Also, I like the shot of the exterior. The smoothness of tone is exactly what I am trying to achieve.

[Gigi]

A good question. Its not ignorance, its what we all struggle with: somehow, shooting with MF digital backs, and with movements (or other large-format cameras) is harder, slows you down, yet produces better and more thoughtful images. If this weren't the case, many of us wouldn't do it. There is something special in shooting this way, and this can be seen very nicely in your shots. The interior shot is particularly interesting, with a wide range of tones, shapes and near/far. The subtlety of this shot would likely be lost with a DSLR, using a wider lens with more distortion and less tonal range.

Of course, there are no guarantees - a poor shot can be taken with any camera.

[Lorenzo Pierucci]

Funny, I have suffered a similar question as of late. Not so much in the distortion area, but more from the feel/color perspective. Mostly in a film (Ektar and Portra) vs digital realm.

Also, I like the shot of the exterior. The smoothness of tone is exactly what I am trying to achieve.

Film versus digital has been one of my struggle too last year. I spend quite a lot of money in film, developers and a scanner ( V600 ). Result, the best possible: i learn so much. I keep thinking that film has a special flavor, but the problem to me is that between the film and the screen there is the scanner. A fairly complicated ( to me ) tool to use. Plus cost.

Thanks for the comment on my photo. What i can say is that 90% of the success of this shoot is sun position ( 5.30 am ) + clear air. I have another shoot facing same direction ( different building ) just a hour later and is nothing to compare to that.

hope it helps

[Lorenzo Pierucci]

The interior shot is particularly interesting, with a wide range of tones, shapes and near/far. The subtlety of this shot would likely be lost with a DSLR, using a wider lens with more distortion and less tonal range.

Of course, there are no guarantees - a poor shot can be taken with any camera.

So there is indeed a distortion tonal range difference that probably give a better photo? this is a good sign that I'm not pushing in the wrong way

if i see my shoot with the D800 ( http://www.lorenzopierucci.com/architecture/ ) i do have the exactly same feeling of flatness. But maybe is because i focus less…  even if i use to shoot tethered with strobes and different layers ( still a good 40 minutes for shoot ).

Also i feel lees likely to use artificial lights with this set up. Like i can capture better the scene… mumble mumble

[SZRitter]

Film versus digital has been one of my struggle too last year. I spend quite a lot of money in film, developers and a scanner ( V600 ). Result, the best possible: i learn so much. I keep thinking that film has a special flavor, but the problem to me is that between the film and the screen there is the scanner. A fairly complicated ( to me ) tool to use. Plus cost.

Thanks for the comment on my photo. What i can say is that 90% of the success of this shoot is sun position ( 5.30 am ) + clear air. I have another shoot facing same direction ( different building ) just a hour later and is nothing to compare to that.

hope it helps

It helps quite a bit. When I went to art school, I was all about hunting the right time of day for a shot, then my professional life and digital made me "lazy". By lazy, I mean "oh, I can correct that in post". Over the last couple of months I have realized my lack of focus on the sun position has been hurting me. So yeah, you basically reaffirm what I was thinking my issue was.

[jerome_m]

if i see my shoot with the D800 ( http://www.lorenzopierucci.com/architecture/ ) i do have the exactly same feeling of flatness.

From a quick comparison between that link and the picture posted here, the main difference appears to be the way the contrast is mapped.

[Lorenzo Pierucci]

From a quick comparison between that link and the picture posted here, the main difference appears to be the way the contrast is mapped.

Defiantly the ones on my website have been true a lot of edit. But i guess one of the reason is that 35 mm require more. The set up 4x5 plus MF seems to me more "ready to deliver" right after RAW conversion and stitching.

Lens might be a factor 55 rodenstock VS 14-24 Nikon.

[mm111]

i think the benefit is and as you likely already know the LF lenses will always be better since they do not have to make the sacrifice in engineering of going through a mirror like on the nikon.  if you don't mind my asking what is the toyo camera and what is the sliding back adapter you have used?  i use this kind of setup with sinar.  also, great images!  kind regards

[Kirk Gittings]

Going through a mirror on the Nikon???

[Lorenzo Pierucci]

How the mirror take down the quality? is it because the shake of the "slap"? or there is more? 

I will keep this in mind every time i will find my self handling my hard case with my 4x5, plus back, plus profotos Acute 1200 or my 3 750 W lamps… It is a really pain, but if we all agree that image is better. I accept the "sacrifice". As i see it as the only way to set my self a part from the other million of photographer with 35 mm out there. Nothing against them of course, i also shoot 3 or 4 times a week with my D800 and my Sigma 12-24 ( dog lens but i use it for everyday casual jobs ). I really hope that all this hard work gonna give me a edge.

My set up by far:

TOYO G 45 ( RECESSED BOARD AND WIDE BELLOWS ), possibly change on a P1 soon or in a more compact system.

RODENSTOCK 55 APO SIRONAR, on my valeo give me 22 MP at 55 mm or 35-28 mm equivalent on at 1000x7000 file ( stitched ) or larger panorama. Image circle is really nice, plus i use a CENTER filter.

RODENSTOCK 90 WS Not as sharp as the 55 but on a 22 MP still ok.

[Lorenzo Pierucci]

Going through a mirror on the Nikon???

Kirk, i just check your website. Your architectural work is what i want to do when i " grow up". Great technique. i will start to fallow you as a fan

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks for the kind words. FYI I shot everything LF for about thirty years or so-both my commercial and personal work and taught it at 4 universities. Now all my commercial work is DSLR and virtually all my personal work is still 4x5 LF. A DSLR with T/S lenses does all I need it to for architectural photography-never ran into a situation I couldn't make work with the DSLR. Amongst other things I could not meet the deadlines for commercial work shooting film as I would have to have the film processed, scan it and spot it before taking it into PS. Clients only want files so all the prepress is on you.

[aaronleitz]

I will keep this in mind every time i will find my self handling my hard case with my 4x5, plus back, plus profotos Acute 1200 or my 3 750 W lamps… It is a really pain, but if we all agree that image is better. I accept the "sacrifice". As i see it as the only way to set my self a part from the other million of photographer with 35 mm out there. Nothing against them of course, i also shoot 3 or 4 times a week with my D800 and my Sigma 12-24 ( dog lens but i use it for everyday casual jobs ). I really hope that all this hard work gonna give me a edge.

But the images aren't better. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the camera you're using. I won't deny the small influence that having a big complicated looking camera has on clients but the best and arguably most rewarding way to set yourself apart from your competition would be to focus your efforts on taking better architectural photographs - something that the particular camera you're using plays a very small part in.

That's the elephant in the room. And the longer you ignore it, choosing instead to undertake this camera gear "pilgrimage" as you call it, the longer your architectural images will suffer both technically and aesthetically.

You do fabulous fashion work. I can see in your behind the scenes video how you and your collaborators discuss and fine tune lighting, composition, make-up, wardrobe, camera position and posing. The camera has almost nothing to do with it all - because you're so in tune and focused on what you are putting in front of it. Why not this same mindset when shooting architecture?

[Kirk Gittings]

A camera does not define your vision or distinguish your vision from other photographers. A camera is just a hammer-a tool. As I learned on LF, I use a DSLR just like a LF camera-my vision is no different-my vision is my vision. I was the last established AP in my area to switch to digital. I had film totally dialed in and was doing all the scanning in house. Film was part of my "signature". But my clients began to notice that I couldn't meet a tight deadline and giving work that needed a quick turn around to other photographers. This gave other photographers a foothold with my clients. It was a stupid strategy on my part that cost me a couple of years to turn around.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Mirror slap is an issue, but it can be eliminated entirely by using MLU (Mirror Lock Up).

On the other hand, the mirror influences optical design of the lenses. Most  classical lenses are symmetric designs, the contain two very similar lens groups grouped around the aperture. The back group is inverted (turned around). Such a design has many nice characteristics, but it has it needs a short flange distance and also has a large beam tilt. So, it does not leave room for a large mirror box and they don't play well with digital sensors (because of the beam tilt).

A classic example of this may be the Hasselblad Biogon 38, it needs a special housing (the SWC), but gives superior performance to the Distagon 40/4 FLE. The Distagons are inverted telephoto designs, highly assymetrical designs. In older times Distagon type lenses had significant distortion and significant sharpness fall off axis (on the edges and in the corners). But, excellent Distagon types designs are possible, the Zeiss 21/2.8 is an example of that. In the late 90-ex, Zeiss constructed a new version of the Distagon 40/4 FLE called FLE IF. That design is much improved over the classic Distagon.

Noteworthy is that Zeiss chose the Distagon design, that is inverted telephoto, for the Otus which seems to be a truly exceptional lens.

Another point is that the classic Biogon (symmetrical) design may be sensitive to thick IR filters that are normally used on digital sensors, and there are a few other issues, like issues with micro lenses when using tilt and shift and also crosstalk between pixels.

Getting back to the large format sacrifice, the main benefit I see with my Phase One P45+ compared to the Sonys I have is better resolution. Regarding ISO, I essentially shoot ISO 50 on both P45+ and Sony. I am shooting the P45+ a lot, but I am not sure the images are better. The resolution advantage is there, when pixel peeping on screen and doing it the proper way, but the difference is mostly gone in A2-size prints.

Best regards
Erik

How the mirror take down the quality? is it because the shake of the "slap"? or there is more? 

I will keep this in mind every time i will find my self handling my hard case with my 4x5, plus back, plus profotos Acute 1200 or my 3 750 W lamps… It is a really pain, but if we all agree that image is better. I accept the "sacrifice". As i see it as the only way to set my self a part from the other million of photographer with 35 mm out there. Nothing against them of course, i also shoot 3 or 4 times a week with my D800 and my Sigma 12-24 ( dog lens but i use it for everyday casual jobs ). I really hope that all this hard work gonna give me a edge.

My set up by far:

TOYO G 45 ( RECESSED BOARD AND WIDE BELLOWS ), possibly change on a P1 soon or in a more compact system.

RODENSTOCK 55 APO SIRONAR, on my valeo give me 22 MP at 55 mm or 35-28 mm equivalent on at 1000x7000 file ( stitched ) or larger panorama. Image circle is really nice, plus i use a CENTER filter.

RODENSTOCK 90 WS Not as sharp as the 55 but on a 22 MP still ok.

[chaosphere]

Lorenzo, the only advice I can give you is to clean your sensor to avoir Post-production ! 

[Lorenzo Pierucci]

First of all: yes i have to clean that sensor!

Also aaronleitz thanks for the kind comment about my fashion work. The behind the scene was actually a shoot for Vogue at W hotel Taipei so the team was really big. I wish i can work all the time like that. Unfortunately been a fashion photographer have more to do with politics then actual shooting.
Even in that scenario it seems to me that skin tones and sharpness is better from my AFD + valeo then my D800 + 85 1.4. And i shoot basically same way. Photos and skin look better to me and client.


Resuming the quality might be better ( might ) but the process is too long to meet dead line. Which is true. Also when it comes to interior shooting and stitching 9 frames at 15 seconds each…. plus noise in the shadow… plus long exposure noise. Yes is quite a mess.

I just say: old photographer had all the fun i wish i had my time with the 4x5 camera. Is honestly a pleasure to use.

This take to another question: seems that every AP using canon out there. Is that lens difference so critical? I'm a D800 user but honesty, beside the 1.5 x 4 meters poster of my and my family that i hang in my studio, i never use the 36 MP of my d800. Never. Even when I'm lucky enough to go to print 22 MP are more then enough.

In the long run: should i just take a 5DIII and a 17 tilst shift ? Or the PC 24 is enough ( even if not wide enough i ll say )

Thanks again for sharing guys

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

To begin with, I looked at the images you posted on your web site and they seem to be great.

Some observations:

If you strive for wide angle shots with extended DoF, larger formats will not be helpful unless you can use Scheimpflug (tilted focus plane), but Scheimpflug just gives a tilted focal plane, I doubt it would work for you. With larger formats you need to stop down more.

The Canon T&S lenses are said to be truly excellent, they are actually quite usable on MFD backs. You can put a Canon lens on Sony A7/A7r but not on a Nikon.

Stitching is easily done on any format. I tend to use a lot of stitching on MFD, as I don't have zooms, so I often resort to stitching to fit something to the frame rather than zooming out. Photoshop is not the best program for stitching, though. I use Autopano Pro but many posters prefer PTGui. Photoshop works well in simple cases.

Regarding colour rendition, flatness etc. If two images are shot from the same tripod position, perspective will be the same. DoF differences may give an illusion of 3D. My guess (and experience) is that in proper comparisons differences tend to disappear. Use same tripod position, stop down the MF kit two stops for similar DoF shoot a grey card and process the images the same way and you may end up with very similar images.

It may be more about making the best of the stuff that we have than looking at equipment for a specific look.

Best regards
Erik

First of all: yes i have to clean that sensor!

Also aaronleitz thanks for the kind comment about my fashion work. The behind the scene was actually a shoot for Vogue at W hotel Taipei so the team was really big. I wish i can work all the time like that. Unfortunately been a fashion photographer have more to do with politics then actual shooting.
Even in that scenario it seems to me that skin tones and sharpness is better from my AFD + valeo then my D800 + 85 1.4. And i shoot basically same way. Photos and skin look better to me and client.


Resuming the quality might be better ( might ) but the process is too long to meet dead line. Which is true. Also when it comes to interior shooting and stitching 9 frames at 15 seconds each…. plus noise in the shadow… plus long exposure noise. Yes is quite a mess.

I just say: old photographer had all the fun i wish i had my time with the 4x5 camera. Is honestly a pleasure to use.

This take to another question: seems that every AP using canon out there. Is that lens difference so critical? I'm a D800 user but honesty, beside the 1.5 x 4 meters poster of my and my family that i hang in my studio, i never use the 36 MP of my d800. Never. Even when I'm lucky enough to go to print 22 MP are more then enough.

In the long run: should i just take a 5DIII and a 17 tilst shift ? Or the PC 24 is enough ( even if not wide enough i ll say )

Thanks again for sharing guys

[xinchenc]

I would say your pictures shot with D800 have no image quality at all.

Please stick on your 4x5.

Xin