Architectural Market

[Kirk Gittings]

For me the high end work is solid so far. It is the low end work that I use to fill in the down times that has disappeared. And this is not because of even lower end competition, but the work is simply not being done at all by any level of professional.

I also want to take issue with the way DSLR architectural photography has been represented here. I exclusively used a 4x5 for 28 years and not one of my view cameras and lenses cost as much as my 5D and a set of lenses. Yes there are cheap DSLRs, but a decent camera and set of lenses are not cheap and can within limits produce professional results. The plain fact is, by my assessment, 96% of the 4x5s I shot never were used larger than 8x10 and a DSLR used properly can easily fulfill the needs of most architecture clients including high end, high profile national design firms and magazines. Vision is still 90% of any successful architectural image not capture size.

[mkravit]

There is one market that should still be not that much effected is in proposal of Architecture work. Where the scale model is shot & superimposed in the background of future neighbourhood. Though AutoCad program does offer that ability, but the final rendering is rather devout of texture & real feel to it. Hence the photo composite imparts more realistic proposal, which everybody favours.
   Hang in there.

As architects we rarely use AutoCad for rendering. Second, the photo realistic rendering has all but replaced our use of models and model builders. In my office, we use a number of 3D rendering programs and all are amazingly realistic and are NOT devout of texture and real feel.

[arc-technika]

It seems with the new rise of digital photography has gave an upper hand to non-professional photographers. I never thought that a Canon 5D would be something to be considered a "normal" camera, but now that the normal consumer market's perception of image quality has improved, I feel that the image quality I am producing must proportionately improve too. I would feel uncomfortable if a client that I am working with has the same camera I am using on the shoot, even if they are paying more for my vision of the space.

If all fails, I can always flip burgers.

[rainer_v]

i think in architecture the  question is more about the lenses and the way the camera allows to visualize the images than about resolution or bit depht.
this is what has a large impact to the final view of many images, independent if film or digital or 16 or 60Mp.
aside this its also my experience that 95%  of my images arent used larger than 8x10", but whats with the rest ?

[marc gerritsen]

i think in architecture the  question is more about the lenses and the way the camera allows to visualize the images than about resolution or bit depht.
this is what has a large impact to the final view of many images, independent if film or digital or 16 or 60Mp.
aside this its my experience too that 95%  of my images isnt used larger than 8x10" too, whats with the rest?

I still think the most important tool of the architectural/interior photographer is still the eye.
Often I here from my clients that they like a photo simply because they never saw the possibility
of a more interesting angle or usage of light and/or lighting. The other important and overlooked issue
in arch/int photography is the amount of styling that goes in a shoot (from the simple moving around
of furniture or the removal of objects on location or in photoshop)

Still haven't felt the recession bite me in the arse, but it will inevitably happen in East Asia as well.
I think though that a lot of projects need to be finished regardless and then also promoted with good photography.
Just because there is a recession does not mean mid level and larger companies are going to change there
projects that they have been working on for the last 5 to 10 years.

The other thing I read the other day is that a lot of people are happier in a recession, less work
and more time to spend with family and friends, a time to re-evaluate what is really important.
If I get less busy I can finally start working on my personal projects that have been shelved for the last
4 years.

good luck to you all!
m*

[edwinb]

This technology is being used for smaller products but not as extensively as for cars, for historical reasons but also for costs. A lot of the initial design concepts are still generated by hand but it very quickly moves into using 2D and 3D software. The CAD data that is being generated for cars, in general, is a few levels above most other products, mostly because of the complicated surfaces that at some point and somehow will have to be converted into shaped metal/ glass/ plastic/ composite body parts.

The car industry started using it very early. I recall that we used to leave the SGI computers to run a single rendered image overnight to create a "massive" 1.4MB jpeg that we could store on a floppy disk...at that time architects were using Autocad for 2D ONLY and anything 3D was done with cardboard, a scalpel and UHU sticks...

These days, an image of a flat brick wall can be analysed and then used to create the texture of a building wall or it can be reflected on a car's side panels and so on.

And much like with the pictures of the products and buildings, the higher the quality of that image is, the more realistic its implementation in the final image can be.

Yair

I think Yair is right, The sites I've visited are using it for consumer products- everything from tea pots to telephones, the cost and software manipulation expertise has collapsed with the current pure software -any platform developments
The heavy 3d modelling programming skills are being completly masked by the software leaving only the creative craft skill to be applied. thats the core skill (I trust!) that will always be held at a premium
Edwin

[Kirk Gittings]

i think in architecture the  question is more about the lenses and the way the camera allows to visualize the images than about resolution or bit depht.
this is what has a large impact to the final view of many images, independent if film or digital or 16 or 60Mp.
aside this its also my experience that 95%  of my images arent used larger than 8x10", but whats with the rest ?

I think this is a response to my post. What's with the rest? Stitching or shooting the 4x5 and film. I am more insistent about knowing how large images are going to be used now than before I did when everything was simply shot with 4x5 film (I shot 4x5 exclusively for 28 years).

[rainer_v]

I think this is a response to my post. What's with the rest? Stitching or shooting the 4x5 and film. I am more insistent about knowing how large images are going to be used now than before I did when everything was simply shot with 4x5 film (I shot 4x5 exclusively for 28 years).

i often cant say in larger projects before the shot is finished ( - and noone can tell me this with certainty - ) how large will be the final used sizes of each motif. for some detail shots it is possible, for the larger views often not,- and sometimes the favorite shots for the client might not be the best one for me. with 4x5" this wasnt an important question, there was always enough headroom.
i mixed sometimes canons ( esp.  for  the very wide lenses + for the long ones ), with mf shots and had them mixed in hi quality publications double page printed too. it works fine if done carefully but it is the limit i.m.o. - this limit is set from the lenses, so it wont grow with higher resolution sensors and no one seems to invest to make better shift lenses for 35mm ( yes i tried the new nikon ). all wa are unsharp if shifted and have lots of distortion.
if there is added in software some shifting or cropping 35mm is closed to be over the top or even over the top at A3.

although rarely anyone was asking me seriously about the cameras i will use for an ongoing job, above some level clients simply expect that you deliver the best possible and that you know which tool might deliver it, they dont ask for it. maybe its more in the mid or lo level work where this kind of questions are discussed more frequently.  although therefor 35mm might be enough for nearly all needs in terms of the "really" needed or used quality in terms of resolution, the lens issues remain visible,- of course only for enough critical eyes.  also this is a question of ones personal level of work and to a certain amount of someones image style.  clearly, without having a vision, eyes and knowing how to use the gear and software, the best equipment is for nothing. i am still sure that a good eye will make a better production even with a canon g10 ( what a great cam ! ) or at least with a 5d ( together with some shift lenses ), than a less trained eye  with all the best gear.  the cameras are  just a form to transport the visions, nothing more. i personally like to have the top end of equipment .... as i try to make images at the best point where my vision is too.
in my architecture work- and for me thats very important- the way how i can frame images influence my motifs too ( as well as the fun i have during shooting  ). its abstract and very technical to stitch images with mf lenses on a zoerk adapter with a dslr, although i have made some of my best photographs in this way i dont like this as a workflow.

formerly i never used 6x7 or 6x9 cm film-backs on my 4x5" camera for similar reason. i wanted the large 4x5" screen, it was not that i was concerned that 6x9 wouldnt  deliver enough resolution.

[Kirk Gittings]

Rainer,

There is much wisdom in what you say and of course your work speaks for itself. For me, after using a 4x5 for so long, I approached using a DSLR with some skepticism (I didn't buy it with the intention of using it professionally particulary with my national clients), but it has worked out well when used very carefully (I basically use it just as I did a view camera). Approaching 60, after doing this full time since 1978, I have to say that the flexibility of a DSLR has been very liberating aesthetically, a joy to my failing knees and my clients have never been happier.

[marc gerritsen]

Rainer,

There is much wisdom in what you say and of course your work speaks for itself. For me, after using a 4x5 for so long, I approached using a DSLR with some skepticism (I didn't buy it with the intention of using it professionally particulary with my national clients), but it has worked out well when used very carefully (I basically use it just as I did a view camera). Approaching 60, after doing this full time since 1978, I have to say that the flexibility of a DSLR has been very liberating aesthetically, a joy to my failing knees and my clients have never been happier.

Hi Kirk
I am sure your clients are hiring you for your ability to transform 3d into 2d and perfectly well as I can see.
After carrying those heavy hassleblad (typo intented) lenses around, I often wonder how long i will be able to do that as well.
I am still addicted to the large files and bouquet though.
My other option would be an Alpa 12tc  (travel compact)  two lenses body and viewfinder would be 1.8kg all up
that really beats my 5kg set up.
cheers
m^

[Kumar]

Approaching 60, after doing this full time since 1978, I have to say that the flexibility of a DSLR has been very liberating aesthetically, a joy to my failing knees and my clients have never been happier.

Come to Japan, where in five years' time you'll be considered middle-aged  

Kumar

[rainer_v]

Rainer,

There is much wisdom in what you say and of course your work speaks for itself. For me, after using a 4x5 for so long, I approached using a DSLR with some skepticism (I didn't buy it with the intention of using it professionally particulary with my national clients), but it has worked out well when used very carefully (I basically use it just as I did a view camera). Approaching 60, after doing this full time since 1978, I have to say that the flexibility of a DSLR has been very liberating aesthetically, a joy to my failing knees and my clients have never been happier.

 hi kirk,
i did some time ago exactly what you are doing, if i understand your workflow right. i used 4x5" for one half, and dslr for the other one. i did it with the kodak-slr and the canon 1ds before the schneider 24 and rodenstock 28hr were out,- so at that time wasnt a mf wide angle available.
i  bought really all wide angles available ... most went out directly after the first three shots again for distortion. i used finally the sigma 12-24 ( which i find the best if one get a sharp sample ) , olympus 24pc and a set of pentax mf lenses from 35 till 160mm together with a zoerk adapter, stitching a lot with these.
results have been very fine, but at the edge with a3,- for lens sharpness. workflow was horrible complicate with the kodak slr,- but at least i figured out at that time how to invert white reference shots before each shot with the kodak slr. this was a big help later after switching to mf and find the sam f*** color shifts again. imagine that at that time kodak ( and phase one for mf ) claimed insistent that there is NO color shift existing wth their chips / backs ....
i made images with iso6 and 2.1 nd filters at daylight with the kodak. results  were fabulous but i cant imaging now to work again in this way nowadays. habbits are a-changing.... i used digital because fast i became addict to the rendering for mellow colors in bad weather as well as how nice can look tungsten or mixed light. it was the best school for using digital equipment and solving later a bundle of problems i was faced when switching fully to digital in end of 2005..

[thom]

claimed insistent that there is NO color shift existing wth their chips / backs ....

I'm pretty sure, all of us architecture photographers around the world, before going to bed , praying every single evening, that someone someday will make  a color-shift-free sensor...
 
Do you think this will happen any time?

[rainer_v]

I'm pretty sure, all of us architecture photographers around the world, before going to bed , praying every single evening, that someone someday will make  a color-shift-free sensor...
 
Do you think this will happen any time?

no idea. but i dont see it as a problem as long some clever workflow for the white shadings exists, and this is now the case.

[Kirk Gittings]

Rainer,

There is much wisdom in what you say and of course your work speaks for itself. For me, after using a 4x5 for so long, I approached using a DSLR with some skepticism (I didn't buy it with the intention of using it professionally particulary with my national clients), but it has worked out well when used very carefully (I basically use it just as I did a view camera). Approaching 60, after doing this full time since 1978, I have to say that the flexibility of a DSLR has been very liberating aesthetically, a joy to my failing knees and my clients have never been happier.

Quoting myself. I forgot to add the most important thing. I am enjoying doing architectural photography more than I have in years! It is fun again.

[rainer_v]

Hi Kirk and all,

Third question: I'm planning to move to H3DII-50, 28mm, 35mm, HTS 1.5. Weight should be similar to my current equipment and I hope my workflow will be faster then. Does anyone see a flaw here?
(I posted this here already and got positive feed back. But it is a 30k Euro investment and I would like to learn as much as possible before I spend the money.)

Best,
Johannes

P.S.: I know. It is a mf forum, but at least there is one mf-related question in my post.

 [attachment=9788:71494_1.jpg]

if you go to mf and shoot mostly architecture i dont understand why you dont go the cambo/alpa/artec route ?

[BJNY]

[attachment=9788:71494_1.jpg]

May I know from where to purchase one of these crystal levels?

[free1000]

if you go to mf and shoot mostly architecture i dont understand why you dont go the cambo/alpa/artec route ?

Indeed, life is so much simpler with one of these.

Completely agree with Rainer's points on the thread. I do use Canon 1DsII and those shift lenses, but its chalk and cheese quality wise compared to the Cambo/Leaf/Schneider combination. We've all been through it trying to 'make and mend' but its a case of pay cheap pay twice. Particularly those of us like Rainer and myself who started out with those plasticky Kodak Slr/c/n camera! Shock horror... seems a million years ago now, but it was only 2004. Incredible.

With MF you can cut some steps out of the DSLR workflow that are just there to fix up problems in the images such as rotating, PTLens etc stuff, because my images start level and with little or no distortion. Correcting distortions when you have applied shift is just a PITA.  Yes, there is the damn sensor colour shift problem, and I wish the sensor manufacturers would fix that before adding more bloody pixels, but I don't think they wil listen so I'm getting wearing of complaining about it. We are repeatedly told that the white shot, software fix, is something we have to live this, but then 8 years ago the vendors were telling us that LCD screens, chips bigger than 35mm and non-tethered operation were pie in the sky.

I also agree with the many who point out that the eye is the thing rather than the camera. I just think that its a shame, if you get a great aesthetic shot to end up with mushy edges or unsightly CA or distortion if you have to enlarge the image for a purpose.

I visited one of my architects last year and he had a big show in his studio of about 30 of my images, all about A1 size. It looked fantastic, and to me it justified all the cost and pain of moving to the Cambo and MF, because the quality really shone out. The only painful one was the 1DsII image on the Sigma 12-24 which had been enlarged to a pano about 1.5 meters wide, the quality really sucked compated to the Aptus shots.

I know that anyone walking into that studio is going to ask... wow, who shot those pictures. Its a living advert.

[Ricardo Loureiro]

Hi guys, this is my first post here  

jsch:

I have the same problem with levels, but now i trust my grid viewfinder on my 5d more than the levels.
My lens setup for architectural photography is  24mm TS-E - Nikkor 35mm PC - 17-40 and a no brand 80mm TS.
I also use PTlens when i need extra barrel correction.

As an architecture student i see a lot of books with great photographers and i admire the MF and LF photography they do.

As rainer said, why don't you check the Cambo or Alpa solutions ?

If i had the money and market for it i would love to have that type of equipament.


Regards

[ericstaud]

Indeed, life is so much simpler with one of these.

I visited one of my architects last year and he had a big show in his studio of about 30 of my images, all about A1 size. It looked fantastic, and to me it justified all the cost and pain of moving to the Cambo and MF, because the quality really shone out. The only painful one was the 1DsII image on the Sigma 12-24 which had been enlarged to a pano about 1.5 meters wide, the quality really sucked compated to the Aptus shots.

When I started asking architects (all current clients) about using a DSLR, they all said fine.  It took me a while to realize (I guess I'm slow) that they we're all just telling me they trusted my opinion.  If  I told them the only way to shoot was with Cambo/Alpa/Artec system they would say fine.  I decided that this was really my choice to some degree and that what I wanted was the ability to make gallery quality 3x4 foot prints of any subject I photographed.  Knowing this and also understanding that a 30+ megapixel MFDB is cheaper in the long run than shooting 4x5 film lead me to the choice of the Alpa.  I go to photography shows now and there is a real explosion of Julius Schulman prints on display here in Los Angeles.  These are beautiful prints of many homes that don't exist anymore.  The only photographic evidence that exists.  I'm not trying to sell myself as the cheapest, the fastest, or that the equipment I use is just good enough.  I'm documenting an architect's life work.  I know it sounds like a sales pitch, but I really was uncomfortable with the 1Ds images I delivered.