Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Bevan.Burns on July 18, 2007, 03:31:07 am
-
Hey all, a question for all the architecture pros here:
I'm a young student, extremely interested in the field of architectural photography. I was interested in what sorts of setups that you pros started out with. Eventually I want to be shooting with something like the Cambo WDS, or Alpa 12, with a high end MFDB, but that sort of gear is out of my price range now. Currently I have a modest Nikon setup (F100, D70s, 28-105 and 20, 35 and 50 primes) but would like to upgrade my setup over the next few years.
So what did you guys start out with? I assume I'm best off sticking with a film solution at first, but what's the best way to go to leave myself with a simple upgrade path to a digital workflow in the future? Should I look into getting a good pano head for stitching photos as an alternative to the high-res, wideangle solutions that the Cambo/Alpa provides? What do you all think?
I really appreciate the help!
Bevan
-
I would concentrate on stitching.
THe cheapest fastest way IMO is to use the 50 prime - handheld can work fine !
You should also consider the purchase of a 54 view camera with maybe a 65mm lens (cambo. sinar F etc) (you probably wont get infinity focues with a wider lens than this (with a DSLR) on the back (mug up on the rear focus to flange distances by getting deep into the schneider lense website PDFs (google)
You could shoot polaroids on that which would have a very cool look
You could also mash a lensboard and a lens back cap so you can stick your D70 on the back
check the D70 fires with no lense mounted !
Shoot 9 exposures by moving the rear standard around for p45 topping quality for around $500 US
FOTOMAN do cheap film rigs too but the market is flooded with bargain S/H film gear
Good luck
S
-
Stitching is a very good alternative. The 50 with a good multirow panohead will get you very far.
-
That info seems like bad advice to me. As an archtecture photographer I would make it simple and get a used 4x5 and a few used lenses (58xl 65 and a 90. The going rate of used equipment, would give you a much higher quality images and be easier to use. I stared out shooting 4x5 them moved to the Cambo Wide DS and digital back.
-
I second the advice about 4x5 camera: the need for perspective control is well met with this approach and the range of lenses you can use with it are inexpensive with very high quality.
The market disfavors this now, as everyone has run to digital, so there are some great buys. And the image quality and control is fantastic. Its also a great discipline to learn and understand: I don't think I really understood photography until I shot view camera, and large format.
-
I was leaning in the direction of 4x5s as well. What sort of workflow would you be looking at when working with large format film? Do most clients expect digital scans? What resolution? Do most of you shoot neg or slide film?
-
I agree with the guys above on learning with 4x5. It teaches you so much about seeing architecture that will translate well to whatever cameras you end up using. I still use my 4x5 heavily and scan the film in-house. It is a very cost effective way to shoot architecture. I also use FF Canons, which with TS lenses are better designed to shoot architecture than the Nikons. I shoot all my magazine shoots now with the Canon 5D which is more than adequate for magazine work.
Virtually all clients want files now. On 4x5 I usually scan trans and color neg film on a Epson 750. I primarily shoot color negatives now. They scan well. Resolution depends on final use. I only spring for a drum scan when I need really large prints.
-
Even though I shoot digital, I still miss the easy workflow of shooting film sometimes. I can setup and shoot a 4x5 faster then my current workflow with all the little fixes. The nice thing about digital I don't have to scan. If you start shooting 30 - 40 shots a week with the cost of Polaroid, Film and processing my new system is much more cost effective.
I was leaning in the direction of 4x5s as well. What sort of workflow would you be looking at when working with large format film? Do most clients expect digital scans? What resolution? Do most of you shoot neg or slide film?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129055\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
One thing to consider is that Epson 750 scanned 4x5 is probably not sharper than Imacon scanner 6x9 slides.
I'd reallt consider carefully going with a 4x5 camera with a 6x9 roll film back.
Considering the huge price gap between 4x5 sheets and 220 roll film, a quick computation will show that buying a second hand Imacon III scanner on ebay and working mostly with 6x9 instead of 4x5 will quickly be an economical solution.
Just my 2 cent.
Regards,
Bernard
-
One thing to consider is that Epson 750 scanned 4x5 is probably not sharper than Imacon scanner 6x9 slides.
I'd reallt consider carefully going with a 4x5 camera with a 6x9 roll film back.
Considering the huge price gap between 4x5 sheets and 220 roll film, a quick computation will show that buying a second hand Imacon III scanner on ebay and working mostly with 6x9 instead of 4x5 will quickly be an economical solution.
Just my 2 cent.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129094\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
All true but...............I have gone that route. Architecture is a volume image business. The dust issues with an older Imacon means you spend enormous hours spotting. Hence shoot digital DSLR when it is appropriate, scan film with Epson 750/Silverfast Digital Ice (Best DI combination and OK for most clients) or get a drum swcan when you need it and have them spot it.
-
All true but...............I have gone that route. Architecture is a volume image business. The dust issues with an older Imacon means you spend enormous hours spotting. Hence shoot digital DSLR when it is appropriate, scan film with Epson 750/Silverfast Digital Ice (Best DI combination and OK for most clients) or get a drum swcan when you need it and have them spot it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129149\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yep, dust is indeed a problem with Imacon scanners. I only scan very small volumes for fine art, but would indeed probably become crazy if I were to scan larger volumes.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard,
I agree. I really like the Imacons and have access to them where I teach. For my personal B&W (which is by nature small volume) I routinely use the Imacons as they give me a superb file on 4x5.
-
I've been at this for 30 years as a career and taught it at two universities, currently at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. The market has changed dramatically since clients started requiring files. Before digital the standard was 4x5 and that was easy for clients to see the difference when you showed them transparencies vs. MF or 35mm. With the advent of files no one cares about the source as long as the file looks good on their monitor and works well for their intended purpose. This has opened up the field considerably, there are now many ways to skin this cat. Not to say that quality files are any easier to do than film (more work in some ways), but that there are considerably more options and resources. Prior to adding FF DSLR to my kit, I was primarily shooting 6x9 color neg roll film in a 50 year old view camera and scanning in my office. All the scanning got really old. At 57 dragging a view camera around every day has gotten old after thirty years and the opportunity to do all my magazine work with a DSLR is a real treat and aesthetically invigorating. I personally now like all the changes in the field though I resisted them for years.
-
Hmmm... I'm wondering now if maybe I should just move straight to something like a 5D/Tilt Shift combo? I agree learning film will be a huge benefit, and I'm going to learn alot of that, and work alot with 4x5 view cameras at school. I'm just not sure it's worth investing my own time and money into my own system, the market being what it is... thoughts? I really appreciate all your feedback, Kirk. You've given me much to think about!
Bevan
-
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.
Remember these view cameras can be hired if necessary for specific jobs but in general, and some may argue with me here, to be able to successfully cover the field of interiors, exteriors and architecture and all the different jobs you may have to do, you have to be able to use both of these very different systems with utmost confidence.
The clients do not care about what you use, they just need you to produce what they require.
Marc
-
I shoot architectural on a semi-pro basis. I use a digital back on a Linhof M679cs for most of my work, but also a Canon DSLR with their T&S lenses, and sometimes a digital back on a Hasselblad Flexbody. Given that you're just strarting and money's tight I'd recommend a Canon 5D with the 24mm and 45mm T&S lenses.
Firstly the commercial architectural market is now overwhelmingly digital based, that's what most of your likely customers are geared up for and what they expect. Sure, there's a "fine art" architectural sector where film still plays a role (I use 6x9 film myself on occasion), and film may have a place away from the big cities, but basically digital is becoming the new standard. And that means delivering an un-rezzed file capable of 300dpi across a double page spread. You're in that territory with a 5D. It may not be quite as good, nor quite as flexible, as a digital back on a technical camera, but it's close enough that great execution will overcome any technical shortfalls.
Secondly, outside the hobbyist/fine art end of architectural most of the shots you'll take will be interiors rather than exteriors, certainly that's the case if you expect to earn a living from architectural work! And it's with interiors that the digital advantage becomes clearer. Colour temperature balancing, mixed lighting, huge light-to-shadow ranges, all these are a lot easier to deal with when you're working with digital. And digital's a lot cheaper too, I found with film that my largest equipment expense, and by far my largest luggage item, was lighting. Remember, you'll need an assistant and the means to be independent from mains electricity with most film lighting set ups. Increasingly I find I can handle most interior shoots single-handed, with only a pair of Canon flash guns, when I'm using a Canon DSLR and Photoshop.
Thirdly, at least here in crowded Europe, shooting exteriors often means extensive retouching to remove road signs, street furniture, inconveniently parked cars etc. This is a lot easier and a lot cleaner, when you're working in an all digital environment.
So, my advice is a 5D, 24mm and 45mm T&S lenses, Photoshop, a polarizing filter, a Canon flash with remote triggering cabability, a couple of large white reflectors and a couple of light stands to hang them on, and you're in business!
-
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.
-
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
-
Hi Kirk,
How many assistants do you work with?
David
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 architecture, especially for magazines, the exteriors are as important as the interiors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129415\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hi Kirk,
How many assistants do you work with?
David
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129512\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Usually just one, though on magazine shoots we often times have an art director and a stylist helping too. My assitant and I have been together for along time and have it down to a science. I also direct video architecture shoots, which is a real zoo with a dozen people.
-
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, 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Well said Mark!
WR.
-
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?
-
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
-
xx
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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!
-
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?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129700\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sure, if you can afford it, can get the assignments that go with the CF22 definitely go for it. If budget is a concern the 5D, panohead & indeed good skills also in PS will be a great way to generate files that are acceptable for many clients. The 5D is a great camera system but the backs are simply better in some important areas.
My route was, film, D1, D1x, C-most, D200, Valeo11, Aptus17 & now even bigger.
It is also a matter of what works for you. I would prefer an older 24x36 back with Digiflex II (or Flexbody) anytime over the 5D but these can only be bought second hand nowadays. These aren't fit for everything either.
There are a lot of factors that you could take into the equation.
Another line of thought. You just enter and still have to built your client list, this normally takes a while (it took me a couple of years and I am still building). Postponing the investment into more expensive equipment means you can have the same later for less.
Etc..
-
Sure, if you can afford it, can get the assignments that go with the CF22 definitely go for it. If budget is a concern the 5D, panohead & indeed good skills also in PS will be a great way to generate files that are acceptable for many clients.
My route was, film, D1, D1x, C-most, D200, Valeo11, Aptus17 & now even bigger.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sounds very tempting. I'll check that route out.
Thanks.
-
Whoa. A ton to think about for sure. I'm glad I'm going to be getting so much exposure to 4x5 view cameras at school. Seems to me that can only be a good thing. I learned photography on film and have a great love of it, but I also love the possibilities that digital opens up. Thanks for so much feedback from everyone. Please keep the discussion going!
Bevan
-
One final thought Bevan.
I take my architectural photography class at the Art Institute of Chicago over to Hedrich Blessing every year as a field trip. If you are unaware, Hedrich-Blessing is an architectural photography firm in Chicago that goes back to the 20's. They have 8 full time photographers that travel the world and with probably twice that number in support staff. Almost anyone who put together a list of the top ten APs in this country would include most of these guys. HB (http://www.hedrichblessing.com)
I have been taking my class there for the last 8 years. They are real gentlemen, very sharing and thorough going professionals. They are at the very top echelon of their field and the bell weather of where the field is going as they are very conservative technically and do not follow fads. I really appreciate the time they take out of their busy schedules to talk to my students. Bevan, in my opinion no aspiring AP could do better than becoming an assistant at HB.
FWIW
They are still shooting 70-80% film, Kodak EPN and Fuji 160 Pro S. Digital is Phase One backs and Canons. They are not thrilled by the digital cameras/lenses available for use right now for AP. All film is scanned. In their new building (a superb fascility built specifically for them), there are no wet darkrooms at all, just Imacon scanners and inkjet printers. They have grave concerns about the future of the films and Polaroid they depend on and as a result are following industry developments closely.
Advice to my students from Bob Shimer, General Manager, a great photographer in his own right,........(if you knew these guys you would know what a radical statement this is for them)........"I wouldn't spend much time learning traditional film based architectural photography techniques."