Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: marc gerritsen on December 09, 2006, 08:00:46 am
-
Wondering if any of you have done a comparison between an analog shift with a
view camera and a digital shift in p.s. of the same location. I have heard many
times there is a lot of difference, I have looked all over the web to see some
documentation, but sofar have not found anything. Would like to see a good comparison
to consider getting into a view camera or something similar with a shift option.
Sofar I have rectified slight perspective distotion in ps and when confronted with high distortion
possibilities I use the top half of the portrait frame, with my 39mp back that still leaves me a
18.5 mp correct photo large enough for most situations.
thanks
Marc
-
i would say this depends on two things:
1. how often you need to shoot architectural motifs, and
2. how good or exercised are your eyes for perspective corrections in ps.
probably if you have not much experience you will reach much better results with shift lenses..... and if you have the eye for correcting perspectives in a good way ,- you probably have done this often and than.. you will also need a shift system cause you will shoot often architectutre.
the pure quality is clearly better, if you use the nearly symmetric schneider or rodenstock wide angles than most if not all wides for mf systems. and if you correct the images fast you will reach a correction angle of 30degrees or something like that, and than you will have little bit more than the half of the resolution on the upper edge of the image.
cutting out the half of the image as you describe leads mostly to very flat panoramic images, or you have to cut not only the bottom but the edges too, to end up with a more 3:4 like format- than your resolution wil decrease too much and your wides will be not longer wide.
so all this things are compromises, they might work if you just shoot occasional architecture and the expectations of your clients may not be the highest..... otherwise it will become difficult, cause you simply use the wrong tools for your work.
aside from the pure quality question i feel much better on location if i see my motifs ion the perspective how i want to have it, its less abstract and more inspirating, i think.
-
Hi Rehnniar,
Thanks for your input
For every four interior shoots, I do one purely architectural one
As for as my ps ability I think I am reasonably good with architecture as my background is
architectural design, but better check my website and judge for yourself.
Just came back from China where I did an architectural shoot and I really was in a bit of difficulty
there, as I normally would be able to find some hight to eliminate perspective distotion, but here
I had very little room to move back and no where to go up. All this got me thinking; shift!
Still would love to see an image, both corrected by a shift lens and by photoshop,
If there is no real visible difference, I think I will forget about shifting as I think it would slow
me down too much in the shoot.
cheers
Marc
-
Marc,
This pdf from Schneider explains a lot!
http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/pdf/foto/digitare_e.pdf (http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/pdf/foto/digitare_e.pdf)
Also there is a reason why Schneider and Rodenstock are spending millions of dollars in research
in designing new optics for digital sensors.
Correcting in PS is never the same as shooting the image with shift etc.
In PS the file will be degraded ,like Rainer explained.
IOW for the serious architectural shooter, a dedicated shift camera is the only option.
Cheers,
Willem.
-
Marc,
as a photographer having worked many years with view cameras, I can only agree with Rainer and Willem: a camera will give you endless possibilities of shifting and perspective correction tithout having to alter the file in post-processing.
Thierry
-
xx
-
Hi all!
This is my first post here. I´ve been reading on this forum with great interest, especially the MF DB section - even though i do not own a DB.
I know the lens shift options quite well, as i´ve been using a 4x5 Arca view camera.
Marc wrote:
"Still would love to see an image, both corrected by a shift lens and by photoshop"
Let me add another wish:
corrected by PTGui, which allows flat stitching of several multi-row panorama files (requires something like a Omni-Pivot Packge from RRS or VR-PRO head by Novoflex).
I´d really love to see a comparison of all three...
-
Great post reply Alan!
-
I'd be delighted if I could get the architectural results I want using perspective correction in Photoshop instead of lugging around a Linhof M679 with a digital back. I've tried, but I can't.
It's not just a matter of vertical shifts. Frequently I'll use side shifts and vertical shifts together, I normally work in crowded European cities where the ideal taking location would often put you in the middle of a busy street so there's often a big side shift component to the shot to get around that problem. Then there's the fact that the shot will almost always need a lot of cleaning up to remove parked cars and street signs. So this generally means using Photoshop to splice in "patches" taken from a slightly different location. Taken overall it's just quicker and cleaner to start with a perspective-corrected original shot.
As for stitching, it's a nice idea in theory, and for some shots it would work fine, however there's still a significant percentage of architectural shots where stitching isn't really a practical solution. For example if you need to use HDR to capture the subject's full tonal range, or if the sun keeps emerging from behind scatterd clouds, or if you're shooting a record of a construction site with swinging cranes and moving workmen, or if you're expected to deliver hundreds of final shots covering a major development. In these circumstances single shot capture, or at most stitching two frames using a sliding carriage on a technical camera, is really the only solution.
-
xx
-
Hi Marc,
okay, I did not compare MF lenses but I did a comparison between a Canon 24 TS-E and a Zeiss 21f2.8 on a 5D.
Please see uncroped pics at
http://www.pbase.com/chrismuc (http://www.pbase.com/chrismuc)
http://www.pbase.com/chrismuc/test_canon_24tse_vs_zeiss_21 (http://www.pbase.com/chrismuc/test_canon_24tse_vs_zeiss_21)
My conclusions were:
I was positivly surprised by the quality of the Canon 24 but the optical quality of the Zeiss 21 PS-shifted is still better than the optically shifted Canon (micro contrast).
The Canon has very little distortion which is very important for a shift lens because the distortion of a shifted lens is more difficult to compensate properly in PS. Edge sharpness is okay up to 7 mm shited, above the edges become very soft and there is some visible CA.
In contrary the Zeiss 35PC shows stronger waveform distortion but only little CA and it this lens is extremely sharp also in the edges even if shifted horizontally by up to 10 mm
http://www.pbase.com/chrismuc/zeiss_35f28pc_vs_zeiss_35f28 (http://www.pbase.com/chrismuc/zeiss_35f28pc_vs_zeiss_35f28)
Christoph
-
Thanks Guys for all the input and especially Torben for my request to see a ps shift
and a lens shift.
My conclusion for now is that, yes one can use ps to shift, as the result between ps end lens is
absulutely minimal. Of course files will be interpolated but I shoot with 39mp so the end
result will always be enough quality for a double page spread. Re reference guide,
if you have a keen eye for architecture, design and their proportions I think that a ps shifted
photo can do in 98% of the cases.
I now take on a large project about 300 shots a day in 2-3 exposures. That is about 125
architectural and interior set ups.
If I would do this with a view camera or the like and had to compose each photo on the ground
glass it would take me 4 days, so I would rather do the shifting in the comfort of my office.
cheers
Marc
-
I bought the Alpa 12 SWA & Phase One P45 combo to avoid this kind of retouching. I did a little too much architecture shooting with my Nikon, correcting perspective, distortions, and trying to correct CA in Photoshop. I now shoot just as many shots in a day as I did with the Nikon. Now the day after the shoot I can spend shooting a different job, making invoices , or playing with my daughter. My wrist feels better too.
For many of my clients my images are the only lasting record of their work. I did not like dumbing down the market for architectural photography. If my clients asked me about shooting Nikon or Canon and I said yes, they trusted me. If they asked me standing in their office it was, more often than not, surrounded by 16x20 and 20x24 prints from 4x5 film.
With the rates you should be charging for 125 images, you could pay for a real nice 33 or 39mp setup with several Schneider Digitars and a shift camera in about 3 or 4 days.
-
I have to agree with Eric.
I also prefer to get the shot at the initial stage.
Marc,if the option in PS works for you great,however in my eyes,nothing beats the real thing.
Also shooting with a dedicated camera that allows lateral shift and raise and fall doesn't have to be
an ordeal.
Of course taking a shot with an H1,Contax etc will be faster,however that time will be lost behind the computer.
And it's not always about speed.
Cheers,
Willem.
-
Marc,
You can do 125 final architectural and interior shots in 4 days with a view camera?
Perhaps I'm slow but I can manage only around 12~15.
Anyone else shoot this fast?
Cheers,
Kumar
-
Kumar,
Marc shoots with the H3D39!
Cheers,
Willem.
-
Marc shoots with the H3D39!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90454\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I know.
QUOTE:
I now take on a large project about 300 shots a day in 2-3 exposures. That is about 125 architectural and interior set ups.
If I would do this with a view camera or the like and had to compose each photo on the groundglass it would take me 4 days, so I would rather do the shifting in the comfort of my office.
Actually, he will be doing 300 shots a day, taking into account the multiple exposures required for blending, etc.
Wow, that's fast!
How about you Willem?
Cheers,
Kumar
-
Well, if you can only do 12-15 shots with a view camera a day, that really shows
me, I will not be able to make a living with it.
From the 125 shots I take on a large project a day, the client chooses about
20-30% of finals. I will need another day for file management and photoshop.
I could not possibly imaging myself doing that with a view- or similar camera then.
So I will definately stick with what works very well for me now and only correct
perspective in ps.
cheers
Marc
-
As I said before Marc!
What ever works best for you,however if the clients only select 30% of the images,
what's happening to the other 70%?
Taking up a hell of a lot of storage on your hard drive?
I'm not having a go at you BTW!
Regards,
Willem.
-
how long will it take to coerrect the shots in ps?
but the tread makes me a little bit tired.
as i said before ... everything depends on the quality you want to make, or your client expect from you.
anyway,- its enough to know that you want to make 125 shots in two days. everything has its price...... i can make 500 shots a day,- but usually i do 10 or 15 and in big projects less.
for sure not because i cant shoot faster..... my eMotion needs 1,5 sec. each shot, to run from one perspective to next takes maybee 2 minutes. but usually i am not paid for beeing speedy.....
-
Marc,
Don't get me wrong. In an architectural shoot, there's a lot of waiting - for people and vehicles to move, the light to change (or not change!), clouds to move - stuff like that. For interiors, there's prepping to do, moving/removing/adjusting stuff. This is what takes the time. I started off shooting 35mm, and now use a Sinar with rollfim and occasionally 4x5. I bought a Betterlight last year, and a Cambo WideDS six months ago. My speed has remained the same - with all cameras/formats. I honestly can't imagine myself shooting at that pace! But I guess whatever works for you
Cheers,
Kumar
-
what's happening to the other 70%?
Taking up a hell of a lot of storage on your hard drive?
stored on dvd
how long will it take to coerrect the shots in ps?
but the tread makes me a little bit tired.
3 to 8 photos per hour depending
sorry to bore you
-
xx
-
Just for the record – I made these test in PS for my own curiosity to see whether it could be done or not.
As an Architectural photographer I newer do these corrections in PS. I still shoot a lot of 4x5 film and always try to maximize my images in the taking. The same goes when I shoot with Canon (I use 24TS, Nikon 35PC, 45TS) when I use longer lenses I do correct in PS.
It could be tempting to go for a H3D/39 and 28mm and do the rest in PS, but for my personal shooting style I would go for a dedicated camera like the Alpa. I am still testing and have not made up my mind yet for camera and back combination.
As to the discussions of shooting speed:
I have the book Zones of Exclusion (Chernobyl) by Robert Polidori, there are 180 images in the book (all shot with 4x5 Arca and Color Neg) and he properly shot much more. All photographs were taken June 6-9, 2001.
It is an amazing book and I cannot understand how he could cover so much ground in 3-4 days, it is unbelievable when you look at the quality of the images (especially the interiors).
I guess he had to hurry because of nuclear pollution.
Best
Torben
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Torben,
I think I would be moving quick with the possibilty of getting radiation poisoning looming in the backrgound. Robert Polidori probably went into that photographic zone. Wow, that would of been something to see.
Back to the subject, I don't have any shift lenses so I have to do all of my perspective changes in photoshop. And it takes a lot of time. I personally would much rather have a physical shifting capability (either in the camera or the lens), especially after seeing Jonathan Hillyer using shift while photography the Coverdell building here at UGA. I believe spending the money on a shift system, and the time to set it up will be much cheaper then the time I spend in photoshop correcting the images.
Just some of my thoughts,
Aaron Britton
asbritton.blogspot.com
-
stored on dvd
3 to 8 photos per hour depending
sorry to bore you
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
which makes 125/3 = 40hrs or
125/8 = 15,6 hrs or average calculation... app. 28 hrs. for perspective corrections of your 2 days assignement.
-
Back to the subject, I don't have any shift lenses so I have to do all of my perspective changes in photoshop. And it takes a lot of time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90520\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The best economical answer is to shoot film, with a 4x5 and shift in the film. Yes, it will take time to scan, but that can either be done commercially, or based on the correct selection of images, at your leisure.
Shooting 6x_ film is another option. 6x12 is easily scannable for good width, 6x6 gives good quality up to a point (2'x3' prints).
Going digital for shift is pretty expensive, and then you have to get all the lenses etc. Keep in mind the good back will probably run $15-20k, not to mention the up-to-date lenses and new camera types.
Of course, if you go with older backs, you could step back a moment in time, and have some nice 645 setups. Hassy, Rollei, Contax offer some options, but not a lot of range, and only a few lenses - by the time the crop factor sets in, not too wide at all. The Hassy Arcview might be the best of all that generation.
Geoff
-
The best economical answer is to shoot film, with a 4x5 and shift in the film. Yes, it will take time to scan, but that can either be done commercially, or based on the correct selection of images, at your leisure.
Geoff
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90524\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
At the end of three years I will own a P45+, Alpa 12SWA, and 4 digitar lenses (because the loan will be paid off). ALL paid for by the clients at a similar rate to the expense of shooting film. At the end of three years shooting 4x5 film, I just have to go out and keep buying more film. In three years you could buy my whole setup from me for $1.00 and I would be no worse off than I would have been shooting film. It's just "pay up front" versus "pay as you go".
-
I bought the Alpa 12 SWA & Phase One P45 combo to avoid this kind of retouching.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90440\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eric,
I am considering purchasing a Alpa 12 SWA for a Phase One 25. And I am being very careful before I buy. I am curious how this combo helps you avoid this kind of retouching. Can you explain your procedure further for my education. Thank you,
Richard
-
which makes 125/3 = 40hrs or
125/8 = 15,6 hrs or average calculation... app. 28 hrs. for perspective corrections of your 2 days assignement.
My 2 day assigment would consist of shooting max 125 set up shots.
The client lets me decide, what, how and when to shoot, which gives me
the freedom, but then of course they only take about 40 to 50% of the photos
BTW
I am not saying these things to boost or brag, just informing you what I do.
Everybody has their own way and this one works well for me and all of my clients.
cheers
Marc
-
Eric,
I am considering purchasing a Alpa 12 SWA for a Phase One 25. And I am being very careful before I buy. I am curious how this combo helps you avoid this kind of retouching. Can you explain your procedure further for my education. Thank you,
Richard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90562\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-With the 12 SWA I can shift up and, with a digital back, I can shift down (reversing the lens to the back of the camera). This eliminates the need to use the transform tool in Photoshop for correcting perspective.
-With the Digital Non-retrofocal lenses there is no Barrel distortion. This eliminates the need for a special photoshop pluggin to remove the distortion. The pluggins usually work as a batch, but can take 15-60 seconds per image to apply.
-There is no chromatic abberation. This eliminates the extra step in ACR of zooming to both sides of the image at 100% while adjusting the CA tool.
I had shot many small, quick jobs with a D2x, 17-35, 17-55, and 12-24. 35mm digital does not handle highlight blooming as well as MFDB's do. This is very difficult to retouch. My 17-55 lens had CA which was uneven on each side. So I could correct one side or the other, but not both.
So with the Alpa and P45 I have reduced image correction to two issues.
#1- I need to shoot the white plexi and and assign the LCC. This is about as diffucult as shooting a gray card and clicking two bottons in C1 Pro (I shot 15 images yesterday, and it took 5 minutes to do the LCC correction on all 140 captures).
#2 - I also shoot brackets and blend images together much the way many architecture shooters used to use ND grad filters.
It is hard to describe all the ins and outs of using an Alpa, Cambo, or other similar camera. I was able to rent the cambo for an annual report and also used the Horseman SW for a book cover project. These cameras have a lot more in common with a 4x5 than with an H1 or 1ds.
-
-With the 12 SWA I can shift up and, with a digital back, I can shift down (reversing the lens to the back of the camera). This eliminates the need to use the transform tool in Photoshop for correcting perspective.
-With the Digital Non-retrofocal lenses there is no Barrel distortion. This eliminates the need for a special photoshop pluggin to remove the distortion. The pluggins usually work as a batch, but can take 15-60 seconds per image to apply.
-There is no chromatic abberation. This eliminates the extra step in ACR of zooming to both sides of the image at 100% while adjusting the CA tool.
I had shot many small, quick jobs with a D2x, 17-35, 17-55, and 12-24. 35mm digital does not handle highlight blooming as well as MFDB's do. This is very difficult to retouch. My 17-55 lens had CA which was uneven on each side. So I could correct one side or the other, but not both.
So with the Alpa and P45 I have reduced image correction to two issues.
#1- I need to shoot the white plexi and and assign the LCC. This is about as diffucult as shooting a gray card and clicking two bottons in C1 Pro (I shot 15 images yesterday, and it took 5 minutes to do the LCC correction on all 140 captures).
#2 - I also shoot brackets and blend images together much the way many architecture shooters used to use ND grad filters.
It is hard to describe all the ins and outs of using an Alpa, Cambo, or other similar camera. I was able to rent the cambo for an annual report and also used the Horseman SW for a book cover project. These cameras have a lot more in common with a 4x5 than with an H1 or 1ds.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90580\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eric,
Thanks very much for your very good description! This will be a big help to me. If you don't mind one other question, what viewfinder do you use on the Alpa? I have seen the one that Alpa recommends and think it is not accurate.
Richard
-
I have not had a chance to try out other viewfinders. I use the Alpa viewfinder very little for my work.
With a 4x5 camera I would walk around a scene and choice a position and height where I felt the elements fell together nicely. I would then place the camera there and choose a lens to crop the scene. I am not relying so much on a viewfinder.
With the Alpa I work the same way. With each capture I adjust the exposure, composition, focus, lighting, and set styling ( just like shooting polaroids). The Alpa viewfinder is not that accurate (just because it has lots of barrel distortion, and lots of parralax), but it is not a big deal in the way I work. This is why I say it has a lot in common with a 4x5 camera.
I have shot a little hand held personal work. I will definitely be looking into other viewfinders along the way.
-
i still work with groundglass, with a stitching back gottschalt made for me. i think he made now a second one for someone and he will make them if someone asks for. i also use viewfinders to look after which lense i take for my views, which i find similar than eric. i have a very nice 21-24-28 finder from leica which fov equals my 28+35hr and which is not very distorting. also i like the linhof finder for 13x18, starting from 90mm till 360.
shifting and image composition i do on groundglass. the gottschalt has a rotating back so i dont have to remove it for horizontal or vertical shots- i like that. what i like less is that i have to remove 3 screws to put the back on a mf adapter, cause they are to fat to allow this rotating mechanism.
-
Eric, Rainer,
Thank you for sharing your information. It will go a long way to help me reach a buying decision.
Richard