Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Gary Ferguson on November 14, 2008, 12:39:44 pm
-
Anyone any observations on the current state of the commercial architectural market? My own experiences here in the UK are pretty dire, admittedly I'm more focused on component suppliers to the building trade, but the business has just fallen off a cliff.
-
Gary,
Working in the architectural world here in Seattle, WA, I have seen our workload decrease substantially since late July early August. This is especially true on the residential side of the architecture business. And I don't see this changing for a few years. The jobs to find now are with the public (ie, cities, states, universities or federal projects). I think we are going to see a lot of architects try and ride this recession out in one or more of these types of projects.
My suggestion would be to try and find out public jobs that are in design phase or about to start construction and see if the specifications for those jobs call for a photographic documentation of the construction process. A large city, state or federal project could keep you busy for a year or more documenting the construction. I have not personally ever specified for photographic documentation, but there is a section for this and if it is in the specs, then the contractor has to fulfill the requirement.
Don't know if this helps or not but that is how I see the environment from the architects side.
Aaron
http://asbritton.blogspot.com/ (http://asbritton.blogspot.com/)
-
i think its hard to answer because there is no architecture market which can be described as one thing.
to answer your question depends from which market your work is coming from. i dont care much about these houses because i havent shot any of this kind of buildings before too.
for sure the houses stuff will decrease , allthough we in germany havent had this market similar than in the US. in Spain they have build 1.000.000 unnessesary houses too, but i even doubt that anybody needed good done architecture photographs from this speculative and c***f** houses ( thats how they mostly look there and many many are even empty,- you shoot one of them and you have enough to sell the other 1000000 all over the country, cause one looks as the next ). i have to admit even to hate them since several years lot for ruining some of the best and loveliest landscapes in Spain for nothing except to drive the prices of all other houses in crazy hights and to make some, few people rich .... so probably i never was the right photographer for them, also i nearly never saw good photographs of this kind of houses, i think the investors would done the hell but invest in good photographers,- the houses sold from alone because the buyers believed to double their investment in at least 3 years. than came the end of the price and house flood and it came so fast that no one tried to sell better with good photographs because it was obvious that nothing was going anymore. at least the next 5 years, but i believe that many of the empty houses will end up as nice ruins. than i will photograph them
bigger architecture projets are normally longer term plannings so they wont be affected so rapidly, same about museums, public projects and so on. public projects even might increase cause several governments will try to help in spending more money in constructions- ( although some government dont want to show in bad times that they spend "unnessecary" money in expensive looking publications for not beeing criticezed to waiste taxes ... . ). i have some investment fonds as clients who invest in ( large ) estates, which seem to spend very carefull money at the moment, but i wouldnt make a rule out of it.
myself i am usually busy on several tracks and i still dont have a clear idea how the crisis will affect my commercial work or not, at the moment i dont feel it, but as i said, i am busy on different tracks ( art, architecture, museum) so it could come little bit delayd to me if the things run bad. honetly i am more concerned about a real big financial crash in the near future ( which would mean that we just see the introduction of the big bang at this moment ), but lets hope. and after this crisis has passed lets hope even much more for our ecological envorinment and future,- honestly this makes me much more fear for me and my children.
im general i see that much more people want to come in architecture photography than some years before, i think mainly because its cheaper and much more easy to do with 35mm cameras smaller jobs than formerly in the film days. this has a deep and fundamental impact as i think, because its ( probably ) much more diffficult to come in commercial business than some years ago, cause 100 times more photographs are been taken of each project and "cheap" clients often will be satisfied with "cheap" images,- which simply werent available so much in the pre-digital times.
i am shooting at the moment a new museum in munich which is looking spectacular. you cant imagine how many people come and take shots. maybee 50 persons take their shots at home each day ...
its really funny but serious too, allthough i dont see that this might affect my work this months, in general the availabilty of "gratis" shots will have a big indirect impact for the whole photo world,-
probably more than the slow economy ever could have.
-
I can attest to cheap DSLR killing the architectural market in CA. Since moving to a leaf Aptus from 4x5 I have come across more and more low ball photography. The clients have started to not care about quality, and more about the cost. This started way before the housing market crashed.
I now have to say 50% of my clients have gone out of business, the other 40% of the marketing and art directors have been laid off and the last 10% say they don't plan on shooting anything for the next 2 years.
-
Read somewhere that every single non-partner architect in Iceland has been laid off. Every single one! Here in the UK surveyors are wondering how they can provide reliable commercial property valuations when there are zero sales taking place to give any kind of current market price comparison.
No new P65+ for me I think!
-
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.
ps. Gary here in States, surveyors & Title company are very busy, updating the new drilling wells owned by Oil Companies. My Brother-in-law is busier than ever with just Oil Companies leased properties, they bought too many new properties at throw away prices, that's why they can't reduce the gas prices.
-
Anyone any observations on the current state of the commercial architectural market? My own experiences here in the UK are pretty dire, admittedly I'm more focused on component suppliers to the building trade, but the business has just fallen off a cliff.
I think you answer your own question when you mention the UK building trade. The UK building trade has been dropping off a cliff for a long time now, so component suppliers will be badly affected for the next couple of years. You may need to find another sub market. You have to keep in mind that the UK in particular and the world as a whole has been in the most almighty property bubble. This has meant that normally rational people have borrowed from their future earnings to buy internal fixtures and fittings of such sumptuous luxury that roman emperors could have wept with envy to have them. I am thinking of the ad for a bed that states 'is a bed really worth £60,000' and the baths carved from solid marble for £10,000, but it works it down the chain all the way to the level where quite ordinary people have thought nothing of spending £40,000 having a kitchen refitted (or of spending £10,000 for a cooker). These days are gone probably for ever.
As Rainer said, there isn't really an architectural market, but a collection of different sub markets.
I have to say that many of the markets I used to consider serving are now simply not paying enough to hit my break even rates. The companies concerned have plenty of money, they just don't have to spend it on photography because there are so many photographers prepared to work for the minimum wage. I know one guy who was photographing hundreds of buildings for a large property company (with immensely deep pockets I might add) and he was charging £1 per picture delivered. He was running around and shooting 100 in a day to make it pay... or so he claimed.
Just like investment you need a number of different markets to serve to keep going through ups and downs of particular markets, but the next couple of years are going to be tough. I personally know of a handful of people laid off from architectural practices recently, and I've had one project cancelled by an architect citing 'the credit crunch'. When architects are losing their jobs, photography will be about the last thing on most of their minds.
Things will get worse for architectural photographers because many people want to get into this area, and the more people are laid off from eg: architectural practices, the more they might have the idea of having a go at it, now its so relatively easy to get going with digital equipment.
Its a good time to have other income streams either up and running or planned, both inside and outside the chosen area of photography.
-
Its a good time to have other income streams either up and running or planned, both inside and outside the chosen area of photography.
In the car photography market for some time there has been a movement to taking manufacturing models of cars and putting them into a light enviroment with the high quality background shot required and creating the image in a photorealistic way. this saves the thousands for building the car and I see no reason why arcitectural photography will not follow suit. The good news is you can utilise photography skills to create the image the same way you position light, cameras, etc. If you havent done so then maybe you could download Hypershot free trial (http://www.image2output.com/Product.aspx?id=2128&cat=1653) and check where you can offer this combination of creativity and technology, in the car market I heard comments like " as big a change to the industry as the digital camera"
Edwin
-
In the car photography market for some time there has been a movement to taking manufacturing models of cars and putting them into a light enviroment with the high quality background shot required and creating the image in a photorealistic way. this saves the thousands for building the car and I see no reason why arcitectural photography will not follow suit. The good news is you can utilise photography skills to create the image the same way you position light, cameras, etc. If you havent done so then maybe you could download Hypershot free trial (http://www.image2output.com/Product.aspx?id=2128&cat=1653) and check where you can offer this combination of creativity and technology, in the car market I heard comments like " as big a change to the industry as the digital camera"
Edwin
model photography gave some income in the film days, often is needed huge depth of field to shoot scaled models which you just could get with scheimpflug. nowadays many of this jobs disappeared and are mostly made inhouse from the pr department or some architects themself with p+s cameras, which have very deep d.o.f.
on the other hand many architects are used to work with sophisticated and good 3d rendering programs, they are mostly a very important part of the competition entries the architects have to do to get jobs,- so these renderings have to be good to win the competitions. sometimes they look very very realistic,- sometimes even too much.
architetcs dont need architecture photographers to make at the end of the construction 3d rendering- looking like images again. the building has to be shown in the natural ambient to show how it looks in reality not to make now a second time a model looking like rendering photograph
-
Hopefully, the CGI technology won't affect the architecture photography business as it has the automotive photography business. While photographs still are taken of cars the volume is substantially less. One of the reasons I became interested in photographing architecture was that as Rainer stated, "the building has to be shown in the natural ambient (setting/light) to show how it looks in reality", not a computer operator's take on reality. CGI works and quite honestly I can't always tell the difference between photography and a rendered model of a car. For the most part it looks different and many times wrong but when the appropriate amount of effort and time are put into the project it can look incredibly realistic. The two businesses are different but don't be mislead to believe that shooting HDRI domes and backgrounds is a creative endeavor in either discipline. If anyone really is interested in that area as an vocation let me know, I've got a Panoscan MkIII that I'd let go very reasonably. Now to address the thread's topic, you won't find a more descimated economy than Detroit but I've found that there's business if you really work hard, have some talent and are persistant in your marketing efforts. Let's hope that this economic downturn is shortlived, it already is the worst I've seen in my 30 years of business. Jim
-
.
-
There is a double page image in this month's Archive, from Taylor James. A car shot with an urban background. There's an explanation of how the image was created, right in the ad. Basically, not only the car was CGI but also the surrounding buildings and streets. The only "real" part of the image was the very back Layer, the extreme background.
Most of these CGI images leave me feeling empty, (but so do a lot of overly-photoshopped "real" images too). But when you look at that ad, and you see how much was built in the computer, it's downright scary. I wondered the budget, and the man-hours, on building all that.
http://www.taylorjames.com (http://www.taylorjames.com)
PS. It's the image that comes up first, with the car, the buildings, and the "scorpion" construction device.
Working like that is probably some Account Executive's wet dream -- to be able to change anything, after the fact, or move things around. And don't you know that these retouchers have mastered the art of billing for Rush.
as a consequence of this photography has to gain and claim "credibility" in the future. i think there will be no space for very visible "photoshopped" images.
soon the CGIs will be made completely, perfect, fast and cheap , but still this is an expensive man- and computer- power hungry work. this will change soon.
than there will be the need for "authentic" photographs, which transports the alleged reality, which will be received as the counterpart of the "invented" computer image.
-
There is a double page image in this month's Archive, from Taylor James. A car shot with an urban background. There's an explanation of how the image was created, right in the ad. Basically, not only the car was CGI but also the surrounding buildings and streets. The only "real" part of the image was the very back Layer, the extreme background.
Most of these CGI images leave me feeling empty, (but so do a lot of overly-photoshopped "real" images too). But when you look at that ad, and you see how much was built in the computer, it's downright scary. I wondered the budget, and the man-hours, on building all that.
http://www.taylorjames.com (http://www.taylorjames.com)
PS. It's the image that comes up first, with the car, the buildings, and the "scorpion" construction device.
Working like that is probably some Account Executive's wet dream -- to be able to change anything, after the fact, or move things around. And don't you know that these retouchers have mastered the art of billing for Rush.
You'll find This website (http://www.productionparadise.com/newsletters/169/) interesting and also this article (http://www.artvps.com/uploads/documents/case_studies/doug_fisher_cs.pdf) and this one (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_/ai_n14926913)
-
Thx! Interesting. There was a similar article in the Dutch magazine PF (professional photographer) about CGI. Coming originally from software development this certainly has my interest.
-
Thx! Interesting. There was a similar article in the Dutch magazine PF (professional photographer) about CGI. Coming originally from software development this certainly has my interest.
There was always a demand for images that can be used for backgrounds or that can be ray-traced and projected on surfaces, as textures or reflections and these in most cases look better if they were actually captured and not generated on a computer
I have worked as an industrial designer in the past and (mid 90's) and what was then available from Alias-Wavefront and 3DMAX was very limited. I my view there's still a great potential for photographers to expand into this business.
Yair
-
There was always a demand for images that can be used for backgrounds or that can be ray-traced and projected on surfaces, as textures or reflections and these in most cases look better if they were actually captured and not generated on a computer
I have worked as an industrial designer in the past and (mid 90's) and what was then available from Alias-Wavefront and 3DMAX was very limited. I my view there's still a great potential for photographers to expand into this business.
Yair
thx. interesting. also remarkable that 90% or more of all the shots in the webpages you linked are car shots. i wonder why it isnt much more used for smaller products. costs?
whats the job of a photographer in this. to deliver the single samples? as backgrounds, products, models and so on? looks as i dont understand how these images are made. worth for a new tread ...
-
The photographer handles the effect of the lighting, the overall composition including backgrounds, naturally other roles are thinkable as well. The photographer in many cases knows what makes sense and what doesn't making him a suitable person to make sure the whole is blended into a really compelling image. The photographer can also only supply the needed images serving under someone that has the overall supervision on a project.
As far as I have been able to find out the images are built in several parts.
The CAD data to render the model
The Material data to get the right textures.
Background images, surroundings.
HDRI takes to get the light at the spot where the object eventually needs to be placed. With these images you can render the light onto the object so it is believable.
It is true that most are car images because they were the typical applications where it started. Currently it is dripling into smaller object photography as well. In the article I read the same kind of procedure is taken as with the cars but for the light a 'HDRI' image is taken from the lighting that would normally have been used for that kind of object. With that lighting data, the CAD data and the material data images can be generated from smaller objects as well. Objects that haven't been produced yet.
Naturally there are several factors that are in play here. You need the CAD data, Material data.I think at this stage it is only interesting for large amount of objects that are pretty much the same and need the same lighting. In the future this might be different.
-
thx. interesting. also remarkable that 90% or more of all the shots in the webpages you linked are car shots. i wonder why it isnt much more used for smaller products. costs?
whats the job of a photographer in this. to deliver the single samples? as backgrounds, products, models and so on? looks as i dont understand how these images are made. worth for a new tread ...
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
-
thx. interesting. also remarkable that 90% or more of all the shots in the webpages you linked are car shots. i wonder why it isnt much more used for smaller products. costs?
whats the job of a photographer in this. to deliver the single samples? as backgrounds, products, models and so on? looks as i dont understand how these images are made. worth for a new tread ...
and another one:
http://www.809cgi.com/ (http://www.809cgi.com/)
there's a "behind the scene" section.
worth to take a look.
c
-
Seems in the developing world, in my case South Africa, we always battle a little more to keep up and pay our bills but in this case the looming football world cup is helping us. There are massive capital intensive civil projects on the go. It seems as well that the corner has been turned to some extent regarding quality of photography as we are seeing more clients asking for work of a higher standard. Perhaps they finally figured that the cousin with a dslr was not the top of the game.
I am nervous of the future but our very restrictive foreign exchange laws actually protected our banks by not allowing them to get involved in the subprime mess. This may save our butts. We are seeing a slow down but still hope for a 4% growth rate this year. Things are tough but this end of the world that is the way it tends to be.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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*
-
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
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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^
-
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,
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..
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
[attachment=9788:71494_1.jpg]
May I know from where to purchase one of these crystal levels?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
This is not so in the US... I'm an architect who's worked at firms from 8- to 200-employees, and can tell you that the physical architectural model is truly a high-end commodity that used very little in comparison to the photo-realistic render. It is, indeed, not difficult to find someone to render a fully textured, realistic composite these days. Most students coming out of architecture school are quite savvy at modeling and rendering. I'm not saying there isn't a place for model photography...
... but that place is quite small.
As a matter of fact, I've yet to work on a single project that has actually budgeted for a physical model (much less a photo composite)... and I've worked on hotels, hospitals, casinos, residences, assisted living facilities, 1000 acre resorts, and so forth.
YMMV
-
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.
one year ago i made a larger scaled shooting, purpose was aside the usual magazin publications a book, but nothing larger.
after the shooting was finished th PR department of the building owner/ company was so excited about the visions of the builidng on my shots that they decided to open it with an image exhibition.
they bought 18 images, mounted on alu-dibond compounded with 4mm glass in a size of 160 x 220cm. i explained that i ask prices as selling over gallery for sizes and qualities like that, gave some discount for the number of images and the decided to make it after some thinking about the budget .... the exhibition ended as nice success for them and for me and afterwards they integrated the images as art permanent in the building.
what financial loss if i would have made this in lower resolution !!!!! although i would not count on having such luck, but i like to be prepared if i have
-
While we're talking architecture, anyone who's into cityscapes in general and specifically into London's architecture should have a look at the new "London" book by Peter Ackroyd and Richard Bryant. Amazon link (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0847831531/sr=1-1/qid=1227173718/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1227173718&sr=1-1&seller=)
Most if not all images were taken on a large format camera with a Leaf digital back and the quality of those double-folding DPS prints is absolutely stunning.
Well worth the 120 bucks IMO
Yair
-
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.
What method do you use for framing the shot with the Cambo? Does it seem awkward after using the SLR? I think the Artec would be the ultimate camera with the sliding back for viewing, but my budget won't stretch that far. I have handled the Cambo in the store and been very impressed with the quality.
I realize the Leaf backs don't allow the lengthy exposures of Phase One, but I presume 30 sec is plenty for architectural work based on my experience with 4x5 film and Canon. I also agree that the colour shift problem should be corrected internally rather than requiring fixing after the fact.
-
I shoot 50 % architecture and 50 % people. Before I used Sinar for architecture and Hasselblad/Nikon for people.
I were thinking about a Hy6, Alpa (Arctec) solution. But this would really ad up costs. Equipment-wise and postproduction-wise I want to scale down. Image (and fun) wise I want to scale up. The images of my view cameras were always great, but I never liked to work with them.
When I now think about the Hasselblad route it is to make my live easier than with Canon.
And today my clients are happier than they were in the film-days. I never got this much positive feedback.
Best,
Johannes
Hello
It is true that things are not always so clear in terms of the field you're working in.
I shoot architecture/interiors design for magazines and companies and many of them want people in the pictures. They also want a lot of pictures and give me short time.I could shoot about 15 pictures /day in films and now it's about 30 pictures/day.So I wonder if a cambo/alpa/artec has enough handling.
Like many of us I ended up shooting Ds Mark 2 (Mark 3 now) and a rack of shift lenses (canon and Nikon): the main problem is distortion.
I did some test with the HTS hasselblad but I got bad results -in terms of geometry. Then I tried the back (H3D 39) with the cambo and Schneider 35mm= no doubt about the geometry but I don"t think such backs are Ok with the shifts (got some "ghost" on highlights). Also I don't know if your route will be faster/easier if you have to start your process with Focus compair to ACR / PS3.
I was ready for the check with hasselblad but know my next step is to test AFi II 7 (but they don't carry shift lenses) and P45+ (only 45 mmshift).
omg
www.omgphotographe.com
-
Hello
It is true that things are not always so clear in terms of the field you're working in.
I shoot architecture/interiors design for magazines and companies and many of them want people in the pictures. They also want a lot of pictures and give me short time.I could shoot about 15 pictures /day in films and now it's about 30 pictures/day.So I wonder if a cambo/alpa/artec has enough handling.
Like many of us I ended up shooting Ds Mark 2 (Mark 3 now) and a rack of shift lenses (canon and Nikon): the main problem is distortion.
I did some test with the HTS hasselblad but I got bad results -in terms of geometry. Then I tried the back (H3D 39) with the cambo and Schneider 35mm= no doubt about the geometry but I don"t think such backs are Ok with the shifts (got some "ghost" on highlights). Also I don't know if your route will be faster/easier if you have to start your process with Focus compair to ACR / PS3.
I was ready for the check with hasselblad but know my next step is to test AFi II 7 (but they don't carry shift lenses) and P45+ (only 45 mmshift).
omg
www.omgphotographe.com
you can shoot fast with cambo/alpa/artec and if you count in postpro corrections ( geometry, stitching ) these are the fastest when professional level is the goal, especially if compared with systems based on retrofocal lenses. i mean professional not in terms of resolution and image quality but in terms of perspective and distortion/ geometry.
-
Not wishing to direct this topic towards dslr's, but whilst we're here, , out of interest for all you guys that used (use) shift lenses with your dslrs...did you stick to canon options, use some of the non canon, nikon, olympus, contax shift options, or also go with medium format glass such as pentax and mamiya on the various shift adaptors available for their wider image circle and more available shift?
I currently use canon's 24 tse but need to get other options also (35 / 45 / 80mm)
As for the original topic, in terms of interiors I am finding the lower end work slackening off but the higher end (better clients) keeps on going..which is good really.
Cheers,
Marc
-
I did some test with the HTS hasselblad but I got bad results -in terms of geometry.
Can you elaborate on this please? What specifically does "in terms of geometry" mean? Using DAC?
Thanks.
-
Not wishing to direct this topic towards dslr's, but whilst we're here, , out of interest for all you guys that used (use) shift lenses with your dslrs...did you stick to canon options, use some of the non canon, nikon, olympus, contax shift options, or also go with medium format glass such as pentax and mamiya on the various shift adaptors available for their wider image circle and more available shift?
I currently use canon's 24 tse but need to get other options also (35 / 45 / 80mm)
As for the original topic, in terms of interiors I am finding the lower end work slackening off but the higher end (better clients) keeps on going..which is good really.
Cheers,
Marc
I use the Canon 24 tse, as well as a Sinaron version of the Olympus 35 shift. The 35 is better than the 24, and has rise/fall and shift, but no tilt. I often use the 17-40 Canon for interiors. Both it and the 24 are useable but not great, lots of distortion & CA. I wish Rodenstock, Schneider etc would build a set of wide shift lenses for SLRs ( 17 or 18, 24, 35 ) .
Harold
-
I use the Canon 24 tse, as well as a Sinaron version of the Olympus 35 shift. The 35 is better than the 24, and has rise/fall and shift, but no tilt. I often use the 17-40 Canon for interiors. Both it and the 24 are useable but not great, lots of distortion & CA. I wish Rodenstock, Schneider etc would build a set of wide shift lenses for SLRs ( 17 or 18, 24, 35 ) .
Harold
no need to wish this. they cant escape the optical laws and it seems to be nearly impossible to build such wa shift lenses without distortion.
the schneider 28PC is one of the worthest in this disciplin, as well as the leica version of it.
i used the olympus 24pc with canon adapter. at least its sharp till the edges and has lower distortion than the canons,nikons and schneider.
it has a lot of CA, but this is easier to correct. i also used a zörk shift adapter with pentax 645 35mm af lens, hich is very good and allows 20mm of shift/ stitch. i have also 55 + 75 + 80-160 pentax lenses for this adapter. ( they will be soon on ebay ).
the olympus 35mm pc isnt bad. the nikon 28/35 are soft if shifted. distortion is softer than the canon 24tse, hich is over the limit for my taste. the canon 45tse is nice. the new nikon is mechanically cheap and it seems to be more or less similar than the canon quality wise. best super-wide seems to be the sigma 12-24 for showing nearly no!!! distortion ( app. 2% at 12mm with a simple curve ). one has to try several to find a sample which has 4 sharp corners.
-
no need to wish this. they cant escape the optical laws and it seems to be nearly impossible to build such wa shift lenses without distortion.
the schneider 28PC is one of the worthest in this disciplin, as well as the leica version of it.
i used the olympus 24pc with canon adapter. at least its sharp till the edges and has lower distortion than the canons,nikons and schneider.
it has a lot of CA, but this is easier to correct. i also used a zörk shift adapter with pentax 645 35mm af lens, hich is very good and allows 20mm of shift/ stitch. i have also 55 + 75 + 80-160 pentax lenses for this adapter. ( they will be soon on ebay ).
the olympus 35mm pc isnt bad. the nikon 28/35 are soft if shifted. distortion is softer than the canon 24tse, hich is over the limit for my taste. the canon 45tse is nice. the new nikon is mechanically cheap and it seems to be more or less similar than the canon quality wise. best super-wide seems to be the sigma 12-24 for showing nearly no!!! distortion ( app. 2% at 12mm with a simple curve ). one has to try several to find a sample which has 4 sharp corners.
I do use the nikon 28mm and 35 mm on my canon. I agree with rainer they actually aren't worst than the canon 24mm.
But I disagree with rainer about 45 mm : it has a very bad distortion too (well mine at least).
About the HTS and 28 mm I found a lot of distortion that was corrected (with the DAC) differently depending of the shift.Sometimes you get a straight line ,sometime you get a curve. So at the end you can not stitch the files.
In order to stick at the topic of this thread I must say that owning a top DSLR allowed me to work in many situations and to keep my clients. Example : You shoot a beautiful modern house. Suddenly a mother and her soon get in the room and play with the dog; at that point two behaviors:
-before with my sinar F1 =please get out of the shoot I have to shoot my back up and the light might change
-know with canon = quickly unteather the dslr, take it out of the tripod and shoot a real portrait of someone leaving in the house ; this will be the left full page of the opening of my subject in the magazine and this is a real "add value" (even though I must confess I 'm a bad portrait shooter)
-
Not wishing to direct this topic towards dslr's, but whilst we're here, , out of interest for all you guys that used (use) shift lenses with your dslrs...did you stick to canon options, use some of the non canon, nikon, olympus, contax shift options, or also go with medium format glass such as pentax and mamiya on the various shift adaptors available for their wider image circle and more available shift?
I currently use canon's 24 tse but need to get other options also (35 / 45 / 80mm)
As for the original topic, in terms of interiors I am finding the lower end work slackening off but the higher end (better clients) keeps on going..which is good really.
Cheers,
Marc
FWIW Mark, I use a Canon 24, 45 and 90 T/S and a Olympus 35 PC. The 45, 90 and 35 are superior lenses (there is a fairley large variation in the Olympus 35 PCs. I went through four finding a superior one). I recently tested the Nikon 24 T/S and found it slightly better than the Canon. Every little bit helps, but it was not enough of a gain to switch systems. On the other hand if one were just now buying a system? Every little bit helps-I would buy Nikon.
-
I'm curious if you guys using DSLRs and wide angle pirmes have tried DxO. It does such an excellent job of correcting distortion and CA that I even use it on landscapes most of the time now. I don't think it could operate on images from TS lenses, because it would be very difficult to model all the permutations of the way one might employ them, but for regular wide angle shots, DxO can do amazing things. All automatically too (i.e. no time wasted fussing around with manual adjustments).
-
I'm curious if you guys using DSLRs and wide angle pirmes have tried DxO. It does such an excellent job of correcting distortion and CA that I even use it on landscapes most of the time now. I don't think it could operate on images from TS lenses, because it would be very difficult to model all the permutations of the way one might employ them, but for regular wide angle shots, DxO can do amazing things. All automatically too (i.e. no time wasted fussing around with manual adjustments).
You are right DxO does not work with shift lenses, but I have tried it. Here are a couple of reasons I personally do not use regular wide angle primes (usually). First is composition. I frame very tight to take full advantage of the sensor. Also, after 30 years of using a view camera, I see perspective corrected. To have to back off to the computer to perspective correct to check or work out my compositions would be very frustrating and slow, personally speaking I have always worked very fast even with a view camera. I get into a rythm and move quickly. When extreme correction is needed, I simply cannot do a powerful composition looking just at a radically converging image. When shooting tethered, with a client looking over my shoulder, I like for the image to pop up as I visualized it, perspective corrected. As I have state before, IME, successful architectural photography is 90% composition and lighting.
-
You are right DxO does not work with shift lenses, but I have tried it. Here are a couple of reasons I personally do not use regular wide angle primes (usually). First is composition. I frame very tight to take full advantage of the sensor. Also, after 30 years of using a view camera, I see perspective corrected. To have to back off to the computer to perspective correct to check or work out my compositions would be very frustrating and slow, personally speaking I have always worked very fast even with a view camera. I get into a rythm and move quickly. When extreme correction is needed, I simply cannot do a powerful composition looking just at a radically converging image. When shooting tethered, with a client looking over my shoulder, I like for the image to pop up as I visualized it, perspective corrected. As I have state before, IME, successful architectural photography is 90% composition and lighting.
Yeah, that all makes perfect sense to me. I think in 4X5 myself; I just can't afford to shoot anything digital that behaves like a 4X5. The TS lenses can only do so much, and the solutions that offer better movements cost more than my last few cars.
-
Yeah, that all makes perfect sense to me. I think in 4X5 myself; I just can't afford to shoot anything digital that behaves like a 4X5. The TS lenses can only do so much, and the solutions that offer better movements cost more than my last few cars.
I understand the dilemma. DSLRs have limitations, but one is not budget. None of my view cameras ever cost as much as even a new 5D! My architecture practice may be different than others. For me it seems like the majority of my architecture work is either directly for magazines or commissioned by architects for the purpose of getting published, so the DSLR works well for magazine spreads. At this point I have over 120 magazine covers after 30 years and since going digital the rate that I am adding them has at least doubled. I think the reason for that is that I have always specifically shot potential covers on every shoot, but with the higher production of the DSLR, I am submitting more potential covers and that is generating more success in that realm. For even design competition submissions (my other bread and butter) which are all now PowerPoint too rather than 8x10 prints, the DSLR work shines.
-
. As I have state before, IME, successful architectural photography is 90% composition and lighting.
I agree very much with that!
So if you work with an Artech, 5d or a Hasselblad one can be seriously busy in that field
They all have their ++ and --
My main problem with architecture photography is not the camera but the weather
as I fly around Asia, weather can change dramatically and what looked to be going sunny is now in fog
I seem to drift more and more into doing interiors and for that I have a very fast pace.
keeping in-house post production in mind, I can shoot 150 set-ups a day using
available light and in already styled interior.
Clients use photos mostly for magazine/web exposure and/or portfolio
Because of the high rate of photos/day I have accumulated enough material for a series of books
and still shoot large enough to have exhibition material as well.
Just heard that generally assignments in East Asia are down, post olympic, but they mostly come from
the US and Eur and there is still strong local demand.
-
I understand the dilemma. DSLRs have limitations, but one is not budget. None of my view cameras ever cost as much as even a new 5D!
as eric stated above too, its not the price of the camera system which is most important.
its camera+lenses plus film+scan plus efficiency on location which has to be compared between film and digital.
fos most who make a living out of architecture all existing digital solutions should be cheaper than 4x5".
-
I understand the dilemma. DSLRs have limitations, but one is not budget. None of my view cameras ever cost as much as even a new 5D! My architecture practice may be different than others. For me it seems like the majority of my architecture work is either directly for magazines or commissioned by architects for the purpose of getting published, so the DSLR works well for magazine spreads. At this point I have over 120 magazine covers after 30 years and since going digital the rate that I am adding them has at least doubled. I think the reason for that is that I have always specifically shot potential covers on every shoot, but with the higher production of the DSLR, I am submitting more potential covers and that is generating more success in that realm. For even design competition submissions (my other bread and butter) which are all now PowerPoint too rather than 8x10 prints, the DSLR work shines.
You are right about camera prices! View Cameras aren't disposable cameras either, as I sometimes refer to my DSLRs. By shopping carefully for good used view camera equipment, you could always sell something if it didn't suit and recover your investment.
As much as I would like to get a high end digital set up for architecture, I haven't been able to make a business case for it. Much of my work is for large engineering projects, aerials etc. where quite a volume of coverage is required rather than just a few prize winners. These are all done with available light and the Canon with shift lenses is still the best tool for the job. The fact that my architectural shoots are seasonal here, and I do other work in the corporate/industrial sector further erodes the case for a DB/shift camera.
-
as eric stated above too, its not the price of the camera system which is most important.
its camera+lenses plus film+scan plus efficiency on location which has to be compared between film and digital.
fos most who make a living out of architecture all existing digital solutions should be cheaper than 4x5".
In a growing economy I would completely agree with you, but the market started slowing here over a year ago. I thank the gods that I did not make a huge additional capture investment (on top of two new computers, printers etc.) two years ago when I got into digital. Film and processing was another profit stream which has been converted to digital capture/processing fees and (are much more profitable than film/processing ever was) are helping in a big way to offset declines in the architectural market.
-
Sorry to get back to equipment but I've been thinking...
Are there any bodies that allow the blend of large format lenses and dslr bodies using helical focussing mounts not bellows.
So basically like the many solid shift camera options available now for a mfdb but using a 35mm dslr instead?
This would then allow dslr users to get the advantage of the very sharp and very low distortion new lf digital lenses, 24, 28, 35, etc.
Something like the back end of the gottschalt digi-20 and the front of any of the cambo, alpa, sinar, etc bodies.
Of course if you have this type of body and lenses then many will think you may as well get a digital back to go with it but...just trying to see something in between a dslr + zoerk/mirex medium format lenss et up and a sinar artec etc.
Cheers.
-
DSLRs' mirror adds too much distance to allow infinity focus with Schneider Digitar extreme wide angles.
Linos/Rodenstock formulas are more possible.