Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Lust4Life on November 05, 2009, 05:21:57 pm
-
OK, the first part of this thread was GREAT. Some excellent input from a worldwide group of photographers.
(http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=38404)
At this point, I'd like to continue the dialog of the initial thread by breaking it into different threads:
Part 2 (this thread) = GEAR AND EQUIPMENT;
Part 3 (future thread) =Setting your price/Marketing/Getting the Job.
From the input of my initial thread, I'm leaning toward as much "Naked Light" as possible, accepting the fact that on occasion I may have to fill selective areas with lights. This reflects best with my vision, and will be adopted as my "style". Yes, I know there will be jobs I'll not get as a result of my decision, but so be it. (Worst case I'll move to Switzerland and shoot with the Europeans. )
Thus, let's get started with Part 2:
Now, let's say a chap or lass has decided to pursue AP work. Here are a few of the initial issues that relate to hardware which must be addressed. (Seems wise to have all gear ready with plenty of test/practice shots mastered before seeking you first job.)
Assuming we start with a Hasselblad H3DII-39MP camera with the 28, 80 and 150 lenses (which is what I own).
What gear (let's keep it digital) have you used with success, or wish you could use? Tech Pan camera? HTS adapter? Artec? etc.
What did you find to be the advantages and disadvantages of your digital capture gear?
Lights - by type/application in a scene: Brands, models, watts, etc. that have worked well for you.
Misc. hardware that I'm not even aware of needing for a shoot.
Hopefully, this thread will generate as much excellent dialog as the last one did. I know hardware discussions can bring out strong opinions in each of us but I ask that prejudices be set aside and suggestions be based on logic and success you have personally experienced from your gear - that which you have kept and that which you have discarded.
Thanks,
Jack
-
if you wants :
focusing precision
tilt with all lenses
ground glass composition
very precise focusing ring
shift and rise on the back
flare proof body
and a camera that can be used without tripod if require
then, it's going to be an arca swiss RM3D with a rotaslide
otherwise, it depends on your priority... Alpa SWA, ALPA MAX, ALPA XY, CAMBO wide RS, Sinar Arctech...
-
what i use now is the artec with 23/28/35/45/70 + 90 mm lenses with emotion e75 backs and sinar exposure software which creates dngs only,
which i process in lightroom.
and a canon 5dmk2 with 100-400mmzoom for close up details and (new now ) the 17/24/45 tse lenses, together with 1,4 extender.
there are no disadvantages with both setups.
the canon is lightweight and this new shift lenses are fantastic, even the 24 used with the 1,4 extender is still great.
i like the slower style of work with the artec, but the canon in terms of image quality is top notch too.
on the other hand the preparation of the motifs and/ or the waiting for the right light takes long time so the
faster speed the canon allows is not often important for my work and has zero impact on the production times
and also not on the number of images i deliver, so i choose mainly the system which workflow/ results fits better.
i use gitzo carbon tripoids, very large, medium and small.
no lights. i often use cranes or truck based lifting platforms.
i work usualy with one assistant on site.
i have a macbookpro on location with 6gb ram and 50gb ssd drive as temporary disc
and i send a calibrated eizo monitor to my hotel rooms ... sometimes an epson 3800 printer too.
i would not go on working with mf if the camera wouldnt be perfect for my style of working,
means i wouldnt use any mf camera without a complete set of shift lenses or a camera body without a sliding back.
-
there are no disadvantages with both setups.
the canon is lightweight and this new shift lenses are fantastic, even the 24 used with the 1,4 extender is still great.
i have a 5D II and an aptus 22, and for me, for architectural photography i've found that they are not in the same league at all... a question of taste maybe !
I think it depends on your shooting style as well...
-
i have a 5D II and an aptus 22, and for me, for architectural photography i've found that they are not in the same league at all... a question of taste maybe !
I think it depends on your shooting style as well...
maybe a question how you postpro your files and how much you stitch and layer and so on.
cant see why taste impacts images in terms of technical quality, except you want to imply that you have "better" taste or my quality needs are lower, which i dont believe.
working with mf files is mostly easier in post ( if the base files dont show color cats and so on ).
-
GBPhoto has asked the appropriate question. You won't know what you what you need until you find something you want to do but can't.
If you want your images to look like someone in particular then you can use similar equipment.
Use what you have and develop your style, then get what you find you need.
Perhaps rent the HTS since you have corresponding equipment. Scout your location before the shoot and see if you need lights or not.
Rent, rent, rent
And I agree with Rainer (except for the 1.4x with the ts-e's), using 5d2 and aptus, both are extremely capable if used properly, both during shoot and in post.
-
And I agree with Rainer (except for the 1.4x with the ts-e's), using 5d2 and aptus, both are extremely capable if used properly, both during shoot and in post.
did you try the 1.4 together with the new 24 ts-e?
i did it after arrival of the lens tuesday, so maybe i am wrong, but first shots looked simply surprisingly well.
i used some years ago the kodak slr, canon 1ds2 and the 5d a lot together with olympus24 shift and the zoerk/pentax645 lenses and it was much of work to get good shots with enough resolution and no visible distortion, but it was possible and a good school for digital work.
later, after the gottschalt and than the artec were in my hands i only used 35mm systems for details.
this might change now again, although the completed canon system is to fresh as i could say how i will use it in my work.
i will play around a lot with it to get a feel where are the limits and than i`ll see how and when and for what i will use it, but all feels very good as far i can say it now. but my new impressions of the canon "system" are based on maybe 50 shots done in the last 3 days,
and this was no working assignment, i did for myself.
-
I did and found the distortion a bit too much. Also introduced some chromatic aberration. But I only tried one 1.4x and it wasn't an extensive test. If you've seen decent results I'd be prepared to try again with another copy of the 1.4x ... I can see having one and it being convenient, on the other hand stitching 2 with the 45 would give a similar view.
Canon, please make a 32 tse on par with the new 24. Every arch shooter around the world will buy one. Well, maybe there will be the odd exception.
-
I did and found the distortion a bit too much. Also introduced some chromatic aberration. But I only tried one 1.4x and it wasn't an extensive test. If you've seen decent results I'd be prepared to try again with another copy of the 1.4x ... I can see having one and it being convenient, on the other hand stitching 2 with the 45 would give a similar view.
Canon, please make a 32 tse on par with the new 24. Every arch shooter around the world will buy one. Well, maybe there will be the odd exception.
i bought yesterday the 45tse too,- i think CA with the 24tse together with the 1,4 is less than the 45 shows.
sharpness is very good, probably because this combo use only the inner image circle.
i sign your petition for a 32 or 35tse, and i would welcome too a new 45 and 90tse, and maybe a 60 in the middle.
-
I just received a 17mm tilt shift and will be using it Sunday on an assignment. The Canon I use is still the 1dsmk2, so unless I can find a 5dmk2, the resolution will not be the best (although adequate). The primary camera and lens I use is the Mamiya 645 and their 28mm with a P45 back but there's been several instances where I could use a wider shift lens and thus my purchase of the 17mm. Also, the 1dsmk4 is rumored to take a 32megapixel capture which would certainly be adequate for my clients. Jim
-
Thank you for signing my petition. Let's scrap it and I'll sign yours, as I prefer that spread. The 90 tse may be good enough as is though (no need to double the price of a very good lens).
Yes, the 45 shows unbelievably bad chromatic aberration. But I've swallowed that pill and will run them through DPP or manually correct in LR. After correction all looks quite good.
The good news is I tested 5 new ones and all were very sharp and the tilt/shift mount felt nearly on par with the new 24 and 17 (older ones I've had/tested were always a bit iffy).
So, Canon - do what Rainer says.
And L4L, shoot with what you have, find your style, find your niche, buy as you need. Unless you're loaded, then buy a lot and keep some of the salesmen/reps here employed. Get and ArTec and 2 Alpas (people with money should all have an SWA). Run the Sinaron/Rodenstock lenses on the ArTec and Schneider on the Alpa (don't ask why). Then your covered. Oh, and have them drop a 5d2 in there as well, you'll need/use it.
-
Yes,
please Nikon give me a Nikkor 35 PC-e!
-
Here in Naples, we have numerous beautiful Condo's right on the beach.
I've tried to practice on them, exterior, and find the lack of rise and tilt is a major drawback.
No way to resolve the parallax issue elegantly with CS4.
This file is an HDR from 5 exposures and 4 images (each an HDR) stitched together in PTGui.
Then did best I could in CS4 to try to resolve the building falling over backwards - not good enough:
http://www.shadowsdancing.com/sp%20arch%20...20exposure.html (http://www.shadowsdancing.com/sp%20arch%20pano%20regent%20condo-nw%20exposure.html)
Would the HTS resolve this issue - hummm - hate to loose the 28mm with the 1.5 factor of the HTS.
Jack
What limitations has your present gear imposed on your style?
-
Reiner,
IF you were restricted to only ONE of the two systems you have to use for the MAJORITY of your assignments, which would it be and why?
Thanks,
Jack
PS: Dang Rainer, the capital investment in the Artec is substantial, even frightening to a mortal like myself!
what i use now is the artec with 23/28/35/45/70 + 90 mm lenses with emotion e75 backs and sinar exposure software which creates dngs only,
which i process in lightroom.
and a canon 5dmk2 with 100-400mmzoom for close up details and (new now ) the 17/24/45 tse lenses, together with 1,4 extender.
there are no disadvantages with both setups.
the canon is lightweight and this new shift lenses are fantastic, even the 24 used with the 1,4 extender is still great.
i like the slower style of work with the artec, but the canon in terms of image quality is top notch too.
on the other hand the preparation of the motifs and/ or the waiting for the right light takes long time so the
faster speed the canon allows is not often important for my work and has zero impact on the production times
and also not on the number of images i deliver, so i choose mainly the system which workflow/ results fits better.
i use gitzo carbon tripoids, very large, medium and small.
no lights. i often use cranes or truck based lifting platforms.
i work usualy with one assistant on site.
i have a macbookpro on location with 6gb ram and 50gb ssd drive as temporary disc
and i send a calibrated eizo monitor to my hotel rooms ... sometimes an epson 3800 printer too.
i would not go on working with mf if the camera wouldnt be perfect for my style of working,
means i wouldnt use any mf camera without a complete set of shift lenses or a camera body without a sliding back.
-
Lust4Life,
Is this better? A very quick fix. You had the verticals correct on the left but not the right. You probably used the perspective option in Transform or Distort->lens.
That is usually not best because if the camera is not absolutely horizontal, the adjustment required on each side will be different. Use vertical guide lines and the
Distort option in Transform. This will let you 'pull out' each side by different amounts, matching each side to its guide. Pull the nodes horizontally or you will introduce
some new distortions. Note when you change one side by pulling over horizontally, the other side may require some readjustment. Back and forth til correct.
With perfect verticals and a very tall building, the effect will look unnatural. The top will look too large. In that case do not correct for perfect verticals, leave some
convergence so that it look natural. Your building does not fall into that category.
Learning to use PS is a whole lot cheaper than than buying new equipment to solve a problem! <g>
I am familiar with this because many years ago as a manual board draftsman, I drew perspective illustrations and had to know the theory.
Larry
-
Jack,
In the shot above (that Larry attached) you've got quite good light on the building. You really shouldn't need to do any HDR. With the DSLR you've got, what, 10 stops of latitude? I spent a dozen years shooting this stuff on chrome which only had 6 stops (more like 5 for Velvia). HDR can be a great tool, but like any great tool, it doesn't come out of the toolbox every time. The shot feels highly unnatural, as though the building were crudely cut and pasted onto a painted backdrop. Just trust what is naturally happening... good light + good camera = good picture. I wouldn't do any more to the file than maybe open up the shadows (judiciously) with P'Shop's Highlight/Shadow adj (which is quite good).
Actually, when I really need more tone than the P65+ can capture, I'll take a single RAW, process it at +1.5 and -1.5 (well within the pushability of these files) then merge them in Photoshop as layered masks. This guarantees no ghosting in the image and exact alignment. Here (http://www.photoshopsupport.com/photoshop-cs3/hdr-high-dynamic-range/index.html) is an approach I often employ..
Best,
Chris
and... excuse me if I'm preachy... It's 2:30 am, I'm about to drive to Indianapolis to catch the morning light for some exteriors and I don't have an ounce of coffee in me yet.
-
Reiner,
IF you were restricted to only ONE of the two systems you have to use for the MAJORITY of your assignments, which would it be and why?
Thanks,
Jack
PS: Dang Rainer, the capital investment in the Artec is substantial, even frightening to a mortal like myself!
That's easy. It would be a the Canon 1Ds Mk3 with a set of new shift lenses which should cover all your architectural needs. Quick, lightweight and easy to use. You can spend your time an energy on perfect composition instead of technical issues. But of course, you clients won't be as impressed as they would if you dragged out a digital view camera and 30x40" prints may not look as good. Personally I would never want to go back to the days of composing and focusing on a ground glass.
-
Reiner,
IF you were restricted to only ONE of the two systems you have to use for the MAJORITY of your assignments, which would it be and why?
Thanks,
Jack
PS: Dang Rainer, the capital investment in the Artec is substantial, even frightening to a mortal like myself!
having both as i do i still would choose the artec, thinking in architecture/ landscape / design photography only.
having to buy them new it would depend on how filled my agenda would be with hiend work and how much taxes i actually have to pay the next years.
my clients rarely ask which camera i use, if they do they are impressed that sinar and i designed the artec together, but i wouldnt have had one job less working with the canon. anyway in practice thats only the half truth, the canon system is very capable just NOW after the release of the 17&24tse , before it was too complicate and too much work intensive to get professional results with it.
the canon lenses are quite new for me, so i will give a better answer after having the canon with its tse setup a half year in use...
-
Rainer,
Few years back, I purchased a 1DsMkII with two of the tilt/shift lenses shortly after it was introduced. I also had the H2 with a Leaf P45+ on it at the time. A pro I know, Jamie Cook, highly recommended the camera and I parted with the cash to give it a shot.
Wow, what a disappointment the Canon was for me. Besides finding the lenses (all L class) to be dramatically less is optical quality that what I was used to on my Hassie or Ebony 4x5 with Schneider/Rodenstock glass, the real killer for me was the ramp difference by not being 16 bits deep. I rarely hear this issue discussed on this site but to me it makes a dramatic difference and gives the advantage to MFDBs.
Now, I see Canon has re-engineered their TSE lenses, but we still have the 14 verse 16 bit issue.
Apparently this has not been a concern for you or your clients?
I also noted that a landscape photographer whose work I respect (Elizabeth Carmel) used the new Nikon on a trip to Italy and left her Hassie at home. From exchanges I've had with her, she was not delighted with the results. I attribute her issues with the images from the Nikon primarily as a function of the bit depth.
But I'll be open minded - if it meets the needs of the chap paying the bill, so be it.
Jack
having both as i do i still would choose the artec, thinking in architecture/ landscape / design photography only.
having to buy them new it would depend on how filled my agenda would be with hiend work and how much taxes i actually have to pay the next years.
my clients rarely ask which camera i use, if they do they are impressed that sinar and i designed the artec together, but i wouldnt have had one job less working with the canon. anyway in practice thats only the half truth, the canon system is very capable just NOW after the release of the 17&24tse , before it was too complicate and too much work intensive to get professional results with it.
the canon lenses are quite new for me, so i will give a better answer after having the canon with its tse setup a half year in use...
-
Now, I see Canon has re-engineered their TSE lenses, but we still have the 14 verse 16 bit issue.
But I'll be open minded - if it meets the needs of the chap paying the bill, so be it.
Jack
Dear Jack,
The issue 14 vs. 16 bit should not be of any concern in respect to raws and final image quality: although 16 bit, the last 2 bit do not contain any information, respectively are "empty", if I can speak so. If you see a difference in quality between DMF and DSLR, then it has to do with other factors (not in order of importance: DR, CMOS vs. CCD technology, cooling, A/D converter, RAW in-camera processing, proprietary software, ... to speak about the most obvious ones).
But forget about 14 vs. 16 bit, it is simply BS.
Best regards,
Thierry
-
Rainer,
But I'll be open minded - if it meets the needs of the chap paying the bill, so be it.
Jack
i dont ask for the needs to pay the bill i ask for an optimum of quality and workflow.
i am not a man of compromises, therefor appeared the brumbaer software as it finally was, exposure with the batch correction
of white shadings and the artec itself. i simply wanted a working hi end solution and was in the contact to exchange this need
with some clever software and hardware constructors.
BUT its a question of creativity to select and to use convenient tools for your work and more so how to use these in a professional and practical sense.
also the camera system has a big impact HOW to compose an image, this is by far more important than 14 real against 16 claimed bits.
there is so much bs., fault of knowledge and missinfprmation in the election of gear, its incredible. and too many people believe that the camera
is making the shots or delivering results the clients might like more, and therefor one will get more work or money. thats bs. i repeat : bs.
the clients like the images and above a certain level of work its absolutely basic that the image quality is top notch, noone ask therefor,- its simply clear
if one gets that assignments. its not that MY clients are content with 14bit images and that there might be any other client in the world who will not be
satisfied by them, because i work already at the hi end of this profession in america, europe and asia.
also i work since years with mf, but i am not blind enough to think that THIS gives me an real advantage. this are other factors, and there would be the money better invested than in too expensive gear,- ( except money isnt such big factor, but we are photographers not dentists ) .
as JR always claims: rent good models for your book ( so i`d advise you to rent maybe a crane or buy a simple ladder and a high tripoid for getting better view points- if you take this better perspective with a g10 and render the shots patiently and good your client and everyone else might like the shot more than your artecalpacambop65e75a10 shot taken from a worse view point and maybe rendered badly,- i promise you that ) and work with tools which actually work and which dont hinder you in terms of workflow, softare or simple unresolved technical defects.
i know too many colleagues who have left behind with more or less unusable gear from all the mf companies, independent of its bit depth and its price. it was not for fun that i asked stefan to write a working and practical usable software to correct centerfolds and color shifts and later to convince sinar to make a camera as the artec is. i did that because i couldnt find ANYTHING in the market i liked and which had let me to work in a similar creative way than with 4x5" groundglas and film.
there is so much nonsense still in the space about gear and its capacities, its hard to read and i am a bit tired to discuss it again and again.
as this 16bit nonsense.
( btw the M9 was since long time the first and only camera who wrote REAL 8 bit files , many of exactly the same group of "16bit" people have been excited with
its clarity and quality ..... )
its so often claimed and written, but people want to believe what they want to believe. maybe it makes the life easier for some but not for me.
-
i dont ask for the needs to pay the bill i ask for an optimum of quality and workflow.
i am not a man of compromises, therefor appeared the brumbaer software as it finally was, exposure with the batch correction
of white flow and the artec itself. i simply wanted a working hi end solution and was in the contact to exchange this need
with some clever software and hardware constructors.
BUT its a question of creativity to select and to use convenient tools for your work and more so how to use these in a professional and practical sense.
also the camera system has a big impact HOW to compose an image, this is by far more important than 14 real against 16 claimed bits.
there is so much bs., fault of knowledge and missinfprmation in the election of gear, its incredible. and too many people believe that the camera
is making the shots or delivering results the clients might like more, and therefor one will get more work or money. thats bs. i repeat : bs.
the clients like the images and above a certain level of work its absolutely basic that the image quality is top notch, noone ask therefor,- its simply clear
if one gets that assignments. its not that MY clients are content with 14bit images and that there might be any other client in the world who will not be satisfied by them, because i work already at the hi end of this profession.
also i work since years with mf, but i am not blind enough to think that THIS gives me an real advantage. this are other factors, and there would be the money better invested than in too expensive gear,- ( except money isnt such big factor, but we are photographers not dentists ) .
as JR always claims: rent good models for your book ( so i`d advise you to rent some cranes for getting better view points- if you take this better perspective with a g10 and render the shots patient and good your client might like them more than you artecalpacambop65e75a10 shot taken from a worse view point and maybe rendered badly,- i promise you that ) and work with tools which actually work and which dont hinder you in terms of workflow, softare or simple unresolved technical defects.
i know too many colleagues who have left behind with more or less unusable gear from all the mf companies, independent of its bit depth and its price. it was not for fun that i asked stefan to write a working and practical usable software to correct centerfolds and color shifts and later to convince sinar to make a camera as the artec is. i did that because i couldnt find ANYTHING in the market i liked and which had let me to work in a similar creative way that with 4x5" groundglas.
there is so much nonsense still in the space about gear and its capacities, its hard to read and i am a bit tired to discuss it again and again.
as this 16bit nonsense.
its so often claimed and written, but people want to believe what they want to believe. maybe it makes the life easier for some but not for me.
-
Hi All
I hope I don't come across like a party pooper but the whole conversation on how to come a great Architectural photographer seems to be missing the most important thing, that is to say ones understanding and knowledge and appreciation of architecture and ones ability of to contextualize a scheme in its environment. Sure you need some decent kit and the basics are a perspective control kit and full rage of lenses say from 38-240 but its is as important what you shoot (and why) as how you shoot it.
I suggest you allocate some budget and subscribe to the main magazines such as Architectural Review, Domus, Architectural record Wallpaper etc and study what Architects are building who is generally shooting this and how (and possibly why) this is being shot in the manner that it is
For the record I use a leaf kit on an Arca Swiss with lenses from 38-480
Edmund Sumner
www.edmundsumner.co.uk
-
Hi All
I hope I don't come across like a party pooper but the whole conversation on how to come a great Architectural photographer seems to be missing the most important thing, that is to say ones understanding and knowledge and appreciation of architecture and ones ability of to contextualize a scheme in its environment. Sure you need some decent kit and the basics are a perspective control kit and full rage of lenses say from 38-240 but its is as important what you shoot (and why) as how you shoot it.
I suggest you allocate some budget and subscribe to the main magazines such as Architectural Review, Domus, Architectural record Wallpaper etc and study what Architects are building who is generally shooting this and how (and possibly why) this is being shot in the manner that it is
For the record I use a leaf kit on an Arca Swiss with lenses from 38-480
Edmund Sumner
www.edmundsumner.co.uk
signed.
-
signed.
word!
-
This is what I am shooting with....
Cambo ultima 35 with a canon 1ds mark III in the back and hasselblad 50, hasselblad 80 and schneider 28 mm digitar.
Shooting sometimes to a card and sometimes tethered to a macbook pro.
all gitzo carbon fiber tripods an a manfrotto 400 geared head.
I am using the canon as a capture devise because I like high ASA, Live view, and of course the thing is build like a brick shit house.
I like the technical camera set up for rear rise/fall & shift stitches along with front tilt & swings for focus
It all does feel a bit like a compromise, the 28 mm is weird lens with distortion on the edges, the hassi glass is ok but the highlights seem a bit fuzzy.
And the 1ds file quality is not as good as a top of the line MFDB.
Having said that, I am getting great files with some work done in PTGui and CS3.
On a shoot last winter, shooting outside just as the sun was setting temp was 20 degrees F and the wind was blowing a good 15 mph, I was up on top of a 16 foot ladder working very fast creating a pano with this setup, downloading the files my assistant was shaking her head saying that her leaf back could never had taken that kind of abuse and made the shot at the high ISO I was shooting (800 ASA). I think she was right.
Two things I use a lot...I dug out my old schneider loupe and use it on the rear screen of the 1ds in live view mode zoomed in 10X, nice for critical focusing
and
A solid werner multi ladder with a tripod head bolted to an accessory tray
in a perfect world I would switch to an Arca Swiss o2 with an arca cube head, still use the 1ds as a capture devise until I see a MFDB. with a great LCD screen on the back (with live view) and high ASA capability. New glass, perhaps test out the Rodenstock line...
That's my story and I an sticking to it (for now)
-
My most important:
Alarm clock to get my ass out of bed in time.
Good one! My list:
1. Double alarm clock.
2. No caffeine after noon, the day before an early call.
3. Pepcid AC in every bag.
4. Extra eyeglasses in EVERY camera bag and every personal bag. (My biggest fear of all, having to have my assistant shoot the job, and me standing beside him, looking like Mr. Magoo, squinting my eyes, and trying to tell him when to shoot: "Now. Now. Now. Is it sharp? Now. Now. Now. Is the talent still on set?".
5. Make sure and shave that weird hair that grows out of my ears, the night before the job, if a client is there.
6. Make sure to set iPhone alarm to check in to Southwest flight exactly 24 hours before flight time, to get "A" boarding group.
7. No burritos the night before an early call, (if I know we're shooting in a remote location).
8. Write down the agency people's names, and the clients' name, and their titles.
9. Spend time to create Shot List Cheat Sheet to keep in back pocket of jeans, because once I walk out onto the set, I forget half the stuff I had planned.
10. Backup MacBookPro; backup H2; backup 5d2.
11. Always hire one extra assistant, more than you really need, in case one of them oversleeps or flakes out or gets lost or gets sick.
You think I'm kidding, but that's my Fear List.
-
classic, I thought I was the only one who would lose his glasses & forget the clients names....
-
classic, I thought I was the only one who would lose his glasses & forget the clients names....
i broke my glasses on a job this spring, very good that i had my backup glasses with me.
after the glasses had been repaired my car was broken in and the second glasses have been robbed.
another advise above cannot be valuated enough:
to create a good relation with facility management and everybody who is helping on site from the building stuff. if one appears here as arrogant or stressfull thhe shooting might become a nightmare,- in no one an architecture photographer depends more on site than on this people.
-
another advise above cannot be valuated enough:
to create a good relation with facility management and everybody who is helping on site from the building stuff. if one appears here as arrogant or stressfull thhe shooting might become a nightmare,- in no one an architecture photographer depends more on site than on this people.
True that! I used to assist a shooter with terrible people skills, when he would start to argue with security or facilities people, I would step in between them and use my Jedi Voice.
*waves hand* "You don't need to see his identification... these aren't the photographers you're looking for... he can go about his shooting.... move along...."
-
Calculating the cost of image capture gear alone (no lights, etc.):
Given - starting with an H3DII-39 and a 28mm, 80mm and 150mm lens
Cost of entry into Arch. work considering just the value of the H3DII-38 body and back:
Price and configuration updated 11/10/09 at 4PM EST:
Alternative I:
Arca Swiss RM3d Body $5,500
Adapter Plate to Hasselblad $700
Rotoslide $2,300
28mm Rodenstock HR Lens $6,500
Rodenstock 60mm $3,200
Rodenstock 70mm Digitar $2,800
Leica Laser $400
Total with 28mm and 60mm Lenses $18,600
Plus prior Cost of H3DII-39 Camera with default 80mm lens $20,000
Grand Total: $38,600
Alternative II - Gear as suggested by Rainer:
Canon 5D Mark II - USA Warranty $2,700
Canon 17mm/f4 L TS-E -USA Lens $2,500
Canon 45mm/f2.8 L II TS-E USA Lens $1,300
Canon 90mm/f2.8 TS-E Lens USA Lens $1,250
Canon 1.4Tele II USA $ 325
Canon 100-400 L IS USA $1,680
Total of the above Canon gear $9,755
Still trying to get cost of Sinar arTec gear in USA $'s to give a comparable toolset as the Arca-Swiss.
I've been waiting two days now for a response from SinarBron - we'll see if I ever hear from them.
Will update this post when prices can be confirmed.
From a capital investment viewpoint, and plugging in prior comments posted on this thread, the Canon solution looks very modest in expenditure. Considering the state of the world economy, and the impact of the profession of Arch. Photography, the Canon seems to be the more prudent direction.
Thoughts?
Jack
-
It IS a scary proposition, Jack.
Last October I left the studio I'd spent the previous 17 years with and started my own business in the worst economy of my life. I then went out and spent about $75k in gear. I'm a big gear junkie, though, with expensive tastes.
I love my Digi back and my view camera. The lenses are all Rodenstock Digital and they are superb. I feel like I'm finally achieving the quality I've been chasing all my career. The stuff is good!
That said... I'm pretty confident in saying that every one of us could switch to 5D2's with T/S lenses and still make very similar pictures and our clients would never notice the difference.
I would notice the difference, and I wouldn't be happy with the results, but I could do it...
-
"Still trying to get cost of Sinar arTec gear in USA $'s"
One of Sinar's problems here in the US, no one wants to sell it. I tried to get info on buying the arTec after it came out, SinarBron had no idea and could not have cared less. Shame.
Is there anyone in the US who has bought an artec from a US dealer?
Before you decide on the Arca RM3 make sure you can actually get all the parts you want and when (firm ETA) you can get them. Try to talk to a real person who owns the camera, lenses and accs.
Arca has been showing this camera at shows for 3 (4?) years, does it exist beyond prototypes? At least there are many european photogs using the artec.
"Canon wins hands-down, if you are talking about taking pictures and are concerned about the state of the World's economy"
Not sure what this means, but there is absolutely no reason "great architecture photos" cannot be made with a Canon. And you don't need the 1dsIII, get 2 5dmkII, some gaff tape if you're worried about sealing (been around the world with mine, never had 1 problem), and put the savings into a 24tse.
-
I wouldn't be happy with the results, but I could do it...
You wouldn't be happy with the results because the gear was inferior?
-
You wouldn't be happy with the results because the gear was inferior?
Because the camera files are just not as sharp, don't have the same tonal width, or color fidelity and tend to exhibit too much distortion... at least with what I've seen from the 1DS, 5D and D3.
But again... will the client notice on prints or at web size?
-
You think I'm kidding, but that's my Fear List.
I know your not kidding. That's not much different than the list I would make. I don't wear glasses, but I bring backups or doubles for every single electronic device I rely on, every cord, camera, battery, twice the strobe I think I will need, etc. Why? because if things can happen eventually they will. I also rely on companies like Calumet and Freestyle who if they promise something next day-it is there the next day. This was more crucial shooting film on the road, but is very important with digital too. Allot of my work is not in major metropolitan areas that do not have well stocked camera stores. I rarely bring an extra assistant though but insist that the architect lends us someone from the office who has worked that job. They oftentimes have the contacts and clout to get things done that would take us too long or be to distracting while I need to concentrate on shooting. generally I try to minimize my distractions or creativity will suffer. I rely on my long time assistant to shield me from allot of crap that would take me out of the zone.
-
I think there is merit to your approach - stitch multiple frames and at least you'll get the res of a MFDB. Other elements will be missing BUT with judicious use of CS4 and LR you can get darn close.
Perfect, no - but the delta in cost is dramatic!
Jack
Heh, it seems like whenever I've said "Screw it, the client's never gonna notice...", that's when some unforseen, ultra-high-quality use comes up for that image.
Now, even on low-budget dslr jobs, I shoot a stitch sequence of any important shots. That way I have high-res material in the bag if another $$$$ use comes up. Especially if it's a difficult-access or unique situation.
-
Alternative I:
Arca Swiss RM3d Body $5,500
Adapter Plate to Hasselblad $700
Rotoslide $2,300
28mm Rodenstock HR Lens $6,500
Rodenstock 60mm $3,200
Rodenstock 70mm Digitar $2,800
Leica Laser $400
Total with 28mm and 60mm Lenses $18,600
Plus prior Cost of H3DII-39 Camera with default 80mm lens $20,000
Grand Total: $38,600
Alternative II:
Canon 1DsMkIII-USA Warranty $6,200
Canon 17mm TS-E Lens $2,500
Canon 45mm TS-E Lens $1,300
Canon 90mm TS-E Lens $1,250
Total with 17mm and 90mm Lens $9,950
Jack
your lens list looks a bit strange to me
i will give an alternative list, the lenses with* are for a bigger setup, without are the basics i.m.o.
for mf format:
shift camera of your choice ( i´d take the artec -- )
23mm HR (*)
28mm HR
35mm HR or schneider (*)
45mm rodenstock or schneider
70mm HR or equivalent schneider
90 or 100mm HR or schneider (*)
in any case an additional 35mm camera :
canon 5ds2 ( not 1ds3 for weight )
long lens for details.
( i use the 100-400L zoom which is excellent for details,
since canon corrects this lens so perfet in DPP. )
or alternatively only a 35mm canon system with:
17mm TS-E
24mm TS-E
1,4 extender (yes it works fine! )
45mmTS-E
90mm TS-E (*)
same long lens, preferable a zoom (for weight and space )
the canon system is a fine backup system too, if you have the luxury to have both systems.
about backup systems is to say that the canon is perfect for this, cause you still can bring it
together with the mf system and one laptop in the hand luggage in planes, which is quite
important for me. in any case i carry with me a second mf back if travelling.
-
Rainer,
Interesting menagerie of lens choices you have presented - extensive and I can see where the collection of both MFDB and SLR would be the "ideal".
As you are accomplished in the industry, and I must admit to being one of the chaps who's work I admire and aspire to reach, I can see the need, and financial ability, for you to have such a great assembly of tools - both MFDB and Canon.
What I'm trying to assemble is a set of gear that covers the MAJORITY of needs yet does not break the bank.
Thus, the first decision for a chap like myself is deciding between a MFDB or a Canon/SLR based system, since I do not want to allocate funds for both.
That given, my thinking AND budget are moving me away from the MFDB and on to the Canon approach.
I know there will be an adjustment in image quality that I've become accustom to in my landscape work with the H3DII-39 when moving to a Canon based system. Yet from these threads on this topic, I see that folks have built a fine business on the Canon platform, albeit with some finesse and compromise.
Now, considering I could sell off my current H3DII-39 (with only 2,000 clicks on it) and 28mm, 80mm and 150mm lenses (none of this gear being well suited to doing arch. work), then purchase the full list of Canon gear you suggest, and still have thousands of dollars left over from the sale of my MFDB for marketing and other equipment. Where to pursue the MFDB route will take the ADDITIONAL expenditure of tens of thousands more cash (as I do not believe in debt).
I feel that in order to minimize the financial pressure that comes with starting a change in focus, from landscape to architectural, this is a sacrifice that a prudent person would make. Once I prove myself in the market and build a client base, would that not be the wisest time to compliment my SLR system with MFDB?
Question: Assuming going ONLY with an SLR, would you still choose the 5Ds2 over the 1DsMkIII?
Reasons other than weight/cost delta?
As always, your thoughts and guidance are respected and appreciated by all of us.
Jack
-
canon 5ds2 ( not 1ds3 for weight rolleyes.gif )
long lens for details.
( i use the 100-400L zoom which is excellent for details,
since canon corrects this lens so perfet in DPP. laugh.gif )
or alternatively only a 35mm canon system with:
17mm TS-E
24mm TS-E
1,4 extender (yes it works fine! )
45mmTS-E
90mm TS-E (*)
same long lens, preferable a zoom (for weight and space )
A well thought out list. My POV, It is always important when shooting professional level AP with a DSLR to minimize any cropping, stretching and interpolation etc. You have to really work at and be conscious of maintaining file quality. My few differences for the list-I use an Olympus 35PC with a Canon adapter to fill the gap between 24 and 45. I don't own the 17 (I may buy it someday) as I am happy right now flat stitching if I need wider. For details I have 70-200 and a 135 prime. Also I find a good solid tripod with a geared head to be essential for thoughtful, well composed, maximized file use, work.
-
Rainer,
Now, considering I could sell off my current H3DII-39 (with only 2,000 clicks on it) and 28mm, 80mm and 150mm lenses (none of this gear being well suited to doing arch. work), then purchase the full list of Canon gear you suggest, and still have thousands of dollars left over from the sale of my MFDB for marketing and other equipment. Where to pursue the MFDB route will take the ADDITIONAL expenditure of tens of thousands more cash (as I do not believe in debt).
Jack
....(as I do not believe in debt).
For what it's worth, and possibly in my mind only, that's the best show of business acumen displayed yet and the basic reason I managed to survive so many lean years between the fat. Buy what you can afford - rental wasn't an easy option in my day and wouldn't have been attractive either; get the Canon tilt/shifters you can already afford and keep the 'blad until you know and have proved to yourself where you are going. Trust me, there's little worse than wishing you'd kept something when you find yourself having to buy the same thing on the second go round.
I can't tell you a great deal about the technical side of the speciality, but the general idea of keeping debt away is overarching, regardless of genre. Buys you time, at the very least.
Good luck.
Rob C
-
....(as I do not believe in debt).
For what it's worth, and possibly in my mind only, that's the best show of business acumen displayed yet and the basic reason I managed to survive so many lean years between the fat. Buy what you can afford - rental wasn't an easy option in my day and wouldn't have been attractive either; get the Canon tilt/shifters you can already afford and keep the 'blad until you know and have proved to yourself where you are going. Trust me, there's little worse than wishing you'd kept something when you find yourself having to buy the same thing on the second go round.
I can't tell you a great deal about the technical side of the speciality, but the general idea of keeping debt away is overarching, regardless of genre. Buys you time, at the very least.
Good luck.
Rob C
the Canon with these new tse lenses is a great setup, not a compromise ....
-
I agree with Rainer here,that Canon set-up is not to be sneezed at and can handle 99% of the jobs.
It's only limited when you can't stitch and need to produce a large file in one shot,like with the P65+.
For myself,I'm getting great results with my D3x and the 24+45+85 PC-e lenses.
The 14-24 Nikkor is nod bad either.At least it's sharp and has very easy to correct barrel distortion.
What Nikon now needs is a 17 PC-e and I would be very happy and a 35 PC-e please Nikon.
N.B If my market would require MFDB,I would go with the arTec.
-
This is a very interesting and inspiring thread to a special theme. Thanks to all the people for their input!
I started shooting architecture with a 4x5, creating 10-12 images per day at the most. It trained the concentrated view, the cost of film also helped for that. Then I switched to a 6x9 Arca-Swiss. I was thrilled by the speed of work, being able to easily change film on location sped me up to 30-35 images per day. But I already realized that I had to be careful not to lose the concentration. After starting to shoot digital in the studio I also wanted to try it for architecture, using a SLR (digital backs were not ready yet to go outside). WOW, 100 shots a day! But they weren't any good. Not necessarily because of optical quality but because of visual quality.
So I turned back to 6x9 film for architecture until I got an Aptus 22 Back, which I now use for architecture as well, using my Arca-Swiss F-line with my analogue lenses (35, 47, 55, 70, 90, 135, 180, 300 mm, except the 47 all Rodenstock). Mostly I am using the 35, 55 and 90 mm lenses. Because of focusing problems I got used to shooting tethered to a laptop. The results are good (of course the lenses could be better...) but working with a laptop on location is quite cumbersome: problems with batteries (I even used a car battery once, worked for a whole day but was quite heavy to lug around), problems focusing using the laptop (keeping the laptop close to the camera, sometimes the screen is difficult to see in direct sunlight), lots of stuff to carry around (I ended up using Festool Systainer, keeping the laptop in the top element).
This setup basically works (except the 35 is not wide enough) and it slows me down to about 20 images per day (what is good). But handling all that equipment takes the concentration away from the object I want to photograph. And the usage is too slow to allow reacting to changing light.
I guess, the ideal solution for me would be an Arca Rm3d (or was it R2-D2?) with a setup of lenses, about what Rainer recommends. Using the viewfinder (or the sliding back) and controlling the image with the screen on the back should work. However, that would be about 25-30 grand (without a back, but I own one...), which I don't have at the moment.
So, having a little money to spend now, I just ordered the 17 and 24 TS-E mm lenses yesterday to be used with my 5dII. Reading Rainers tip I will also get that 1.4 extender (did you also test the 2x extender to get a 48 mm shift?). That should solve my wideangle problem. The 12-24 Sigma and the 24-105 L Canon were already used as a backup and for a quick documentation (or for extreme situations with the 12 mm), but I always had a bad feeling selling those images.
Now I probably will have to do some meditation before a shooting to keep myself from rushing again. In theory it works: Looking at a building, walking around with a cup of coffee, deciding which perspectives to take and then using a quick system to get them into the box. Well, we'll see...
In any case, this will not be a wrong investigation. I can always use it as a backup or for jobs for people that don't have much money, like young architects or artists. When I see that the visual quality is diminishing again I will have to get that Rm3d (or whatever is top at that time).
Well, these are my thoughts, but having read other people's thoughts and taking profit of their ideas, I thought I'd share them.
Thanks!
gunter binsack
leipzig : germany
-
Hi All
I hope I don't come across like a party pooper but the whole conversation on how to come a great Architectural photographer seems to be missing the most important thing, that is to say ones understanding and knowledge and appreciation of architecture and ones ability of to contextualize a scheme in its environment. Sure you need some decent kit and the basics are a perspective control kit and full rage of lenses say from 38-240 but its is as important what you shoot (and why) as how you shoot it.
Edmund Sumner
www.edmundsumner.co.uk
This to me is the biggest question and I would love to hear how you guys approach seeing a project. Do you do any visual / mental exercises to make sure you truly understand the project's design? I guess this sounds like a silly question, but for me I am always amazed how many new things I am discovering in the building I live in (for years) knowing that the amount of time shooting a project is so incredibly brief. A scouting day plus the shooting days not very much time to truly get to know a project. Yes I am very inquisitive with the designers listening to how they see their project and of course study the project's plans. Any insights or elaborations on how you guys approach seeing a project would be very interesting.
thanks jeff
-
This to me is the biggest question and I would love to hear how you guys approach seeing a project. Do you do any visual / mental exercises to make sure you truly understand the project's design? I guess this sounds like a silly question, but for me I am always amazed how many new things I am discovering in the building I live in (for years) knowing that the amount of time shooting a project is so incredibly brief. A scouting day plus the shooting days not very much time to truly get to know a project. Yes I am very inquisitive with the designers listening to how they see their project and of course study the project's plans. Any insights or elaborations on how you guys approach seeing a project would be very interesting.
thanks jeff
I think you see "it" or you don't.
Simple as that.
Cheers,
Willem.
-
This to me is the biggest question and I would love to hear how you guys approach seeing a project. Do you do any visual / mental exercises to make sure you truly understand the project's design? I guess this sounds like a silly question, but for me I am always amazed how many new things I am discovering in the building I live in (for years) knowing that the amount of time shooting a project is so incredibly brief. A scouting day plus the shooting days not very much time to truly get to know a project. Yes I am very inquisitive with the designers listening to how they see their project and of course study the project's plans. Any insights or elaborations on how you guys approach seeing a project would be very interesting.
thanks jeff
A scouting day? I've never needed more than brief walk through with a familiar client, a bit more for a new client. I'd rather be shooting. Some shoots for sure take allot of planing and coordinating, but you can over think and plan a shoot, lock in your thinking and miss some great opportunities as they arise. I generally can see 90% of the shots in a brief walk through and the rest are discovered as the light changes during the day and evening. But I have been doing this for 31 years. It is second nature to me. I lay out a tentative shooting schedule, which is not cast in cement, but is constantly being modified throughout the day as I watch the light and see opportunities. My crew is working with me and ahead of me setting up the next shot.
On another point, marketing, I live architecture. That is how I market, very indirectly. I attend and give lectures, attend AIA meetings and conventions, give talks at AIA meetings and conventions, sit on boards, teach, take classes, get involved in historic preservation etc. I'm an active part of the architecture community. All soft sell. It has worked for me and my personality.
-
A scouting day?
this depends mainly on the size of the building. the largest project of a single building i have shot was the new bangkok airport. a building complex wiith a size of 1,4 km x 0,8 km, including 140 mtr high towers, side buildings , terminals, connection ways, main terminal ( 800 x 250 mtrs 40 mtrs high ) and my briefing was to show all buildings in empty state as well as later after the opening of the airport. problem was that all parts of the building have been finished at different times and than immediately been modified by the users. so there was NO time when the shooting could be done except some hours or even minutes before the changes at the site started. cause so many firms have been involved no central planning or schedule was available, all firms had their individual dead lines. shooting such project without scouting or planning and without having a clear idea what i would like to do and which views are needed would not be possible, at best it would be am accumulation of shots which would not cover the most important shots, because the short time frame when these shots could have been done would have to be missed on a building of that size and complexity.
no chance to see in the morning what could be done and what not.
the shot was done in four phases , all together 22 weeks on location with 200 finished motifs (!).
the first phase took me 7 weeks and i ended up with app. 30 shots, due to very bad and foggy weather, conditions on site and because for earth movings the whole building was covered under a thick layer of yellow dust, which needed the first rains ( summer in bangkok ) to be cleaned. the amount of scouting time was quite huge and for me this time was absolutely necessary.
recently i made a re- shoot of the sony center in berlin.
this is a complex of many buildings including one tower in berlin. the ensemble follows a basic geometry which is created a bit as a puzzle, formed by the individual buildings which contain the main form elements as well. it plays with mainly two forms:triangle and circle.
to find out in which relation this forms have been planned and in which relation the buildings form the entire ensemble in correspondence to the singular buildings and facades is nothing i can explore if i come to such building and start shooting without thinking before.
there exists already many 100s of photographs of this building, and i havent seeen a single one taken from a view point which has let me to see the triangular basic form of the building complex. i think for two reasons this has not been shown already: its not easy to find an adequate viewing point ( took a 90ft. plattform for that ) and 2. this form needs to be understood before you can search such viewing point and this basic elemental form is everything else than obviously visible, because teh size of the complex.
scouting does not mean for me photographing layout shots. it means that i drive or walk many times to a building, trying to understand the intention behind its design. this way to spend time feels sometimes a bit strange even to myself, because it has more to do with meditation than with photography or with "work" ..... but if i do it i rarely think afterwards its waisted time,- the final shots look different than in projects where i come and start immediately shooting.
with smaller buildings i usually dont see this as a need, there its often more obvious what i want or need to shoot.
also it can take me longer time ( hours .. ) to check out the right position if i shoot design in museal context, which i regularly do.
often i am confronted that i have to deliver two or three shots from exhibitions, which already are photographed by the employed photographers of such museum. the expectations to my shots are high in this case and no one wants me to add two more shots to the existing 50, they expect to get "the" shots from me. it can take me longer time before i start to photograph and to determine the exact position with my eyes, not with a camera, i go around, look under the objects , look over them, think about, change the position, drink a coffee, think about it again, finally the photograph takes sometimes less time than this "scouting" and comes at the end.
-
Heh, it seems like whenever I've said "Screw it, the client's never gonna notice...", that's when some unforseen, ultra-high-quality use comes up for that image.
Now, even on low-budget dslr jobs, I shoot a stitch sequence of any important shots. That way I have high-res material in the bag if another $$$$ use comes up. Especially if it's a difficult-access or unique situation.
I had this issue when I was using my 5MP Nikon D1X, but not since we not shoot with 20+ MP DSLRs. I do however see huge differences in optics - so you must be very careful to use only the best WA lenses. I don't know how Canon or Nikon can even sell some of their lenses for use on the latest cameras.
I think the bottom line is to create images with great composition and to capture what the brings out our clients talents. If a 30x40" print will look as good to us, is very secondary. A client will probably never see the difference at that size, if ever.
-
The way I see it: if you are going to spend all that time to create the image/s, why would you want to use anything but the best camera system possible, to capture it in the end.
We would often spend hours creating the image/s - styling, lighting, etc - so the camera is simply the recording device, one uses at that end, to capture it.
Almost any camera will do - but why not use the best one possible - if the clients requirements and budget are in place to allow you to use it.
So you need to put the horse in front of the cart here.
The clients requirements and budget will determine what you can afford to bring to the table.
Which means you have to know: who's going to buy the images and what all do they need the images for first... before you can determine which camera system is best for the job.
Cheers,
Ashley
http://www.ampimage.com (http://www.ampimage.com)
http://www.ashleymorrison.com (http://www.ashleymorrison.com)
I'm in Ashley's boat. In discussing using the P65+ I summed it all with... "Anything less than the best you can possibly deliver is... less."
-
I am curious if there is any particular reason why so many recommend Canon, but only Willem mentions Nikon? Is it just because the T/S lenses are so new that everyone already had Canon?
-
I am curious if there is any particular reason why so many recommend Canon, but only Willem mentions Nikon? Is it just because the T/S lenses are so new that everyone already had Canon?
I think it's because Canon has kicked Nikon's butt in the DSLR market for so long that Canon just dominates right now, and I believe they have more T/S lenses to choose from. I love my D3, though!
-
I think it's because Canon has kicked Nikon's butt in the DSLR market for so long that Canon just dominates right now, and I believe they have more T/S lenses to choose from. I love my D3, though!
I think there are to more reasons:
Nikon offers no 17mm TSE and has no "cheap" 20+ MP body.
Yes one could use a d3x, but I don't think it makes sense. So for a backup solution, I think Canon is the smarter choice by far.
-
I have to agree,that Nikon not having a 17 PC-e is a bummer,however I would never replace a D3x with a 5DII.
A 5DII is a backup camera and the D3x is not.
I don't have a MFDB kit,like some of the shooters here.
Having said that when Canon announces their follow up of the 1DsmkIII,I might move back to Canon. Just for its 17 TSE.
I hear the new 24 TSE is very good too.
It had to be because the old one was so so.
The irony of all this that I had a complete Canon kit with the old TSE lenses and the day I switched to Nikon,after selling the Canon,Canon announced
their 17 TSE and 24 TSE lenses.
I did take about a year for them to come to market,however they seem to be very good.
So Canon,bring on that new 1Ds4!
-
As per the discussion of scouting days. Ranier has the good fortune of shooting larger projects than I do and his approach clearly works for him (based on the extraordinary results).
As per Canons? When I got into digital DSLR, Canon was the only DSLR game in town with a reasonable ff body and t/s lenses. Then Nikon surged ahead with their new t/s lenses, but I didn't switch as I was too heavily invested in Canon (and the improvements, by my testing, were not dramatic). Now Canon has bounced back again with superior t/s lenses. Though I was sorely tempted, I'm glad now I didn't jump to Nikon. This competition is great for us. Also, personally I don't care much about the top of the line Canon bodies as allot of the bells and whistles are aimed more at sports photographers etc. (like fast frame rates high ISO's). In any event what ever is new in the top of the line camera will appear in the second tier a year later at 1/3 the price.
-
Because the camera files are just not as sharp, don't have the same tonal width, or color fidelity and tend to exhibit too much distortion... at least with what I've seen from the 1DS, 5D and D3.
But again... will the client notice on prints or at web size?
I shot with an Arca 6X9 and film for years, then transitioned to digital on the Arca. Now my clients neither want a file that size or are willing to pay for the post time. I picked up the new Canon TS-Es a month ago. My clients are happy with the images, and more importantly, they're still my clients.
-
I shot with an Arca 6X9 and film for years, then transitioned to digital on the Arca. Now my clients neither want a file that size or are willing to pay for the post time. I picked up the new Canon TS-Es a month ago. My clients are happy with the images, and more importantly, they're still my clients.
I think there is an important difference between what I want and clients. Most don't care about 60MP files which can be printed at 40x60. They are happy more than happy with 10Mp files. Of course there are exceptions. However I don't shoot the file quality for my clients or a better way to say it, I shoot to the quality that I want to get out of a project. I'm sure if I only cared about my clients I could shoot 95% with a Canon 5DMk2 and rent a MFDB for the other 5%. They would still be happy.
I think we should always remember that in the End it often doesn't matter with what tool we take the image, but how the light is and to find the right moment to shoot it. I still think that great light, is our most important tool to display architecture in a certain way.
Just a small example, while travling the last 4 months, I didn't shoot to much architecture, just some things I really enjoyed. However, it took me three days for this shot, I drove 30 minutes each morning before sunrise and twice it wasn't what I imagined. The last day, the sunrise was colorful and magical. I think in the right light it does not matter much which camera is used.
[attachment=17852:LA_01.jpg]
-
Good comments from the crew. I will add my two cents. I think photographers need to immerse themselves in the way architects work, understand the way they design, and try to capture the point of the design. The most successful images (graded visually and helpful to the designers) are not made by simply showing up at the right time. It's how you can capture their process so they can justify their fee to their clients and go get more. I'm hired because I am able to provide context showing more than one discipline: architecture, landscape architecture, and planning principles.
I LOVE the D3x and the PC-E lenses. They are much better than my previous canon's and the files from the D3x are simply fantastic. We'll see how it compares to the Leaf Aptus II 10 on the Contax and hopefully cambo wide RS. I do output at 40x60" regularly so the Leaf will get equal use.
Robb
[attachment=17853:Signature_sm2.jpg]
-
You are certainly correct. However, I haven't seen to many great architecture image, where the light and weather was sh** ;-) Or the timing wrong. To get great results one has to combine both elements. (And yes there are a lot more, to be successful. )
-
I studied a lot of portfolios of some (great) architecture photographers of this forum. Just to bring mine skills on a higher level.
The big rule is that vertical lines are straight up and parallel. This can be done with the help of rise and fall (or PS).
But the horizontal lines / parallels gets much less attention. Even when it could be correct with a little PS or shift / cross.
Why are the parallels of the horizontal lines less important? Is that looking more natural?
-
I studied a lot of portfolios of some (great) architecture photographers of this forum. Just to bring mine skills on a higher level.
The big rule is that vertical lines are straight up and parallel. This can be done with the help of rise and fall (or PS).
But the horizontal lines / parallels gets much less attention. Even when it could be correct with a little PS or shift / cross.
Why are the parallels of the horizontal lines less important? Is that looking more natural?
they are not less important, but need to be seen and treated different than verticals. sometimes i correct them, sometimes a bit, sometimes not.
this depends mainly on the received perspective, which is seen ( by humans ) different than verticals.
-
I studied a lot of portfolios of some (great) architecture photographers of this forum. Just to bring mine skills on a higher level.
The big rule is that vertical lines are straight up and parallel. This can be done with the help of rise and fall (or PS).
But the horizontal lines / parallels gets much less attention. Even when it could be correct with a little PS or shift / cross.
Why are the parallels of the horizontal lines less important? Is that looking more natural?
Vertical lines not being vertical/parallel in an image do disturb our brain much more than horizontal lines not being horizontal/parallel. One reason being our eyes set horizontally on our face.
Best regards,
Thierry
-
...I haven't seen to many great architecture image, where the light and weather was sh** ;-) Or the timing wrong. To get great results one has to combine both elements. (And yes there are a lot more, to be successful. )
One of the great advantages to digital is the ability to explore uncertain light with no penalties like wasting film. When traveling on extended shoots, even with resources like quality overnight film shippers, one had to always be aware of film and Polaroid supplies and loaded holders and shoot accordingly. Sometimes at the end of a long day with film running short, we would tend to get conservative with film to make sure we got the scheduled shots finished. In the last couple of years of shooting film we went over to using roll film in our view camera on road trips because we could carry an almost endless supply and not have to load holders every night after a long shoot. With digital this is never an issue, even if cards fill up we can download them on the shoot. This is one of the reasons why I refer to digital as liberating. Liberating us to explore less than perfect light and as a result sometimes we come up with unexpected stunning images.
-
Vertical lines not being vertical/parallel in an image do disturb our brain much more than horizontal lines not being horizontal/parallel. One reason being our eyes set horizontally on our face.
Best regards,
Thierry
when photographing architecture or interior I would either go for a one point perspective 1PP (straight on), a two point perspective 2PP(from an angle) and very rarely little for the 3 point perspective 3PP (from an angle and pointing down or up)
I make sure when shooting one point perspective that horizontals and vertical are dead on, can not stand it if they are not. especially if either lines are near the edge of the photo
when shooting 2 point perspective I would point the camera at an angle no less then 25 degrees. If it is less then it goes too much for my liking to a one point
perspective. what I learned way back from an art teacher was that either you do it or you don't, in this case meaning you either shoot straight on or at a strong angle.
if you are not bold in those desicions the photo will weaken. of course this is a self imposed rule which can be broken in the right way.
I think a portfolio should have a good mix of these perspectives as they have different effects on the viewer. One point perspective being more quite, still and resting
and two point perspective being more dynamic.
At this point my preference goes to 65% of the time to a 1PP and 35% to a 2PP. I really love the graphical senses that gets more awakened
in a 1PP, it kind of looks more like an elevation drawing, 2PP are sometimes better to cut through interior spaces and show the dynamic of the space.
-
Spot on Marc!
-
when photographing architecture or interior I would either go for a one point perspective 1PP (straight on), a two point perspective 2PP(from an angle) and very rarely little for the 3 point perspective 3PP (from an angle and pointing down or up)
I make sure when shooting one point perspective that horizontals and vertical are dead on, can not stand it if they are not. especially if either lines are near the edge of the photo
when shooting 2 point perspective I would point the camera at an angle no less then 25 degrees. If it is less then it goes too much for my liking to a one point
perspective. what I learned way back from an art teacher was that either you do it or you don't, in this case meaning you either shoot straight on or at a strong angle.
if you are not bold in those desicions the photo will weaken. of course this is a self imposed rule which can be broken in the right way.
I think a portfolio should have a good mix of these perspectives as they have different effects on the viewer. One point perspective being more quite, still and resting
and two point perspective being more dynamic.
At this point my preference goes to 65% of the time to a 1PP and 35% to a 2PP. I really love the graphical senses that gets more awakened
in a 1PP, it kind of looks more like an elevation drawing, 2PP are sometimes better to cut through interior spaces and show the dynamic of the space.
I couldn't have said it better, Marc. Nothing bothers me more than a composition that is just slightly oblique. If I have a shot that is a soft 2pp, I will rotate the camera even further, then shift back to get the composition. This provides a strongly oblique perspective.
I'll do something similar if I have a circular element in the foreground of a 2pp shot and slightly off center... rotate the camera until that element is centered in the lens and then shift back for composition. This minimizes the distortion of the circular element (like a coffee table for example).
The one thing that drives me nuts about the smaller groundglass is the difficulty in squaring up, compared to 4x5.
-c
-
I couldn't have said it better, Marc. Nothing bothers me more than a composition that is just slightly oblique. If I have a shot that is a soft 2pp, I will rotate the camera even further, then shift back to get the composition. This provides a strongly oblique perspective.
I'll do something similar if I have a circular element in the foreground of a 2pp shot and slightly off center... rotate the camera until that element is centered in the lens and then shift back for composition. This minimizes the distortion of the circular element (like a coffee table for example).
The one thing that drives me nuts about the smaller groundglass is the difficulty in squaring up, compared to 4x5.
-c
good to see we think alike!!
yeah right ! round things near the edge gives me the %^&*
sometimes work it out in post like here
the round light was totally crooked and looked horrible as shot
with some post it comes up trumps!
no 4 from my residential online portfolio
had to grab it myself as I am on the laptop!!
-
here it is........... i think
-
Mark,
Could you post a example of each of the perspectives for us; 1pp, 2pp, 3pp?
Jack
here it is........... i think
-
Mark,
Could you post a example of each of the perspectives for us; 1pp, 2pp, 3pp?
Jack
just go to my website
residential portfolio
no 1 1PP
no 2 2PP
no 3 2PP this is an example where I have broken my own rule as going slightly oblique, I allow it usually only in photos focusing in on details
no 4 1PP
no 5 1PP
no 6 1PP
etc etc
-
3 PP
no 33 from architecture
but would show better if the building is square
-
here it is........... i think
great example of when it would be good to correct both perspectives, and a really nice shot!
-
here it is........... i think
Marc, I am not an architectural photographer, but am trying to learn, including from tips in these threads, and so I am wondering: wouldn't it possibly have been more pleasing if you had gotten the line on the floor which goes to the middle of the black square directly under the tripod, and had then shifted back to get the same composition? Everything geometric in the room feels calm and balanced, except that one line which gives me a similar feeling to a slightly angled shot.
-
Marc, I am not an architectural photographer, but am trying to learn, including from tips in these threads, and so I am wondering: wouldn't it possibly have been more pleasing if you had gotten the line on the floor which goes to the middle of the black square directly under the tripod, and had then shifted back to get the same composition? Everything geometric in the room feels calm and balanced, except that one line which gives me a similar feeling to a slightly angled shot.
yes i guess i could have cropped the bottom of a bit.
well seen! and according to my own stringent estetics, maybe should do
but sometimes an imperfection creates a more human element into it
like a dissonant in music or a flaw in a handwoven carpet
frankly speaking I am not perfect and I consider this metier a craft.
as will all crafts things are never totally perfect.
perfection can only be found in death!! haha!!
-
yes i guess i could have cropped the bottom of a bit.
well seen! and according to my own stringent estetics, maybe should do
but sometimes an imperfection creates a more human element into it
like a dissonant in music or a flaw in a handwoven carpet
frankly speaking I am not perfect and I consider this metier a craft.
as will all crafts things are never totally perfect.
perfection can only be found in death!! haha!!
I line up on architectural elements like that all the time... floor patterns, soffits, desks, what have you. I feel like it imparts a nearly subconscious sense of perfection to the composition. Lately, though, I've grown a bit bored with it and am more likely to line up perfectly in the space between... in Marc's I probably would have been dead middle between the lines, that floor is so busy, that I think lining up on one of the white lines would of overpowered the composition and held your gaze in the foreground rather than leading the eye into the depths of the shot as one might expect it to do.
Or.... I'm full of sh*t.
I'll upload a pile of shots "On the line" when I go upstairs and fire up the raid.
-
I line up on architectural elements like that all the time... floor patterns, soffits, desks, what have you. I feel like it imparts a nearly subconscious sense of perfection to the composition. Lately, though, I've grown a bit bored with it and am more likely to line up perfectly in the space between... in Marc's I probably would have been dead middle between the lines, that floor is so busy, that I think lining up on one of the white lines would of overpowered the composition and held your gaze in the foreground rather than leading the eye into the depths of the shot as one might expect it to do.
Or.... I'm full of sh*t.
I'll upload a pile of shots "On the line" when I go upstairs and fire up the raid.
As promised/threatened... no wonder I'm bored with walkin the line (http://christopherbarrett.net/line/)!
-
As promised/threatened... no wonder I'm bored with walkin the line (http://christopherbarrett.net/line/)!
Great concept for a portfolio. I enjoyed looking at the images where the center line was part of the architecture.
-
Superb Christopher as always. I have admired your work for years. The "studio" you spent 17 years at was none other than Hedrich Blessing right? The AP class that I teach at SAIC has done a field trip over to Hedrich Blessing many times over the last 8-9 years. Visiting HB for an AP is like a pilgrimage to Mecca. I can't remember if we ever met. I'm glad to see you doing so well on your own.
-
As promised/threatened... no wonder I'm bored with walkin the line (http://christopherbarrett.net/line/)!
cropping, lines, color, light, design and overall composition is very strong
you do walk the line!
well done
great edit too!
-
... where the center line was part of the architecture.
Is the line really a part of the architecture? Or more a part of the way the photographer looks at the architecture?
This is not to critisize the work of Christopher, it's more a fundamental question of who's in a picture: the architect or the photographer (respectively the architect's work or the photographer's work).
This is a question I ask myself daily (or every hour...) photographing architecture. Or where is the right balance between the two possible answers? Between documentation and interpretation? How much of each is necessary or desired?
There are no simple answers, I think.
-
Is the line really a part of the architecture? Or more a part of the way the photographer looks at the architecture?
This is not to critisize the work of Christopher, it's more a fundamental question of who's in a picture: the architect or the photographer (respectively the architect's work or the photographer's work).
This is a question I ask myself daily (or every hour...) photographing architecture. Or where is the right balance between the two possible answers? Between documentation and interpretation? How much of each is necessary or desired?
There are no simple answers, I think.
Thanks for the compliments, guys and Thom I think that's a sound criticism and raises some significant issues. Taken out of the context of the project that each shot came from, the approach feels very heavy handed, but I always felt like each one of those was like my signature at the bottom of the overall shoot. While they do impress my view upon the architecture, I think you can get away with a little of that if carefully balanced.
Interestingly enough, the first shot, the greenish elevator lobby was not my idea... that composition belongs to the designer... so is it even that I am projecting myself into the environment or am I simply pulling out elements that I, the architect or the general public are all free to observe when given a chance to walk the line? Perhaps the bulk of my clients just share a compatible vision?
It brings to light another interesting dilemma, truthful representation. When we started doing digital retouching at Hedrich Blessing, the senior partner questioned the legitimacy of the resulting images. I countered the argument by stating that we are deceiving the public the moment we place the camera. When you set up your first light, you are altering the real experience of that space. When taking any specific 2 dimensional viewpoint how can you be an impartial observer? And is that out purpose?
Then again, our clients have to make so many compromises along the way... value engineering, poor workmanship, poor judgment on the part of their client all diminish the original design intent. I think that my job is to render that intent more so than the reality, just as advertising shows us idealized human forms, glistening bottles of beer and the perfect cheeseburger. I compose, light and yes, retouch to achieve what I feel was the spirit of the project and it often takes so much effort to comprehend that spirit, that enforcing a preformulated compositional approach often gets in the way. But my ways evolve... lately I'm shooting wider, more obliquely and more spontaneously.
I don't know if all of these hypotheses can yield clarity and help us make more successful imagery or if they just muddy the water... Many of us are quite adept at making photographs by the seat of our pants. In the end I just want to have fun, have my clients come back smiling and support my family.
Hmm, more coffee. I definitely need more coffee.
-
Great reflections that touch on what I've been pondering since starting these two threads.
I've looked at most every shooters work that has contributed to these two threads, and a hundred more AP sites.
USA work generally, at least from following the work of contributors on this topic, "paint" the scene with dramatic lighting.
Europeans generally reflect far more of what is "reality" by no lights, or very few.
Is this not a bit of our culture in the USA - try to make reality bigger than life???
(I could take off on a tangent of Silicone Implants, but I won't.)
I admit to finding the work of a buddies images, Jeffory Jacobs, absolutely beautiful!
The images of the cabin is one excellent example - used over 100 lights! Striking artistry and demonistration of a mastery of supplemental lighting.
Here's a link - click on the Cabin and have a read:
http://www.jeffreyjacobsphoto.com/news.asp (http://www.jeffreyjacobsphoto.com/news.asp)
But is it reality? No, unless the property owner wants to invest in massive lighting and pay the boost in the monthly electric bill.
But it's beautiful.
Thus, the dilemma I find of interest; Reality or Altered Reality representation of the scene - are we being true to what a visitor to the scene will find once we and our lighting, and PS Magic, are gone?
Is the representation of Reality of importance?
Jack
Thanks for the compliments, guys and Thom I think that's a sound criticism and raises some significant issues. Taken out of the context of the project that each shot came from, the approach feels very heavy handed, but I always felt like each one of those was like my signature at the bottom of the overall shoot. While they do impress my view upon the architecture, I think you can get away with a little of that if carefully balanced.
Interestingly enough, the first shot, the greenish elevator lobby was not my idea... that composition belongs to the designer... so is it even that I am projecting myself into the environment or am I simply pulling out elements that I, the architect or the general public are all free to observe when given a chance to walk the line? Perhaps the bulk of my clients just share a compatible vision?
It brings to light another interesting dilemma, truthful representation. When we started doing digital retouching at Hedrich Blessing, the senior partner questioned the legitimacy of the resulting images. I countered the argument by stating that we are deceiving the public the moment we place the camera. When you set up your first light, you are altering the real experience of that space. When taking any specific 2 dimensional viewpoint how can you be an impartial observer? And is that out purpose?
Then again, our clients have to make so many compromises along the way... value engineering, poor workmanship, poor judgment on the part of their client all diminish the original design intent. I think that my job is to render that intent more so than the reality, just as advertising shows us idealized human forms, glistening bottles of beer and the perfect cheeseburger. I compose, light and yes, retouch to achieve what I feel was the spirit of the project and it often takes so much effort to comprehend that spirit, that enforcing a preformulated compositional approach often gets in the way. But my ways evolve... lately I'm shooting wider, more obliquely and more spontaneously.
I don't know if all of these hypotheses can yield clarity and help us make more successful imagery or if they just muddy the water... Many of us are quite adept at making photographs by the seat of our pants. In the end I just want to have fun, have my clients come back smiling and support my family.
Hmm, more coffee. I definitely need more coffee.
-
Between documentation and interpretation? How much of each is necessary or desired?
The answer for me, when the client is an architect, both. I am paid for both my eye and technical expertise. All photography requires interpretation just from the basic activity of framing an image, making a visual selection, but for some images it goes far beyond the process of selection. Over the course of an entire shoot, I must deliver images that both accurately depict the volumes, masses, setting, facades etc. and I must deliver images that interpret the feel of the design. It is in attempting to interpret the feel of the design where I am most aesthetically free. Here are a few examples that I did recently for a project. I'm never sure that the client will appreciate some of my more abstract interpretations, but usually my more creative clients appreciate my more creative images. Project, the Aperture Center, Mesa del Sol, New Mexico, Antoine Predock Architect.
[attachment=17897:Aperture06.jpg] [attachment=17898:Aperture09.jpg] [attachment=17899:Aperture08.jpg]
-
Thus, the dilemma I find of interest; Reality or Altered Reality representation of the scene - are we being true to what a visitor to the scene will find once we and our lighting, and PS Magic, are gone?
Is the representation of Reality of importance?
Jack
first thanks for one of the best threads so far
Despite that I'm are not using lights here in europe - I can sometime be quite far from reality, I'm not making documentary here! I move things away, photoshop them away, move people from one exposure to an other so they are standing in the space just where I want them, and so on.... I also choose careful what to see, and most importen what not to see!!
But - and this is most importen - I always try to be faithful to the space I'm photographing - and since space are created with light and shadow, I find it to be the architects job to light it through daylight and/or artificial light - it's my choice of timing that can make my images different from others - and you can say that I'm "lighting" the space that way - but I'm not adding more light than already been given to me by the architect - It's now up to me to get the best out of it.
It's impressive too add 100 lights and controlling them technical perfect - but from my point of view as an architect, it's like turning architectural photography in to product photography - and make architecture looks like perfect beautiful images of jewels in a catalogue.
But maybe I'm wrong - here in denmark this november we have had only 3 hours of sun so far.... so what kind of lights can you recommend
Kind regards
adam
-
If anyone is interested, I will be teaching architectural photography at some interesting venues this coming year.
The first is a summer credit class primarily for university students, at The School of the Art Institute of Chicago. where I have been asked once again to be a Visiting Artist. This class is jointly offered by the departments of Photography, Historic Preservation and Architecture, classes are Monday, Wednesday and Friday, June 1st to July 9th 2010. I don't have the class number as yet-the official class schedules are not posted yet. This class is a bit pricey (especially if you include lodging in Chicago for 6 weeks) but has attracted students from all over the world. It is primarily DSLR digital. I actually lose money teaching this class (by missing assignments) but I love the interaction with the students and being in Chicago.
The second is a workshop in Hartford Conn. at the New England Large Format Photography Collective annual conference. This workshop is about seeing architecture and is set in the historic Hartford City Hall. It is a Sunday morning workshop on April 10th 2010. The cost is very reasonable and included in the cost of the conference. This workshop is primarily largeformat film.[attachment=17902:hc.png]
see:NELFPC (http://www.steve-sherman.com/workshops.cfm) and scroll down past where I am giving the Friday evening talk to the workshop on architectural photography. There are many other interesting presentations at this conference and well worth the cost.
Email me if you have any questions.
-
first thanks for one of the best threads so far
Despite that I'm are not using lights here in europe - I can sometime be quite far from reality, I'm not making documentary here! I move things away, photoshop them away, move people from one exposure to an other so they are standing in the space just where I want them, and so on.... I also choose careful what to see, and most importen what not to see!!
But - and this is most importen - I always try to be faithful to the space I'm photographing - and since space are created with light and shadow, I find it to be the architects job to light it through daylight and/or artificial light - it's my choice of timing that can make my images different from others - and you can say that I'm "lighting" the space that way - but I'm not adding more light than already been given to me by the architect - It's now up to me to get the best out of it.
It's impressive too add 100 lights and controlling them technical perfect - but from my point of view as an architect, it's like turning architectural photography in to product photography - and make architecture looks like perfect beautiful images of jewels in a catalogue.
But maybe I'm wrong - here in denmark this november we have had only 3 hours of sun so far.... so what kind of lights can you recommend
Kind regards
adam
its quite a bit funny this discussion over the ocean with europe contra us philosophy and taste.
for me the question which philosophy i follow its clear ( no add. light if not absolutely necessary ) , as it seems to be clear for most of our american collegues too ( many seem to think its a part of the handcraftship of a photographer to use these lamps ) . it always was that way. meanwhile in germany becher ( although more documentary than architectonical but with big impact for architecture photography ) grew up it was in america shulman. although in terms of perspectives and atmospheres certainly great, its not my taste to put in rooms so much ambient, furniture and people. neutras architecture would look much more timeless without all this 50s reminiscences. ( i am prepared to be fragmented now ... )
i myself even refuse to put people in my shots, at least in the last years. it looks so often-seen to me and therefor stereotype, esp. these unsharp moving shadowed figures in the frame. it wants to show that the rooms are alive but for me it looks too often only boring and superficial , it disturbs the perception of the architecture and of the room. when i personally involve people in my shots is when buildings are in use. otherwise i ask them to go out or i layer and erase, as i do it with plants if not part of the architecture, as i do it with carpets, lamps, images at the wall, and last not least with furniture if not designed by the architect and if ever possible. .
next shot was lit with two handheld small canon and nikon flashes, moving around the machine, in 100% darkness 1000 meters down the ground. maybe an example where even an european photographer as me wanted additional light.
the other two shots without light.
sorry me to bring some dusty shots here in this treat, but 1. its not that easy to shoot the 2.+ 3. image with natural light and 2. its architecture/ industrial photography too, at least in a bit wider context.
[attachment=17910:minas_.jpg]
[attachment=17911:minas2.jpg]
[attachment=17912:minas3.jpg]
-
As promised/threatened... no wonder I'm bored with walkin the line (http://christopherbarrett.net/line/)!
That first shot shows exactly what I meant. The line might be too powerful right underneath the tripod, but it is maybe even more powerful, in a negative manner, when it is asymmetrically off-center. To de-emphasize the line, one could raise the camera just a touch, or perhaps move a little more forward, to have less floor in the photo. Bringing the sofa more into the shot also helps the left-right balance, I think.
Anyway, I should stop here. I only saw this because a few posts earlier someone made a related comment about how to handle the camera in such situations.
-
[quote name='rainer_v' date='Nov 14 2009, 06:49 AM' post='324723']
its quite a bit funny this discussion over the ocean with europe contra us philosophy and taste.
for me the question which philosophy i follow its clear ( no add. light if not absolutely necessary ) , as it seems to be clear for most of our american collegues too ( many seem to think its a part of the handcraftship of a photographer to use these lamps ) . it always was that way. meanwhile in germany becher ( although more documentary than architectonical but with big impact for architecture photography ) grew up it was in america shulman. although in terms of perspectives and atmospheres certainly great, its not my taste to put in rooms so much ambient, furniture and people. neutras architecture would look much more timeless without all this 50s reminiscences. ( i am prepared to be fragmented now ... )
It's interesting, Rainer, you should mention Shulman, in the context of philosophies and style. His work covering the mid 20th century Californian modernism really helped distill my desire to pursue architectural photography.
I agree a lot of his interiors feel rather staged, and of-an-era, which dates his work. His exteriors, though, often made very interesting use of that wonderful Californian light, that I found really inspiring, back when I was studying photography, and architecture.
As someone working in the UK, but with a bit of the US in my background (life and education), I find myself somewhere between the European preference for unlit, and completely 'natural' photography (that I think some photographers and magazines think needs to be dark, depressing and gloomy, especially with interiors (obviously not my preference ;-)), and the American preference for brighter, more colourful representations. Looking at my own work, I tend to move more towards the American aesthetic as my preference, when I have the choice, but tempered by the use of additional light only when needed (as in your mine shot) used as unobtrusively as possible, so that I am only using light to make the image possible, or recreate the feel of the space that wouldn't otherwise be possible in-camera.
I wonder if the source of the different prevailing styles on opposite sides of the Atlantic isn't just a reflection of the dominant weather and light conditions? In the UK, and especially here in Scotland, blue sky sunny days are the exception rather than the rule and often very rare indeed. So working with a flatter, cooler, duller light is often the necessity, to get the job done. When I have had the chance to shoot in the US it has felt like a revelation, with all this amazing light to work with!
Sad to hear that Shulman passed away recently, but what a contribution to the genre.
Matt
-
I wonder if the source of the different prevailing styles on opposite sides of the Atlantic isn't just a reflection of the dominant weather and light conditions? In the UK, and especially here in Scotland, blue sky sunny days are the exception rather than the rule and often very rare indeed. So working with a flatter, cooler, duller light is often the necessity, to get the job done. When I have had the chance to shoot in the US it has felt like a revelation, with all this amazing light to work with!
I think that a lot of american interior and architectural photography has been very much influenced by Hollywood
especially the photography from the 50's through to the end of the 80's
a lot of those photos really remind me of some cheesy but well lit movies or even soap operas
european cinema did not have major budgets so the style was more 'au naturel'
the lighting of sets in hollywood must have produced thousands of lighting techniciens who
might have spilled over to the photography side.
movies used much earlier intricate lighting systems then the photography industry.
Some of the current interior photos from america still have a lingering of hollywood in there
if you would put people in the frame it could be a movie still.
no good or bad ......... i love hollywood!!
-
The big difference between the two is more clearly see in the residential interior work (and to some extent Hotel type work), as opposed to commercial or industrial projects ... which often have little or no natural available light anyway and / or are glass-houses which are totally naturally lit.
Referring to residential interior work:
The weather will naturally effect what one sees and that will influence one's state of mind, both of which will naturally be reflected in the work; however, it's doesn't change one's style or more importantly, the style one's market and clients demand.
We have been commissioned to shoot interiors all over the world and the same rules apply, because of who we are shooting for:
Who's going to buy it, what all do they need the images for, their target market and what message they are trying to convey to that market.
We are currently shooting home features for the Spring issues and even though it may be a dark and grey outside, it doesn't stop us from creating the look our clients want. Shot one on Thursday and it was pouring down outside - black as a boot - but I bet you couldn't tell from looking at the interior images.
(Sorry I can't post the images, to show you what I'm talking about, because it was sold on Friday for exclusive 1st Rights Worldwide)
However, here is one example I can show you - http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=317982 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=38404&view=findpost&p=317982)
It was shot in Italy a few weeks ago - bright and sunny outside - but inside was very dark and gloomy, as you can see from the recce images.
Not what the client or their market would have wanted or expected to see, so like you say "to get the job done" we created the look they wanted.
Remember, when the sun is high in the sky, it doesn't actually shine through the windows and into the rooms.
This first hit me about 6 years ago when working in Spain. I assumed because it was July and the skies would be blue, the sun-light would fill the rooms with natural light.
Wrong.
The lower sun-light you get in Scotland (UK, Northern Europe, Canada & Northern American), will in fact, do a better job at lighting up the room... should there be sun-light
Anyway, my point is, the big difference between 'us' and 'them' is the market.
Who's going to buy it, what all do they need the images for, their target market and what message they are trying to convey to that market.
Trust me, if my main market demanded I changed my style tomorrow, I'd change it, to suit their needs... and I'm sure you would too.
We simply provide images for our clients to use.
They say jump, we ask how high.
Cheers,
Ashley
Nothing could be more true..."Who's going to buy it, what all do they need the images for, their target market and what message they are trying to convey to that market."
This applies to all genres of commercial photography, not just the architectural market.
I shoot architectural of sorts, my subjects just roll or float and in general they are shot indoors with lighting (at least the interiors.) And much like Ashley I must create the mood and look of the light, and not rely on the sun. In addition its not just the style but the textures and colors of the fabrics and woods that are important. In fact, given the nature of the industries, that can be the entire difference between one company and the next.
In the end it's the crafting of light indooors and out that makes or breaks these images.
Examples:
RV interiors and exteriors (http://www.craiglamson.com/rv/index.htm)
Marine interiors and exteriors (http://www.craiglamson.com/marine/index.htm)
-
The big difference between the two is more clearly see in the residential interior work (and to some extent Hotel type work), as opposed to commercial or industrial projects ... which often have little or no natural available light anyway and / or are glass-houses which are totally naturally lit.
Referring to residential interior work:
The weather will naturally effect what one sees and that will influence one's state of mind, both of which will naturally be reflected in the work; however, it's doesn't change one's style or more importantly, the style one's market and clients demand.
We have been commissioned to shoot interiors all over the world and the same rules apply, because of who we are shooting for:
Who's going to buy it, what all do they need the images for, their target market and what message they are trying to convey to that market.
We are currently shooting home features for the Spring issues and even though it may be a dark and grey outside, it doesn't stop us from creating the look our clients want. Shot one on Thursday and it was pouring down outside - black as a boot - but I bet you couldn't tell from looking at the interior images.
(Sorry I can't post the images, to show you what I'm talking about, because it was sold on Friday for exclusive 1st Rights Worldwide)
However, here is one example I can show you - http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=317982 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=38404&view=findpost&p=317982)
It was shot in Italy a few weeks ago - bright and sunny outside - but inside was very dark and gloomy, as you can see from the recce images.
Not what the client or their market would have wanted or expected to see, so like you say "to get the job done" we created the look they wanted.
Remember, when the sun is high in the sky, it doesn't actually shine through the windows and into the rooms.
This first hit me about 6 years ago when working in Spain. I assumed because it was July and the skies would be blue, the sun-light would fill the rooms with natural light.
Wrong.
The lower sun-light you get in Scotland (UK, Northern Europe, Canada & Northern American), will in fact, do a better job at lighting up the room... should there be sun-light
Anyway, my point is, the big difference between 'us' and 'them' is the market.
Who's going to buy it, what all do they need the images for, their target market and what message they are trying to convey to that market.
Trust me, if my main market demanded I changed my style tomorrow, I'd change it, to suit their needs... and I'm sure you would too.
We simply provide images for our clients to use.
They say jump, we ask how high.
Cheers,
Ashley
I have a question for architectural photographers working in northern ( ie. snowy ) climates. I find my architectural assignments to be quite seasonal, since most clients seldom want exteriors with snow. A summer photograph looks OK in winter, but a winter photo looks out of place in July. Most of my projects include interior & exterior, so both are done at the same time.
The busiest stretch for me starts early September, when architects realize that winter is approaching and they haven't done photography yet, until about now. So what do all of you do in winter, sail to the Caribbean on your yachts? Fortunately I do industrial & corporate photography too, or the off season would be pretty lean.
-
I have a question for architectural photographers working in northern ( ie. snowy ) climates. I find my architectural assignments to be quite seasonal, since most clients seldom want exteriors with snow. A summer photograph looks OK in winter, but a winter photo looks out of place in July. Most of my projects include interior & exterior, so both are done at the same time.
The busiest stretch for me starts early September, when architects realize that winter is approaching and they haven't done photography yet, until about now. So what do all of you do in winter, sail to the Caribbean on your yachts? Fortunately I do industrial & corporate photography too, or the off season would be pretty lean.
I pretty much take December off and do personal work, read up on technology, try to stay up to date on Photoshop and do marketing stuff. In January and February I often shoot furniture in studio. I do have smatterings of interiors jobs in the winter as a lot of my work is interiors only. Typically, though, Late November through February are my slow period.
-
I have a question for architectural photographers working in northern ( ie. snowy ) climates. I find my architectural assignments to be quite seasonal, since most clients seldom want exteriors with snow. A summer photograph looks OK in winter, but a winter photo looks out of place in July. Most of my projects include interior & exterior, so both are done at the same time.
The busiest stretch for me starts early September, when architects realize that winter is approaching and they haven't done photography yet, until about now. So what do all of you do in winter, sail to the Caribbean on your yachts? Fortunately I do industrial & corporate photography too, or the off season would be pretty lean.
I read up on marketing as well, study the work of other photographers like Stoller, Robert Adams, Weston, Aaron, Halkin ... try to meet new people in the architectural market here in Philly, NYC, and Baltimore, make connections, and swim 5 or 6 days a week.
As far as dyeing down, I just got a bunch of office interiors to set up and shoot in December, so just not yet. Although I am looking forward to a slow January and the fact that I will have no lectures to plan. I also plan on fooling around with food this winter.
-
Craig,
Interesting what you are doing!
I've been pondering that market as I live in FL and there are numerous boat manufacturers located here.
As the home building industry is really lagging, logic was to use the yacht/marine market as an additional revenue stream.
I meeting with several really sharp Realtors over the last couple of weeks, working on the prospect of job orders from their firms, all of then have
emphasized that the commercial side is now taking a heavy hit.
Questions:
Are you finding SLR gear adequate for your market?
If so, use TS-E lenses for interiors?
How are you handling lighting in the interiors as reflections in a confined space of high gloss wood surfaces could prove to be difficult?
Your being in the Midwest is a perfect local for RV work. I've owned several American Eagles, 40 footers in the last few years. Great bus, and they are a wonderful way to explore the USA, as least before diesel became so expensive. I also love to sail - had Hobie 14, 16, 18 when I had hair on my head, then a Cal 29 and Ericson 38, which was my favorite.
Hope to start my Kiteboarding lessons before the end of the month.
In short, it would be great to be shooting that which I personally love and know well.
Jack
Nothing could be more true..."Who's going to buy it, what all do they need the images for, their target market and what message they are trying to convey to that market."
This applies to all genres of commercial photography, not just the architectural market.
I shoot architectural of sorts, my subjects just roll or float and in general they are shot indoors with lighting (at least the interiors.) And much like Ashley I must create the mood and look of the light, and not rely on the sun. In addition its not just the style but the textures and colors of the fabrics and woods that are important. In fact, given the nature of the industries, that can be the entire difference between one company and the next.
In the end it's the crafting of light indooors and out that makes or breaks these images.
Examples:
RV interiors and exteriors (http://www.craiglamson.com/rv/index.htm)
Marine interiors and exteriors (http://www.craiglamson.com/marine/index.htm)
-
The big difference between the two is more clearly see in the residential interior work (and to some extent Hotel type work), as opposed to commercial or industrial projects ... which often have little or no natural available light anyway and / or are glass-houses which are totally naturally lit.
Referring to residential interior work:
The weather will naturally effect what one sees and that will influence one's state of mind, both of which will naturally be reflected in the work; however, it's doesn't change one's style or more importantly, the style one's market and clients demand.
We have been commissioned to shoot interiors all over the world and the same rules apply, because of who we are shooting for:
Who's going to buy it, what all do they need the images for, their target market and what message they are trying to convey to that market.
We are currently shooting home features for the Spring issues and even though it may be a dark and grey outside, it doesn't stop us from creating the look our clients want. Shot one on Thursday and it was pouring down outside - black as a boot - but I bet you couldn't tell from looking at the interior images.
(Sorry I can't post the images, to show you what I'm talking about, because it was sold on Friday for exclusive 1st Rights Worldwide)
However, here is one example I can show you - http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=317982 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=38404&view=findpost&p=317982)
It was shot in Italy a few weeks ago - bright and sunny outside - but inside was very dark and gloomy, as you can see from the recce images.
Not what the client or their market would have wanted or expected to see, so like you say "to get the job done" we created the look they wanted.
Remember, when the sun is high in the sky, it doesn't actually shine through the windows and into the rooms.
This first hit me about 6 years ago when working in Spain. I assumed because it was July and the skies would be blue, the sun-light would fill the rooms with natural light.
Wrong.
The lower sun-light you get in Scotland (UK, Northern Europe, Canada & Northern American), will in fact, do a better job at lighting up the room... should there be sun-light
Anyway, my point is, the big difference between 'us' and 'them' is the market.
Who's going to buy it, what all do they need the images for, their target market and what message they are trying to convey to that market.
Trust me, if my main market demanded I changed my style tomorrow, I'd change it, to suit their needs... and I'm sure you would too.
We simply provide images for our clients to use.
They say jump, we ask how high.
Cheers,
Ashley
I completely agree, the market, its use and the photograph's purpose within that market, dictates the style to which we shoot, and photographers will feed whatever demand is made of them, myself included. My query is why the North American market and the Northern European market have such different tastes and therefore expectations for that photography and its style? Whenever I have talked with people about this I've never met anyone who seems to like, or find appealing, the "all lights off, dark shadowed, strong contrast" style that I see in a lot of European (UK) publications. I'm thinking here mainly about the editorial side rather than commercial/industrial.
I appreciate that these different styles all have their place, but with the increasing availability of international publications, at least in the UK, I think the market is becoming more cosmopolitan in it's taste. Or maybe that's just me and my wishful thinking and personal tastes. I know that when I walk in to a Borders store with UK and American titles on the shelves next to each other (in the Architectural and Homes sections) I'm always visually drawn to the American titles and left cold by the European/UK ones, in general. And I think the visual style has everything to do with it.
Different people obviously have different tastes but its a conundrum to me why the UK market feels it should represent projects this way, hence my suggestion of the weather as an influence. Marc's suggestion of an evolution out of Hollywood in North American photography is an interesting one because there is definitely a parallel here in UK film and Television of a very 'grey' palette. Then again, perhaps its just art reflecting the social attitudes of its respective markets, but that's a whole other can of worms...
Sorry to take the thread so OT. Back to scheduled programming...
Matt
-
Craig,
Interesting what you are doing!
I've been pondering that market as I live in FL and there are numerous boat manufacturers located here.
As the home building industry is really lagging, logic was to use the yacht/marine market as an additional revenue stream.
I meeting with several really sharp Realtors over the last couple of weeks, working on the prospect of job orders from their firms, all of then have
emphasized that the commercial side is now taking a heavy hit.
Questions:
Are you finding SLR gear adequate for your market?
If so, use TS-E lenses for interiors?
How are you handling lighting in the interiors as reflections in a confined space of high gloss wood surfaces could prove to be difficult?
Your being in the Midwest is a perfect local for RV work. I've owned several American Eagles, 40 footers in the last few years. Great bus, and they are a wonderful way to explore the USA, as least before diesel became so expensive. I also love to sail - had Hobie 14, 16, 18 when I had hair on my head, then a Cal 29 and Ericson 38, which was my favorite.
Hope to start my Kiteboarding lessons before the end of the month.
In short, it would be great to be shooting that which I personally love and know well.
Jack
There are quite a few very good and well known marine photographers in FL, and for the most part they had a dismal year. Mine left a lot to be desired as well. The RV and marine industries took a huge hit during last year. Sales dropped like a stone, dealer floorplan and retail credit dryed up, and sales all but stopped. One marine company I know went from over 500 employees to 50. The RV business is not any better and Elkhart Indiana, the largest area for RV manufacturing had over 18 percent unemployment. It's starting to turn slowly, but I don't think I wll ever see either industry back to where they were. Its too bad really because most of these companies changed product every model year so most of the prior years photography went into the trashbin and new was created. It was very good for business
The long and short of it is that it is a crowded market with way more photographers than projects at this point in time.
Not saying you can't make a go of it, but its just not the best of times if you know what I mean.
I'm using a Canon 1DsmkIII and 24mm shift and non shift lenses. I have a very nice copy of hte Sigma 12-24 and the new 17 and 24 shift is on my wishlist. Sadly equipment purchases will wait until the economy recovers. That said I have yet to have a client want more file.
Lighting is tungsten, mostly peppers and small moles. I do a LOT of layering in post.
-
I completely agree, the market, its use and the photograph's purpose within that market, dictates the style to which we shoot, and photographers will feed whatever demand is made of them, myself included. My query is why the North American market and the Northern European market have such different tastes and therefore expectations for that photography and its style? Whenever I have talked with people about this I've never met anyone who seems to like, or find appealing, the "all lights off, dark shadowed, strong contrast" style that I see in a lot of European (UK) publications. I'm thinking here mainly about the editorial side rather than commercial/industrial.
I appreciate that these different styles all have their place, but with the increasing availability of international publications, at least in the UK, I think the market is becoming more cosmopolitan in it's taste. Or maybe that's just me and my wishful thinking and personal tastes. I know that when I walk in to a Borders store with UK and American titles on the shelves next to each other (in the Architectural and Homes sections) I'm always visually drawn to the American titles and left cold by the European/UK ones, in general. And I think the visual style has everything to do with it.
Different people obviously have different tastes but its a conundrum to me why the UK market feels it should represent projects this way, hence my suggestion of the weather as an influence. Marc's suggestion of an evolution out of Hollywood in North American photography is an interesting one because there is definitely a parallel here in UK film and Television of a very 'grey' palette. Then again, perhaps its just art reflecting the social attitudes of its respective markets, but that's a whole other can of worms...
Sorry to take the thread so OT. Back to scheduled programming...
Matt
i have spent in the last two years in the US around 5 months working, not using one lamp and not leaving one ( american or european ) client uncontent ( although one of my clients was astonished why that nice flower had disappeared from the lobby, but liked it after i explained that i see this nice flower simply looking lonely and sad in such designed glass and steel environment and that i dont want to destruct the image with it ).
maybe you might think i am crazy, but its simply not my opinion to shoot whatever style i am asked for.
many clients are buying my work for my vision they are seeing in my existing photographs, i try to work on this vision but dont try to serve all tastes and prices and to make it unclear whats to expect from me if hiring me.
but i dont do residential, real estate or hotel photography and dont speak about it, i am sure there are many reasons to create this lightened look and that one could be kicked out of work not to do it, so everything remains personal and depends for which part of the market one is working but also where the individual position in his market is.
but i am sure there is no general aesthetic rule to use lamps and if not using them certainly it does not result in dark and depressive looking images as result.
-
That's one thing we avoid, when talking to clients i.e. suggesting we are for hire.
We produce & provide images for people to use.
We therefore don't 'work for hire' or even suggest that to clients, as an option.
If they want us to produce some images, so as they can use them, then that's what we do.
We produce the images they are after and we provide them with those images, so as they can use them.
We then charge a 'Licence fee', based on the use of the images, which we provide.
Cheers
Ashley.
hired ? oh sorry.
maybe unilluminated bad english for being european ......
probably i mean the same than you.
but in any case i wrote about the existence or absence of an individual style of images , not so much about the form of licenses or producing them.
-
I'm sorry if I've insulted anyone. I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone's work here. Especially not yours Ashley, I've been a fan of your work for a while.
I was really just trying to consider what it is that causes the differences we see in expected styles, in different regional markets.
Rainer, I wasn't suggesting not using lights has to make an image dull, far from it, but when done badly, it can, especially with residential interiors, and I see a lot of that here.
I think the Architectural market is one area where having a strong personal style really helps to set a photographer apart, I'm thinking of work like yours, Tim Griffith's, Peter Aaron's. As Ashley says, though, flexibility of style is important in other areas like the Commercial and Residential work.
I work in a market that is small enough that I have to wear a lot of hats to get by, so I have to stay flexible how I approach each project and client. As a result I see a lot of differences of expectation and I was just trying to explore that.
Sorry if anyone felt offended.
Matt
-
What an awesome discussion! I have been following the work of Rainier, Christopher, Kirk and Marc for some time now and it's great to read all of their input. Though I have only been shooting architecture (and not really much architecture, mostly residential interiors) professionally for about 2 years, maybe my thoughts as a newcomer might be useful to Lust4Life and others....
As far as gear goes, I don't really have much money :-(. When I started shooting professionally, I already owned Nikon gear so that is what I have been using. On "bigger" jobs I used to rent Mamiya and Phase One gear. I was not completely comfortable using this system and though the files produced were large and sharp, I felt they suffered stylistically. Once the Nikon D3x came out, I gave it a test and have been renting it ever since (hopefully I'll be able to buy one next year). If you have not seen a file from the D3x you really should, it is noticeably different from other Nikons and Canons and is the most "medium format" like file (in terms of dynamic range and "malleability" in post) I have ever seen from a 35mm DSLR.
I have only used a T/S lens twice for interiors but I can see where they might come in handy for more "architectural" shooting. The 24mm is definitely on my wish list. I don't think I'd use a 17mm T/S very much at all. Too wide.
I think the idea that using a camera that forces you to slow down will improve your images is nonsense. I want my camera to get out of the way so that I can focus on creating the image that I want to create. A camera that is slow to operate only detracts from that goal. Moving furniture around, dealing with lighting, waiting for the weather, etc. slows me down plenty thankyouverymuch. A number of my favorite images were captured within a very small, spontaneous window of opportunity that I would have otherwise missed had I been using a cumbersome, slow camera.
Especially as a beginner lacking the experience to always anticipate the timing, light, weather etc that creates those fleeting opportunities, I think it is important to use the tool that you are most comfortable with and work the fastest with in order to increase your chances of "happy accidents." If that tool is an Arca, Alpa, Cambo, H3, Canon, Nikon or whatever and you can afford it then go for it! There are so many other important things that go in to a great image beyond what kind of camera you're using. Like Rainier said earlier in this thread, I think a smarter investment, especially in the beginning of your career, is to spend your money on those other things. I would love to learn how to use a technical view camera eventually though and I'll admit to a fair amount of jealousy over Mr. Barrett's Arca set-up ;-).
If you really want to be "great" I also think that it is extremely important to develop a vocabulary and knowledge of design and architecture. This helps to understand your subject matter as well as relate to your clients. Definitely study the work of photographers that you like but also seek out good architects and designers and talk to them about their work and influences. I think you'll find their input valuable, as they often look beyond the technical components of an image that we photographers tend to obsess over, and view an image as a whole interpretation of their work. I have had the good fortune to work with a very accomplished designer and his critiques have probably had the greatest influence on my interior shooting style of anyone.
-
For each of the four images I posted earlier the 17mm T/S allowed me to make a better image. In each case backing up was not an option, either walls, trees or water would have come into play (and not beneficially). The images were successful enough, not great, but worked for my purposes (and the client's). Here's another image shot Saturday with the 17 that I'm very happy with. I've printed it to 18" across and it looks great but we know that these files will go even larger! I prefer my P45 files but really like the ability to shift both horizontally and vertically (haven't used the tilt yet, at least not on purpose). I'd also love to have a small technical camera but it's hard to justify the expense (keep in mind that I live in Detroit) so the 17mm/5Dmk2 combo made alot of sense. Jim
[attachment=17977:Cranbroo...m_stairs.jpg]
-
For each of the four images I posted earlier the 17mm T/S allowed me to make a better image. In each case backing up was not an option, either walls, trees or water would have come into play (and not beneficially). The images were successful enough, not great, but worked for my purposes (and the client's). Here's another image shot Saturday with the 17 that I'm very happy with. I've printed it to 18" across and it looks great but we know that these files will go even larger! I prefer my P45 files but really like the ability to shift both horizontally and vertically (haven't used the tilt yet, at least not on purpose). I'd also love to have a small technical camera but it's hard to justify the expense (keep in mind that I live in Detroit) so the 17mm/5Dmk2 combo made alot of sense. Jim
[attachment=17977:Cranbroo...m_stairs.jpg]
Jim, I assume there is some heavy HDR going on there? The image almost looks rendered... and... I totally dig it!
-
Jim, I assume there is some heavy HDR going on there? The image almost looks rendered... and... I totally dig it!
Chris, This was supposed to be in the 17mm T/S thread and I haven't been drinking! Not really HDR but a product of tweaking the sliders in Camera Raw. Glad you like it! Now to figure out how to put this in the right thread. Jim
-
I prefer my P45 files but really like the ability to shift both horizontally and vertically (haven't used the tilt yet, at least not on purpose). I'd also love to have a small technical camera but it's hard to justify the expense (keep in mind that I live in Detroit) so the 17mm/5Dmk2 combo made alot of sense.
Jim,
That's exactly the conversation that goes on inside my head very often: I love my P45+ files, but those Canon tilt/shift lenses are so fun to work with, and so addictive, and so versatile. The 5D2 with the T/S lenses are just a great combination. So easy to use. And I have made giant prints on my old Epson 9880 that were just jawdropping -- three stitched frames from both the original 5D and the 5D2. Using DPP properly, you can really make the Canon files shine.
-
I am curious about the style of photography that Marc Gerritsen uses, i.e. lots of shots per shoot, mostly using just ambient lighting, and when supplementary lighting is used it is done with minimal lighting equipment that is moved around while doing multiple exposures to light different parts of the scene. I would like to know if this style of working is practical with US clients, using either medium or small format, i.e. are there a reasonable number of clients in the US who might want this kind of style? Also, I am curious about the large number of photos. I can't see how so many would be necessary for purely marketing needs. I would guess that the large number is either purely for high-quality documentation or for extensive presentations, although it is hard for me to imagine such a big presentation devoted to one property, as the number of photos suggests.
It seems to me that, to do the kind shooting Marc does and make a living at it, one would need a lot of properties that are extremely well designed to make maximum use of the ambient natural and artificial lighting, which I would guess is very expensive to do and thus not many buildings are designed this way. Perhaps Taiwan is unusual in having a very large number of this kind of building? Obviously some use of supplementary lighting is involved in Marc's style, but doesn't that still result in a different look than using a full lighting kit? Also, I would think that using any amount of supplementary lighting would present a significant limitation when trying to produce a large number of shots in a relatively short period of time, however many assistants one might use.
David Eichler
-
Jim, I assume there is some heavy HDR going on there? The image almost looks rendered... and... I totally dig it!
Sometimes Topaz Detail can add a little bit of something to give a bit of a rendered look. Racecar trailer and living quarters/toter.
[attachment=17982:Renegade...ler_int4.jpg]
-
[quote name='infocusinc' date='Nov 17 2009, 05:11 AM' post='325370']
Sometimes Topaz Detail can add a little bit of something to give a bit of a rendered look. Racecar trailer and living quarters/toter.
Craig, I just became aware of that software. It looks as though it does a very similar thing as my use of Camera Raw. Do you have any more examples of it's capabilities? Jim
-
Sometimes Topaz Detail can add a little bit of something to give a bit of a rendered look. Racecar trailer and living quarters/toter.
Craig, I just became aware of that software. It looks as though it does a very similar thing as my use of Camera Raw. Do you have any more examples of it's capabilities? Jim
I don't use it often, but it is a decent local contrast adjustment process. I've just been testing it for a review I'll be writing soon. My best suggestion is to get the trial version and play. Its really easy to overdo, but the program is highly adjustable. And it's slow....
http://www.topazlabs.com/downloads/index.php?d=detail (http://www.topazlabs.com/downloads/index.php?d=detail)
Here is a before and after...
-
I'm playing with the trial... it takes a while to open a 60 mb file in the plugin and the 16 bit P65+ files don't seem to ever open.
Is there an issue with file size? Maybe my machine?
Hmm...
-
Does Topaz do anything better/different/easier than Photomatix?
-
I'm playing with the trial... it takes a while to open a 60 mb file in the plugin and the 16 bit P65+ files don't seem to ever open.
Is there an issue with file size? Maybe my machine?
Hmm...
I just timed a 16 bit 1DsmkIII file, 120mb. It took 2mins 45secs to open the plugin. My computer is in need of replacement. Windows box, 2.66 core2duo 4gigs. vista 64 PSCS4 32 bit.
I'm guessing a 16bit P65 file might take a month
-
Does Topaz do anything better/different/easier than Photomatix?
Yea its different that Photomatrix. It's not a HDR rendering engine, but rather a local contrast/sharpening process, as best as I can explain it. Some of the presets are quite exaggrated. Even the most radical setting are quite halo free.
-
Re. Schulman:
In the Nov. issue of Dwell is a piece by Raymond Neutra in which he recounts some on-site experiences with his father, Richard Neutra and Schulman. A few tidbits:
"My job was to help move the furniture and place the eucalyptus branches on the bare ground where the garden was to be planted."
"When a picture had been composed and taken and the view camera moved, my father would often take Julius's place and snap the same view as a color slide through the enormous wide-angle lens of his Leica."
"My father was unusual among Julius's clients in that he always came along on the shoots and involved himself in the composition of each shot."
"Half a century later, Julius remembered my father's interventions as a fruitless activity that he had to tolerate. 'Your father was the one who adjusted back and forth to his satisfaction,' he told me recently. 'Then he would move on to the next shot and I would quietly move the camera back to the composition I had seen with my eyes before I had even placed the camera.' I was astounded to to learn that Julius framed each composition in his mind long before ducking under the black cloth."
He also relays a story of Schulman blasting past Richard Neutra while shooting interiors at the Kaufmann House to catch the fleeting light outside: "Your father tried to grab my arm to detain me from going outside so I could continue shooting the interior, but I shook off his arm and rushed past..."
Yeah, I saw that article too, and have a couple of Shulman's books where he makes very clear his own belief in always knowing better than his clients. Its not an aspect of him I was very impressed by, so when I mentioned him, I was really just referring to his finished product, which I still think is impressive, and chose to leave his personality aside from the discussion. Wanting to consider the positives.
Matt
-
I am curious about the style of photography that Marc Gerritsen uses, i.e. lots of shots per shoot, mostly using just ambient lighting, and when supplementary lighting is used it is done with minimal lighting equipment that is moved around while doing multiple exposures to light different parts of the scene. I would like to know if this style of working is practical with US clients, using either medium or small format, i.e. are there a reasonable number of clients in the US who might want this kind of style? Also, I am curious about the large number of photos. I can't see how so many would be necessary for purely marketing needs. I would guess that the large number is either purely for high-quality documentation or for extensive presentations, although it is hard for me to imagine such a big presentation devoted to one property, as the number of photos suggests.
It seems to me that, to do the kind shooting Marc does and make a living at it, one would need a lot of properties that are extremely well designed to make maximum use of the ambient natural and artificial lighting, which I would guess is very expensive to do and thus not many buildings are designed this way. Perhaps Taiwan is unusual in having a very large number of this kind of building? Obviously some use of supplementary lighting is involved in Marc's style, but doesn't that still result in a different look than using a full lighting kit? Also, I would think that using any amount of supplementary lighting would present a significant limitation when trying to produce a large number of shots in a relatively short period of time, however many assistants one might use.
David Eichler
hi david
no idea who else works with the method of using additional light in separate exposures, just come upon it
one day when shooting an interior with a lot of back light, started to experiment with giving
areas some extra light while being myself in frame in certain exposures.
I have shot a few projects in the us europe and australia in the same way
clients are not interested in the technique per se, but more in the final result
I am not always using this technique, just in projects that are high profile.
Of course it slows me down a bit when i use it, it works best with one assistant who knows
how to light or alternatively I hold the light and someone just clicks.
With 35mm cameras you could set up an automatic exposure every 10 seconds
and point the light somewhere else without any assistance.
I don't think Taiwan is that much different then anywhere else, in terms of client-photographer
relationship or in photographer-location relationship.
Light and location is different here though, you might have noticed a different general attitude
"the west looks out and the east looks in.
therefor buildings here have limited windows compared to the west and also do not
have that focus on the balcony, patio, sun-deck or whatever. Inside lighting is very important here
and certainly helps me a lot in my overall set up. Without the inside light on i would have a very
hard time photographing.
hopes that answers some of your questions
m
-
hi david
no idea who else works with the method of using additional light in separate exposures, just come upon it
one day when shooting an interior with a lot of back light, started to experiment with giving
areas some extra light while being myself in frame in certain exposures.
I have shot a few projects in the us europe and australia in the same way
clients are not interested in the technique per se, but more in the final result
I am not always using this technique, just in projects that are high profile.
Of course it slows me down a bit when i use it, it works best with one assistant who knows
how to light or alternatively I hold the light and someone just clicks.
With 35mm cameras you could set up an automatic exposure every 10 seconds
and point the light somewhere else without any assistance.
I don't think Taiwan is that much different then anywhere else, in terms of client-photographer
relationship or in photographer-location relationship.
Light and location is different here though, you might have noticed a different general attitude
"the west looks out and the east looks in.
therefor buildings here have limited windows compared to the west and also do not
have that focus on the balcony, patio, sun-deck or whatever. Inside lighting is very important here
and certainly helps me a lot in my overall set up. Without the inside light on i would have a very
hard time photographing.
hopes that answers some of your questions
m
I've been using the moving light setup for some down and dirty stuff recently. I wrote it up for a friend of mine....
http://www.craiglamson.com/421.htm (http://www.craiglamson.com/421.htm)
-
I've been using the moving light setup for some down and dirty stuff recently. I wrote it up for a friend of mine....
http://www.craiglamson.com/421.htm (http://www.craiglamson.com/421.htm)
Craig, That's very nicely handled! I think the final result is probably better then if lit and shot as one shot. Having shot many car interiors I approach the lighting very similiarly, lighting parts of the interior to strip together. These tight spaces really benefit from this technique. I've applied it to small baths and wine cellars too. Jim
-
Craig, That's very nicely handled! I think the final result is probably better then if lit and shot as one shot. Having shot many car interiors I approach the lighting very similiarly, lighting parts of the interior to strip together. These tight spaces really benefit from this technique. I've applied it to small baths and wine cellars too. Jim
It's a pretty amazing process, and if the client wants that smooth, shadowless look it works really well. It still gives decent modeling on the surfaces, textures and finishes.
I really love creating lighting that mimics the sun through the windows but that takes a ton of time, a bunch of lights and a lot of patience to get 3 or 4 2k's through three windows to look like a single light source and to be casting a single looking shadow. My rv clients are cash poor now. Gone are the days of sweating over a major interior photo for an entire day in the studio.
I shot luxury conversion van interiors for years when I was at Starcraft. I never had the luxury of bucks or roofless vans. I learned how to light small spaces really quickly
I rarely have an image, even one with good single shot lighting be finished without a few selective lighting layers. Man do I wish I could have done this back in conversion van heydays...but it was one shot or nothing and Sictex time was a grand an hour...
-
hi david
no idea who else works with the method of using additional light in separate exposures, just come upon it
one day when shooting an interior with a lot of back light, started to experiment with giving
areas some extra light while being myself in frame in certain exposures.
I have shot a few projects in the us europe and australia in the same way
clients are not interested in the technique per se, but more in the final result
I am not always using this technique, just in projects that are high profile.
Of course it slows me down a bit when i use it, it works best with one assistant who knows
how to light or alternatively I hold the light and someone just clicks.
With 35mm cameras you could set up an automatic exposure every 10 seconds
and point the light somewhere else without any assistance.
I don't think Taiwan is that much different then anywhere else, in terms of client-photographer
relationship or in photographer-location relationship.
Light and location is different here though, you might have noticed a different general attitude
"the west looks out and the east looks in.
therefor buildings here have limited windows compared to the west and also do not
have that focus on the balcony, patio, sun-deck or whatever. Inside lighting is very important here
and certainly helps me a lot in my overall set up. Without the inside light on i would have a very
hard time photographing.
hopes that answers some of your questions
m
-
hi david
no idea who else works with the method of using additional light in separate exposures, just come upon it
one day when shooting an interior with a lot of back light, started to experiment with giving
areas some extra light while being myself in frame in certain exposures.
I have shot a few projects in the us europe and australia in the same way
clients are not interested in the technique per se, but more in the final result
I am not always using this technique, just in projects that are high profile.
Of course it slows me down a bit when i use it, it works best with one assistant who knows
how to light or alternatively I hold the light and someone just clicks.
With 35mm cameras you could set up an automatic exposure every 10 seconds
and point the light somewhere else without any assistance.
I don't think Taiwan is that much different then anywhere else, in terms of client-photographer
relationship or in photographer-location relationship.
Light and location is different here though, you might have noticed a different general attitude
"the west looks out and the east looks in.
therefor buildings here have limited windows compared to the west and also do not
have that focus on the balcony, patio, sun-deck or whatever. Inside lighting is very important here
and certainly helps me a lot in my overall set up. Without the inside light on i would have a very
hard time photographing.
hopes that answers some of your questions
m
-
Thanks, Marc. That does answer some of my questions.
David
-
For your AP work, has anyone tried the Leica or Zeiss prime lenses for Canon or Nikon, and if so, what were your impressions?
Jack
-
For your AP work, has anyone tried the Leica or Zeiss prime lenses for Canon or Nikon, and if so, what were your impressions?
Jack
Do the dslr AP shooters use non-t/s lenses? I have the Zeiss 85 f/1.4 and 35 f2 for my D3 and I like them overall, but they're not as sharp as the Phamiya D glass.
-
For your AP work, has anyone tried the Leica or Zeiss prime lenses for Canon or Nikon, and if so, what were your impressions?
Jack
I did some testing of wide prime lenses with friends lenses when I first got into digital with a 5D. Unfortunately I use a fair amount of rise and fall. So to use a prime meant considerable perspective correction (ie stretching=interpolation) in Photoshop. That interpolation, on the lenses I tested on a 5D, all but negated the quality advantage of a prime. There is a question of file size here though. The larger the native file size for a given size output the less the PC interpolation will be evident. For example a 5D file at 8x10 will show less interpolation artifacts than a MF file will at 8x10.
Besides that there is the question of composition and primes. I spent 28 years making my living with a 4x5 shooting architecture before switching to digital. Personally I cannot accurately or elegantly compose an image in the field without corrected perspective and I believe from my teaching experience that the strongest composition occurs in the field.
-
I don't use non-ts lenses except when shooting longer than the 90. I haven't found a non-ts lens that doesn't show objectionable distortion, and that includes the Zeiss lenses.
-
Between you and Kirk, that's good news. I can avoid that expense and stick with the Tilt/Shift and one long lens; Rainer's formular.
Jack
I don't use non-ts lenses except when shooting longer than the 90. I haven't found a non-ts lens that doesn't show objectionable distortion, and that includes the Zeiss lenses.
-
Of course it slows me down a bit when i use it, it works best with one assistant who knows
how to light or alternatively I hold the light and someone just clicks.
With 35mm cameras you could set up an automatic exposure every 10 seconds
and point the light somewhere else without any assistance.
m
Marc, with a few pocket wizards you could easily do this technique without the need for an assistant, nor using the intervalometer:
one pair to trigger the camera, and another pair triggering the strobe from the cameras' hot shoe.
Here's a gif file I made of the first time I tried this technique: http://www.home-tour.co.uk/info/5strobegif.html (http://www.home-tour.co.uk/info/5strobegif.html)
[my sb's batteries were dying, and rather than go three floors down to replenish, I lit the scene with just one strobe]. I was moving between the rooms with a strobe and an rf trigger for the camera, in this case I was able to hide myself so the PP was a simple case of layering using the 'lighten' blend mode.
Just a 'Real Estate' shot on a D200, so forgive me for butting in on an Architectural / LF thread with my first post :-) but I thought you might find the info useful.
I think http://www.atticfire.com/ (http://www.atticfire.com/) use this technique extensively [along with aggressive PP].
BTW, thanks to all for a great pair of threads.
-
Marc, with a few pocket wizards you could easily do this technique without the need for an assistant, nor using the intervalometer:
one pair to trigger the camera, and another pair triggering the strobe from the cameras' hot shoe.
Here's a gif file I made of the first time I tried this technique: http://www.home-tour.co.uk/info/5strobegif.html (http://www.home-tour.co.uk/info/5strobegif.html)
[my sb's batteries were dying, and rather than go three floors down to replenish, I lit the scene with just one strobe]. I was moving between the rooms with a strobe and an rf trigger for the camera, in this case I was able to hide myself so the PP was a simple case of layering using the 'lighten' blend mode.
Just a 'Real Estate' shot on a D200, so forgive me for butting in on an Architectural / LF thread with my first post :-) but I thought you might find the info useful.
I think http://www.atticfire.com/ (http://www.atticfire.com/) use this technique extensively [along with aggressive PP].
BTW, thanks to all for a great pair of threads.
thanks for the tip, will follow up on it
cheers
m
-
The link to Atticfire - quite interesting where you can see the image they started with (Before) in comparison to what they gave their client.
Anyone have more details on the workflow to accomplish such dramatic results?
Jack
Marc, with a few pocket wizards you could easily do this technique without the need for an assistant, nor using the intervalometer:
one pair to trigger the camera, and another pair triggering the strobe from the cameras' hot shoe.
Here's a gif file I made of the first time I tried this technique: http://www.home-tour.co.uk/info/5strobegif.html (http://www.home-tour.co.uk/info/5strobegif.html)
[my sb's batteries were dying, and rather than go three floors down to replenish, I lit the scene with just one strobe]. I was moving between the rooms with a strobe and an rf trigger for the camera, in this case I was able to hide myself so the PP was a simple case of layering using the 'lighten' blend mode.
Just a 'Real Estate' shot on a D200, so forgive me for butting in on an Architectural / LF thread with my first post :-) but I thought you might find the info useful.
I think http://www.atticfire.com/ (http://www.atticfire.com/) use this technique extensively [along with aggressive PP].
BTW, thanks to all for a great pair of threads.
-
FOR THOSE SHOOTING TECH CAMERA WITH MFDB:
In an email exchange with Rene at Cambo (a chap that I have always found very helpful and knowledgeable), he confirmed a point that was raised by a buddy of mine, Chris Snipes:
***********
Hello Jack,
the Lens Cast is a phenomena that occurs with any digital back make and shows with ultra short focal lengths as well as with rather firm shifts,
and not necessarily with the more normal focal lengths.
this is NOT related to the make of the camerabody. It occurs with Alpa, Arca, Cambo, Horseman, Linhof, Sinar similar with the same lenses.
Lenscast is actually a wrong name, as it is not the lens who casts an effect, but it is the behavior of the CCD's. It is also different from one CCD to another CCD,
even within the same make and size...
PhaseOne uses the LCC (Lens Cast Calibration)
Hasselblad uses the Custom White
Leaf uses their Custom Gain
all for the same purpose.
Every architectural shooter works like that, it is just part of the work flow, compare to the necessary pulling and inserting the dark slide in the film days...
best regards,
Rene Rook
Cambo
************
I think that for anyone considering using a Tech Pan camera/MFDB for AP, this element of the work flow should be considered.
Are those of you using a TechPan shooting a Lens Cast file for every setup/scene?
Are those shooting DSLR doing the same?
(I've used the ExpoDisc for my landscape work to get a good WB.)
Jack
-
Are those of you using a TechPan shooting a Lens Cast file for every setup/scene?
Are those shooting DSLR doing the same?
(I've used the ExpoDisc for my landscape work to get a good WB.)
Jack
Yes, the LCC is a given. It's just become part of my bracket. I usually shoot one in the middle of my bracket so I always know which shot it belongs to. What I love about CO 5 is that the LCC correction now also corrects for vignetting. When shooting a DSLR, however, using LCC is greyed out, not even an option. I believe the AA filter may take care of LCC in dslr/ts lens combos but not sure.
This is not part of the White Balancing but a calibration file to record color shift across the sensor. You would still typically need to shoot a WB separately.
-C
-
FOR THOSE SHOOTING TECH CAMERA WITH MFDB:
In an email exchange with Rene at Cambo (a chap that I have always found very helpful and knowledgeable), he confirmed a point that was raised by a buddy of mine, Chris Snipes:
***********
Hello Jack,
the Lens Cast is a phenomena that occurs with any digital back make and shows with ultra short focal lengths as well as with rather firm shifts,
and not necessarily with the more normal focal lengths.
this is NOT related to the make of the camerabody. It occurs with Alpa, Arca, Cambo, Horseman, Linhof, Sinar similar with the same lenses.
Lenscast is actually a wrong name, as it is not the lens who casts an effect, but it is the behavior of the CCD's. It is also different from one CCD to another CCD,
even within the same make and size...
PhaseOne uses the LCC (Lens Cast Calibration)
Hasselblad uses the Custom White
Leaf uses their Custom Gain
all for the same purpose.
Every architectural shooter works like that, it is just part of the work flow, compare to the necessary pulling and inserting the dark slide in the film days...
best regards,
Rene Rook
Cambo
************
I think that for anyone considering using a Tech Pan camera/MFDB for AP, this element of the work flow should be considered.
Are those of you using a TechPan shooting a Lens Cast file for every setup/scene?
Are those shooting DSLR doing the same?
(I've used the ExpoDisc for my landscape work to get a good WB.)
Jack
You don't need it for 35 mm SLRs.
For my LF camera and P65 I shoot one LCC image for every change I make. Mostly I could work with my presets, but to get a perfect correction it is better to have one fort every image. I don't think it is a major hassle. It just takes one more white image and processing in C1 is very easy and fast. Especially with C1 5.0 the new light falloff correction is even better.
-
There you have it, the same response written at the same time from two Christophers. There must be a disruption in the time/space continuum.
-
Chris,
Noticed in another thread about lighting, you travel with quite a substantial array of gear.
As I'm not familiar with the size of any of these lights, stands, etc., what vehicle do you use to transport your gear to the work site?
Or better yet, what would be the ideal vehicle, that could still be used for a family car?
Jack
There you have it, the same response written at the same time from two Christophers. There must be a disruption in the time/space continuum.
-
Chris,
Noticed in another thread about lighting, you travel with quite a substantial array of gear.
As I'm not familiar with the size of any of these lights, stands, etc., what vehicle do you use to transport your gear to the work site?
Or better yet, what would be the ideal vehicle, that could still be used for a family car?
Jack
Actually, it doesn't get too unwieldly... fits on a cart...
(http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v648/130/108/1084839154/n1084839154_30291799_9947.jpg)
And easily into my Honda Element. Minivans leave space to spare, most SUV's will just fit the gear with two passengers and 2 pieces of luggage. My cases aren't huge and all from 35-50 lbs. What I dig about the Element is the back seats can easily be taken out or folded up out of the way and then you've got a really low deck which is easier on the back and when all the gear is loaded you still have full visibility.
-
Chris,
That's impressive and looks to be well thought out.
Yesterday I was out looking at vehicles - figured my 911-S Cabriolet was not going to be a good gear hauler - and simmered down to:
Prius - back seats fold down; great mileage = 51/48; adequate room - actually far more than I expected. (Figure I'd be driving across state to the east coast frequently for jobs.)
FJ Cruiser - gotta love the looks to it; back seats fold down and decent volume of space, but I doubt that all of the gear you show in the photo would fit, hmmmm; poor fuel economy (17/21)compared to Prius; rubber interior - take a garden hose to it and wash it out (works great for my Kiteboarding hobby with all that sand).
Highlander - 2010 redesign - gobs of room with seats up or folded down; marginal fuel economy = 17/24 EPA
Did not think of the Element (I don't fit in the CR-V or Pilot very well) - what are you getting for economy with it?
What do you like/dislike about it?
Jack
PS: I added up the cost of the lights you carry, as listed in another thread, and came up with $12,187!!!
Sure makes Rainer's approach to few if any lights look REAL attractive! :-)
And that does not include the stands, etc.
-
Years ago I had a Saab 900s and it held piles of stuff in it. Full rolls of seamless without rolling down the windows. Now, I have a Honda Element. It's huge on the inside without the back seats. More gear than my assistant wants to carry even with our cart :-)
I get roughly 25 mpg. You can put 9 foot surfboards in there pretty easily. I also take mine camping, you can roll down a 72 inch Thermarest without touching anything. The only downside is the styling of the truck is not to everyone's taste but I like it. I live in LA and with the traffic, I can't comment on acceleration. It's only a 4 cylinder.
Funny that we all seem to have the same equipment even in cars.
Cheers,
Weldon
-
Years ago I had a Saab 900s and it held piles of stuff in it. Full rolls of seamless without rolling down the windows. Now, I have a Honda Element. It's huge on the inside without the back seats. More gear than my assistant wants to carry even with our cart :-)
I get roughly 25 mpg. You can put 9 foot surfboards in there pretty easily. I also take mine camping, you can roll down a 72 inch Thermarest without touching anything. The only downside is the styling of the truck is not to everyone's taste but I like it. I live in LA and with the traffic, I can't comment on acceleration. It's only a 4 cylinder.
Funny that we all seem to have the same equipment even in cars.
Cheers,
Weldon
I went from a large SUV to a full sized pickup to a minivan. The Minivan is by far the best. My wife however loves the Element. Might have to give ne a try.
I had a 900s Turbo years ago, but the only thing it hauled was me, and boy...did it haul!
-
I went from a large SUV to a full sized pickup to a minivan. The Minivan is by far the best. My wife however loves the Element. Might have to give ne a try.
I had a 900s Turbo years ago, but the only thing it hauled was me, and boy...did it haul!
I drove Saabs for 20 years, was VP of the Saab Owners club of Canada at one time. They were great until GM got a hold of them. I now use an Audi A4, the wagon is great car.
-
Chris,
That's impressive and looks to be well thought out.
Yesterday I was out looking at vehicles - figured my 911-S Cabriolet was not going to be a good gear hauler - and simmered down to:
Prius - back seats fold down; great mileage = 51/48; adequate room - actually far more than I expected. (Figure I'd be driving across state to the east coast frequently for jobs.)
FJ Cruiser - gotta love the looks to it; back seats fold down and decent volume of space, but I doubt that all of the gear you show in the photo would fit, hmmmm; poor fuel economy (17/21)compared to Prius; rubber interior - take a garden hose to it and wash it out (works great for my Kiteboarding hobby with all that sand).
Highlander - 2010 redesign - gobs of room with seats up or folded down; marginal fuel economy = 17/24 EPA
Did not think of the Element (I don't fit in the CR-V or Pilot very well) - what are you getting for economy with it?
What do you like/dislike about it?
Jack
PS: I added up the cost of the lights you carry, as listed in another thread, and came up with $12,187!!!
Sure makes Rainer's approach to few if any lights look REAL attractive! :-)
And that does not include the stands, etc.
I recently picked up an Audi A3 which fits all of my kit no problem. The rear seats fold down and the hatchback allows easy loading and unloading. The fuel economy is quite good as well (avg. 28mpg) and with 4-wheel drive I can make some ski trips in the winter.
Good luck car hunting!
-
I recently picked up an Audi A3 which fits all of my kit no problem. The rear seats fold down and the hatchback allows easy loading and unloading. The fuel economy is quite good as well (avg. 28mpg) and with 4-wheel drive I can make some ski trips in the winter.
Good luck car hunting!
I want a cool, small car! Maybe I should rethink my lighting....
-
I want a cool, small car! Maybe I should rethink my lighting....
i think you should! as it is your environmental foot print is huge already
just to throw some fuel on the fire for my reasons to not use lights or sparingly!!
wink wink nudge nudge!
-
Test drove the Prius, 2010, yesterday.
Quite surprizing - I liked it.
Folded down the back seats, put all of my Kiteboarding gear in the back - 9 meter kite, 12 meter kite, board, harness, two fold up beach chairs, backpack with wet suit and other junk in it. Plenty of room.
If it holds all of that, and considering my eye (and initial equipment budget) leans in the direction of the European Style (few lights) I'm wondering if the Prius would work.
Heck, when fuel prices crest over $4.00 a gallon, at least I'd be able to afford to drive to the shoot site!
Anyone using the Prius?
UPDATE:
Was researching on web "cost to replace Prius batteries" and found Prius Owners web site. Quite a few saying that around 110K miles batteries failed and frequently the 2 computers. Cost to replace batteries is $3700-4000 and the computers run $2750 to replace!!
Considering fuel at $4.00/gal, driving 12,000 miles, Prius getting 47mpg would cost $957/year to feed.
Honda Element, FJ Cruiser or like getting 20mpg would cost $2250.
That's a savings of $1,293/year.
Now, if you put 110,000 miles on it with an average fuel cost over that mileage of say, oh $4.50/gallon, savings is $11,848.
Considering you can almost plan on the battery/computers failing per the posts on the referenced web site, that's a savings of $5,098.
Hmmmmm, not bad BUT as you get up in the mileage seems the resale of the car is going to have to factor in that probable expense.
Jack
-
C1 5 allow you to correct any amount of vignetting? Using the built in Leaf gain adjuster shooting tethered sucks, it picks the % of lens falloff it will correct. I have been so frustrated for years with the Leaf software.
P.S. Honda Pilot. Fully packed allows 2 assistants and myself.
Yes, the LCC is a given. It's just become part of my bracket. I usually shoot one in the middle of my bracket so I always know which shot it belongs to. What I love about CO 5 is that the LCC correction now also corrects for vignetting. When shooting a DSLR, however, using LCC is greyed out, not even an option. I believe the AA filter may take care of LCC in dslr/ts lens combos but not sure.
This is not part of the White Balancing but a calibration file to record color shift across the sensor. You would still typically need to shoot a WB separately.
-C
-
OK, I've considered all the camera options and as a function of economics and operating ease, along with Rainer's comments that the Canon is not a compromise, I selling off my Hassie gear and going Canon for this new venture.
Now, as I'm used to the outstanding quality of a Hassie 39MP array, I want to be sure I'm getting the best image possible from an SLR.
Going Canon due to their 17mm - hoping to shoot a lot of high end condos here in S. FL I'll be in needing a wider lens and the 17 seems to fit the needs.
Thus, the question boils down to the 1DsMkIII or the 5D Mk II.
Looks like the 5D Mk II has a greater D-Max, but many reviews I've read claim they prefer the saturation and color tone of the 1Ds MkIII.
As the SLR route is dramatically less costly than the MFDB route, the cost of a 1Ds MkIII does not deter me IF it will provide an image closer to what I'm used to (Yes, I know it won't be able to compete against the Hassie file).
However, if uses in AP work are finding the images to be indistinguishable from each other, well I'll take the least expensive route and spend the extra money on Haagen-dazs!
Comments and guidance appreciated.
Jack
-
Jack, You should have both. There are at least two reasons, the first is the 5DMk2 as a backup for the 1DSMk3 in case one camera goes down on a job. But more important is the option to set up a couple of cameras and shoot two views during a sunset or sunrise. It's not unusual for me to set up 4-5 cameras for exteriors. I agree on the Canon choice, I still shoot alot with my P45 but that 17mm T/S is phenominal! Jim
-
One warning with the TSE17mm.
The lens is only f4. To get a really sharp image you have to zoom in 10x with every shot with live view to have a good sharpness control! Or use f11 or smaller
-
Double post.
-
Jack, You should have both. There are at least two reasons, the first is the 5DMk2 as a backup for the 1DSMk3 in case one camera goes down on a job. But more important is the option to set up a couple of cameras and shoot two views during a sunset or sunrise. It's not unusual for me to set up 4-5 cameras for exteriors. I agree on the Canon choice, I still shoot alot with my P45 but that 17mm T/S is phenominal! Jim
I agree, although only still having just one 5dmk2, cause i didnt used it that often till the new lenses arrived in my bag. I will buy a second 5d too, in cases where i'll use the canon as main system. And as you say sometimes its usefull to setup more than just one body. I personally dont like the huge 1ds bodies, i prefer the 5d for weight and price. I dont believe that the "s" quality of the files is any better.
-
OK, the Canon 5D II and the 17mm TS-E and 24mm TS-E II lenses are purchased - should have them by Friday.
I downloaded the comparison files of the 5D II and the 1Ds Mk III from this site:
http://www.artbyphil.com/phfx/photography/...view/index.html (http://www.artbyphil.com/phfx/photography/2008_5DII_Review/index.html)
In examining both, and then processing the RAW files myself, I actually preferred the image from the 5D II.
Now to build a portfolio of AP examples using the TS-E lenses, then get out there and start walking the streets promoting my "talents".
Thanks to all for feedback and sharing - these three topics on AP will prove to be valuable to anyone considering it as a career!
I know I'll be re-reading them many times in the future.
Jack
I agree, although only still having just one 5dmk2, cause i didnt used it that often till the new lenses arrived in my bag. I will buy a second 5d too, in cases where i'll use the canon as main system. And as you say sometimes its usefull to setup more than just one body. I personally dont like the huge 1ds bodies, i prefer the 5d for weight and price. I dont believe that the "s" quality of the files is any better.
-
Good luck with your new career and lets hope your new kit will do the trick.
Best,
Willem.
-
I'm looking forward to part 4. Title suggestions, anyone?
-
I'm looking forward to part 4. Title suggestions, anyone?
I've been thinking about that -
What do you wish someone had told you in the beginning?
What was the biggest mistake/s you have made SO FAR in your career, and how did you resolve it.
Thought?
Jack
-
I've been thinking about that -
What do you wish someone had told you in the beginning?
What was the biggest mistake/s you have made SO FAR in your career, and how did you resolve it.
Thought?
Jack
number 4 should put 1, 2 and 3 to bed and be our perpetual architecture and interior photography forum
it was all good and well to have those 3 parts but it got a bit confusing in the end, where to post what
there is no other forum that is so much frequented by architecture and interior shooters as this one
so let's make number 4 an all open one
cheers
m
-
If you will be shooting tethered to your computer with the 5D, then I recommend you buy the DC coupler with enables you to plug the camera into an outlet. When shooting tethered the computer keeps the camera from sleeping and, therefore, if you are using a battery, your battery with run out fairly quickly.
Have to agree with Marc for #4
-
I have to say gentlemen - this series and this particular thread has been a very interesting read - thanks to all.
As an aside - why not ask Mr MR for an Architectural Forum in its own right? Who cares what format chip you are using - the genre is the thing.
-
I have to say gentlemen - this series and this particular thread has been a very interesting read - thanks to all.
As an aside - why not ask Mr MR for an Architectural Forum in its own right? Who cares what format chip you are using - the genre is the thing.
Think I'll do it myself - had a software company, why not set up a forum for AP's?
I have just registered a domain for it and need feedback as to whether there would be an interest in carrying these discussions further and having a site strictly for AP discussions.
Domain I choose is nakedlightarchitecture.com - will be open to all aspects of AP - with and w/o light approaches.
I would want it to be a showcase for works and opinions from around the world.
I'd also want it to be a site architects found of interest, and thus it could serve the purpose of being a link between AP photographers and the clients.
AP photographer could put up a collection of their representative work, by category, for architects to review.
Have a lot of ideas but would like feedback on the need for such.
Jack
-
Think I'll do it myself - had a software company, why not set up a forum for AP's?
I have just registered a domain for it and need feedback as to whether there would be an interest in carrying these discussions further and having a site strictly for AP discussions.
Domain I choose is nakedlightarchitecture.com - will be open to all aspects of AP - with and w/o light approaches.
I would want it to be a showcase for works and opinions from around the world.
I'd also want it to be a site architects found of interest, and thus it could serve the purpose of being a link between AP photographers and the clients.
AP photographer could put up a collection of their representative work, by category, for architects to review.
Have a lot of ideas but would like feedback on the need for such.
Jack
allthough I like the idea it might backfire, this is where we hang out with all of the other commercial photographers
so possibly you could lose a lot of us
when this AP threat becomes "larger then life" you could always re-consider
-
I'm thinking along the same lines. I really don't have time to monitor another forum. Between the Large Format Photography Forum (where I am a moderator), LL and my blog, I am about tapped out for computer surfing time and interest.
-
I'm thinking along the same lines. I really don't have time to monitor another forum. Between the Large Format Photography Forum (where I am a moderator), LL and my blog, I am about tapped out for computer surfing time and interest.
Why not just ask Michael whether we can get our own small part here ? I think that would be a great solution.
-
I agree, best to keep it in the LL family
Why not just ask Michael whether we can get our own small part here ? I think that would be a great solution.
-
Why not just ask Michael whether we can get our own small part here ? I think that would be a great solution.
I agree - does anyone know him personally that could present our case for a specific heading of our own?
I have enough to do and would only do it if there is no other option from LL - seems the moderator would have noted the exceptional interest in this topic and suggested that at least these thread become "sticky". But best of all would be our own heading/topic section.
Jack
-
+1 to the "keep it here" brigade. There are so many places to check these days that it's almost too much effort. Maybe the only hesitation Michael might have (sorry if it's out of order to maker assumptions) is that people might post many extra images that might soak up even more bandwidth. I've noticed on the various "show your best work" threads that images get repeated when people add a reply. Maybe that should be avoided by all of us as much as possible. But keeping it in one place is clearly the best option IMHO.
-
+1 to the "keep it here" brigade. There are so many places to check these days that it's almost too much effort. Maybe the only hesitation Michael might have (sorry if it's out of order to maker assumptions) is that people might post many extra images that might soak up even more bandwidth. I've noticed on the various "show your best work" threads that images get repeated when people add a reply. Maybe that should be avoided by all of us as much as possible. But keeping it in one place is clearly the best option IMHO.
he would have to make for fashion car advertisement landscape hobbyists portrait and so on forums as well if starting with architecture. i dont believe that there are enough people here to hold alive such specialised forums. its work fine here in the mf forum if we dont bite the 35mm users too much, isnt it?
-
OK Folks, got the 5DMkII, 17 and 24MkII.
Feel like I've left Salma Hayek for Phyllis Diller, and that before her face lift!!!!
I've been running test and shooting a building/condo here that I've shot with the H3DII-39, thus target of comparison is a know object.
Initial findings:
5DMII - Dmax is no where near the Hassie; Sharpening is sorely needed, and at that a lot of it compared to the Hassie; Color cast in the highlights are common, yet fixable in CS4 (but nothing like that in the Hassie).
However, that 17mm Canon lens with the shift is what allows the image to be created. I'm finding it far more used than I expected, and working in many situation when the 24 isn't giving me the FOV that I need. Shooting all test shots are f8 and f11.
Al right, I do understand that I can't expect a Prius to give me the thrill of a Porsche 911-S Cabriolet.
I'll have to adjust.
Just wondering if my work flow needs to be altered.
Would like to hear how others are processing their RAW files, and all the way through to the finished image; meaning Plug-Ins your finding essential when shooting SLR, 3'rd party stand alones for sharpening; how are you adding "punch" to the SLR image to get the dynamic range, etc. to come a bit closer to the MFDB.
Jack
-
OK Folks, got the 5DMkII, 17 and 24MkII.
Feel like I've left Salma Hayek for Phyllis Diller, and that before her face lift!!!!
I've been running test and shooting a building/condo here that I've shot with the H3DII-39, thus target of comparison is a know object.
Initial findings:
5DMII - Dmax is no where near the Hassie; Sharpening is sorely needed, and at that a lot of it compared to the Hassie; Color cast in the highlights are common, yet fixable in CS4 (but nothing like that in the Hassie).
However, that 17mm Canon lens with the shift is what allows the image to be created. I'm finding it far more used than I expected, and working in many situation when the 24 isn't giving me the FOV that I need. Shooting all test shots are f8 and f11.
Al right, I do understand that I can't expect a Prius to give me the thrill of a Porsche 911-S Cabriolet.
I'll have to adjust.
Just wondering if my work flow needs to be altered.
Would like to hear how others are processing their RAW files, and all the way through to the finished image; meaning Plug-Ins your finding essential when shooting SLR, 3'rd party stand alones for sharpening; how are you adding "punch" to the SLR image to get the dynamic range, etc. to come a bit closer to the MFDB.
Jack
I find Focus Magic is a superb addition for Canon files
-
OK Folks, got the 5DMkII, 17 and 24MkII.
Feel like I've left Salma Hayek for Phyllis Diller, and that before her face lift!!!!
I've been running test and shooting a building/condo here that I've shot with the H3DII-39, thus target of comparison is a know object.
Initial findings:
5DMII - Dmax is no where near the Hassie; Sharpening is sorely needed, and at that a lot of it compared to the Hassie; Color cast in the highlights are common, yet fixable in CS4 (but nothing like that in the Hassie).
Just wondering if my work flow needs to be altered.
Would like to hear how others are processing their RAW files, and all the way through to the finished image; meaning Plug-Ins your finding essential when shooting SLR, 3'rd party stand alones for sharpening; how are you adding "punch" to the SLR image to get the dynamic range, etc. to come a bit closer to the MFDB.
Jack
It may be useful if you post an example image or two and your current post processing workflow.
As for the dynamic range issue...you should've bought the D3x ;-).
-
Here is my workflow:
1.) Of course, capture 2 or 3 images ( I use the Sekonic 758DR light meter to sample 4 or 5 areas of the scene, the press the Average button to get a mid exposure reading). Generally blend images in CS4 or with conservative use of Photomatrix HDR. I only shoot RAW files.
2. With 5DMkII images, I'm using CS4 Camera Raw as the developer. Testing out Raw Photo Processor but so far CS4 is better. Generate a 16 bit file from CS4 in sRGB profile.
3. Take image into CS4 and manipulate it; usually start with Auto Levels, then hand tweak it there. Then to Exposure and play with Gamma. Then to Curves. Finally to Vibrance.
4. Will take image over to Light Room and further refine there, usually with the Clarity tool, and several others.
5. Sharpen with Unsharp Mask. in CS4 - which I'm not very impressed with - 5DMkII requires a LOT of sharpening compared to the Hassie images.
Now, another part of my trouble is that I'm not used to working Color images - I've spent the majority of my life focused on B&W. One of the first color images I've worked in Afterglow in the Clouds section of my web site.
-------
I do not want this to turn into "should have" discussion - I find my decision was correct due to the 17mm lens - I've found its FOV to be essential in many of the test shots I've taken so far, and Nikon does not offer that nor do I want to get into stitching when it can be avoided by the 17mm TS-E. Discussion needs to be focused on Work Flow and digital "tricks" learned that are specifically applicable to AP work.
Below is a 72dpi sample from the Canon 5D MkII, 17mm TS-E shot last night at sunset:
-------
It may be useful if you post an example image or two and your current post processing workflow.
As for the dynamic range issue...you should've bought the D3x ;-).
[attachment=18545:_MG_0143...hpnd_204.jpg]
-
are you exposing correctly?
i´d hardly surprised if the hassy would have significant more dr than the 5d2.
-
Hi Jack:
Whats the dark blue halo effect around the buildings in the sky from? Using a lot of the shadow/highlight tool? Looks over worked from something. Maybe its just the low-res jpg.
-
Hi Jack:
Whats the dark blue halo effect around the buildings in the sky from? Using a lot of the shadow/highlight tool? Looks over worked from something. Maybe its just the low-res jpg.
Something strange is happening on the left side of the building, it looks like it is converging toward the bottom although the right side is vertical.
One little trick which I use is to slightly under correct tall buildings, as a perfectly parallel rendition often makes the building look top heavy. Sinar recommends that any building with an angle of view greater than 20 degrees above the horizon will look unnatural if perfectly corrected, although this may be too conservative.
-
Woah.....
sRGB?
Now, I always understood Adobe RGB to be the standard and have played with ProPhoto RGB too, while I always heard of sRGB as the web standard... what you would convert to for web output. sRGB has a smaller gamut, which is not to say it has fewer colors but?
Do any of you use it as your standard workflow? I admit I never really did any testing, just ran with the color space my retouchers and digital dealers advised me to use. I'm sure there's a big, argumentative thread about this in the archives.
I agree, the shot above, Jack, feels overworked... maybe too much HDR and sharpening? There is some distortion going on, the top of the building gets a little wider (perspective over corrected?).
Lastly, I would of preferred the light maybe an hour or so earlier... much more from the right, allowing some shadow on the left side so that the curve is more delineated. The buildings feel flat to me.
And really lastly, I look at the grass more than anything else. I'd crop all the way up to the closest edge of that seating area, or better yet move 6 feet to the right, lose the seating and let the building stand free of the palm tree, I guarantee an architect will consider placing the tree in front of the building to be sloppy composition.
One of the big reasons I don't like dslr for architecture... the format. If you crop this to 645 or 4x5 (taking it all off the bottom) the eye will be much more focused on the building...
I'm rambling... I need to go get some coffee and bring the boy his lunch (which he left by the back door).
Good start, Jack. I can't wait to see what else you do. And don't mind me if I get very critical, I'm just as nitpicky with myself, I think it's a necessity (as much as a disorder).
-
Jeff,
I've just tried several different file reductions to jpeg - all produce the halo effect on the left side.
Not there in the Tiff file.
Jack
Hi Jack:
Whats the dark blue halo effect around the buildings in the sky from? Using a lot of the shadow/highlight tool? Looks over worked from something. Maybe its just the low-res jpg.
-
Jeff,
I've just tried several different file reductions to jpeg - all produce the halo effect on the left side.
Not there in the Tiff file.
Jack
That makes sense.
-
Chris,
1.) sRGB converted for web by CS4. I normally use ProPhotoRGB.
2.) On HDR - this particular image is a straight single image, no HDR used in this particular one, thought I admit when used conservatively there are times I really like it. There are also time I feel the HDR effect can be pushed and really create a great "mood".
See http://www.boundlessmind.net/index.php?are...l&starter=0 (http://www.boundlessmind.net/index.php?area=galleries&sub=all&starter=0)
I find Sven's work quite interesting, from an artistic perspective rather than what an arch. would find to be a "faithful" representive of his vision.
3.) "or better yet move 6 feet to the right, lose the seating and let the building stand free of the palm tree"
Chris, I'll try to get down there earlier tonight and shoot as you suggest - be interesting to see results - I'll post it.
4.) I devourer constructive criticism - keep it coming!
5.) Building distortion - tripod shot, camera leveled precisely, 17mm TS-E with slight up shift, no tilt. I did not apply any correction to the image in software. Agree, the top of the building is distorted. Oddly, when scene at time of shot in Live View, the building lined up perfectly on the viewing screen with the grid turned on.
6.) Halo fixed - found Clarity was turned up in ACR by mistake.
Last, I've been experimenting with the various "picture profiles" in the 5D MkII - finding Faithful to be a more realistic rendering.
Jack
-
I agree, although only still having just one 5dmk2, cause i didnt used it that often till the new lenses arrived in my bag. I will buy a second 5d too, in cases where i'll use the canon as main system. And as you say sometimes its usefull to setup more than just one body. I personally dont like the huge 1ds bodies, i prefer the 5d for weight and price. I dont believe that the "s" quality of the files is any better.
I agree the 5D is lighter but the 1Ds bodies are built like tanks and can be rained on and take much more punishment with no worries.
-
Here is my workflow:
1.) Of course, capture 2 or 3 images ( I use the Sekonic 758DR light meter to sample 4 or 5 areas of the scene, the press the Average button to get a mid exposure reading). Generally blend images in CS4 or with conservative use of Photomatrix HDR. I only shoot RAW files.
2. With 5DMkII images, I'm using CS4 Camera Raw as the developer. Testing out Raw Photo Processor but so far CS4 is better. Generate a 16 bit file from CS4 in sRGB profile.
3. Take image into CS4 and manipulate it; usually start with Auto Levels, then hand tweak it there. Then to Exposure and play with Gamma. Then to Curves. Finally to Vibrance.
4. Will take image over to Light Room and further refine there, usually with the Clarity tool, and several others.
5. Sharpen with Unsharp Mask. in CS4 - which I'm not very impressed with - 5DMkII requires a LOT of sharpening compared to the Hassie images.
Now, another part of my trouble is that I'm not used to working Color images - I've spent the majority of my life focused on B&W. One of the first color images I've worked in Afterglow in the Clouds section of my web site.
-------
I do not want this to turn into "should have" discussion - I find my decision was correct due to the 17mm lens - I've found its FOV to be essential in many of the test shots I've taken so far, and Nikon does not offer that nor do I want to get into stitching when it can be avoided by the 17mm TS-E. Discussion needs to be focused on Work Flow and digital "tricks" learned that are specifically applicable to AP work.
Below is a 72dpi sample from the Canon 5D MkII, 17mm TS-E shot last night at sunset:
-------
[attachment=18545:_MG_0143...hpnd_204.jpg]
Nice shot but I agree with the other poster on a few points;
I usually crop to a 4x5 format for verticals.
I think the saturation is bit too high.
It looks a bit distorted with too much correction in the verticals.
I think the table and chairs in the foreground detracts from the power of the impressive building.
I use Profoto RGB as my default colorspace until I export for other purposes and then use the appropriate colorspace.
Great shot - you obviously have a talented eye and are technically qualified for this business. Keep shooting.
-
Question:
When shooting AP exterior of a building/structure, are you "normally" placing the building as the main object in the viewfinder OR how it fits into the setting - landscaping, trees, adjacent buildings, etc?
Jack
-
Question:
When shooting AP exterior of a building/structure, are you "normally" placing the building as the main object in the viewfinder OR how it fits into the setting - landscaping, trees, adjacent buildings, etc?
Jack
I do tend to centralize it if the context is busy (http://christopherbarrett.net/blog/?p=891). However, if it sits alone on a broad landscape (say a lone hotel on an isolated beach) I would have no issue placing it near the edge of the frame.
Sometimes a trailing or leading landscape can really set a building off... It should always be readily apparent, though, WHICH building you are shooting.
-
I know that Prophoto rgb is a very wide color space... But, don't forget the output of your files... Prophoto is impossible to reproduce at 100% with pigments print and much more less in CMYK! I do my own retouch and i find my EFI rip the only solution to get good colors from my files. The softproof of photoshop is better then nothing, but it's not like a print, it's ok for pigments printers but far from reality for CMYK. If you need your files for web, well sRGB is your profile; if you have to print offset, CMYK is the answer. Fine art prints, i think it's best having your own profiles and convert your color space into them... But a good rip for the convertion is a good idea. Basically Prophoto RGB is better for archive, but i suggest you to use always the softproof in photoshop with CMYK, i'm in Europe and I use the ISO coated V2 300%; in this way you are going to keep a lot of colors but in a simple way for conversion...
Of course, if you could print an hard proof with e good rip that emulates the behaviour of a CMYK printer it's better. When i'm shooting with the client i set captureone with CMYK proofing, why showing him colors that he cannot get? Less problems for me...
-
I know that Prophoto rgb is a very wide color space... But, don't forget the output of your files... Prophoto is impossible to reproduce at 100% with pigments print and much more less in CMYK! I do my own retouch and i find my EFI rip the only solution to get good colors from my files. The softproof of photoshop is better then nothing, but it's not like a print, it's ok for pigments printers but far from reality for CMYK. If you need your files for web, well sRGB is your profile; if you have to print offset, CMYK is the answer. Fine art prints, i think it's best having your own profiles and convert your color space into them... But a good rip for the convertion is a good idea. Basically Prophoto RGB is better for archive, but i suggest you to use always the softproof in photoshop with CMYK, i'm in Europe and I use the ISO coated V2 300%; in this way you are going to keep a lot of colors but in a simple way for conversion...
Of course, if you could print an hard proof with e good rip that emulates the behaviour of a CMYK printer it's better. When i'm shooting with the client i set captureone with CMYK proofing, why showing him colors that he cannot get? Less problems for me...
Agree that you need to tweak the images when you export them to specific color spaces but I think it's best to do all retouching and work in the largest color space available. At this point I think that is Profoto RGB. I have an Epson 9800 and that color space works very well for me. As far as clients go, I had a prepress guy complain to me that we are giving all these 16bit color RGB images to his clients with colors he can't reproduce. I really believe that's his problem, not ours. Besides, that same client prints quite a bit of the work on their own Epson printers where most of those colors do reproduce. It was the same problem with different film types - each having specific colors that the cmyk guys couldn't reproduce.
-
OK, as requested I went back this afternoon around 3:30, sun is setting here around 5:35, and shot the condo again with suggestions of framing the building in mind.
Shot with the D5MkII, 24mm TS-E II lens, f/11, 1/250
The tilt was centered, but lens shifted up to max - building top still appears to be wider than base of rise.
I was under the impression the TS-E would prevent this type of effect - the tripod/camera were perfectly level.
Need to define best way to avoid or fix this issue.
Here is what I got:
-
The composition is cleaner, there still seems to be some distortion to top of building. I think it's the wide FOV; unless you're squared-up to the building for a 1-point perspective, this kind of thing may be unavoidable if your subject gets anywhere near the edges of the frame. And for anything other than a 1-point perspective, you may find it difficult if not impossible to completely correct this kind of distortion in post processing.
I have a feeling backing up a little bit and shooting with a slightly longer lens would improve things.
(edited- I originally thought it was shot with the 17 TS-E, but on re-reading I see it was actually the 24)
-
next post
-
Question:
When shooting AP exterior of a building/structure, are you "normally" placing the building as the main object in the viewfinder OR how it fits into the setting - landscaping, trees, adjacent buildings, etc?
Jack
One suggestion to consider: Think simply about the "massing" of shapes within the frame. There is always a balance you want to strike between subject (in this case the building), sky, foreground & surrounds. Different with each shot, but the context (and how it's placed) is equally as important as the subject.
-
Jack
Both shots are around 0.5 degrees off in rotation. That might seem negligible, but it's enough to be perceivable.
Personally, with this type of photograph, I frame for precise parallels, then tilt the camera up just a tiny bit. You'll get slight convergence, but the building will look more natural, and ultimately the viewer won't feel as if something is wrong with it.
Cheers,
Pedro
-
Here is one of the adjacent condo, shot with the 17mm TS-E lens, on 5DMkII, RAW developed in LR3Beta then tweaked in CS4.
It is "Tone Mapped" in Photomatrix, 1 stop over, 0, and one stop under.
Very little parallax in this image - shot further back from the building with less rise on the lens.
(Note for all of your "Yankees" buried in SNOW, temp today was about 82 degrees, and that's above Zero!)
Pedro - you were right - check this image and it was .4 off, corrected it, should be correct now. I sure missed that - will check in future on all images as my RRS pan head must be off by just a weeee bit.
-
Here is one of the adjacent condo, shot with the 17mm TS-E lens, on 5DMkII, RAW developed in LR3Beta then tweaked in CS4.
Very little paralax in this image - shot further back from the building with less rise on the lens.
(Note for all of your "Yankees" buried in SNOW, temp today was about 82 degrees, and that's above Zero!)
Pedro - you were right - check this image and it was .4 off, corrected it, should be correct now. I sure missed that - will check in future on all images as my RRS pan head must be off by just a weeee bit.
That's nice damn light, Jack. And yeah, it's like 10 deg here right now. I was born and raised in Louisiana and I do not take kindly to Chicago winters!
-
(Note for all of your "Yankees" buried in SNOW, temp today was about 82 degrees, and that's above Zero!)
And your point? You'll never experience going 50 mph down a mountain side on two skies where you're at, such a shame, so much fun.
On a technical note, there seems to be a decent amount of noise (or something) in the sky, is that just from downsizing?
-
OK, as requested I went back this afternoon around 3:30, sun is setting here around 5:35, and shot the condo again with suggestions of framing the building in mind.
Shot with the D5MkII, 24mm TS-E II lens, f/11, 1/250
The tilt was centered, but lens shifted up to max - building top still appears to be wider than base of rise.
I was under the impression the TS-E would prevent this type of effect - the tripod/camera were perfectly level.
Need to define best way to avoid or fix this issue.
Here is what I got:
You can correct this afterwards very well with PTlens / perspective vertical.
-
OK, as requested I went back this afternoon around 3:30, sun is setting here around 5:35, and shot the condo again with suggestions of framing the building in mind.
Shot with the D5MkII, 24mm TS-E II lens, f/11, 1/250
The tilt was centered, but lens shifted up to max - building top still appears to be wider than base of rise.
I was under the impression the TS-E would prevent this type of effect - the tripod/camera were perfectly level.
Need to define best way to avoid or fix this issue.
Here is what I got:
The camera has been perfectly aligned vertically, but as you say the building still looks wider at the top. I think this is psychological, the image processor in our head expects some convergence when viewing a tall building from a close distance.
Next time when you shoot, try one perfectly aligned, then tip the camera back a little and do another exposure. You will find that you soon develop a feel for what looks right.
-
The camera has been perfectly aligned vertically, but as you say the building still looks wider at the top. I think this is psychological, the image processor in our head expects some convergence when viewing a tall building from a close distance.
Next time when you shoot, try one perfectly aligned, then tip the camera back a little and do another exposure. You will find that you soon develop a feel for what looks right.
yes this is psychological and somehow a bit basic knowledge if shooting architecture that high buildings have to converge a bit to look natural. many rendering companies do it bad also ......
-
The camera has been perfectly aligned vertically, but as you say the building still looks wider at the top. I think this is psychological, the image processor in our head expects some convergence when viewing a tall building from a close distance.
While I know what you're talking about and agree that sometimes having just a little bit of convergence will look more natural, I don't think that's the case here. The top of the building really is distorted; not from perspective, since the camera was level; but rather from the rectilinear projection of the lens. It's not just an illusion, if you take the image into PS and overlay a grid you can see the distortion.
With a really wide FOV, rectilinear projections cause stretching into the corners. The closer an object is to the edge or corner of the frame, the more it will be distorted. You can clearly see that the right side of the building is pretty straight, but the upper left part (where it's closer to the corner of the image) is distorted. Tilting the camera up a bit might not help much, because in this case the distortion is uneven between the left and right sides of the building. It might help some since you'd get the building further away from the edge of the image circle. Other potential solutions would be to back up and use a longer lens, or change to a 1-point perspective.
-
While I know what you're talking about and agree that sometimes having just a little bit of convergence will look more natural, I don't think that's the case here. The top of the building really is distorted; not from perspective, since the camera was level; but rather from the rectilinear projection of the lens. It's not just an illusion, if you take the image into PS and overlay a grid you can see the distortion.
With a really wide FOV, rectilinear projections cause stretching into the corners. The closer an object is to the edge or corner of the frame, the more it will be distorted. You can clearly see that the right side of the building is pretty straight, but the upper left part (where it's closer to the corner of the image) is distorted. Tilting the camera up a bit might not help much, because in this case the distortion is uneven between the left and right sides of the building. It might help some since you'd get the building further away from the edge of the image circle. Other potential solutions would be to backup up and user a longer lens, or change to a 1-point perspective.
It needs 1 point, I think. Or a lift.
-
Please define, not sure what you're saying.
Jack
It needs 1 point, I think. Or a lift.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_%...int_perspective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_%28graphical%29#One-point_perspective)
1-point perspective shooting straight-on, with the camera not only level but also squared up with the front of the building. 2-point perspective is what you've shot, with the camera level but facing the building at an angle. 3-point would be if camera was also pointing up or down.
-
Please define, not sure what you're saying.
Jack
What Jeff said. I don't shoot this stuff, but assisted my father in shooting his buildings and large outdoor art installations when I was a kid. Maybe getting some height would work, then the top of the building wouldn't be forced, less shift and farther from the IC edge, so less forced perspective from the lens..
-
I have been following this thread for a while and am curious to how people deal with unsuitable weather conditions on architectural shoots away from your home town or country? A client asked how I would charge for bad weather days but I assume everyone would be checking weather forecasts before and advising the client of the contingency plan if the weather became unsuitable. This would not be a major problem if you lived locally but hotels and expenses do add up fast.
The other question is how do you charge working in different country's? Would you for example; swop the US$ rate for Euros if you were shooting a project in Europe or vice versa? I assume most advertising photographers work with agency's and the agent negotiates on behalf of the photographer, but I think most architectural photographers would work direct with their clients.
Regards
Michael
-
Never had to travel that far, but I did read of a story where one architectural photographer want to the Bahamas 4 times on the expense of Architectural Digest because the first three times just did not have the right light. Would have liked to been her!
You could always charge a rain delay fee covering your assistant's time plus half of what you would get for a day of shooting (outside digital capture fees) for bad weather days. If the weather seems to be a wash, I guess just cancel and reschedule for another time making sure you get your kill fee and reimbursement for canceled tickets. I have been lucky so far when it comes to travel have had to not explain the meaning of a rain delay fee (I do tell my clients about it before hand but when it comes to money...?).
-
Shot this image yesterday and I am looking for any feedback about the light. I got to fool around with some colored gels and think that I got a nice pairing of color. I flooded the room with a tota through a 32 in white umbrella along with a couple in the hallway. Then used 4 420 watt peppers with double weight scrims. One pepper hit the chairs with no gel. Another two hit the table and chest with a Lee Nectarine gels in them. The forth hit the glass door and window with a cold steel blue gel in it.
What do you think?
Also, been thinking of making a silk with a hole in the middle of it for the lens to go through and to use as a very soft "ring" flash. Think this would work well?
-
Sounds like you when to a lot of effort here.
Who's the image aim at i.e. who's going to buy it and what do they need it for?
Cheers
Ashley.
It is for the designer for their marketing. Not to much effort (or at least I am not thinking of it that way); I had gotten (in addition to color correction gels) some theatrical color gels and had been looking for a way to use them. This image only required tungsten lighting and the subject matter made it seem like a good shot to use them for. The designers also told me that they wanted some semi-abstract shots.
-
The designer of what and / or what is this image marketing ?
Is it the window frames and / or the material on the glass of windows and door ?
It almost looks like a CAD drawing or something like that to me - there is no life or depth to the image and it seems to totally lack a focal point. So I'm just not sure what your brief was here - hence the questions.
Bottom-line: if the client is happy with the image and it fulfills their needs, then it's a good image.
Cheers,
Ashley.
The interior designer, and she designed the window and what is on it as well along with everything else. She has not seen the final image yet, but knows the composition and liked it. She is a good client and trust my intuition.
Lack of a focal point? This comment really makes me think. I understand what you mean, just something to think about. Thanks.
Merry Christmas
-
Now that I have the 5DMkII and the 17 TS-E, 24 TS-E II, 45 TS-E, 85 Ziess, etc. I've been running a lot of test shots.
Question:
On interior shots, what are you using to get an accurate color value set out of a scene?
Shoot one frame with color chart, then balance in CS4??
Jack
-
Howdy,
I see Arch as t h e field for LF gear. A 4x5 with a 90 mm super Angulon will blow your handheld XYZ away. Parallel lines are not converging... Whjo needs 55 shots if a few good ones suffice?
Starters can pick up a check LF system for say $ 1,500, WA bellows and all.
IMHO, this is one area where "handheld" is plain wrong.
Chris
-
A bit off topic, nevertheless a nice aesthetical piece about the architecture (12 minutes video):
Warning - it is CG.
http://vimeo.com/7809605 (http://vimeo.com/7809605)
-
Howdy,
I see Arch as t h e field for LF gear. A 4x5 with a 90 mm super Angulon will blow your handheld XYZ away. Parallel lines are not converging... Whjo needs 55 shots if a few good ones suffice?
Starters can pick up a check LF system for say $ 1,500, WA bellows and all.
IMHO, this is one area where "handheld" is plain wrong.
Chris
Maybe I missed something. Who was suggesting shooting architecture hand held?
-
Here is an update:
I've purchased the 5DsMKII and now have a stable of lenses that include:
Canon TSE - 17, 24-II, 45, 90.
Canon 135 f2
All purchased new USA.
Initial tests - very pleased with results. At this point I have NO regrets moving to SLR from Hasselblad.
Favorite feature of the body - live focus with magnification!
Did test out the Zeiss 85 for the Canon and also the Canon 100mm Macro - rejected both as the 90TS-E produced a better image. I expected that with the 100 but was surprised with the Zeiss.
Jack
-
Don't think this would be a discussion for a whole separate topic, but for those of you who use bellow digital view cameras, do you see an advantage in using them for architecture and interiors? I know when working with film, the swings and tilts helped, but it seems that the sensors do not respond the same way (or so I have been told), and the sharpness of modern lenses resolve every thing anyway without having to resort to swings and tilts. I feel that a plate camera like the 12 max with its smaller body is the best option, though I am not totally sure? I would love to rent a bellows camera just to see, but there is no place near me that has one. I also am concerned about not being able to bring a bellows view camera on a plain as a carry on or getting it in really tight places.
If I was shooting products, I would defiantly use a bellows camera, but architecture does not seem to demand that type of camera nowadays? Any thoughts?
Also, I am looking for a cover for the ground glass that does not magnify the image. Just some thing I can place on the ground glass that enables me to see the whole image at once without having to resort to a focusing cloth. Anyone know of something that would work or would it be best just to make something myself.
-
Joe - at least with film the swings and tilts are for perspective control, and viewpoint control, not just for focal range. I think the same advantages would hold true for using movements with a digital back. But I admit I have not used them personally to say with certainty.
-
I still use tilts and swings on occasion with a digital back. The added sharpness of the digital lenses doesn't give you any added depth of field in the longer focal lengths. Depth of field in the wide stuff is amazing, though. I use the fully geared Arca M Line 2 and find it to be very compact.
I fit the camera, sliding back, Hasselblad SWC viewer and 6 lenses in a Pelican rolling case that fits in the overhead compartment of most jets.... (http://christopherbarrett.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/ArcaReview_017.jpg)
While plate cameras themselves are quite compact, the lenses take up much more space than their view camera counterparts. I would guess that a plate camera system is more compact than a comparable view camera until you get to 3 lenses and then it becomes more cumbersome.
That said, I'm going to be trying out an RM3D next weekend, I'm actually considering using it as my wide lens solution, maybe with just the forthcoming Schneider 28mm. This Arca plate camera has much finer focusing than all the other plate cameras due to it's unique mechanism, has built in tilt (no adapter required) that works with all lenses and would work with my sliding back... Have I justified buying ANOTHER camera yet?
btw... here's the viewer I use mounted on the Kapture Group Slider....(http://christopherbarrett.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/ArcaReview_013.jpg)
More often than not, though I just use a loupe
-CB
-
While plate cameras themselves are quite compact, the lenses take up much more space than their view camera counterparts. I would guess that a plate camera system is more compact than a comparable view camera until you get to 3 lenses and then it becomes more cumbersome.
-CB
You sure about this? Looking at my mounted lenses I doubt it ... Perhaps lenses above 100mm are a bit more compact in overall length, but that's not much.
-
... do you see an advantage in using them for architecture and interiors? I know when working with film, the swings and tilts helped, but it seems that the sensors do not respond the same way (or so I have been told), and the sharpness of modern lenses resolve every thing anyway without having to resort to swings and tilts.
Joe,
the very same optical laws apply for digital, the same way they apply for film: there is absolutely no truth in saying that swings and tilts do not help or that the sensor responds differently. A sensor, like a film is a capture medium. It gets exposed with light and "circle of confusion" dots the same way. The only difference coming in count are the sizes of the capture medium, which with digital is usually (much) smaller than with MF and 4x5" (and of course the diffraction effect, but that's another story). Therefore, due to this size difference in the capture medium, the needed tilt or swing or both movements together are much less in terms of "degrees" to achieve the same plane of sharpness.
Best regards,
Thierry
-
The added sharpness of the digital lenses doesn't give you any added depth of field in the longer focal lengths. Depth of field in the wide stuff is amazing, though.
-CB
CB,
There is no "added" depth of field with longer focal length lenses, nor is there any more DoF with "wides": there is ONLY and solely a different reproduction factor between a long and a short lens (from the same view point), thus giving the feeling that there is more DoF, which is simply NOT true. Do the experience: to compare one has to compare apples with apples, understand at the very same reproduction ratio. If one enlarges the image taken with a short lens ("wide") to the very same reproduction scale as the one image taken with the long lens, then the 2 images do have exactly the same DoF.
Note also that I do not like to use the term "wide" lens: it is confusing because "wide" refers to the coverage angle of the lens, not to the focal length. It happens that short focal length lenses usually have a wide® coverage angle, compared with long focal length lenses.
Best regards,
Thierry
-
I'm posting this in the spirit of sharing, and just that. Not to start a "range war" about bits but I felt the answer was of interest to all:
Dear Jack
My apologies for this late reply. I was forwarded your mail from a colleague.
When designing the architecture of a digital camera, the handling of noise is a central and important theme.
The noise handling covers several physical and mathematical disciplines, for which the digital technology is tailored. The sensor first picks up and converts light in terms of photons to electrons (charge) in the pixel "wells".
In the single pixel the charge is mixed with electrons originating from other sources. A single pixel has a dynamic range smaller than 84 dB of a 14bit ADC. To make a digital camera work however, the behavior of the average pixel is recorded in the sensor calibration phase, done at the manufacturing plant, and in the imaging phase of each capture.
The handling of dark signal subtraction and non-linearity corrections is computed and used in full 16 bits. The resulting image is then constructed with correct representation and without artifacts like banding. This also enables a downsized image to maintain a dynamic range higher than the performance of a single pixel.
Hope this clarifies a little.
Best regards
Anders Espersen
Hasselblad USA Inc.
Tech Support Department
support@hasselbladusa.com
-
CB,
There is no "added" depth of field with longer focal length lenses, nor is there any more DoF with "wides": there is ONLY and solely a different reproduction factor between a long and a short lens (from the same view point), thus giving the feeling that there is more DoF, which is simply NOT true. Do the experience: to compare one has to compare apples with apples, understand at the very same reproduction ratio. If one enlarges the image taken with a short lens ("wide") to the very same reproduction scale as the one image taken with the long lens, then the 2 images do have exactly the same DoF.
Note also that I do not like to use the term "wide" lens: it is confusing because "wide" refers to the coverage angle of the lens, not to the focal length. It happens that short focal length lenses usually have a wide® coverage angle, compared with long focal length lenses.
Best regards,
Thierry
My most common lens for interiors used to be a 90mm with 4x5 film, now it is a 45mm with the P65+. The 45mm has substantially greater DoF than the 90mm. Therefore, yes, I have more Depth of Field in practical application than I used to.
Like it or not, photographers call short lenses "wides." It's the industry standard... I've never had a client ask if the shot could be a little "shorter." Wider, yes but never shorter.
Now I've gotta go pack up my lenses (wide and long) and catch a plane to Colorado.
-CB
-
The 45mm has substantially greater DoF than the 90mm.
Simply not true, with all due respect for your work. I suggest you to make the test as described
Good packing,
Thierry
-
Like it or not, photographers call short lenses "wides."
I know this "standard" in the praxis and among photographers. It simply leads to confusions.
Thierry
-
CB,
Looks like a nice camera and I really like the fact that bellow cameras in the digital age are a forth the size of their 4x5 counter parts. I am assuming that the mounted lenses are not as expensive either since they require no helical mount. Although I would really like to have a camera with swings and tilts on the lens plane that could be shot hand held if needed (like once in a 1000 images produced). The 12 max is a really nice camera, but the tilt adapter can only be used with certain lenses and can not do any kind of diagonal tilts, such a disadvantage. Also, it seems that the Artec has only the Rodenstock lenses available to it? and can not be hand held effectively. I will have to now look at the Arca Plate camera. (and please no one suggest the 5D as an option )
Something that I read in an earlier thread was that plate cameras are much better at holding the lens plane parallel to the film (sensor) plane then bellow cameras and from Thierry's statement this would be important in the digital age. Do you find trouble with this with the M Line 2?
I am also looking at the Sinar P3 as a possible camera to get but the lenses available to it are limited to the Rodenstock ones, or so it seems. Anyone know if that is true?
And last, although Philadelphia has limited access to camera stores that have these cameras there to look at, NYC is just a short trip away. Anyone know of any stores in NYC that would have these cameras available to look at or rent?
-
CB,
... Also, it seems that the Artec has only the Rodenstock lenses available to it? and can not be hand held effectively.
True.
Something that I read in an earlier thread was that plate cameras are much better at holding the lens plane parallel to the film (sensor) plane then bellow cameras and from Thierry's statement this would be important in the digital age. Do you find trouble with this with the M Line 2?
It is very important to have a stable standard. In this respect the p3 is perfect, probably the M Line too. 1/2 mm difference between top and bottom of the standard, in respect to the distance to the sensor, in an "infinity" situation, means already an unwanted sharpness plane going from the front of the camera to the infinity direction of the subject.
I am also looking at the Sinar P3 as a possible camera to get but the lenses available to it are limited to the Rodenstock ones, or so it seems. Anyone know if that is true?
True, only Sinaron Rodenstok lenses. And the p3 isn't that much for location shooting, when weight is a factor you are looking at.
Thierry
-
"Simply not true, with all due respect for your work. I suggest you to make the test as described"
Good packing,
Thierry
Have I been dreaming? Maybe I don't understand your point, but my experience tells me though worded wrong, practically speaking on a job, Chris is right on.
For many years I shot 35mm slides along side my 4x5 transparencies, because there wasn't a good duping service here, and architects needed 35mm slides for design competitions. So I would use a lens on the 35 that was comparable in field of view as the 4x5. Say a 28 lens on the 35 when I had a 90 on the 4x5. Given the same exposure (f stop actually) I had considerable more depth of field in an 8x10 enlargement with the 28/35 combo than with the 90/4x5. Right? What am I missing here? See this from Wikipedia too:
"When a picture is taken in two different format sizes from the same distance at the same f-number with lenses that give the same angle of view, the smaller format has greater DOF."
or
"To maintain the same field of view, the lens focal lengths must be in proportion to the format sizes. Assuming, for purposes of comparison, that the 4×5 format is four times the size of 35 mm format, if a 4×5 camera used a 300 mm lens, a 35 mm camera would need a 75 mm lens for the same field of view. For the same f-number, the image made with the 35 mm camera would have four times the DOF of the image made with the 4×5 camera."
What am I missing? Chris is right. Right?
-
Alright, it seems that even with the optical advances of today and smaller images recording size, when working with lenses longer than normal, tilt is still a good thing to have with a MF back. Right?
If so, just one question, how stable are the standards on the Arca Swiss M Line 2? Will it give lens stability comparable to the 12 max? Also, are all movements geared with course and fine tune dials? Last, anyone know of a dealer in NYC that would have one in stock to look at?
-
Alright, it seems that even with the optical advances of today and smaller images recording size, when working with lenses longer than normal, tilt is still a good thing to have with a MF back. Right?
If so, just one question, how stable are the standards on the Arca Swiss M Line 2? Will it give lens stability comparable to the 12 max? Also, are all movements geared with course and fine tune dials? Last, anyone know of a dealer in NYC that would have one in stock to look at?
Never-mind, found the thread where you tested the accuracy.
-
Anyone know why (or where I can read why) using small apertures beyond f/11 with MFDB does not work?
-
You can get some information about diffraction here:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials...photography.htm (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm)
Tomas
-
I'll admit I have not read through this whole thread yet, but if not already covered, can someone mention if they have experimented with comparing results from Lightroom's Upright tool and Tilt-Shift lenses?
I was too lazy to try it but now that I have sold my TS-E, I'm having withdrawal symptoms.