Architectural Market

[shelby_lewis]

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

This is not so in the US... I'm an architect who's worked at firms from 8- to 200-employees, and can tell you that the physical architectural model is truly a high-end commodity that used very little in comparison to the photo-realistic render. It is, indeed, not difficult to find someone to render a fully textured, realistic composite these days. Most students coming out of architecture school are quite savvy at modeling and rendering. I'm not saying there isn't a place for model photography...

... but that place is quite small.

As a matter of fact, I've yet to work on a single project that has actually budgeted for a physical model (much less a photo composite)... and I've worked on hotels, hospitals, casinos, residences, assisted living facilities, 1000 acre resorts, and so forth.

YMMV

[rainer_v]

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

one year ago i made a larger scaled shooting, purpose was aside the usual magazin publications a book, but nothing larger.
after the shooting was finished th PR department of the building owner/ company was so excited about the visions of the builidng on my shots that they decided to open it with an image exhibition.
they bought 18 images, mounted on alu-dibond compounded with 4mm glass in a size of 160 x 220cm. i explained that i ask prices as selling over gallery for sizes and qualities like that, gave some discount for the number of images and the decided to make it after some thinking about the budget .... the exhibition ended as nice success for them and for me and afterwards they integrated the images as art permanent in the building.
what financial loss if i would have made this in lower resolution !!!!! although i would not count on having such luck, but i like to be prepared if i have  

[yaya]

While we're talking architecture, anyone who's into cityscapes in general and specifically into London's architecture should have a look at the new "London" book by Peter Ackroyd and Richard Bryant. Amazon link

Most if not all images were taken on a large format camera with a Leaf digital back and the quality of those double-folding DPS prints is absolutely stunning.

Well worth the 120 bucks IMO

Yair

[Harold Clark]

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

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

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

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

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

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

What method do you use for framing the shot with the Cambo? Does it seem awkward after using the SLR? I think the Artec would be the ultimate camera with the sliding back for viewing, but my budget won't stretch that far. I have handled the Cambo in the store and been very impressed with the quality.

I realize the Leaf backs don't allow the lengthy exposures of Phase One, but I presume 30 sec is plenty for architectural work based on my experience with 4x5 film and Canon. I also agree that the colour shift problem should be corrected internally rather than requiring fixing after the fact.

[omginparis]

I shoot 50 % architecture and 50 % people. Before I used Sinar for architecture and Hasselblad/Nikon for people.

I were thinking about a Hy6, Alpa (Arctec) solution. But this would really ad up costs. Equipment-wise and postproduction-wise I want to scale down. Image (and fun) wise I want to scale up. The images of my view cameras were always great, but I never liked to work with them.

When I now think about the Hasselblad route it is to make my live easier than with Canon.

And today my clients are happier than they were in the film-days. I never got this much positive feedback.

Best,
Johannes

Hello
It is true that things are not always so clear in terms of the field you're working in.
I shoot architecture/interiors design for magazines and companies and many of them want people in the pictures. They also want a lot of pictures and give me short time.I could shoot about 15 pictures /day in films and now it's about 30 pictures/day.So I wonder if a cambo/alpa/artec has enough handling.
Like many of us I ended up shooting Ds Mark 2 (Mark 3 now) and a rack of shift lenses (canon and Nikon): the main problem is distortion.
I did some test with the HTS hasselblad but I got bad results -in terms of geometry. Then I tried the back (H3D 39) with the cambo and Schneider 35mm= no doubt about the geometry but I don"t think such backs are Ok with the shifts (got some "ghost" on highlights). Also I don't know if your route will be faster/easier if you have to start your process with Focus compair to ACR / PS3.
I was ready for the check with hasselblad but know my next step is to test AFi II 7 (but they don't carry shift lenses) and P45+ (only 45 mmshift).
omg
www.omgphotographe.com

[rainer_v]

Hello
It is true that things are not always so clear in terms of the field you're working in.
I shoot architecture/interiors design for magazines and companies and many of them want people in the pictures. They also want a lot of pictures and give me short time.I could shoot about 15 pictures /day in films and now it's about 30 pictures/day.So I wonder if a cambo/alpa/artec has enough handling.
Like many of us I ended up shooting Ds Mark 2 (Mark 3 now) and a rack of shift lenses (canon and Nikon): the main problem is distortion.
I did some test with the HTS hasselblad but I got bad results -in terms of geometry. Then I tried the back (H3D 39) with the cambo and Schneider 35mm= no doubt about the geometry but I don"t think such backs are Ok with the shifts (got some "ghost" on highlights). Also I don't know if your route will be faster/easier if you have to start your process with Focus compair to ACR / PS3.
I was ready for the check with hasselblad but know my next step is to test AFi II 7 (but they don't carry shift lenses) and P45+ (only 45 mmshift).
omg
www.omgphotographe.com

you can shoot fast with cambo/alpa/artec and if you count in postpro corrections ( geometry, stitching ) these are the fastest when professional level is the goal, especially if compared with systems based on retrofocal lenses. i mean  professional not in terms of resolution and image quality but in terms of perspective and distortion/ geometry.

[marcwilson]

Not wishing to direct this topic towards dslr's, but  whilst we're here,   , out of interest for all you guys that used (use) shift lenses with your dslrs...did you stick to canon options, use some of the non canon, nikon, olympus, contax shift options, or also go with medium format glass such as pentax and mamiya on the various shift adaptors available for their wider image circle and more available shift?

I currently use canon's 24 tse but need to get other options also (35 / 45 / 80mm)

As for the original topic, in terms of interiors I am finding the lower end work slackening off but the higher end (better clients) keeps on going..which is good really.

Cheers,

Marc

[rsmphoto]

I did some test with the HTS hasselblad but I got bad results -in terms of geometry.

Can you elaborate on this please? What specifically does "in terms of geometry" mean? Using DAC?

Thanks.

[Harold Clark]

Not wishing to direct this topic towards dslr's, but  whilst we're here,   , out of interest for all you guys that used (use) shift lenses with your dslrs...did you stick to canon options, use some of the non canon, nikon, olympus, contax shift options, or also go with medium format glass such as pentax and mamiya on the various shift adaptors available for their wider image circle and more available shift?

I currently use canon's 24 tse but need to get other options also (35 / 45 / 80mm)

As for the original topic, in terms of interiors I am finding the lower end work slackening off but the higher end (better clients) keeps on going..which is good really.

Cheers,

Marc

I use the Canon 24 tse, as well as a Sinaron version of the Olympus 35 shift. The 35 is better than the 24, and has rise/fall and shift, but no tilt. I often use the 17-40 Canon for interiors. Both it and the 24 are useable but not great, lots of distortion & CA. I wish Rodenstock, Schneider etc would build a set of wide shift lenses for SLRs ( 17 or 18, 24, 35 ) .

Harold

[rainer_v]

I use the Canon 24 tse, as well as a Sinaron version of the Olympus 35 shift. The 35 is better than the 24, and has rise/fall and shift, but no tilt. I often use the 17-40 Canon for interiors. Both it and the 24 are useable but not great, lots of distortion & CA. I wish Rodenstock, Schneider etc would build a set of wide shift lenses for SLRs ( 17 or 18, 24, 35 ) .

Harold

no need to wish this. they cant escape the optical laws and it seems to be nearly impossible to build such wa shift lenses without distortion.
the schneider 28PC is one of the worthest in this disciplin, as well as the leica version of it.
i used the olympus 24pc with canon adapter. at least its sharp till the edges and has lower distortion than the canons,nikons and schneider.
it has a lot of CA, but this is easier to correct. i also used a zörk shift adapter with pentax 645 35mm af lens, hich is very good and allows 20mm of shift/ stitch. i have also 55 + 75 + 80-160 pentax lenses for this adapter. ( they will be soon on ebay ).
the olympus 35mm pc isnt bad. the nikon 28/35 are soft if shifted. distortion is softer than the canon 24tse, hich is over the limit for my taste. the canon 45tse is nice. the new nikon is mechanically cheap and it seems to be more or less similar than the canon quality wise.  best super-wide seems to be the sigma 12-24 for showing nearly no!!! distortion ( app. 2% at 12mm with a simple curve ). one has to try several to find a sample which has 4 sharp corners.

[omginparis]

no need to wish this. they cant escape the optical laws and it seems to be nearly impossible to build such wa shift lenses without distortion.
the schneider 28PC is one of the worthest in this disciplin, as well as the leica version of it.
i used the olympus 24pc with canon adapter. at least its sharp till the edges and has lower distortion than the canons,nikons and schneider.
it has a lot of CA, but this is easier to correct. i also used a zörk shift adapter with pentax 645 35mm af lens, hich is very good and allows 20mm of shift/ stitch. i have also 55 + 75 + 80-160 pentax lenses for this adapter. ( they will be soon on ebay ).
the olympus 35mm pc isnt bad. the nikon 28/35 are soft if shifted. distortion is softer than the canon 24tse, hich is over the limit for my taste. the canon 45tse is nice. the new nikon is mechanically cheap and it seems to be more or less similar than the canon quality wise.  best super-wide seems to be the sigma 12-24 for showing nearly no!!! distortion ( app. 2% at 12mm with a simple curve ). one has to try several to find a sample which has 4 sharp corners.

I do use the nikon 28mm and 35 mm on my canon. I agree with rainer they actually aren't worst than the canon 24mm.
But I disagree with rainer about 45 mm : it has a very bad distortion too  (well mine at least).
About the HTS and 28 mm I found a lot of distortion that was corrected (with the DAC) differently depending of the shift.Sometimes you get a straight line ,sometime you get a curve. So at the end you can not stitch the files.
In order to stick at the topic of this thread I must say that owning a top DSLR allowed me to work in many situations and to keep my clients. Example : You shoot a beautiful modern house. Suddenly a mother and her soon get in the room and play with the dog;  at that point two behaviors:
-before with my sinar F1 =please get out of the shoot I have to shoot my back up and the light might change
-know with canon = quickly unteather the dslr, take it out of the tripod and shoot a real portrait of someone leaving in the house ; this will be the left  full page of the opening of my subject in the magazine and this is a real "add value" (even though I must confess I 'm a bad portrait shooter)

[Kirk Gittings]

Not wishing to direct this topic towards dslr's, but  whilst we're here,   , out of interest for all you guys that used (use) shift lenses with your dslrs...did you stick to canon options, use some of the non canon, nikon, olympus, contax shift options, or also go with medium format glass such as pentax and mamiya on the various shift adaptors available for their wider image circle and more available shift?

I currently use canon's 24 tse but need to get other options also (35 / 45 / 80mm)

As for the original topic, in terms of interiors I am finding the lower end work slackening off but the higher end (better clients) keeps on going..which is good really.

Cheers,

Marc

FWIW Mark, I use a Canon 24, 45 and 90 T/S and a Olympus 35 PC. The 45, 90 and 35 are superior lenses (there is a fairley large variation in the Olympus 35 PCs. I went through four finding a superior one). I recently tested the Nikon 24 T/S and found it slightly better than the Canon. Every little bit helps, but it was not enough of a gain to switch systems. On the other hand if one were just now buying a system? Every little bit helps-I would buy Nikon.

[Misirlou]

I'm curious if you guys using DSLRs and wide angle pirmes have tried DxO. It does such an excellent job of correcting distortion and CA that I even use it on landscapes most of the time now. I don't think it could operate on images from TS lenses, because it would be very difficult to model all the permutations of the way one might employ them, but for regular wide angle shots, DxO can do amazing things. All automatically too (i.e. no time wasted fussing around with manual adjustments).

[Kirk Gittings]

I'm curious if you guys using DSLRs and wide angle pirmes have tried DxO. It does such an excellent job of correcting distortion and CA that I even use it on landscapes most of the time now. I don't think it could operate on images from TS lenses, because it would be very difficult to model all the permutations of the way one might employ them, but for regular wide angle shots, DxO can do amazing things. All automatically too (i.e. no time wasted fussing around with manual adjustments).

You are right DxO does not work with shift lenses, but I have tried it. Here are a couple of reasons I personally do not use regular wide angle primes (usually). First is composition. I frame very tight to take full advantage of the sensor. Also, after 30 years of using a view camera, I see perspective corrected. To have to back off to the computer to perspective correct to check or work out my compositions would be very frustrating and slow, personally speaking I have always worked very fast even with a view camera. I get into a rythm and move quickly. When extreme correction is needed, I simply cannot do a powerful composition looking just at a radically converging image. When shooting tethered, with a client looking over my shoulder, I like for the image to pop up as I visualized it, perspective corrected. As I have state before, IME, successful architectural photography is 90% composition and lighting.

[Misirlou]

You are right DxO does not work with shift lenses, but I have tried it. Here are a couple of reasons I personally do not use regular wide angle primes (usually). First is composition. I frame very tight to take full advantage of the sensor. Also, after 30 years of using a view camera, I see perspective corrected. To have to back off to the computer to perspective correct to check or work out my compositions would be very frustrating and slow, personally speaking I have always worked very fast even with a view camera. I get into a rythm and move quickly. When extreme correction is needed, I simply cannot do a powerful composition looking just at a radically converging image. When shooting tethered, with a client looking over my shoulder, I like for the image to pop up as I visualized it, perspective corrected. As I have state before, IME, successful architectural photography is 90% composition and lighting.

Yeah, that all makes perfect sense to me. I think in 4X5 myself; I just can't afford to shoot anything digital that behaves like a 4X5. The TS lenses can only do so much, and the solutions that offer better movements cost more than my last few cars.

[Kirk Gittings]

Yeah, that all makes perfect sense to me. I think in 4X5 myself; I just can't afford to shoot anything digital that behaves like a 4X5. The TS lenses can only do so much, and the solutions that offer better movements cost more than my last few cars.

I understand the dilemma. DSLRs have limitations, but one is not budget. None of my view cameras ever cost as much as even a new 5D! My architecture practice may be different than others. For me it seems like the majority of my architecture work is either directly for magazines or commissioned by architects for the purpose of getting published, so the DSLR works well for magazine spreads. At this point I have over 120 magazine covers after 30 years and since going digital the rate that I am adding them has at least doubled. I think the reason for that is that I have always specifically shot potential covers on every shoot, but with the higher production of the DSLR, I am submitting more potential covers and that is generating more success in that realm. For even design competition submissions (my other bread and butter) which are all now PowerPoint too rather than 8x10 prints, the DSLR work shines.

[marc gerritsen]

. As I have state before, IME, successful architectural photography is 90% composition and lighting.

I agree very much with that!

So if you work with an Artech, 5d or a Hasselblad one can be seriously busy in that field
They all have their ++ and --

My main problem with architecture photography is not the camera but the weather
as I fly around Asia, weather can change dramatically and what looked to be going sunny is now in fog
I seem to drift more and more into doing interiors and for that I have a very fast pace.
keeping in-house post production in mind,  I can shoot 150 set-ups a day using
available light and in already styled interior.
Clients use photos mostly for magazine/web exposure and/or portfolio

Because of the high rate of photos/day I have accumulated enough material for a series of books
and still shoot large enough to have exhibition material as well.

Just heard that generally assignments in East Asia are down, post olympic, but they mostly come from
the US and Eur and there is still strong local demand.  

[rainer_v]

I understand the dilemma. DSLRs have limitations, but one is not budget. None of my view cameras ever cost as much as even a new 5D!

as eric stated above too, its not the price of the camera system which is most important.
its camera+lenses plus film+scan plus efficiency on location which has to be compared between film and digital.
fos most who make a living out of architecture all existing digital solutions should be cheaper than 4x5".

[Harold Clark]

I understand the dilemma. DSLRs have limitations, but one is not budget. None of my view cameras ever cost as much as even a new 5D! My architecture practice may be different than others. For me it seems like the majority of my architecture work is either directly for magazines or commissioned by architects for the purpose of getting published, so the DSLR works well for magazine spreads. At this point I have over 120 magazine covers after 30 years and since going digital the rate that I am adding them has at least doubled. I think the reason for that is that I have always specifically shot potential covers on every shoot, but with the higher production of the DSLR, I am submitting more potential covers and that is generating more success in that realm. For even design competition submissions (my other bread and butter) which are all now PowerPoint too rather than 8x10 prints, the DSLR work shines.

You are right about camera prices! View Cameras aren't disposable cameras either, as I sometimes refer to my DSLRs. By shopping carefully for good used view camera equipment, you could always sell something if it didn't suit and recover your investment.

As much as I would like to get a high end digital set up for architecture, I haven't been able to make a business case for it. Much of my work is for large engineering projects, aerials etc. where quite a volume of coverage is required rather than just a few prize winners. These are all done with available light and the Canon with shift lenses is still the best tool for the job. The fact that my architectural shoots are seasonal here, and I do other work in the corporate/industrial sector further erodes the case for a DB/shift camera.

[Kirk Gittings]

as eric stated above too, its not the price of the camera system which is most important.
its camera+lenses plus film+scan plus efficiency on location which has to be compared between film and digital.
fos most who make a living out of architecture all existing digital solutions should be cheaper than 4x5".

In a growing economy I would completely agree with you, but the market started slowing here over a year ago. I thank the gods that I did not make a huge additional capture investment (on top of two new computers, printers etc.) two years ago when I got into digital. Film and processing was another profit stream which has been converted to digital capture/processing fees and (are much more profitable than film/processing ever was) are helping in a big way to offset declines in the architectural market.