The large format sacrifice

[Lorenzo Pierucci]

I would say your pictures shot with D800 have no image quality at all.

Please stick on your 4x5.

Xin

Finally someone that sound a different blues. But what make you say that are better? To me, what i feel ( but seems is just feeling ) is:

Color + contrast ( probably lens due )

Space feeling: i have this feeling that space is less distorted. Example: if u take a photo with a 28 mm on a FF camera, and a 55 mm on a 6x7 the space seems more tridimensional. Or it is not? ( this is what my all concern is about honestly )

[BernardLanguillier]

In total honesty, I don't get it. I wondering whether you are speaking first or second degree here?... 

The images you pointed to shot with your D800 are perfectly fine. I assume that you did follow the requests from your customers in terms of framing, so I won't comment on that, but they are technically ok and convey a feel of transparency and sharpness that is adequate.

The image shot with the back is fine too, but I frankly don't see anything special in it. If anything DR seems to be fairly limited in the first one.

But anyway, what matters is your own satisfaction I guess, so great if you love it.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Lorenzo Pierucci]

In total honesty, I don't get it. I wondering whether you are speaking first or second degree here?... 

The images you pointed to shot with your D800 are perfectly fine. I assume that you did follow the requests from your customers in terms of framing, so I won't comment on that, but they are technically ok and convey a feel of transparency and sharpness that is adequate.

The image shot with the back is fine too, but I frankly don't see anything special in it. If anything DR seems to be fairly limited in the first one.

But anyway, what matters is your own satisfaction I guess, so great if you love it.

Cheers,
Bernard

Hi Bernard, thanks for your grade joke. Was hilarious.

Now, yes the images are fine. And clients are happy, and i make money in the most amazing way possible ( be a photographer ) so all is great.
What i struggle with is: the best tool to get architectural images is a tech cam with a IQ sensor. We all know that. So best i can do to get close to that was have that lens ( a rodenstock ) with the most affordable movement camera (  a toyo ) and then: the most affordable back.

Now, i see my images are actually get better. But at a series of prices: weight, slow and low iso. So i do see a difference in the 3Dimensional feel of the image. What i will like to ask to you guys ( way more expert then me ) is if this is just in my brain or is real. A 4x5 image advantage is just in resolution, or having longer lens cover a bigger area give actually a different dimensional feel. It might sound silly but I'm a self learn photographer so no one ever explain those things to me.

If the advantage is just resolution, well i go for the full frame DSLr camera. But if a medium format back stitched give me a better looking image ( which sometime i feel ) i will stick with it.

Hope my post is clear enough and the question not to silly.

Thanks again guys to read this

[David Eichler]

I do think I see slight differences between small and medium format digital with respect to rendering of subtle tonal variations. Assuming that is so, I am not sure most commercial clients would pay a substantial premium for that.

As for architectural photography, non-reflex cameras can use wideangle lens designs that have lower inherent rectilinear distortion, which varies with the distance from the camera to the subject, and so cannot always be completely corrected with software. Currently, the only lenses of this type suitable for architectural photography are available for medium and large format technical or view cameras. However, with the advent of high quality small format mirrorless digital cameras, perhaps perspective correction lenses with lower distortion might become available for use with these cameras. In any case, again, I am not sure most clients are willing to pay a substantial premium to avoid what is really a very small amount of rectilinear distortion that shows up only occasionally with reflex cameras, wideangle lenses and architectural subjects. Since many architectural photographers are working successfully with small format, it does not seem to be a practical issue.

[Fine_Art]

To my eye the first shot looks better technically. It is sharp with no strangeness in the shadows. The second shot may be more impressive as a shot, but is technically worse in terms of the hardware output. The shadows under the balconies have color splotches. There is a bit of an artificial feel to the brick edges, its like the software was rendering from CGI info. I think it is the lack of AA filter which may give a sharp edge at the expense of natural look.
I think the first image would be more similarly impressive if the light was longer with tea lights on the tables.

This sample, IMO, does not give an advantage to the larger format. I think the large format wins in a dynamic scene where you need the big single shot detail.

[Lorenzo Pierucci]

Thanks guys for all the infos. So is now basically clear that image are better nut just slightly, or in a way that just a photographer might appreciate.

In this case i will rent a 5DIII with a TS my next case, and give a run test. And i guess i will keep my 4x5 set up for table top photography or personal work.

[Justinr]

Thanks guys for all the infos. So is now basically clear that image are better nut just slightly, or in a way that just a photographer might appreciate.

In this case i will rent a 5DIII with a TS my next case, and give a run test. And i guess i will keep my 4x5 set up for table top photography or personal work.

My apologies if this has already been mentioned but there is also the very real effect of the larger formats slowing down the process of framing and preparing the shot. I certainly take a different approach to photography with MF and persevering with non dSLR's may well add an extra something not always present with a smaller camera, it's far too easy to find oneself rushing with a dSLR although you promise yourself you won't.

BTW, is there a term to describe this process and effect? Something like 'Frame Time' and 'Format delay' to describe the period spent getting the shot right.

[sam@]

Hi Lorenzo

IMHO -
If you say 22mp is enough for you - perhaps initially I would work with a dslr and tilt-shift lenses for a while, paying meticulous attention to detail and technique (in post-production also).

Spend time thinking about the spaces and look carefully at the shapes and forms of the spaces and furniture, very small adjustments in angle etc. make a difference.
These small adjustments may be easier when you can see through the lens and may have a bigger impact on your images than the dslr vs large format.
Use of light / direction may have more impact on the 3D look you are looking for than the format also..

Like Kirk I used large format and now use dslr for much of my work, the 17 /24 / 90 TS lenses are good - the 45 not so good but with correction can be made ok.

All the best

Sam



 

[Ken R]

Hi everybody,

for who read this forum often you might had see all my "pilgrimage" from buying my first Valeo 22 and then my TOYO VIEW.
Im now happily using it for some months, and i have to admit it: i learn more in this few month that in 7 years ( I'm a young photographer ) with my 5DII then D800. I feel that the photos turns out different, more tridimensional. Im attaching 2 shots. One is a interior for a lounge bar, the other is my first ever real architectural assignment. I shoot it today, a university in Tainan, south of Taiwan. I never ever had such image with my D800 ( never used tilt shift lens tho, only monstrous the 14-24 ). But this is consequential to the major dedication and attention that the 4x5 push me to. But this images comes to such a prize:

-the system itself is around 5-6 kilos ( guessing ) plus mac
-25 ISO of the Valeo, bad in low light situation or extremely long to use.
-live view only tethered, extremely hard to find focus ( not a problem if i set it to infinity, but It really make me think twice before move the focus)


After edit my photos today, i come across at some post about the new TS lens ( especially canon one ) and how now days 35mm camera just are the way to go.
I don't care about the hard work and the "sacrifice" but did anybody feel that stitching 4 to 9 MF shots give a better result of a 35 mm camera?

Is not about resolution ( nowadays all my clients go straight for my "internet ready JPEG" and totally ignore the 10000x7000 TIFF), what i talk about is feel, color   and distortion. There is no difference from a shoot with at 90 mm Large format and a 24 mm on a FF  35mm ? The same photos took at the same camera position, will look the same? or 35 mm will look more flat.

This question is puzzling me a lot. Maybe my ignorance is at the base of it.

Any comment or constructive insult is more then welcome

The second image shows an awesome level of detail and micro contrast. Very nice. But man, that sensor is just god awful filthy. It needs a thorough cleaning. You can get the Digi Clean and Sensor wipes for CCD backs HERE , or from a source closer to where you live.

[Lorenzo Pierucci]

Hi everybody again.

So the " pilgrimage " keep on....

I was so close to trow away my LF camera. Im in Bali at the moment working on a Villas case. I was shooting some marble bathrooms with a 25 ISO back and a center filter. I was wishing to die. My buy of a 5D II plus TS lens was so close. Then this photo append ( and many others actually) shot was a success i will say.

I feel that only my LF camera plus DB give me this. Did u can actually get it with a small sensor and 24 TS ?

Sorry keep hitting on it, but this thing really buz me.....

thanks guys

PS: not really edit, just stitched

[Ken R]

Hi everybody again.

So the " pilgrimage " keep on....

I was so close to trow away my LF camera. Im in Bali at the moment working on a Villas case. I was shooting some marble bathrooms with a 25 ISO back and a center filter. I was wishing to die. My buy of a 5D II plus TS lens was so close. Then this photo append ( and many others actually) shot was a success i will say.

I feel that only my LF camera plus DB give me this. Did u can actually get it with a small sensor and 24 TS ?

Sorry keep hitting on it, but this thing really buz me.....

thanks guys

PS: not really edit, just stitched

You will not get nearly the same level of per pixel sharpness / micro contrast with the Canon. No way. With a Nikon D800E / Sony A7R you might get closer though. With the 35mm systems you will get more depth of field which is useful with some shots but you loose a lot of the focal plane control you have with a tech camera or LF camera. The Canon TS-E lenses are nice. The Nikon PC-E 24mm lens is pretty good. I work much faster with the 35mm system so when I do not have much time and or need a lot of different shots I use the Canon but I prefer to use my Arca with my PhaseOne back whenever I can. Sometimes I take both to a shot and I do some shots with one or the other depending on what I want / need to do.

[Lorenzo Pierucci]

Thanks so much for the great feedback.

I own a D800, but seems that no one use the 24 PC, all the arch guy have canon. It seems have a barrel distortion that might be a problem to correct when i move too much the lens ( yes i might read too much forums..... )

But if you as pro say that is doable, is a great thing to know.

[epines]

I use a similar setup for architecture (H3DII-39 back on an Arca Swiss 6x9 FC), and although it's more cumbersome to use, I think it's worth it. The lenses are better, and the files are just a lot more robust than Canon files. As has been said many times elsewhere, you can beat them up and push them around more in post; they just hold together a lot better and have a lot more depth to begin with. It's hard to describe, but the Canon files just seem sort of anemic compared to the MF files. Even if you're not pushing them around in post, the MF files just feel more robust and fleshy.

Lorenzo, there's a lot of greenish tint around the edges of that image. You're aware of the LCC (lens-cast correction) process, aren't you? Where you use a translucent plastic white card to even out vignetting and color casts? If not, there's plenty online about it. It will get rid of that green tint (and various magenta tints and other undesirable effects that happen with this kind of setup).

[epines]

Lorenzo, I also wanted to mention -- if this setup is making you miserable, maybe it's not worth it. If you can, try renting or borrowing one of the latest Canon TS lenses and shooting the same scene with 35mm and MF. Crop the Canon just like the MF. Then make a print and see how they compare. If it's that much of a headache, it might not be worth it. The MF setup can definitely be a hassle. This is why the (expensive) helical / pancake systems like the Alpa, Cambo and Arca Swiss R Line have arisen.

[Lorenzo Pierucci]

Lorenzo, I also wanted to mention -- if this setup is making you miserable, maybe it's not worth it. If you can, try renting or borrowing one of the latest Canon TS lenses and shooting the same scene with 35mm and MF. Crop the Canon just like the MF. Then make a print and see how they compare. If it's that much of a headache, it might not be worth it. The MF setup can definitely be a hassle. This is why the (expensive) helical / pancake systems like the Alpa, Cambo and Arca Swiss R Line have arisen.

Epines, Thanks so much for the generous feedback.
Im glad to know that the MF plus LF have that something more that is not only in my eyes ( well actual also clients eyes ).

Green cast. I know, as i stitch between 3 to 12 files shot with a diffuser filter for each shot is not a option, but i always use same relative position so i might do it in studio and add it later. Normally i dodge and burn and correct in PS on the stitched file.


Agree on rent a test, problem in Taiwan tilt shift lens are so rare that who use it, own it. No one rent

Thanks again !

[torger]

Lorenzo, do you shoot LCC and apply? It seems to me that your large format shots have some un-even color cast in them, for example in the last indoor image above you have both green and magenta cast in the same image, which indicates that you don't use LCC, which is required for wide angles even with a 22 megapixel back.

[eronald]

Renting for use seems to be a valid business model mainly in the US.
You can write in your own reasons.

Edmund

[Fine_Art]

Lorenzo, do you shoot LCC and apply? It seems to me that your large format shots have some un-even color cast in them, for example in the last indoor image above you have both green and magenta cast in the same image, which indicates that you don't use LCC, which is required for wide angles even with a 22 megapixel back.

The green might be from the tempered glass. More significant is the way the darks at the sofa (lower right) fall apart. This is an example were medium format, even with more bits seems to do worse than 135 format. You might need multi-shot methods more than with FF digital.

[Lorenzo Pierucci]

Agreed. Im developing a method as fallow: i have a ICC for each lens/sensor position ( we talk about 3 to 9 stitch ) and i apply to each single raw. Time consuming but this give me a digital large format file of 12000x10000 approx. Which i then resize to 6000x5000.

I even had client that find that green cast my signature………  All good to me as long the pay flight and fee.   

[lowep]

if this is just in my brain or is real

if you can sweet talk others (& maybe also yourself) into agreeing with you then it is real; if not it is really just in your brain