PDA

View Full Version : LF Starter kit for Interior Architectural photogra



Dennis Spencer
3-May-2006, 09:15
Having spent most of my life using small format and some medium format equipment for my interior work, I have done quite a bit of research on LF and now ready to take the leap. My research has left me more confused than when I started. So my question to this illustrious forum is; what is a basic/starter kit for a LF beginner who is doing photo shoots for interior designers look like. I would appreciate information on camera, lens kit, tripod and any indispensable accessories relevant to that type of work.

steve simmons
3-May-2006, 09:25
Get and read a copy of

Photographing Buldings Inside and Out by Norman Mcgrath. It is the best book on the subject.

When I did this type of work I had the following lenses

58, 75, 90, 125, 180 and 240.

If you are interested in getting into large format we have several articles on our web site that might be helpful.

www.viewcamera.com

and go to the Free Articles section

I would suggest a monorail style camera. You will need a camera that will allow you to use a wide angle/bag bellows. I would suggest also getting a camera that does not require a recessed lens board when using a short lens.

You might consider taking a workshop. The Maine Photo Workshops gfenerally has a class with Norman Mcgrath.

Here are a couple of books on largew format that have been helpful to beginners

User's Guide to the View Camera by Jim Stone

Using the View Camera that I wrote.

Jack Dykinga's Large Format Nature Photography.

steve simmons

www.viewcamera.com

Ron Marshall
3-May-2006, 10:36
There are many good second hand monorails available. For example, the Sinar F1 can be found used on Ebay for a reasonable price. For used lenses: the classifieds on APUG, KEH Camera Brokers, Midwest Photo, Badger Graphics.

Joseph O'Neil
3-May-2006, 10:44
You didn't say what format - 4x5, 8x10, etc. I would suggest 4x5 if starting out.

A decent, used mono-rail, a good 90mm lens - something that covers a big image circle, and a decnt Manfrotto / Bogden tripod with a really heavy duty head. Yes, yes, yes, to all the rest of you, a Gitzo or Ries or Berlebach tripod is better, but when starting out, a good, heavy duty Manfrotto is *not* a bad thing at all.

I'll second the suggestion of the Sinar F1 - decent camera, and good used ones can be found on Ebay and used at camera dealers. But don't limit yourself strickly to the Sinar, you might find a good deal on a different model/make.

joe

Ralph Barker
3-May-2006, 11:07
Another thought regarding monorails. Be sure to choose one that has interchangable rail lengths available, or a telescoping rail that can be made fairly short. The "standard" rails for many 4x5s are often around 400mm long, which becomes problematic with the wider lenses. Long rails can either extend into the image, or poke you in the chest when trying to focus. Additionally, some (like the old Calumets) are really designed to be fixed-length, as the end stops are pinned in place. That's not an insurmountable problem, but something to consider.

As others have said, there are many cameras that can do the job nicely. You might also find the recent thread about the Toyo VX125 interesting.

Ernest Purdum
3-May-2006, 11:13
Steve Simmons has given you some great advice. I would add the suggestion to try to find in a library "View Camera Technique" by Stroebel. Some find it hard reading, but if you find that you like it, it is very thorough.

You don't give us any idea of your budget situation. If you can afford it, the Sinar system is extremely versatile. It is a modular system that you can add to as you find necessary. You may be able to find books by Carl Koch or by Koch, Marchesi and Marchesi which describe the system. Recent Sinar products are more convenient, but even the earliest "Norma" Sinars are very worthwhile tools.

If your budget doesn't stretch that far, Kirk Gittings uses and recommends (and he should know) a very early Calumet wide angle camera, their Model CC-402. (I do too, but without Mr. Gittings expertise.) They show up on eBay fairly often and usually sell for far less than a Sinar outfit. You can recognize them by their front frame which is set back to avoid the need for a recessed lensboard.

BrianShaw
3-May-2006, 11:33
"Yes, yes, yes, to all the rest of you, a Gitzo or Ries or Berlebach tripod is better, but when starting out, a good, heavy duty Manfrotto is *not* a bad thing at all. "

I must be totally out of the loop... there's a *problem* with Manfrotto tripods? Aside from being affordable, what could the problem be... oh, being affordable isn't a problem, is it?

Frank Petronio
3-May-2006, 11:53
Don't listen to any this, just get a $3,895 Ebony SV45U2 with a set of Schneider XL lenses, 58, 80, 110 ($4,350) and 150, 210, 300 Schneider APO Symmar-Ls (about $4,135). Don't forget the ProFoto strobes (12 heads, minimum) and hot lights, grip, the tallest carbon fiber tripod and geared head, air cases, meters, and film accessories like holders and lenshades. You couldn't possibly shoot at a high level with anything less.

Unless of course you get a basic used $500 monorail from any leading brand, the best 90mm lens you can afford, plus a beefy tall tripod, a ladder, and a lot of film. Shoot as much as you can and grow your outfit organically from there.

steve simmons
3-May-2006, 11:54
from Ralph Barker

The "standard" rails for many 4x5s are often around 400mm long

This is not necessarily true. The Sinar standard rail is 12" which is quite workable for even a 58mm lens. Many standard monorails are this length

You can get some good advice here but you will also periodially get erroneous information. Just pick and choose carefully and despite how much advice you get here be an informed consumer and do your own homework.



steve simmons

Joseph O'Neil
3-May-2006, 13:15
quote :I must be totally out of the loop... there's a *problem* with Manfrotto tripods? Aside from being affordable, what could the problem be... oh, being affordable isn't a problem, is it?"

Hi Brian;
a few years ago, on a list different than this one, i suggested to a person asking a very similar question that Manfrotto tripods were just fine for 4x5 - provided you get the right head and big enough legs of course. After all, I've been using them for 25 years, and other than the one I dropped off a cliff into a river, they haven't given me much problem.

I guess you should never say certian words like "problem" on the internet because - boy oh boy, did I ever get a blast. The pontificating I got about how Ries or Gitzos, etc, were so much better - wow, I've never forgotten it. So, maybe I over-react anymore (apologies if I did), but I learned my lession. No matter how good the price or how practical something might be, you just cannot seem to admit to using some items or brands. Mind you this place here is pretty nice, but some places on the internet - asbestos suits seem manditory.

(tounge in cheek mode = on)

I'm still afraid to publically admit that I still use an old Ilex Paragon lens, and that one of my favourite enlarging lenses is an old Wollensak 161mm Raptor. No, never dare admit publically - especially to a newcommer - that some old Woll ensak or Ilex lenses are wonderful for interiors. Nope, not even the fact last week I was shooting the interior of an old, used book store located inside a 100 year old building and found out that my old Ilex was just perfect. Nope, the only resort for a new commer is to get a second mortage and buy everything brand new, top of the line.

:)

joe

BrianShaw
3-May-2006, 16:19
Thanks for the background information, Joe. I have used Manfrotto (Bogen) 3051 with 3047 head for the past 20 years to support 4x5 monorail and a variety of MF cameras. Works great for me!

Brian

Dennis Spencer
3-May-2006, 19:07
Thanks all for your very sincere and informative responses. This forum really works well and I am gld that I have stumbled across it. And thanks Steve for pointing out the reference materials for my edification.

Kirk Gittings
3-May-2006, 21:04
I didn't notice that you said what kind of interiors you were going to photograph, historic or contemporary, b&w or color. What is the intended use of the photographs? I will explain why this is important in equipment selection after you answer the questions.

Oren Grad
3-May-2006, 21:10
To Kirk's question I would add, what specifically is it about medium format that you find unsatisfactory for your intended purposes?

Ted Harris
4-May-2006, 08:38
I'll echo Kirk's question, this time in terms of the lens(es) you will watn to start. I frequently find myself working in restaurant interiors where a 90mm lens is never wide enoough. I can usually amke do with a 75mm but every once-in-a-while need to rent a 58mm. On rare ocassions the only thing that will gt the job doen is a swing lens camera and assignments of this sort have paid for my Noblex.

Frank Petronio
4-May-2006, 08:49
Don't forget you can always "stitch" images together. I used to use a Noblex and it was very popular with clients. However stitching 4x5 images gives me much more control in tricky lighting situations and I can avoid some of the distracting distortion that you can get from the rotating cameras (which are a lot of fun BTW) or the super wide optics.

In fact, if you already have an investment in smaller format gear, stitiching may be a viable alternative...

Kirk Gittings
4-May-2006, 08:53
Dennis,

For instance if your intension is color chromes for magazine layouts. It is important that you use relatively new coated color corrected lenses lenses and preferably from the same manufacuturer and from the same general period. Otherwise the difference in coatings can give you slightly different color casts. If you were trying to deliver a matched set of transparencies of different angles of an interior this can be important for first rate work. On the other hand if your goal is b&w HABS documentation then there are other choices.

steve simmons
4-May-2006, 10:03
Unless you can figure out a way to charge for all hte post production time stitching is tme consuming and not always cost effective. Most arch and int design clients, and I am includng publications, want a good transparency to work from and not a digital file. I don't suggest shootiung with what you have and then trying to stitch it together. Shoot it correclty in the first place. You get paid for on location time not late night hours in front of the computer.

I agree with Kirk's comments about lenses

steve simmons

Frank Petronio
4-May-2006, 10:18
Not knowing how to deliver digital files or how to bill for them shouldn't rule out a technique, Steve ;-)

steve simmons
4-May-2006, 10:24
It is not a matter of not knowing. Go back and read what i said.

Another camera line in favor with arch photographers is Arca Swiss. They have a 12" monorail as well.

steve simmons

tim atherton
4-May-2006, 10:37
"Most arch and int design clients, and I am including publications, want a good transparency to work from and not a digital file."

Maybe it's changed in the last year as I've hard;y shot any architecture and have been doing mainly museum and artifact work....? But

Over the last several years, every architect I have dealt with - while they think a 4x5 transparency still looks cute on the light table or held up to the window - ALL want digital files from them. That's what they work from and use on a regular basis. The transparency or neg sits gathering dust in a file cabinet. Of course they pay for the digital files too. And it's been years since I sent a transperansy to Canadian Architect or Azure or whoever.

steve simmons
4-May-2006, 11:35
How much time do you spend scanning these transparencies? Do you shoot it correctly and make a 'straight' scan or do you spend a lot of time correcting a less than perfect transpaency/negative? Do you get paid for the time you spend correcting the image? How (not how much) do you charge for this.

steve

Frank Petronio
4-May-2006, 11:55
Just head on over to the ASMP, APA, or PDN forums and there is a wealth of info about digital capture fees and the like.

Everything needs to be scanned and color corrected and at least slightly retouched anyway. Why shouldn't the photographer make the money from the process AND benefit from having more control over their images?

The resolution and technical requirements for most commercial jobs are below that of what the high end fine art photographers on this forum are doing (an 11x 17 spread isn't much compared to a 30x40 print) and well within the grasps of most serious photographers.

Maybe you still sharge a day rate and are sticking to the old school mentality, but there is more than one way to deliver and invoice a job, and the better clients seem to appreciate progressive thinking photographers.

QT Luong
4-May-2006, 12:02
The topic on how to bill for digital work has been touched extensively on professional discussion groups a few years back, when many made the switch to digital. For an example of suggested price structure, see http://editorialphotographers.com/outreachep/digital_manifesto.asp

In 2005, I issued a total of 140 licensing contracts. Slides/transparencies were requested only 3 times.

tim atherton
4-May-2006, 12:05
"Do you shoot it correctly and make a 'straight' scan" - yes

"How much time do you spend scanning these transparencies?"

It varies somewhat depending on a number of factors- usually between 15 and 30 minutes per scan.

"Do you get paid for the time you spend correcting the image? How (not how much) do you charge for this."

Absolutely - all post-production time is billable. For this set-up I either have a package - which includes x number of shots + x number of digital files etc = x$

Or I have a per scan fee based on

The only way a photographer can survive in business these days is to absolutely ensure that the client is paying the costs of digital production and post-production costs especially those that have been now passed down to the photographer and that at one time were paid out to a production house or whatever. This includes things like fees for digital capture and so on.

(Up until the present, most of my architectural clients still preferred the benefits of LF film (or roll) shot view type cameras - even if the end product was a scan from the film. DSLR's still really didn't cut it. And until recently most digital backs were just too cumbersome for most of the work.)

tim atherton
4-May-2006, 12:08
PS - as has been pointed out, the big discussions on this took place 3 or 4 yars or so ago - that was the time new biling and fee structures needed to be implemented and clients educated.

In some cases it may be too late now if you and/or your clients haven't "adapted"

Kirk Gittings
4-May-2006, 22:03
"Most arch and int design clients, and I am includng publications, want a good transparency to work from and not a digital file."

Sorry Steve this is now completely false and has been for a couple of years. ALL architects and interior designers want digital files and only some magazines want original chromes. I haven't given an original chrome to a designer client or builder or hotel in three years. You have to be able to scan in house (paying for lab scans is too slow or uneccessarily expensive) or shoot digital. This is true even of Hedrich Blessing (as of last summer at least). They shoot film but deliver scans these days.

Kirk Gittings
5-May-2006, 09:54
In the above post I should have said that Most magazines still want chromes. That is why it is still the most efficient workflow right now to shoot film and scan it. Film covers all the bases.

Zachariah M.
5-May-2006, 16:30
Jeez! What was the original question?

steve simmons
6-May-2006, 07:37
I agree that this thread wandered a bit. I hope that Mr. Spencer got at least some of his questions answered and that he could filter out the info that was beyond what he wanted.

steve

David Karp
6-May-2006, 09:12
A nice, inexpensive, camera for architectural photography is a Calumet 45NX / Cambo SC series monorail. The monorails are not extendable, but there are alternate monorails you can use with the camera. One of these is 12 inches long, and will work with just about any lens you would use for architectural/interior photography. You can use your wide angles and any lens up to 210mm on this rail, and in a pinch can even use it with a 300mm if your subject is not too close. You will need a bag bellows, which is useable with lenses up to 210mm.

The camera comes with a standard long monorail, which allows you to use lenses up to 450mm (so long as the subject is not too close). It also has a 360 degree revolving back, which is also a nice and convenient feature.

The main drawback of the camera is that you have to use recessed lensboards with the wide angles. Additionally, the camera uses axis tilts, so you may run into yaw once in a while.

The main advantage of the camera -- It is a sturdy, well made camera and there are tons of them out there, so you can find a good used one very inexpensively. It is a great starter 4x5 camera. If you want to know what one looks like, it is the camera used in Steve Simmons's "Using the View Camera," Stone's "User's Guide to the View Camera," and in Shaman's introductory view camera book as well. If you try one, you will probably find a lot to like about the camera, and if you decide to sell it someday you will probably get most of what you paid for it.

Wide angle lenses are expensive. You can put your money there and will not really suffer from use of an "inferior" camera. A lot of pros made their money with these cameras over the years before it became the "budget" camera in the Cambo line.

Regarding lenses. Remember that wide angles come in smaller, less expensive, versions with f/8 or f/6.8 maximum apertures. Other than the Nikkor SW 90mm f/8, these have smaller image circles than the more expensive versions with larger maximum apertures. These have maximum apertures of f/4, f/4.5, or f/5.6 depending on the manufacturer and focal length. The larger maximum apertures make it easier to focus in interiors, and the larger image circles are very desireable. Of course, they are bigger, heavier, and more expensive than the small max aperture versions.

I hope this helps.

Dennis Spencer
6-May-2006, 14:42
Thank you Dav Karp for your very well thought out and clearly stated opinion. This among most of the other information, is exactly what I am looking for. I will definitley take your advice and look for a Calumet 45NX.

Thanks to all again for all the information and insights.

David Karp
6-May-2006, 20:44
Dennis,

Other cameras will also do the job and are worth considering. A Sinar F2, for example. Another camera to consider would be an older Arca Swiss, one of the models before the current F-Line.

I suggested the NX because I have more experience with it and know that they are going for dirt cheap lately. The accessories for Cambo cameras are also usually reasonable priced. You will want a short monorail and a bag bellows. There are also a lot of Sinars out there, and if you got a good deal on an F2 you might never change. Others on the board who use them should chime in here. They seem to be going for less now than they used to also.

If you want to know exactly how I feel about the NX, I wrote a review of that camera that you can find on the site's main page.

If you don't like E-Bay, I recommend that you contact Jim at Midwest Photo Exchange in Columbus OH. He is a straight shooter. Every used item I have purchased from him has looked like new, and he even talked me out of buying a camera that he had because after discussing my needs he felt it would not be right for me.

Good luck.

steve simmons
7-May-2006, 10:01
Although I used the Cambo/Calumet monorail that is in the book for many years there were two features I did not like. With very short lenses, I think even a 75mm, I had to reposition both standards on the same side of the tripod block to get the standards close enough (even with a bag bellows). Also, although I accepted it as normal the recessed lens board was sometimes a problem. When I moved to another camera where I could use a flat board and where I did not have to reposition the standards it was a big relief.

Yaw is only a problem if the monorail or the bed of the camera is at an angle. If you level the camera left to right and front to rear yaw will not occur with any camera.

steve simmons

David Karp
7-May-2006, 18:34
Steve is correct. You will have to reposition the standards on both sides of the tripod block with a wide angle lens, even a 90. It seemed more a problem than it actually was once I got going, because I found that I would just set up the camera that way and use it without change because most shots were with the wide lenses. A change to a 150 or a 210 would require resetting the camera with the block between the standards. This is all discussed in my review.

The main idea with this camera from my perspective is that it is a fine camera, and an excellent starter camera. Plus, as I said above, it is unbelievable how inexpensive these cameras have become. There are just a ton of them out there. If you stay in the Cambo system you can use the accessories. If not, you can sell all the stuff for just about what you paid for it.

Kirk Gittings
7-May-2006, 23:29
I completely agree with Steve here.

For reasons I am not quite clear on, Dennis never told us (beyond shooting interiors) what he was really doing which makes this hard.

But my recommendation as a 30 year architectural photographer who has tested dozens of cameras? Never buy a camera where you need recessed lens boards for your wide angle lenses. This is especially true for interiors. Why? In dim light you can't see the aperture scale. I would not touch a camera that required a recessed lens board for even a 47mm much less a 90mm. And have to reposition the standards when you change lenses? Forget it.

Dennis Spencer
8-May-2006, 07:42
My challenge with using the small format camera to photograph architectural interiors is overcoming the distortion inherent with wide angle lens/shots. This level of distortion is unacceptable, especially as I am looking at getting into larger design houses that are into publishing their work. Based on my understanding of the LF cameras, the ability to tilt the frame does remove most of this distortion. So hence my quest to understand this format and to make the investment in the equipment.

Frank Petronio
8-May-2006, 09:01
The LF lenses have less distortion (curved lines and such) but if you are using a super wide on your DSLR the space is still going to look "super wide" on 4x5. It may be better technically, but it will still have the same near-far relationships as your smaller format images. And I think this is what separates the best architectural photographers from the ordinary ones. Being able to describe the space without resorting to a super wide is probably the key.

IMHO, the average focal length used increases as you work your way up the architectural photography hierarchy. And this probably has more to do with convincing or working with better clients (and better architecture) than, say a real estate client that wants it "all in one shot."

Kirk Gittings
8-May-2006, 11:16
Tilts are rarely used in interior photography. Tilting usually creates more problems than it solves. Aside from a few shots looking down at floors for manufacturers or other material suppliers, I am hard pressed to remember ever using tilts on interiors.

Kirk Gittings
8-May-2006, 11:18
Are you talking about raising and lowering the front standard? It is hard to tell what you are describing.

Oren Grad
8-May-2006, 11:26
My challenge with using the small format camera to photograph architectural interiors is overcoming the distortion inherent with wide angle lens/shots.

What exactly do you mean by "distortion"? Is it...

(1) Converging lines in the subject being photographed, caused by tilting the whole camera up or down</br>
(2) Having rectilinear shapes come out looking curved in the picture (e.g., barrel or pincushion distortion)</br>
(3) Unnatural size relationships between foreground and background objects in the picture</br>
(4) Something else (what?)

Each of these problems calls for a different solution.

David Karp
8-May-2006, 13:20
Dennis,

Just to make sure it is clear. I agree. Recessed lensboards are a pain. If you read my review of the NX, that is clear. It is why I recommended a used Sinar F2. I believe that they do not require a recessed board. Similarly, a Cambo 45SF does not require a recessed board. Both cameras are more expensive than the SC/NX. I have replaced my NX with a 45SF and like it.

I learned my likes and dislikes on the 45NX. If only they were as inexpensive when I bought mine as they are now! Using an inexpensive camera like that is a great way to learn LF. Plus - 90mm f/5.6 Super Angulon XL: $1,450. 72mm f/5.6 Super Angulon XL: $1,614. These all new. Used: 90mm f/4.5 Nikkor SW $995. 75MM F/4.5 Nikkor SW $895.00. These lenses are expensive. A used 45NX or SC might cost a couple of hundred dollars, or even less, depending on the condition of the camera. Add the bag bellows, lensboards, and short rail, and maybe the setup costs another $150-$200. The photos with the less expensive and harder to use camera will look the same, so for me the less expensive camera enabled me to afford nice used 90mm and 75mm f/4.5 Grandagon-N lenses that I could not have otherwise afforded. It seems like most people end up changing cameras anyway, so starting cheaper seems a good way to go.

Also, if you don't do that many interiors, an inexpensive camera may be just fine. I used to use a Maglight mini flashlight to illuminate the aperture scale.

Perhaps others can list some additional available view cameras that don't require a recessed board with wide angles.