PDA

View Full Version : View Camera-Architectural Photography



Kirk Gittings
21-Jul-2006, 08:30
FYI

It is intertesting to note in the July-August VC issue on architectural photography how many photographers are shooting Fuji color negative films as their primary films when scanning. Half of the AIA award winners and the Elliot Kaufman portfolio is all shot on color negs. This is typical in the industry when photgraphers are still shooting film and confirms a workflow that I have been teaching and advocating for some time. While I know many of the "big boys" like Hedrich Blessing are still shooting transparencies, a color negative/scanning workflow has become commonplace. This is because of the greater scale and latitude of the films, flexbility in the scanning processes and lower film costs (less bracketing). A few years ago it was hard to find a lab who knew how to scan color negs and now it is commonplace and even easy to do it at a professional level yourself, in-house, as I do.

Jorge Gasteazoro
21-Jul-2006, 08:47
I guess color correction is not such a big deal now with PS, or do you guys still use all those colored films to cover windows, etc to correct the color of the interiors?
I know I am going to get flamed by the erudites, but I still like Architectural Digest for architectural photography.


FYI

It is intertesting to note in the July-August VC issue on architectural photography how many photographers are shooting Fuji color negative films as their primary films when scanning. Half of the AIA award winners and the Elliot Kaufman portfolio is all shot on color negs. This is typical in the industry when photgraphers are still shooting film and confirms a workflow that I have been teaching and advocating for some time. While I know many of the "big boys" like Hedrich Blessing are still shooting transparencies, a color negative/scanning workflow has become commonplace. This is because of the greater scale and latitude of the films, flexbility in the scanning processes and lower film costs (less bracketing). A few years ago it was hard to find a lab who knew how to scan color negs and now it is commonplace and even easy to do it at a professional level yourself, in-house, as I do.

Ron Marshall
21-Jul-2006, 09:06
I tried Fuji Pro 160 S for the first time on a recent trip to Yosemite, along with my standard Astia, and I was very surprised and impressed by the image quality. I was particularly impressed by how well it scanned and by the lack of grain.

Except in very flat lighting it is now my standard color film.

Michael Mutmansky
21-Jul-2006, 11:15
Jorge,

The gelling is not done by too many people anymore. The newer films are much better handling mixed lighting conditions, especially NPS and now the new 160S (hopefully). I just did a side-by-side test of the NPS and 160S to see if there are any major changes to using the new fim; I hope not, as I liked the NPS a lot.

After seeing the architectural photography talk at the VC Conference, I decided I needed to revisit the Kodak slide film offerings, in particular EPN. It's been a while since I tested them, and the slide films I'm currently using weren't around when I did the comparison (Astia 100F and sometimes Velvia 100F). But I don't think I'll be departing from the NPS/160S for the print film. It just works too well for me.

As for Architectural Digest... I'm a lighting designer by training, so I am sensitive to the fabricated lighitng that is overused in Architectural Digest. Basically, what you see is so far from the visual reality of the space shown, and while that may be great for an interiors magazine (which AD primarily is), I don't think it makes an appropriate representation of the architecture of the spaces. They sure do look pretty, though.

---Michael

sanking
21-Jul-2006, 12:20
FYI

It is intertesting to note in the July-August VC issue on architectural photography how many photographers are shooting Fuji color negative films as their primary films when scanning. Half of the AIA award winners and the Elliot Kaufman portfolio is all shot on color negs. This is typical in the industry when photgraphers are still shooting film and confirms a workflow that I have been teaching and advocating for some time. While I know many of the "big boys" like Hedrich Blessing are still shooting transparencies, a color negative/scanning workflow has become commonplace. This is because of the greater scale and latitude of the films, flexbility in the scanning processes and lower film costs (less bracketing). A few years ago it was hard to find a lab who knew how to scan color negs and now it is commonplace and even easy to do it at a professional level yourself, in-house, as I do.

This makes a lot of sense to me. I have adopted the color negative/scanning route for virtually all of my work in medium format. The advantages are greater choice of emulsions in 220 size, the potential to go either monochrome or color in the final print, and the ability to drop one or more of the color layers to allow for better rendition of tonal values and control of grain.

Sandy King

QT Luong
21-Jul-2006, 13:01
In the whole SF Bay area, there are now only two E6 labs left (New Lab and Calypso). When asked at one of the other large lab why they do only C41, they explaned that there is almost no demand for E6 in professional work, because C41 is so much easier to shoot.

Leonard Evens
21-Jul-2006, 13:11
I must say that, as an amateur, I am glad to hear this. I've always used color negative film, but I was worried that at some point I might find it hard to find a lab which would process it.

tim atherton
21-Jul-2006, 13:18
Kinda the opposite here - all the pro labs have stopped processing C41 sheet film but still do E6...

Ted Harris
21-Jul-2006, 13:20
Interesting, I have noted in some other parts of the country that labs are dumping their C41 lines and keeping E6.

I suppose I am one of the holdouts who will continue to shoot mostly transparency film, in part because 1) I have a lot of it in the freezer and 2) my emulsion choices drop from many in E6 to two in C41 that are available in 5x7/13x18 ... Portra 160 NC and 100 T. I suppose I will eventually have to switch and I do recognize the benefits but for the moment I will use up my stock of Astia and Provia and RSXII.

JW Dewdney
21-Jul-2006, 13:45
I've been shooting color negs (NPS & NPL) since about 1996 for exactly these reasons. I learned that from Paul Warchol. Using transparencies and gels just seemed penny wise and pound-foolish. It made no sense to me, especially when the Fuji film could do the job probably better than I could and the result is I could get WAY more shots in. I think my clients preferred that. Back then - I'd concentrate my output on C prints for architects, and if a transparency was needed I'd get VPFs made. You'd lose a tiny bit - but it was still good for repro purposes - and allowed you to fine tune color-correction before submission. But I've been pretty much just scanning since about 99 or so. Trasparencies are ARCHAIC in my opinion.

Don Bryant
21-Jul-2006, 15:34
I guess color correction is not such a big deal now with PS, or do you guys still use all those colored films to cover windows, etc to correct the color of the interiors?
I know I am going to get flamed by the erudites, but I still like Architectural Digest for architectural photography.Jorge,

The beauty of the Fuji Color films is is ability to be used in mixed lighting situation (mixtures of color temperatures.)

There was an article about this in a VC Arch. issue several years ago. IOW, it's not so much about scanning in PS as it is about the inherent qualities of this film.

Don Bryant

Kirk Gittings
21-Jul-2006, 20:53
Jorge,
Yes we no longer gel lights. I continued to carry the gels for years until I realized that they were obsolete.
Architectural Digest is really about celebrity interior design. There is little about architecture in it and most houses in it are owned by celebrities of one sort or another. I for one do not consider it the pinnacle of the industry, but a popular celeb kind of magazine. The images are first class though, if you like that kind of work, stylish and emotionally distant.