PDA

View Full Version : How are the new line of architectural cameras going to influence your work?



Gary J. McCutcheon
7-Nov-2008, 22:16
With the advent of new medium format cameras for digital backs such as the Linhof Techno, Sinar Artech, and the latest Arca Swiss (can't remember it's name), how do you see such equipment in your future? I would like to hear from Kirk Gittings with his experience in architectural photography and anyone else who works in this area. Kirk mentioned in another post that he uses his Canon 5D for a large percentage of his work and he said that 4x5 was overkill for much of the work which is only reproduced in magazine pages. My question, is a MF digital back overkill also?

At the price of these cameras and backs, $35,000 plus in most cases, who can justify the cost? Especially if you are trying to make a living? For large prints the quality may be justified, but that's also what large format film is for. I guess I'm curious as to who is doing enough big stuff to justify the cost. Of course, if you are indepedently wealthy and want one of these beautiful machines, that's great. But is there a practical side to this?

Kirk, I would like to hear your input and wisdom on this please. Feel free to move this thread where necessary. I thought it should be in the cameras area.

Frank Petronio
7-Nov-2008, 22:27
I think that in the US, the market for those sorts of higher end cameras is more for building product's advertising and promotion -- than your average penny-pinching architectural firm. Take a look at the ads for Armstrong vinyl flooring and Marvin windows, those are the sorts of ads that require either large format film or high-end medium format, wide angle photography.

They are expensive but so is the wide angle Hasselblad H3 lens.

cjbroadbent
8-Nov-2008, 00:58
Question time.
Does an architectural photographer with a digital back sort out perspective in camera or in post-production?
Does an architectural photographer with a view camera tweak perspective in post-production?
Does an architectural photographer stitch?
What gets lost in the wash?

archivue
8-Nov-2008, 03:58
i just can't buy it... too expensive and not enought work at the moment... quite a difficult domain at the moment over here (france)!
But i can also said that there's a big difference between a leaf aptus mounted on a Arca RM3D using digital lens, and a canon DSIII using TSE... so if i had the money, i will buy a back on the spot !
I still using 4x5 and 6x8 along with a Canon 5D... i will probably buy the 5DII but what i miss the most is a 24 TSE Mark II...

archivue
8-Nov-2008, 04:08
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=26843&mode=linearplus

Gene McCluney
8-Nov-2008, 08:26
If you are shooting with digital back, you can sort out perspective in Photoshop. It is easy.

Miguel Curbelo
8-Nov-2008, 08:37
I am an architectural photographer and switched from 4x5" to a digital back last year. What pushed me to change was the fact that the last pro lab on the island where I live closed down, and I suddenly found myself shipping my transparencies over to mainland Spain for development, so between shooting an assignment and sitting down to select the shots for scanning 8-10 days would elapse. The costs went up as well with courier charges. So, summarizing my experience:

Cost. The upfront costs are not as high as they first seem. I have bought everything second (or third) hand. I use an Alpa XY with 24mm, 35mm and 47mm lenses (that's approx. 17, 25 and 35mm in 35mm terms) and a Leaf Aptus 22 back. If you buy refurbished backs, or even if you contact dealers and negotiate directly, you'll find prices are substantially lower than advertised. I went for the Aptus 22 (22 Megas) because it came with the camera + 35mm lens. The resolution is far from comparable with 4x5", but it is good enough for 90% of my work.


Does an architectural photographer with a digital back sort out perspective in camera or in post-production?

Yes, I sort out perspective in camera, just like with my former Ebony SW.


Does an architectural photographer with a view camera tweak perspective in post-production?

If I had been careless while taking a 4x5" shot I'd tweak the scanned file much as I might tweak a digital file now.


Does an architectural photographer stitch?

Yes. There is a stitching adapter for the Alpa XY which allows you to stitch in camera, you simply shift the digital back horizontally and/or vertically -the lens remains static. This serves two functions: to increase resolution substantially, and to increase your field of view.

Working with a digital back in the field is not any faster than shooting 4x5", and if accidents happen the consequences might be much more onerous than with film, but it does offer some advantages, among them the possibility to experiment freely while shooting an assignment, and go for angles or perspectives I would not have considered before, just because I can check results there and then, and when the light is tricky to go home knowing you got the shot because you could correct any mistakes on the go.


What gets lost in the wash?

In my case, 4x5". The adoption of a digital back has simplified my professional photography, but it has equally pushed me towards larger film formats. I find digital -in my circumstances- has made my life a bit easier, but though I am not dogmatic about it, I still prefer film. So I shoot 11x14 portraits and will soon be investing in a 8x10 camera for those (extremely) rare instances where an architect will be willing to pay for such a project.

cjbroadbent
8-Nov-2008, 09:40
Miguel,
Thanks for the carefully thought-out answer answer to my perspective question. Presumably, shooting towards the edge of the lens circle with a rising front degrades definition a bit. Is this less degrading than when you add (or subtract) pixels with photoshop perspective?
And while we are at it, do you squeeze (subtract) or stretch (add) or do a bit of both?

Gordon Moat
8-Nov-2008, 10:21
I think one of the dangers of going this route is that every image starts getting that wide angle look to it, which might make it tough to separate your images from the rest of the herd. Unfortunately I think the chip physical size is still quite small, which means a small ground glass, or using a more medium format 645 style viewfinder. The approach is somewhat different than using a 4x5, since I find the larger ground glass far easier to use.

Due to the prices and rate of change of the current line of MFDBs, I think renting makes a better option than buying outright. If I had continual heavy use for an MFDB, then I might consider leasing. I don't see where purchase makes sense, unless you have unusual tax deduction methods, or you cannot lease for some reason.

I don't do much architectural imaging, so the newest cameras are not a heavy influence on the way I would produce images in the near future. I am interested in trying some of these, and open to the concepts. Currently for the bulk of work I do, these newer cameras do not fill any immediate need, which is one reason I am working on my own camera design.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Kirk Gittings
8-Nov-2008, 10:22
Question time.
Does an architectural photographer with a digital back sort out perspective in camera or in post-production?
Does an architectural photographer with a view camera tweak perspective in post-production?
Does an architectural photographer stitch?
What gets lost in the wash?

Christopher, I don't the Dbacks on a view camera or MF camera. I only use a DSLR or film and a VC so I can't answer many of your questions. I simply cannot justify the expense of a back or MF system on a 2-3 year cost basis. It makes no sense when the DSLR works fine and pays for itself in a month.

Gary, I use a 5D DSLR with 24,35 (olympus),45 and 90 shift lenses. I use it just like a view camera......always on a tripod, with levels, mirror locked up, cable release, low ISO, very deliberate, slow (but much quicker than using a 4x5) and ever mindful of the limitations of the equipment. I routinely do stitching to build file size or for panoramas (both interiors and exteriors) using just the shift capabilities of the lenses. At 58 with 30+ years in the business, me and my assistant are loving the change, the lighter equipment, the greater flexibility etc. My clients have never been happier or higher profile and my fees have never been higher. I have no reason to change at the moment, just upgrade this fall to a 5DII.

Miguel Curbelo
8-Nov-2008, 11:16
Presumably, shooting towards the edge of the lens circle with a rising front degrades definition a bit.
Yes, it does, but you learn to work within that limitation finding alternative angles, stitching only two shots rather than three, etc


Is this less degrading than when you add (or subtract) pixels with photoshop perspective?
Frankly, I don't know. I try to be careful when shooting, so whatever photoshopping I do is minimal.


do you squeeze (subtract) or stretch (add) or do a bit of both?
Either/both, but as I said before, I try to shoot in such a way as to minimize post processing, so whichever corrective tweaking I have done so far has not been extensive enough for me to find out whether any of them is more detrimental than the other.
Kirk is vastly more experienced than me on this score (and plenty of others), so perhaps he can be more helpful than me on this.


I think one of the dangers of going this route is that every image starts getting that wide angle look to it, which might make it tough to separate your images from the rest of the herd.
Not necessarily, if you stitch using longer lenses you do manage to avoid or at least reduce the wide angle look. It is just more work. On the other hand, architectural photography does impose technical restrictions on your tools, and the wide angle look is to some extent inevitable.

Henry Ambrose
8-Nov-2008, 16:09
I can't imagine buying a $30,000 or 40,000 camera. I guess I'm glad for anyone who can. I've been there, done that and after it wore out I was sad to see it go. If you have a $10,000 yearly lab bill you can make sense of it I suppose but you can also do work that clients are happy to pay for with much less expensive equipment. I find fees to be really sensitive now and don't think that will change soon.

Like Kirk, a 5D does a marvelous job for me. If that's not good enough 4x5 film is. But I've not shot hardly any film for money this year. This is really a business decision I'd think. If you have plenty of work then dive right in. Otherwise use cheaper tools and do more work in post processing. You can exceed a commercially acceptable result either way.

Kirk Gittings
8-Nov-2008, 16:39
If you have a $10,000 yearly lab bill you can make sense of it I suppose

I agree with Henry's observations. In addition, on the point quoted above, that $10,000 lab/film bill becomes for me $10,000 in digital capture and processing fees.....all in-house monies to pay for a reasonably a priced DSLR camera with some decent hourly fees in front of the computer.

In terms of stitching with a DSLR, it is more common than not. I have abandoned a standard frame size in favor of letting each image find its own frame. Here are two examples. The first for a fire door manufacturer with the camera vertical and three side by side stitches by simply racking out the shift right to left creating about a 103 MB file (with some cropping). The other for HOK Sports, camera horizontal and the shift racked left to right creating about a 112 MB 16 bit file and the third for Goetsch similar to number two. All of which could be done (and I have) with a VC and film, but it is much less involved with a DSLR. If you are going to try it, be sure to turn off your Average White Balance as the AWB will shift as you shift your lens and the framed colors change.


do you squeeze (subtract) or stretch (add) or do a bit of both? I'm sorry I don't understand this question.

cjbroadbent
8-Nov-2008, 17:27
Kirk, the elevator is as clean as a whistle!
By squeeze and stretch I mean the Photoshop perspective adjustments which straighten verticals. Since the adjustments use distortion to widen the top of a building or to narrow the bottom (you can choose either or both), presumably you gain or loose a lot of pixels. The pixels you gain are extrapolated; the pixels you lose are gone.
If, however, you are using the "new line of architectural cameras" presumably you would prefer to straighten verticals in camera, trusting the edge resolution of the lense.

Kirk Gittings
8-Nov-2008, 18:05
Christopher, I see what you are asking. Again in terms of DSLR (or scanned film) the larger the native file size in relation to the final print size, the less obvious artifacts are generated by stretching. My rule of thumb when teaching students, who do not have shift lenses, depending on the detail in the stretch area, if you have to stretch it more than 1/3 the width of the frame you will probably generate obvious artifacts (but this is related to native file size vs. final print size as mentioned earlier. This is also related to lens quality sharpening etc.). 1/3 is really not much in terms of trying to correct serious perspective problems so this is not really a viable alternative sometimes. I hope this makes some sense.

Gary J. McCutcheon
8-Nov-2008, 20:03
Thank you very much everyone. Your answers were all right on target and covered the subject well. You have answered all my questions. Any further discussion is of course welcome.

Henry Ambrose
9-Nov-2008, 09:07
Kirk, the elevator is as clean as a whistle!
By squeeze and stretch I mean the Photoshop perspective adjustments which straighten verticals. Since the adjustments use distortion to widen the top of a building or to narrow the bottom (you can choose either or both), presumably you gain or loose a lot of pixels. The pixels you gain are extrapolated; the pixels you lose are gone.
If, however, you are using the "new line of architectural cameras" presumably you would prefer to straighten verticals in camera, trusting the edge resolution of the lense.

And of course, if you're only making a 5x7 inch final print reproduction or for viewing on the web you can stop worrying about artifacts or stitching. Shoot it with a plenty wide lens, make corrections and be done with it. Even fairly large prints look fine done this way up to the capability of the camera's native file size.

Don't get me wrong - I'd like very much to have a high resolution digital camera with movements and a big enough viewer to use them well but I can accomplish many/most commercial objectives without one. Which means I didn't have to spend $40,000 to get my work done well.

I'll even go further that a really excellent 16-20mm shift lens for a Canon would, for me, negate the need for a high end digital camera/back with movements. By excellent I mean capable of the same flatness and low/no distortion as a fine view camera lens.

My primary objection to what I have to work with now is the slight pincushion or barrel distortion. Its correctable in PS but not quite. If my 4x5 film scans are at 10 the very best I can squeeze out of my Canon is a 9 - same subject - sometimes maybe an 8. But 8-9 is way plenty good for most things. I'd be happier knowing I was at 10 instead of 9.

For way less than $40,000 some lens maker should be able to make a line of truly fine DSLR shift lenses. I can imagine an 18, 24, 35 (or maybe better 16, 20, 28 - something like that) at $2,000 - $2500 each. I'd buy that set right now. The Canon 24TS isn't bad but without a full set of focal lengths I'm working around in cludge mode.

I shoot exposure brackets on almost every set-up and very often 3 shot stitches for coverage. My jobs end up being as much post production time in PS as time on location. I could cut that by at least half if I had a set of lenses that covered. At $40,000 it means all the money would go to the camera makers. Not spending it means I do more work. Which I guess is how the world is set up - I do more work, I get more money. If anyone here can figure out a way around that please tell me.
:D

Kirk Gittings
9-Nov-2008, 09:56
"If you are shooting with digital back, you can sort out perspective in Photoshop. It is easy."
Does this cause any problems with clients or HABS/HAER or similar?

Most architectural photography is a kind of advertising photography rather than documentary and the distortion from very wide lenses like near far exaggeration, or dramatic lighting etc. is all about what I call providing an "enhanced experience" of the building. The romanticism of architecture. This is also why we avoid photographing the flaws. HABS/HAER is all about documentation and reality. They still do not accept anything but film and contact prints for the central documentation (though I understand a "test" digital submission is in the works now). With H/H work I avoid very wide angle lenses, because I want to minimize distortion.

Dave Aharonian
9-Nov-2008, 10:08
Most of my commercial work is architectural photography, and while I would love to shoot with a digital back on a view camera or a Horseman/Alpa type, I, like Kirk, simply can't justify the cost. If I shot a high enough volume perhaps it would make sense, but about 6 months ago I looked into what it would take to set up such a system and it made no sense based on cost. Digital back, new camera, a new set of lenses, all adding up to about $35,000 at least.

I use a canon 1dsMII - soon to be a 5DII - with a Canon 24mmT/S lens and the Canon 24-70mm zoom. I do a bit of stitching but not a lot so far. My biggest beef like others have mentioned, is barrel distortion from these lenses. It can be corrected a bit but not completely. It actually bothers me a lot, because when you look at a chrome shot on 4x5 all the lines are perfectly straight - done in camera. I've discussed this with my clients and not one of them has said its an issue. So, based on that, there's simply no reason for me to make that kind of financial investment in gear - even if the photo geek in me would love to!

Don Dudenbostel
9-Nov-2008, 10:51
Most of my commercial work is architectural photography, and while I would love to shoot with a digital back on a view camera or a Horseman/Alpa type, I, like Kirk, simply can't justify the cost. If I shot a high enough volume perhaps it would make sense, but about 6 months ago I looked into what it would take to set up such a system and it made no sense based on cost. Digital back, new camera, a new set of lenses, all adding up to about $35,000 at least.

I use a canon 1dsMII - soon to be a 5DII - with a Canon 24mmT/S lens and the Canon 24-70mm zoom. I do a bit of stitching but not a lot so far. My biggest beef like others have mentioned, is barrel distortion from these lenses. It can be corrected a bit but not completely. It actually bothers me a lot, because when you look at a chrome shot on 4x5 all the lines are perfectly straight - done in camera. I've discussed this with my clients and not one of them has said its an issue. So, based on that, there's simply no reason for me to make that kind of financial investment in gear - even if the photo geek in me would love to!

I do a good bit of architectural work for both commercial contractors and architects. I also shoot most with my canon 1DsII and 24 tse and 16-35 lenses but will use 4x5 or larger as needed. In reality todays market doesn't demand the same standard of work as it did 40 years ago when I started this business. That doesn't mean I've relaxed my standards but I do understand there is still a need for the premium work and then there is a need for less elaborate work. All hinges on budgets and the final application. My clients as a rule have given my the power to make the choice whether film or digital. Most jobs are digital but there are some that are best done on film. MY clients say you are the expert so you make the decision.

I'm old school and want to deliver the best to my clients that I can given time and budget. I do everything up front in camera and only tweak things in photoshop. Perspective is in camera, exposure and color balance as far as is possible in camera. Perspective control in PS equates to interpolation of pixels and a drop in quality. All files are raw and edited in 16 bit. Crop in camera as much as possible. Work from a stable tripod with mirror up and electronic cable. Work at optimum apertures and bracket and blend as needed.

Miguel Curbelo
9-Nov-2008, 14:11
I shoot exposure brackets on almost every set-up and very often 3 shot stitches for coverage. My jobs end up being as much post production time in PS as time on location. I could cut that by at least half if I had a set of lenses that covered. At $40,000 it means all the money would go to the camera makers. Not spending it means I do more work. Which I guess is how the world is set up - I do more work, I get more money. If anyone here can figure out a way around that please tell me.

Digital back + dedicated architectural camera outfits are indeed expensive, certainly so in a context where DSLR output is regarded as acceptable, but to put things into perspective: 22 meg backs are currently cheaper (both refurbished and new) than a Canon 1DSIII body, and second hand MF lenses are not necessarily much more expensive than top DSLR glass. I paid a total of $20,000 for my back + body + 3 lenses outfit.
MF also offers advantages that are worth considering: with MF lenses barrel distorsions are a non-issue and post processing in general is less time consuming given the combination of superior image quality + in camera corrections, and the image quality alone of a MF back opens up opportunities for other projects for which a DSLR would be inadequate (assuming, obviously, that you choose not to work with film).
Anecdotically, in some cases MF can work faster than a DSLR: recently I was hired to photograph the reforms undertaken in a local hotel; the images were to be used in the hotel website and I thought I'd do the job with my DSLR. Soon I discovered I could take certain shots with my digital back that provided me, once cropped, with two or three -occasionally even four- images that were good enough for the use intended.
I'm sorry, I digress.
Essentially, DSLRs can do the work, and they are cheaper, but MF outfits are not necessarily in a different galaxy pricewise and they offer better image quality for less postprocessing work.

Don Dudenbostel
9-Nov-2008, 17:03
MF digital is getting cheaper for sure. Calumet is selling the Hasselblad H3DII without a lens but with the 31mp back for $15,999. Big drop from a couple of months ago. The mamyia digital with 22mp back but no lens is $9,999 all new equipment. Used is now down in the range of a new 1DsIII. One thing about the MF is the lack of easy TS lenses. DSLR 35 format have the advantage of a very wide array of superb glass too.

archivue
9-Nov-2008, 17:11
The Leica S2 will have a shift lens... best of both worlds for a big amount of cash !

Don Dudenbostel
9-Nov-2008, 18:07
No one knows how the S2 will perform. So far IMO Leica has struck out on digital. Don't get me wrong, I've been a dedicated Leica shooter for 40 years but they aren't even in the running in the digital world. We'll see how the S2 pans out. Even if the S2 is a great camera i don't think I would invest in a system from a company on the edge of financial ruins. Hasselblad has a TS adapter but it's awkward and expensive.

For my applications the FF DSLR's with TS lenses work fine for general all around work. Too many great lenses for so many applications with great flexibility for 90% of my work. The other 10% is done with film. I really think digital is a fantastic thing for commercial photography. Consider the ability to handle mixed lighting with much more ease then ever before. No reciprocity and superb high ISO performance. Extremely fast lenses and a range of focal lengths unlike any other system. 35 DSLR's aren't the solution for everything but the come closer to a universal camera than anything I've used in 42 years.

archivue
9-Nov-2008, 18:23
come closer to a universal camera...

unless you need large prints !

Don Dudenbostel
9-Nov-2008, 19:14
come closer to a universal camera...

unless you need large prints !

just my opinion but top of the line DSLRs are closer to being universal cameras than anything in the film world. When my dslr isn't enough then I fall back to film. Just my thoughts.

mccormickstudio
10-Nov-2008, 12:09
It sounds like many here are shooting perspective correction with Canon equipment. I've been something of a Nikon loyalist and am considering stepping up to the D700 with 24 & 45mm pc lenses. Has anyone compared the D700 & Nikon pc's directly with the Canon 5D and their pc lenses? What are the pros & cons of each system?

Thanks

Kirk Gittings
10-Nov-2008, 12:12
I've done a half assed comparison of the 24s. The Nikon is slightly better. Enough better that if I was buying into a system for architectural photography, I would buy Nikon, but not enough to switch if you are already invested in Canon.

Don Dudenbostel
10-Nov-2008, 12:42
I haven't seen a Nikkor 24 tilt shift but my canon certainly has it's share of chromatic aberrations and barrel distortion. Despite this it's easy to correct in the lens tools of CS3 and the lens does produce darn good images. I regularly enlarge them to 24x36 inches.

archivue
10-Nov-2008, 13:22
if it was to do it again, i will wait for the next Nikon 21mp or similar...
But having start with Canon and two TSE lenses, i will stick with canon, and probably upgrade to the 5D Mark II... but i'm waiting to see how does it work with tilt and shift...

But for a start, choosing between a 5D II 21mp + TSE or D700 + PC-E... i think i will go for the nikon, NX2 is a good software, i prefer nikon colors, PC-E are a little bit better, and everything seems to be better build.

I prefer to work with my arca swiss over the 5D, but maybe the live view can help a little...

sanking
10-Nov-2008, 20:56
Good point about file size. I have worked a lot over the past several years with faily high resolution scans of 6X7cm and 6X9cm files, with file size in the 60-120 mp range. With this size file I have found it possible to do rather extensive perspective control, quite a bit more than the 1/3 width area Kirk mentions, not surprising perhaps since my file sizes are at least 4X more than what one would get with the best DSLR with file size of 20 mp or so.

My route is probably not a viable professional path because it involves scanning, but for high quality results, when one has the time, it works.

Sandy King




Christopher, I see what you are asking. Again in terms of DSLR (or scanned film) the larger the native file size in relation to the final print size, the less obvious artifacts are generated by stretching. My rule of thumb when teaching students, who do not have shift lenses, depending on the detail in the stretch area, if you have to stretch it more than 1/3 the width of the frame you will probably generate obvious artifacts (but this is related to native file size vs. final print size as mentioned earlier. This is also related to lens quality sharpening etc.). 1/3 is really not much in terms of trying to correct serious perspective problems so this is not really a viable alternative sometimes. I hope this makes some sense.

Kirk Gittings
11-Nov-2008, 07:35
Sandy, I think I learned that from a discussion with you awhile back and tried it myself.

Michael Mutmansky
11-Nov-2008, 11:27
I think there are two factors in this that weigh in Sandy. B&W vs. color could be a considerable impact, as color smear may be much more noticeable than B&W grain smear. I think the tolerance for smear would be much higher in B&W for this reason.

Also the reproduction ratio is a factor as well, but I think that this is implicit in the conversation. It hasn't been explicitly discussed, however.

One other thought is the minimum amount of information needed to express minute details in an image. A line or building corner needs a certain minimum amount of 'pixels' to be expressed properly, and the larger the file, the greater the amount of data that is actually used to express minute details. So when the interpolation (smearing) happens, it is much less noticable in a situation where the data exceeds the minimum amount necessary to express a minute detail.

I think this is functionally the main reason that the file size permits much more manipulation.

sanking
11-Nov-2008, 13:15
Michael,

Your points are well taken, both as regards reproduction ratio and the greater latitude with B&W film compared to color.

In fact, I am aware of someone who did have some trouble with perspective control artifacts in having very large color prints (30X40 inches) made from scans of Mamiya 7 negatives where quite a bit of perspective control was applied. I have personally not seen any such artifacts, either with color or B&W, but I rarely print from MF negatives larger than 20X24.

Sandy

David A. Goldfarb
11-Nov-2008, 18:47
Aside from the issue of perspective control artifacts, I think it would be important that you can only easily correct something like a simple building facade either with Photoshop perspective transformation, which is the equivalent of tilting the enlarging easel, or using rear tilt and/or swing. It's a powerful tool, but it won't fix everything. When a tall structure has surfaces at different distances that need to be square, it's just easier to use front rise.

I had a chance to play a bit with the ArTec, Techno, and the Alpa at Photoplus. They're all fantastic cameras, and the choice among them (and the Cambo Wide DS) would surely be one of individual working preference. Myself, I liked the ruggedness and smooth control of the Techno, and the fact that it's a bellows camera that can handle lenses as long as 210mm without requiring helical mounted lenses. In some ways it's like one of the non-folding Ebony 2x3" cameras, but with the rigidness and precision of a metal camera.

Henry Ambrose
11-Nov-2008, 19:34
I'd love to have such a beast. Camera movements are definitely to be preferred to PS especially in the situations David describes.

But I think I read the new Rodenstock lenses for those cameras are in the neighborhood of $7,000.00 each. That is scary.

sanking
11-Nov-2008, 20:21
Clearly the superior method of doing perspective control is in the camera, whether it be a view camera or another type with shift lenses. However, it is pretty remarkable what one can do with a Photoshop if you have a large file to work with. I actually started doing perspective control in Photoshop on 5X7 negatives that I made with a view camera with limited movements. I was pretty cautious at first but when working with a file of a 5X7 negative scanned at 2400 spi in 16 bit grayscale you have a file of about 115 mp so it is hard to do much damage.

Sandy King




I'd love to have such a beast. Camera movements are definitely to be preferred to PS especially in the situations David describes.

But I think I read the new Rodenstock lenses for those cameras are in the neighborhood of $7,000.00 each. That is scary.

archivue
12-Nov-2008, 01:42
But I think I read the new Rodenstock lenses for those cameras are in the neighborhood of $7,000.00 each. That is scary.
it's much cheaper for arca swiss R...

http://www.galerie-photo.net/contents/fr/d178.html

Bob Salomon - HP Marketing
12-Nov-2008, 04:09
I'd love to have such a beast. Camera movements are definitely to be preferred to PS especially in the situations David describes.

But I think I read the new Rodenstock lenses for those cameras are in the neighborhood of $7,000.00 each. That is scary.

No, they will not be in that price range. But the price has not been released yet. As soon as the factory ships the prices will be available.

Henry Ambrose
12-Nov-2008, 05:20
Yes, Sandy I do that as well. Sometimes I miss the precise corrections in camera and then tweak the scan to make it exact. But the thing that is difficult in PS is what David referred to - simultaneous corrections of more than one object in the scene.

The other thing to keep in mind is that, more often than not, commercial files aren't going to be printed really large. I find that clients rarely ask for that. So corrections in PS done on a DSLR file are of no consequence for an 11X14 on the office wall. And of no consequence in small reproductions.

I see a tendency here to think that everything we shoot needs to be able to be printed at 3 or 4 feet tall. Sometimes it might and extra large might be your personal preference but I find in the strictly commercial world little call for such extremes. Its natural that if you're using a large format camera that you'd want to exploit its every capability. I share that yearning. But again, in commercial work there's not so much demand.

Bob, its nice to hear that those new lenses may not be hyper priced. How about you talk them into some great shift lenses for DSLRs?

adrian tyler
12-Nov-2008, 05:27
i held off the temptation to get into mfdb/dslr as i heard that nikon where designing a new set of pc lenses a year or so back, the 24, 45 and 85. kirk has pretty much gone over the flexibility that these types of systems offer so i'd just like to add that the new 24 pc-e is good, although i tend to use it at f11 as it is visibly better there, and the 45 pc-e is excellent f11-f5.6 are all superb.

the whole dilema of the mfdb scenario and the entire new camera system it implied was just too expensive for the "benefits" it provided, if i happen to come into a mf digital back in the future i would certainly use it on my hasselblad V system as the nikon d3 is more than good enough for all my commercial projects.

probably not what bob wants to hear, but you need a studio/bank account lot of clout to justifiy the alternative.

Bob Salomon - HP Marketing
12-Nov-2008, 10:24
Yes,
Bob, its nice to hear that those new lenses may not be hyper priced. How about you talk them into some great shift lenses for DSLRs?

They are supposed to be available next year. But they would not be able to replace a digital view camera as you would still not have back movements with a DSLR unless you used a camera system like the Wista body that accepts DSLR, 35mm SLR and MF cameras and view camera lenses.

The Rodenstocks DSLR lenses that are announced are a 40mm, 80mm and a 120mm macro. The 40 will be a 4.0, the 80 will be a 2.8 and the 120 will be a 4.0.

There was a press release about these on Luminous Landscape after Photokina.

Gary J. McCutcheon
12-Nov-2008, 19:51
Bob,
Explain the Wista body that accepts the DSLR, 35mm, and MF cameras and view camera lenses please. Where can I see one of these? The Wista site doesn't show it unless I missed it. Can you give me someplace to look.

Thanks

Bob Salomon - HP Marketing
13-Nov-2008, 03:27
Bob,
Explain the Wista body that accepts the DSLR, 35mm, and MF cameras and view camera lenses please. Where can I see one of these? The Wista site doesn't show it unless I missed it. Can you give me someplace to look.

Thanks

It is a flexible bellows called the Technical Rail II. It accepts, with adapters, various camera bodies at the back and Linhof Technika lens boards in front.

Henry Ambrose
13-Nov-2008, 05:16
snipped...
The Rodenstocks DSLR lenses that are announced are a 40mm, 80mm and a 120mm macro. The 40 will be a 4.0, the 80 will be a 2.8 and the 120 will be a 4.0.


Bob,

Those won't be much on a full frame 35mm format DSLR. I'd need something like a three lens set in 16, 20, 28mm or 18, 24, 35mm. That is the need not filled. I don't care what the maximum aperture is as they'll be used at f11 and 16 most of the time.

Allen in Montreal
23-Dec-2008, 06:55
Kirk, Sandy and all,

I have just read this thread in full as I have a client who has requested a 120 meg file of the exterior of their building. This not the type of work I generally do but I have shot the site for them once before on my 5d. They are a very good client, my assignments are normally the staff, not the structure.

Having never stitched, is it an easily learned process or should I stick to the tried and true for this exception and shoot film? I must deliver in the first week of Jan 09.

Your thoughts on this are appreciated.