Architecture: LF film vs. 35mm digital capture

[Michael S. Briggs]

Dave, do you use the Better Light back or a 22 MP back in the field? How long does the Better Light back take to make an exposure, or the 16 shot mode of the 22 MP backs? What happens if there are moving people in the scence? Or if there is a wind moving leaves?

[David Luttmann]

Michael,

I've had the pleasure of using the Better Light 3 times for some architectural work. Only had the chance for the Hassy & Imacon setup once.

The Better Light setup I used was a model 6000. It provides an uninterpolated 48MP image (6000 x 8000 pixels). This provides a 200 DPI 32 x 40 print and 16 x 20's have to be downrezzed to 300DPI for Light Jet output. The exposure time I used was 1/60 sec scan line, and if I remember correctly, the full exposure was approx 55 seconds. This compares favorably with shooting an 8x10 chrome at f32 or f45. As I only shot arch & landscape, I had no issues with movement. However, if a person was moving through the scence, you end up with smearing.....but once again, much like a long exposure on 8x10 chromes.

I preferred the Hassey & Imacon setup. I've used it only once. Single shot capture gives stellar results for the 16 x 20's I output to my Epson 7600. The 16 shot mode provides resolution that exceeded my 4 x 5 loaded with Provia or Delta 100.

These back have their niche. Just like I wouldn't have an 8x10 Deadorf for a sporting event, I wouldn't use a scan back for my wedding photography. But for arch work, they can't be beat!

[Kirk Gittings]

Michael,

Much moves in 55 seconds in daylight. There would not be a sharp tree anywhere in even a slight breeze and even tall buildings sway enough in a medium breeze to create a problem. I don't no where you shoot but this would suck here in the SW. That 55 seconds would be unacceptable. Comparing it to an 8x10 chrome is pointless, who seriously shoots arch. with 8x10 chrome?

I was never talking about niches. I am interested in what works for ass-busting day-in day-out architectural photography.

As for costs, since we went over to scanning film our film costs have been cut by 3/4! And we scan inhouse on a $600.0 scanner and charge a descent fee for the scans. So for a minimal investment we have greatly increased our margin yet we have none of the issues associated with going fully digital.

You didn't answer the question about lenses. How big is the capture area and what then becomes an equivilent lens to a 90mm on 4x5?

I say again. "I'm talking here about real world architectural photography. I've made my living doing this since 1978. I am open to new ideas. My methods have changed dramatically over the years, but digital capture has to give something better or equal to what I have now and at a reasonable cost."

[David Luttmann]

Hi Kirk,

I know quite a few who shoot with 8x10 chromes. However, even with 4x5, interior shots can run rather long. If what you want is the day in day work, then you'd do fine with a 22MP back on a 4x5 camera or MF camera with TS lenses. And by the way, arch photography is a niche.

The issues you point out going with digital are hardly negative. A 22MP back can for advertising and general arch work match that of 4x5. A $600 scanner will not be able to compare. Shooting 3 packs of 4x5 chrome a month, when development costs are figured, means that most of these 22MP backs can be amortized over 3 years with depreciation. Remember, the large agencies are putting the smaller ones that use film out of business when you factor in workflow & time.

The capture area on the Better Light turns your 90mm lens in to about 110-115mm. Not a huge difference that can't be easily compensated for.

When it comes to quality, the high end digital systems surpass film. However, you know your workflow better than anyone. If you can't depreciate the costs and justify them, then it may not be for you. While I have played with these backs, I still shoot film in my 4x5 camera. However, a lot of small jobs that don't require anything more than 8x10 or 11x14 I find better & cheaper results with my 1DS. As well, many jobs that used to require 4x5 for perspective control are done just as well with digital or MF cameras and using adjustments in Photoshop.

If your arch work has trees, etc in the wind, then a scan back like Better Light might not be for you. The Imacon however, could be. A lot of my work is interior, where movement is a non-issue. With that, the latest 48MP or 85MP scan backs will give you quality that exceeds an 8x10 chrome.....just make sure you've got acres of hard drive space!

Cheers,

[simon warren]

Hi Guys

I had a call from Sinar UK today. Apparently Architectural photography is the last sticking point when it comes to digital. They know of all the problems and are working on it! They say that they will have wider lenses with more coverage by 2006.

[Kirk Gittings]

There is so much eronious information in your post that I don't know where to start.

"As well, many jobs that used to require 4x5 for perspective control are done just as well with digital or MF cameras and using adjustments in Photoshop. "

I am sorry. This is nonsense. Have you actually tested this in side by side comparisons? I have and perspective correction in PS is only acceptable if the "stretch" is less than 1/3rd of the width of the frame. More stretch would be a common place necessity. Beyond that 1/3 you don't get detail but strange artifacts substituting for detail.

"the Better Light turns your 90mm lens in to about 110-115mm. Not a huge difference that can't be easily compensated for"

I wonder what you do for a living. When you are shooting interiors the difference between 90mm and 115mm is huge. And yes you can strip images together but none of this is as good or as time or cost effective as doing it right in the field.

"While I have played with these backs"

Why are you arguing a point on backs that you have only played with? Because of my long relationship with Calumet I have the opportunity to demo all of this stuff as much as I like with my arch. photo students at the Art Institute of Chicago. I took last year off to finish a couple of books and I will do it again this year. So it has been two years since I demoed the new digital stuff but.....My friends at Calumet have warned me for my class "not to expect much that impacts architectural photography" What do you know that many experts in the field don't?

Here is yet one more good example from Simon:

"I had a call from Sinar UK today. Apparently Architectural photography is the last sticking point when it comes to digital. They know of all the problems and are working on it! They say that they will have wider lenses with more coverage by 2006."

[David Luttmann]

Kirk,

Although you say you're open to new technology, I can tell by your post that you're actually quite hostile towards it.

To start, a lot of perpective control needs only minor adjustment....thus PS is sufficient. That said, there is nothing forcing you to use the MF body. Go ahead and mount the back to a LF and get full perspective control. Problem solved.....next.

Just to show you how easy it would be to compensate for the 110 mm vs 90mm....go put on a 75mm instead and voila....problem fixed. Or couldn't you figure that out? If you find it so difficult to compensate for the lens adjustment.....well, I'm not sure what to say. There would be no need to stitch (not strip) images together. The wide lenses that Calumet would be referring to are in the 40mm to 55mm replacement region. ....not in the 90mm as that is just not all that wide to start with.

I'm sorry you're so hostile towards this. It only took a few times of playing with these backs to realize that the writing is on the wall. I'm glad you're friends at Calumet are so confident that digital will not impact arch photography .....they are in the overwhelming minority.

Keep using film. As I said, you know your workflow and needs better than anyone. But please, don't come up with silly arguments like there is a huge difference between 90 and 110 that can't seem to be compensated for. At least now after reading my post, you'll know how.

After all this Kirk, it seems obvious that the big issues you have with digital capture are only issues to you. I've answered your perpective and lens questions. View Camera has an excellent update on these backs(with the exception of Better Light) in this months issue. One line in there is quite telling. When asked what kind of people are buying and using these backs, on manufacturer responded that "they are the ones putting small studios like yours that use film out of business." While this would appear to be a slight exageration to me.....I think there is a portion of truth to it.

Use whatever works for you....but please, if I can tell that the writing is already on the wall for LF film....an accomplished pro like yourself should admit it as well.

All the best,

[Kirk Gittings]

Sorry, I've been out of town, practicing my aniquated art, in Sacramento shooting.

It is always interesting when information is posted that seems to lack real world experience to Google someones name and see what you come up with. Sometimes you don't find a single reference to someone outside of forum contributions. What is the significance of that? Hmmm.....

I have no doubt that many of you know what you are talking about when it comes to digital in general and that you know considerably more than I do about digital. We are not talking hear in general. When it comes to its application to architectural photography today, right now, no one keeps up more with technological developements than I do. Why? because I have to. Amongst other things because I teach this subject at two leading Universities and many private workshops. Many of my students even work primarily in digital. But it is my responsiblity to know what is out there and what works i.e. what students and would be professsionals should spend their precious funds on, now.

One of the standards for arch. photography is the Historic American Buildings Survey (whose repository is the Library of Congress. They recently revised their standards and guess what? The minimum standards are 4x5 b&w processed archivally. No digital.

I continue to do work for the leading arch. magazines. All the magazines that I work for prefer film and will only take digital if nothing else is available. Some magazines like Arch. Digest will still not accept digital at all.

Though I agree the handwriting is clearly on the wall with digital. The issue is digital today? Not digital next year? It is clearly not there yet for my profession. Next year may be different.

[Roger Scott]

I'm only an amateur so I don't need to worry about workflow and although I don't do a lot of architectural photography I personally prefer the look of film to digital. The texture of brickwork, subtle contrast changes between adjacent faces in bits of clay yet continuous tonality on rounded surfaces are all IMHO better represented with film than 35mm digital (the subject comparison of this topic). I'm not able to afford even one of the MF digital backs but all other things being equal something like Provia will resolve at worst 60 lines/mm which if you do the math equates to 185MP in 4x5 format. At its best it's 140 lines/mm which is over 1GP - there has to be something there which even the best digital conversion isn't picking up. Either that or the datasheets are wrong.

[David Luttmann]

Kirk, I'm busy enough without needing a website. And as to googling, my work is done in business name. Have fun with that. To quote you below,

"When it comes to its application to architectural photography today, right now, no one keeps up more with technological developements than I do. Why? because I have to."

Now for someone who is so up to date,

"I did look at these a couple of years ago. There are many questions to be answered? How big is the capture surface. How wide a lens do you need to use then to equal a 90 and 75 on 4x5? Do the sensors suffer from noise because of the angle of light at the corners? Do you need to be teathered? Is this a 25,ooo.oo investment that will be obsolete in 3 years?"

Now how can you be up to date, and yet not have used them in a couple of years. As well, someone who has used them would not be asking such basic questions as lens coverage, noise, etc, etc.

I suggest you you go out and try these units before googling names.....the wrong ones at that! All the hypothectical reasoning will not replace real world use with this gear....which based on the questions you posed, you obviously lack.....whether or not you have a website.

I'm done here....all the best.