Architectural Photography and film

[Anthony Lewis]

I am naive about how architectural photography is practised these days.

Is it still feasible to practise archtitectural photography on film or has it all gone digital? It would appear to me that with film we have better wide angle lenses, and better control of movements with a 4x5 neg size than a digital sensor.

We do appear to have good proconsumer scanners on the market now, (Epson 750, the coming microtek M1), for scanning negs/tranny's for most purposes, eg, A4 publications. Obviously for larger sizes, a drum scan would be in order. Would that be a fair comment concerning workflow?

But what does the client want - are they asking for digital capture, or don't they care as long as the delivered result is to their standard?

I am considering my options, and would far prefer to shoot on film as long as it is commercially viable. I need all your expert opinions?

[JW Dewdney]

As one, I say - do what you think is right. Many request digital files - but most are pretty relaxed about how they get it. I consider it my job as a professional to educate clients on why they want it shot on film. The only downside is that, with all the digi-shooters out there, there is a lot of pressure to provide inexpensive scanning. I choose to take pride in shooting film and the quality that film, even scanned film, can provide on several levels. Of course, if the client can't appreciate what film capture has to offer - well, there are digital people out there for them... and would you want them for a client anyway?

My own personal take on it is basically that - any of the higher-end backs require an armload of extra equipment (laptops, power, etc...)and make working MUCH MUCH slower... and many of these, being scanning backs, create a lot of problems with moving objects, of course - the net result is that the number of shots I can provide on a day job goes WAY down using this method (not to mention the prohibitive expense of the better light equipment, etc...!)

[Kirk Gittings]

Overwhelmingly, most clients want digital files, though some magazines still prefer film. Additionally, if you work on site with Polaroids many younger clients will find that "quaint" (and no one here locally stocks Polaroid anymore). The world is changing. I have been shooting ad work for clients in LA that have never seen the building and direct the shoot via emailed Jpeg captures directly out of my tethered computer from a Canon FF DSLR. This seems normal to them. It is a brave new world.

It certainly is possible to still shoot only film, but you will have to have some method of digitizing it by scanning in house or outsourcing the scans. If you are in a major city you have more resources. If you are in a small city like I am you end up doing everything yourself. I got so tired of the endless scanning that I recently bought a full frame Canon setup just so I wouldn't have to do so much scanning. Personally I can be a purist and just shoot film when it comes to my own work, but in the real world of commercial photogaphy............................

[Henry Ambrose]

If you are thinking of starting from scratch, you'll probably be way better off going digital from the beginning. If you already have appropriate 4x5 film gear then maybe not. Its a business decision as much as anything.

And the clincher is -- you do have clients already in hand, don't you? If not you might want to assist someone a while to see how this works. Its not easy.

If your clients want nice big prints it might be that big film is still best. Its fairly easy and cheap to scan and print it yourself without a huge investment over your film gear that you have now, assuming you have it.

If you think you'll work for ad agencies and magazines then they usually don't want anything but a digital file that fits the layout. And they usually want it NOW. That makes digital capture much more appealling for you.

Digital solutions for architecture photography are not fully shaped. You'll have some work arounds to figure out. Especially on the wide end of things.

One way is to have loads of money to throw on the problems - that helps. But even then you'll need to work real hard and regularly to make sense of it. Do you want to buy $50-60,000 worth of specialized gear (that may only last for a 4-5 years) to be able to make that much in a year? How much can you bill after you've spent the money? How much do you have to bill over 3 years to make sense of a purchase of that much gear and still have a house and a car and food on the table?

[Gordon Moat]

Regarding high end digital and architecture photography, there have been a few recent discussions on PDN Forums from an architectural photographer using the Hasselblad H3D and 28mm. There seems to be an odd issue with long exposures. If your technique involves available light and long exposures, you might find that you will need to correct many of your images in post; which would kill the speed advantage. Supposedly PhaseOne backs handle long exposures better, though I would suggest renting prior to investing large sums of cash.

Even in larger cities, you might look into getting your own high end scanning solution. A refurbished flatbed from Creo, Dainippon Screen, Fuji, or older Scitex EverSmart might run at least $6000. Newer machines are $9000 and up. Drum scanners are another option, though prices are similar on refurbished/used gear. Quite often these will require a dedicated older computer to run them. The advantage is in time savings, or in situations when it is tougher to pass on scanning costs to your clients (though you should be charging appropriate rates). I would not even consider using an Epson scanner (except maybe the Expression 10000XL) or anything you could buy through CompUSA. You might also look into Imacon scanners, though it seems that a high end flatbed might be a better choice.

Your clients should not be dictating what camera you use, though they can often want a delivery of image files on CD-R or DVD-R (or sometimes FTP). If you deliver digital image files, it does not matter what you used for captures. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the potential quality of final printed images sourced from 4x5 film, as long as you got a very good scan from that film. If you can meet reasonable deadlines, then film and scanning should not be a problem.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[JW Dewdney]

I personally love the flexibility and freedom that shooting film gives me (relative to digital solutions). I like to think of film as a 'latent capture'. It allows me to reinterpret the result however I want - at whatever resolution I want.

[Neal Shields]

From the number of pictures of buildings that seem to be falling over, that I have seen published lately, I would assume that people are using digital SLRs and the publishers don't seem to mind.

One picture I saw recently of a building, without a square corner to be found, was part of a light meter advertisement.

[David Luttmann]

Kirk,

How are you handling corrections with the Canon? Software based.....T/S lens....or a bit of both?

[JW Dewdney]

From the number of pictures of buildings that seem to be falling over, that I have seen published lately, I would assume that people are using digital SLRs and the publishers don't seem to mind.

One picture I saw recently of a building, without a square corner to be found, was part of a light meter advertisement.

Where are you seeing this stuff published, Neal? I suspect that there is some confusion between 'architectural photography' and 'real estate photography' - and then there's the 'better homes and gardens' type magazine photography - which is, to my mind, only distantly related to architectural photography.

[Kirk Gittings]

David,

Both, I have the 24 and 45 Canon T/S as well as a converted Olympus 35 PC. At the extremes these lenses are not great because of CA primarily, but perfectly acceptable at say f/11 and 3/4 of their movements. So in some cases some barrel distortion, CA and PC may be necessary in PS. It works out. I love film and all my personal work is still film, even personal architecture projects, but I am not going to try and be the one with my darkslide in the dike of the digital tidal wave in commercial architectural photography. Even here locally my competitors like Robert Reck (Architectural Digest) and Nick Merrick (Hedrick Blessing) are shooting DSLR's for local clients.