Is large format overkill for informative Web site?

[walter23]

My wife and I are in the planning stages for producing a Web site for a historic district in our neighborhood. I plan to shoot photos of the area, but am thinking that using my 4x5 would be overkill, since the images are for the Web only.
I have access to an Olympus DSLR for the project.
Should I use my 4x5, or just use the DSLR? I'm thinking that for photos of homes, I would use the view camera for perspective correction.

There's more to large format than resolution, as others have probably pointed out.

[neil poulsen]

You can also correct for barrel and pincushion distortion in CS2 Photoshop. In fact, all "view camera" related adjustments are in the same window. That includes distortion, perspective (vertical lines), vignetting (light or dark corners), and rotation.

I usually start with vignetting and then rotation, and adjust from there. But, you can jump from one to another, until the image finally looks the way you want.

There could possibly be a problem in that, some lenses display a so-called barrel/pincushion "moustache" distortion that can't be corrected. But, it also doesn't sound like you need super-professional results.

If someone wants prints, you could return with your view camera and give them the full treatment.

[Ben Calwell]

Thanks, everyone. I'll probably use the DSLR for overall neighborhood shots and details and my view camera for individual structures.

[Daniel_Buck]

I agree with others, for web-sized images a digital camera would be just fine. I highly doubt you would see any difference (assuming you know how to process digital images)

Here is one I did digitally, since the parking lot isn't very big I couldn't get very far away, so I had to do alot of perspective correcting in post. I even printed an 8x10 and it held up for a decent print (not great, but decent) after I painted out the dust hits.

So in my mind, a web image would be perfect for digital. Now, beyond that (if folks want prints) that's a different story. But purely for web, I'd say digital no question. you can push and pull the pixels any way you want, and when you down size it'll all be nice and neat.

[Vaughn]

How about a rollback for the 4x5?

Perspective control with the ease and cost of 120 film. 6cmx7cm scans nicely for larger digital prints, also.

Vaughn

[Los]

if it's worth setting up a tripod and tripping a shutter at all, i'd say use the large format. make small scans for the web. ever make a really good shot on a limited format/medium? i get a tummy ache.

[r.e.]

Saying that one should shoot 8x10 or 4x5 for the web is like saying that one should shoot 70mm for YouTube.

[Los]

the quicktime movie trailers on apple.com are shot on 35mm film. there are clips on youtube shot on HD, too. they look good on the web, a big screen hd tv set, and projected 40 feet wide on a movie screen. why shoot for the lowest common denominator?

[Daniel_Buck]

why shoot for the lowest common denominator?

if your GOAL is web images, then that isn't your lowest common denominator, it is your goal.

[Los]

ben, to answer your question more directly, if you have the resources to shoot the pictures on LF (budget and time not an isssue), i think the quality is not wasted on the web. i have seen LF examples in picture posts on this forum that impress and inspire. i've also read posts in this and other forums where people responded to what they called the clarity and smoothness in LF captured images being displayed on the web. also, if you decide to do a test or comparison between your LF and dslr cameras for web exhibition, please post your results and let us know what you find.

just my .02 cents.