How are the new line of architectural cameras going to influence your work?

[Miguel Curbelo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Kirk Gittings]

"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]

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]

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.