What's the point?

[Ari]

Since you are photographing from a moving car (bad idea!), why would you want to use a view camera?

Yes, generally driving and operating another machine is a bad idea. Lucky for the nuns and orphans I was a passenger.
But my point was someone could be as sloppy as they like, and still rescue a photo in PS. There's a whole generation of photographers who have been reared on this precept.
If that's so, why drag your gear all over creation, when the same can be accomplished with a sophisticated digital camera, weighing much less and eminently more portable?

[Ari]

If I understand your question correctly .. "I can shoot four buildings without stopping my car and that seems good enough since I can fix em in PS ".. why bother w/ LF?
Then I would agree that there would be no need to mess with LF
although personally I find it to be a far fetched idea to say the least

I am taking the argument a little far, if only to prove a point; same for the experiment in the car. I do have my own reasons for shooting LF, but they have nothing to do with buildings in particular, nor architecture in general.

Also, what is the point if I shoot film, then end up working each negative in PS for, say, 1 hour per photo, just to fine-tune perspective and distortion and line up the sides? Isn't that why I got a view camera in the first place?
So...why not just shoot digital?

[Brian C. Miller]

I'll pull my nose out of the grain for a moment and tell you about my addiction.

I didn't start with a 35mm camera. OK, I did, but it was a point and shoot. I bought a Pentax 6x7 with a 90mm leaf shutter lens. Yeah, I started with something larger than normal, and things, uh, changed for me. There's something extremely definitive between a print from 35mm and a print from 6x7. And so my addiction to good detail in a photograph began. I was inspired by moonlight, but I'm addicted to detail.

I was satisfied with this, until Kodak discontinued Techpan. Sure, I had a Graflex, but I had bought it for using it with Kodak HIE, and I hadn't done a lot with normal film. But then I couldn't get Techpan, so what was I doing to do? Well, of course, there's that view camera.

And what does my 4x5 give me? I can see bicycle spokes at two blocks away, and they only show up when the print size is 16x20. I can read signs which don't have much print on them. Ken Lee posted some pics showing how much detail is various LF images, and it was quite impressive.

So what are the LF advantages? Same as always: size and control. Size gives you detail, and control gives you in-camera correction.

If you have something that is good enough, then that's fine. That's where digital has got us, are images that are good enough. My digital P&S is a 3.5Mp from several years ago. It is still good enough for my casual use. Your 5D is good enough for the purpose you are using it.

But when you want more, that is where LF shines, and does it ever shine!

[Steve M Hostetter]

I'm like Kirk and I enjoy using both and wouldn't consider giving one up

[Jack Dahlgren]

If you can get what you need with another method and if you aren't enjoying LF, then don't bother with it. They make all kinds of cameras. Pick the one you want to use.

[Tobias Key]

Yes, generally driving and operating another machine is a bad idea. Lucky for the nuns and orphans I was a passenger.
But my point was someone could be as sloppy as they like, and still rescue a photo in PS. There's a whole generation of photographers who have been reared on this precept.
If that's so, why drag your gear all over creation, when the same can be accomplished with a sophisticated digital camera, weighing much less and eminently more portable?

If you really think if this is true you have an awful lot to learn and doubt you have even come close to using the full potential of the cameras at your disposal, digital or film. I know there are plenty of photographers brought up on this concept, and I have worked with some on occasion, normally they drop a bollock when you show them what a bit of craft and skill will do.

[theBDT]

I got my two-camera, three-lens 4x5 setup for less than $700. Can you even rent a 5VD MKII whatever + TSE lens for a week for that?

And 4x5 negatives scan-up with quality easily matching $50K digi Hassys (though admittedly processing is comparatively slow).

Someone with a limited budget and a fair dose of patience can play with the digital big-boys, quality-wise, for less then the cost of a new APS-C dSLR kit.

...AND said photographer still has the option to print-out optically, should that route become attractive.

[Mark Sawyer]

It may depend on your asperations and ambitions. If you want your work included in Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS), or other such projects, only archivally-processed large format negatives and fiber-based prints are acceptable.

And in a more general sense, as people have already suggested, it depends on what value you place on your own work, including the process and the experience. Shooting from a moving car might be entirely appropriate for the Cartier-Bresson-style, but large format photographers tend to prefer a slower, more contemplative approach.

[mdm]

There is no point.

[Ari]

Brian C and Kirk, thanks for your responses.
For those who insist on getting their knickers in a knot by taking everything literally:
For the record, I don't take photos out of moving cars and pawn them off as serious work. I was trying to demonstrate that acceptable results can be achieved with little investment in effort or time with a digital camera and PS. Acceptable to whom? I don't know, but verticals were vertical and nothing was left distorted.
I lament the fact that this has become an acceptable way to work for some; I certainly don't celebrate it. It does a disservice to the profession.
So far the only cogent responses have been along the lines of "superior image quality" and "enjoying the process", which in itself is a great reason for doing anything; but I was referring specifically to architectural photography and whether the view camera has become redundant or obsolete in this particular field due to advances in digital photography and digital processing.
And if you feel the need to comment about me personally, Tobias Key, that's your prerogative, but you could at least first try to find out who the hell I am by visiting my website. You won't see any photos taken from moving vehicles...I promise