Architecture: LF film vs. 35mm digital capture

[Kirk Gittings]

I continue to watch developements in digital to see if there is something I am missing. This morning I had coffee with a young competitor who wanted to pick my brain and show me some images. His is all digital capture from a Kodak DCS Pro (14 MP full chip) and Nikon lenses. I am still shooting film in a view camera but scanning the film. He had some very competent and beautiful images but....

My brief impressions were these:

There are still problems with blown out highlights in light sources and posterization in deep shadows compared to my scanned film method.

Perceived sharpness is comparable up to 11x14 then beyond that scanned film has a definite advantage. Upresing does not compete with a good scan.

Mixed lighting latitude and ability to white balance (grey with film) is comparable to NPS and NPL.

Allot of problems in dim light and long exposures with noise and artifacts. For instance when doing twilight shots.

He says he is not using PC lenses because the radical light angle causes noise along the edges. But the PS perspective correction, when it stretches the image more than about 1/3 of the frame width causes some odd interpolation issues. So the use of very wide angle non-PC lenses which require allot of perspective correction in PS has serious drawbacks too. There was also some evidence of ballooning distortion.

And everthing still has that crappy overly-smooth midtone transitions that sceam out at you that this is digital capture!!!

Now granted some of this could be fixed in PS but at what time costs?

It still appears to me that for architecture, view cameras and film still have a significant edge.

[David Luttmann]

First off, keep in mind that the 14MP Kodak is a true piece of garbage. At low (160) ISO, there is horrible noise in shadow areas. In spite of what many say, there is still an issue with a painterly look to fine detail like foliage due to Bayer processing, aliasing and noise reduction employed on board. As well, don't forget about the ever present moire. These problems can be reduced a great deal in ACR....however, they are still present.

Now keep in mind, the Kodak is not meant to be competing with 4x5. Anyone who says otherwise has never compared 16x20 or larger prints. The Kodak was designed to compete with 35mm and 645 film....and to a lesser extent 6x7.

This said, in spite of the lower resolution offered by the Canon 1DS, I found the 1DS to offer more natural looking images. I honestly cannot recommend the Kodak.

If you need high quality digital capture, you'll need a 22MP back from Mamiya, or Sinar, or Imacon, etc. Or, depending on your targets, a Better Light digital back will give better detail than even your 4x5.

Different tools for different things.....but the Kodak will not stand up to 4x5, nor was it meant to.

[bob carnie]

Hi Kirk

I would be interested to hear your observations , if you did the comparisons with capture from 4x5 with a phase back???
Good quality lenses , captured with the same taking lenses and photographer onto film and then digital.

I think the digital capture would be more close to your liking.

I just made a digital fibre off a hasselblad with phase , 20inch x 20 inch . the quality was very good.
I have printed for this photographer for years, traditionally and now digitally, the quality level has not seem to dimish. This fellow is quite good at what he does .

I do think you should compare same quality of lenses, light, and technique. I still prefer traditional but I can grudgingly see a great improvement in digital capture.

[Kirk Gittings]

A couple of responses:

I have another competitor here who uses the Canon. I have not looked closely at his work as we are not close friends. But....we have some mutual magazine clients here and nationally and the clients prefer film hands down. They will only use digital files if they have no choice.

As for the Phase One. I have not tested one in two years and two years ago I thought it was not ready for a hard days work. The current ones look improved but we are talking $20 to $30,000 just for a back that is likely to be obselescent in 2 to 3 years? Ouch? That's allot of Starbucks.

The big boys, who have the budjets to justify that kind of expenditure (Hedrich-Blessing, Timothy Hursley, Peter Aaron etc.), are playing with digital capture but still shooting film. Things may change in the future but right now in the real world of architectural photography, film seems to still rule.

[Ellen Stoune Duralia]

I'm a total newbie at this whole LF thing [see 'wacko' posts] so take my comments with a grain of salt but while researching about LF photography, I discovered that lots of photographers were still using their dslr's for lots of things but were also dusting off their LF gear, using it again in commercial applications. It seems that there is a trend going on and film is enjoying a comeback [again among digital fotogs]. Digital has come a long, long way... maybe now it has the reached the quality that we currently enjoy, the novelty has worn off.

[Frank Petronio]

I end up doing a lot of architectural-like photos for advertising clients. When it is quick, dirty, or no budget, I use my D70. When I can do it right, I use 4x5 and a Noblex. The cheapskates and crappy little jobs that demand digital can't tell the difference between a good D70 file or a 1Ds file - so why not keep the several thousand dollar difference in your pocket?

I like the D70 a lot. But I went back to a Leica RF for baby and fun shots too.

[Jeffrey Scott]

I have seen a resurgence of old customers of mine that went digital, now coming back to my lab with good 'ol b&w film! I haven't asked why, but my guess is that spending all that time in front of their computers just wasn't generating the $$$/time they were used to. Not to mention the quality prints we produce just plain look better.

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

I had been shooting almost exclusively digital for the past 4 yrs. I went to an Eastman House exibit here in Seattle. Looking at those 20x24 albuman contacts dropped my jaw. I can't remember when I saw ranges like that. Said to myself right then and there time to bang some silver. Pulled out the wizner and went to get some film. I shot APX 100, not here any more. I just wanted to go out and shoot, not do speed and developing test. Ended up being a good thing as it made me do a tighten up on my standards. With digital I was starting get a little lax, not paying attention to brightness ratios and such. I really enjoy getting back into the dicipline of shooting view. I had forgot how much fun the process, not just the result, was. I'm retired so I don't have to please anybody but me. I know I'm not alone here at this board when I say it's much easier to please others than myself. My new definition of stress is trying to print 30 yrs of coldlight diffused contrast index negs on my new (to me ) bessler 45v-xl. So I guess if I had my old film I would still be out there keying the negs to the new enlarger. That's why I'm going back to film. Thanks for letting me ramble on. John Berry

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

There is an interesting comparison by Henri Gaud (a French architecture photographer) between shots of the same scene taken with :

- a Canon 1Ds 11Mpix with TS-E 24 mm lens
- a 6x8 Fuji with retrofocus 50 mm lens on colour slide film
- an Alpa 12 with the 55 mma apo-grandagon on same film

Film scanned with a Imacon 848.
Se the images here (the text in in French)
http://www.galerie-photo.com/test-gaud.html (http://www.galerie-photo.com/test-gaud.html)

At the time when the test was done (May 2003) the scanned MF film recorded with the alpa + apo-grandagon 55 was clearly the winner... but the Canon did an excellent job already.

[Ben Calwell]

This may be a little off the architecture topic, but another issue with digital, in my opinion, is where is the truth? By that I mean, with digital so many wholesale, seamless changes can be made to a digital image that you can't really trust what you're seeing. Granted, you can make changes to silver prints, but not with the almost magical ease of digital. You can look at an organic piece of film and see the true thing right there.

[Rainer]

Which lenses do you use on your DSLRs to avoid ballooning distortion when shooting architecture?

I tried using my D100 with the 18-70DX but distortion is too strong with this lens.

You think any non-zoom lens would do better?

[Kirk Gittings]

" another issue with digital, in my opinion, is where is the truth?"

In architectural photography, at least as it applies to design competitions, digital manpulation is already a huge issue for obvious reasons. In all forms of "documentation" photography there is an ethical issue. In "art" photography (whatever that really is), well, art is art. In my opinion when photography strays too far from the actual world it loses its unique power as a distinct visual medium and merges with all other art forms.

[Neal Shields]

“a Better Light digital back will give better detail than even your 4x5”

I had a very long debate about that, via Email, with Mike Collette at Betterlight over about a month’s period of time.

We exchanged detailed sections of images: his from his back and mine from 12,000 dpi drum scans of Velvia.

He may have won.

However, one thing we noticed is that film will try to reproduce very fine detail at actual size. Pixels will take detail that is smaller than the pixel and magnify it at a sacrifice to contrast. A black power line, imaged at the sensor as 3 microns in diameter will be reproduced by a 9 micron sensor as a dark gray power line 9 microns in diameter with perfect sharp edges.

So if we stood side by side and photographed power lines several miles away you might see his power lines and not mine.

I have said that you will pry my film from my cold dead fingers, but if I was making a living at photography, I would own a Betterlight back. Especially if I needed perspective control.

P.S. If you haven't seen his stitched Golden Gate Panorama, it is worth a trip to his site.

http://betterlight.com/panoWideView.asp

I tend to see most digital as an assault on photographic quality, but you certainly can't say that about Mike and Betterlight.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

A black power line, imaged at the sensor as 3 microns
Neal. Such a fine line @3microns width is extremely difficult to transfer with any lens stopped down to f/16 and beyond.
If the lens was perfectly diffraction-limited @f/16 the width of this line would be something between 10 and 15 microns (1.2 N lambda, with N=16 and average lambda ~0.6 microns), not 3 microns. I would not blame the sensor for broadening a 3 micron black line to a 10 micron grey line. Diffraction and aberrations take their part of the job before the sensor can do anything worse ;-);-)
However, checking how lines of 20-30 micron width are recorded on film or on a 9-micron silicon detector is an interesting experiment for which you certainly have the answer.

[Kirk Gittings]

I'm sure they have improved but a couple of years ago I demoed a Betterlite at Calumet in Chicago on a breesy day. Unfortunately the slow multiple passes of a scanner back did not do well with moving trees etc., which is often how I have to shoot architecture and simple to deal with on film.

I'm not trying to be hardheaded here (though I am told I am) but I'm talking here about real worlds 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.

[Henry Ambrose]

Kirk, you're not being hardheaded, just realistic.

I am not an anti-digital Luddite. I've used digital capture since 1992 for studio product photography. Its absolutely wonderful for that application. The quality of the files produced by scanning cameras is amazing. But they are still not a practical architecture tool for everyday shooting. If anything moves the photo is ruined. (or you have hours of PS correction work) When you're outdoors something is most likely going to move.

The DSLRs, even the very best, don't seem to play well with wide or PC lenses. I see countless discussion about how to use Leica or Contax wides on somebody's new 1DsMII. The lenses that are available are not that good. The sensors don't work well with wides anyway. Same situation for MF backs as far as I can tell - and there is an even smaller selection of appropriate lenses.

I could see using a 22MP digital back on a MF camera with movements with wide lenses that worked. But they don't exist. (the Alpa page mentioned looks good and might work!) The angle of acceptance problem is still there. And then there's the cost for a camera back that you sure can't afford to keep a back up for or fix in the field with gaffer tape.

For lower resolution needs like small reproductions in print (if thats all they need or want) you can do it fast and good with any of several different DSLRs. But when the needs call for large prints or the very highest quality then a big film camera wins the race.

In commercial photography digital makes the most sense when you are involved with high volume shooting and or scanning - you can save (or make) lots of money replacing film with digital for those kind of operations. Digital can also be faster to deliver than film.

But, when you're photographing a building how much film can you use? How many scans do you have to make? Do they really need it tomorrow?
For me the answers lead me directly to film. A dozen (or maybe shooting extravagantly 24) sheets of film will easily me all the give coverage I need for a 3-4 view commission of a building. I can deliver my prints and scans on CD in a few days after I shoot the job. My costs for film and processing (less than $100) are a pretty low percentage when compared to my reasonable fees for such a job.

Why would I buy a $20,000 digital back or an equivalent load of DSLR gear for photographing architecture?

[simon warren]

Hi Kirk

I dont think that you are missing anything. Too many people have been too quick to take up digital. Film will allways be king in my book. I shoot architecture. Most of my pics are used very big. If there is a digital system out there that can match the quality I would like to know about it.!

Cheers Simon Warren

[David Luttmann]

Hey Simon,

Try a Better Light digital back. No Bayer processing, and resolution that will leave 4x5 in the dust. Even the latest 16 multi exposure 22MP backs exceed what is capable with 4x5. You get the equivalent of an 88MP image with no grain and color bang on. The results I've seen from the Better Light can pretty much match 8x10 film....which is something I never thought I'd say.

[Kirk Gittings]

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?

Henry nailed the issue above. In the real world of arch. photography for those who make their living doing this, what makes sense now?

[David Luttmann]

Kirk,

Why would it be obsolete in 3 years? If the quality is as good or better than 4x5 or 8x10 film capture, then the photos you take with it in 3 years will be just as good as now. I always find it funny that the second digital capture is mentioned, people talk about it becoming obsolete. Just because Fuji comes out with Velvia 100 doesn't mean my photos now with all the Velvia 50 in my freezer are obsolete. This is especially amusing in a large format forum. Many people consider our large format cameras to be obsolete....but you and I keep using them.

As to the other issues at hand, noise and CA issues have proven minimal on the Better Light tests I've done. Sample 22MP photos I've worked with come extremely close in rez, and surprass that of 4x5 film when noise (grain) is factored in. When the 16 shot feature is enabled, the resolution far exceeds anything I've seen from 4x5.....something I never thought I'd say about digital capture.

Yes the backs are expensive. But when I factor in the film and processing costs on an annual basis, I'd have $25,000 paid for in about 6 years. It does come down to economics.

[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.

[Ellis Vener]

Some magazines like Arch. Digest will still not accept digital at all.

I think this non-acceptance has two roots: the production department at the magazine and the real world problem that so many digital photographers just really don't know what they are doing with regards to accurate color management. If A.D. insists on film one reason reason might be that if everyone submits on film, Conde'-Nast can completely control the reproduction process from the scan to the printing and this makes for more consistency in reproduction throughout the magazine.

[Glenn Kroeger]

Regardless of how recently Kirk has handled digital backs, two things are clear:

1. The sensor size issue has calmed down, with the apparent winner being approximately 36x48mm. I find it hard to believe that demand will ever justify the costs of a larger sensor, particularly since this size can easily go to 35MP assuming pixel sizes similar to the Canon 1DsMkII or 20D.

2. Kirk's other questions: "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?" are still valid concerns.

This next year is critical. We will see what Mamiya can produce at a lower cost. We will see whether everyone can deliver on their announced untethered solutions. And we will see who is still in business 12 months from now.

[Frank Petronio]

Conde Nast probably wants the film so they can reuse it, figuring that the photographer won't be competing against them if they give them the film. Their terms are rather draconian.

[Kirk Gittings]

As for Arch. Digest, Ellis has it right, but this will surely change.

But Frank, I think you have a point there. I never thought of that angle.