Architectural Photography and film [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Anthony Lewis

13-Mar-2007, 22:46

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

13-Mar-2007, 23:05

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

14-Mar-2007, 00:15

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

14-Mar-2007, 07:37

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

14-Mar-2007, 11:10

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 (http://www.allgstudio.com)

JW Dewdney

14-Mar-2007, 11:17

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

14-Mar-2007, 12:22

David Luttmann

14-Mar-2007, 12:45

Kirk,

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

JW Dewdney

14-Mar-2007, 12:51

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

14-Mar-2007, 13:35

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.

Anthony Lewis

14-Mar-2007, 13:55

Thanks for your replies so far. I have checked out your websites - you guys certainly set a high standard for me to aspire too! I would be a very happy man if I ever attain photographs of the quality I saw. They are superb.

I have been setting my self up with LF gear for several years now and storing it away. I want to shoot landscapes, portraits, still life, and hope to earn some money from it. I have Sinar F2 and P2 with 8 x 10 back conversion, and a Toho. I have bought all brand new lenses, mainly Schneider. I now have great gear. I have been an 'on location' television cameraman all my carreer - travelled the world. But the industry has changed and I am ready for a change.

In television I shot a lot of 16mm film and loved the film days. The stories we did were always a lot higher standard then what we do now, this digital era. Also I refuse to be caught up in the never ending treadmill of buying new gear - which going digital seems to demand. The manufacturers always have something bigger and better just over the horizon, which will solve all your problems. I think the manufacturers have the digital photographer by the balls. They always find a way for you having to buy something new.

I love architectural photography and would like to earn some money from it, but only if it is viable to still shoot film. You have given me some good answers which makes me feel positive. Maybe I will be limited on occasions but then I am not looking to conquer the whole market. If I gained just a few clients and gave them the sort of work I saw on your websites then I would be very happy indeed. I am on the verge of buying another wide angle lens - 58mm - that would be great for architectural photography, but I don't really need otherwise. Considering all your replies, I am going to go for it - stuff failure.

Thanks everyone so far.

Marko

14-Mar-2007, 13:55

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.

Kirk, if you shoot RAW, Photoshop lets you correct a lot of CA within ACR itself. It's better to not have it to begin with, of course, but if you can't avoid it in camera, you can at least correct some of it during post.

PViapiano

14-Mar-2007, 13:57

Marko

14-Mar-2007, 14:05

Kirk...

I think the problem with digital "anything" is that it's "perfectly acceptable", as you succintly put it.

"Perfectly acceptable" means "good enough", which is the reason for so much mediocrity in our world.

I see it in the music biz all the time...

Now, Paul, Musicbiz isn't really famous for its handling of that "digital thingy" that seems to be breaking their business model, is it? They kinda missed the train on that and are now trying to block the rails instead of trying to catch on...

Perhaps "infamous" might be a good description?

:D

Henry Ambrose

14-Mar-2007, 14:21

I disagree with Gordon's take on scanning. Using a sub-$1000.00 flatbed with 4x5 film is clearly superior in end results to any DSLR.

But that only matters if you need big prints. If its going in a typical magazine or otherwise printed via offset or even more so on the web, no one will ever know if its DSLR or 4x5 or roll film. That's assuming that the photographer is fully skilled with his tools.

And I'm probably being tough on the DSLRs. They'll obviously do better than the little back of the hand comment I've given them above. If I had plenty of money and plenty of time and the client wanted the very best I'd pick 4x5. But the world's not that way most of the time. And you won't get those few nice jobs a year if you're not out shooting the other stuff the rest of the time.
:eek:

But still there's nothing to keep anyone from photographing with whatever tools they have now. A 4x5 camera, appropriate lenses and a nice flatbed scanner will still do the work.

Now if you don't have a good lab real close I'd suggest re-thinking the film thing. Access to film processing might be the biggest problem coming down the road. If I had to do my color film processing I'd be all over a 100% digital capture solution. Currently I'm about 25% film and 75% digital in numbers of captures. I bring out the big hammer when its needed or might be needed.

JW Dewdney

14-Mar-2007, 15:49

I am on the verge of buying another wide angle lens - 58mm - that would be great for architectural photography, but I don't really need otherwise.

I can't dictate your personal shooting style - but I predict that a 58 isn't going to be NEARLY as useful as you think for this kind of work. Unless, of course, you're shooting 6x7 or something. Just because one tends to use wide angle lenses a lot for this kind of work does not mean that wider and wider is necessarily better and better. I try to use the longest lens I possibly can for any shot. That usually means between 90 and 210 or so. Sometimes 75. Rarely, if ever 65 or 58...

Rafael Garcia

14-Mar-2007, 16:48

Most uses an Architect puts photographs to are in digital presentations with a laptop and a digital projector, or in websites and printed brochures/project sheets, for marketing purposes. No great resolution is required in either. Immediacy and quantity are more important to us.

For publication in architectural books and periodicals the standard is much, much higher. A fine photograph documents not only the physical attributes of the design, but the character and mood of the space and the personality of the owner. These are important, as buildings change over time, and the original characteristics of the design are very fleeting. These photographs are intended for our peers, other Architects and designers, and we like to put our best foot forward.

Most architectural offices already use very high-end scanners, and very high end editing software and graphic stations. The issue of digital vs. analog is not a serious preocupation. We can work with either, but the photos will definitely be stored in digital form. And yes, perspective control is very important in serious Architectural photography, which is not to be confused with decorator fashion photography.

Brian Ellis

14-Mar-2007, 18:37

"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 . . . "

Having the "falling over backwards" look isn't something that necessarily follows just because a digital SLR is used. It's pretty easy to fix the "falling over backwards" look in Photoshop, especially if you know in advance that you'll be getting that look and so can plan for the Photoshop fix when making the photograph.

JW Dewdney

14-Mar-2007, 19:03

Brian - I seriously doubt you'd ever see that in any (real) architectural magazine (or publication) of any kind. It's usually done to a really high standard. The standard magazines are (for example) Arbitare, Architectural Record, Domus, Metropolis (borderline), Detail, L'Arca, etc...

"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 . . . "

Having the "falling over backwards" look isn't something that necessarily follows just because a digital SLR is used. It's pretty easy to fix the "falling over backwards" look in Photoshop, especially if you know in advance that you'll be getting that look and so can plan for the Photoshop fix when making the photograph.

Kirk Gittings

14-Mar-2007, 19:08

Kirk...

I think the problem with digital "anything" is that it's "perfectly acceptable", as you succintly put it.

"Perfectly acceptable" means "good enough", which is the reason for so much mediocrity in our world.

I see it in the music biz all the time...

Sorry to be so practical, but I shoot architecture commercially to feed me and my family. I would not shoot 95% of the architecture I shoot except that someone is paying me to do it. If I only shot buildings whose design I respected, I would starve to death. But........ the over 100 magazine covers, 22 theme books and 4 monographs, I think attest to what I mean by "perfectly acceptable". "Perfectly acceptable" to me means acceptable to national magazines and publishers.

I give my clients work that I am proud of, but I do not give them more quality than they pay for. This is a business not an aesthetic charity.

Kirk Gittings

14-Mar-2007, 19:13

Most architectural offices already use very high-end scanners
From New Mexico to Chicago, I have never seen a good scanner in an architects office.

Kirk, if you shoot RAW, Photoshop lets you correct a lot of CA within ACR itself. It's better to not have it to begin with, of course, but if you can't avoid it in camera, you can at least correct some of it during post.

Marko, Sorry, thats what I meant by my statement.

JW Dewdney

14-Mar-2007, 19:17

From New Mexico to Chicago, I have never seen a good scanner in an architects office.

Ha ha...! I was going to say exactly that, Kirk... (and I've probably seen more of them than you have - since I've worked in many also as an architect) but didn't want to offend anyone.

Kirk Gittings

14-Mar-2007, 19:32

JW, And on top of that, I have never seen an in-house architects scan that was anything more involved than using the auto features on a 35mm slide.

JW Dewdney

14-Mar-2007, 19:51

Marko

14-Mar-2007, 20:13

I've never seen an architect with a slide scanner..! The best I'd seen was an office I worked for in NYC - and only because I forced them to buy a (then-new) umax powerlook II with a newly released 3rd party scanning app (forgot the name - similar to silverfast - but it was about 12 years ago) for about $3.5K. It was pretty cool though... with that and the new DesignJet - we were scanning 4x5 chromes and printing them 3x4 feet - with surprisingly good results compared to what you might think.

But the rest of the architects... well... I think they get their stuff from Office Depot (okay - now I've REALLY offended someone!)

There's no reason they should be offended, it's not their area of expertise. It's very similar to photographers and web sites - there're surprisingly few with really good sites and those were invariably done by hired experts. As for the rest, well, just look at all the threads on this board discussing prefabricated package "solutions". ;)

Henry Ambrose

14-Mar-2007, 20:35

But think of all the money they saved by doing it themselves.

;)

roteague

14-Mar-2007, 22:02

But the rest of the architects... well... I think they get their stuff from Office Depot (okay - now I've REALLY offended someone!)

I don't think there is any reason for anyone to be offended - then again, I bought mine at CompUSA. :eek:

I have a decent desktop scanner (Epson 4990), but for those transparencies that I print, I have them drum scanned. However, I've got a Konica/Minolta D5400 Elite II 35mm scanner, which does a pretty good job on the small stuff.

Brian Ellis

14-Mar-2007, 22:55

Brian - I seriously doubt you'd ever see that in any (real) architectural magazine (or publication) of any kind. It's usually done to a really high standard. The standard magazines are (for example) Arbitare, Architectural Record, Domus, Metropolis (borderline), Detail, L'Arca, etc...

Why not (I ask because I'd like to know, not as a challenge or to start an argument)? Are you saying that when the fix is made in Photoshop it's detectable or that in some way it isn't as good as making it with movements in the camera? I don't have a lot of experience with the Photoshop correction, in fact I did it for the first time just a few months ago, but I thought it looked pretty good. When I finished I didn't think I could tell that the correction had been made in Photoshop. Then again I'm not a professional architectural photographer or editor. So I'd be interested in knowing why you wouldn't see it in those magazines.

Kirk Gittings

14-Mar-2007, 23:07

JW Dewdney

14-Mar-2007, 23:13

Why not (I ask because I'd like to know, not as a challenge or to start an argument)? Are you saying that when the fix is made in Photoshop it's detectable or that in some way it isn't as good as making it with movements in the camera? I don't have a lot of experience with the Photoshop correction, in fact I did it for the first time just a few months ago, but I thought it looked pretty good. When I finished I didn't think I could tell that the correction had been made in Photoshop. Then again I'm not a professional architectural photographer or editor. So I'd be interested in knowing why you wouldn't see it in those magazines.

Well - hmmm... for starters...
1. because you just DON'T see it in those mags. You can tell it's mostly LF (subtlety & color saturation that you just can't get in photoshop).
2. The editors of most of these mags will only take film and do the scans themselves.
3. When I've done similar corrections in photoshop vs. shooting a real piece of film and scanning it - I can't convince myself that the photoshop version looks anywhere NEAR as convincing. I doesn't make any sense to me, esp. as I've been using photoshop for around 20 years (so that shouldn't be the issue). I think that when you use 'distort' (preferable) or 'perspective' commands... the axes of distortion are rather different than when you do it optically and have everything aligned. I always end up with weird-looking relationships between construction elements of the building. I think it comes down to the vanishing points not matching up correctly.
4. I can't really speak for the editors - though I used to talk regularly with the editor of 'architecture' magazine before they went under, Raoul, and he seemed pretty hip, technically speaking... one MIGHT be able to get away with stuff like that - but I really don't think it's the norm.

PViapiano

15-Mar-2007, 00:18

3. When I've done similar corrections in photoshop vs. shooting a real piece of film and scanning it - I can't convince myself that the photoshop version looks anywhere NEAR as convincing. I doesn't make any sense to me, esp. as I've been using photoshop for around 20 years (so that shouldn't be the issue). I think that when you use 'distort' (preferable) or 'perspective' commands... the axes of distortion are rather different than when you do it optically and have everything aligned. I always end up with weird-looking relationships between construction elements of the building. I think it comes down to the vanishing points not matching up correctly.

Agreed...I've done a lot of personal work with this and I can attest to what JW says. I can get "pleasing" photos but not always accurate. I haven't tried T/S lenses on my DSLR yet...

Now, Paul, Musicbiz isn't really famous for its handling of that "digital thingy" that seems to be breaking their business model, is it? They kinda missed the train on that and are now trying to block the rails instead of trying to catch on...

Marko...I meant the substitution of synthesizers/samplers/sequencers for real instruments and musicians...

Sorry to be so practical, but I shoot architecture commercially to feed me and my family. I would not shoot 95% of the architecture I shoot except that someone is paying me to do it. If I only shot buildings whose design I respected, I would starve to death. But........ the over 100 magazine covers, 22 theme books and 4 monographs, I think attest to what I mean by "perfectly acceptable". "Perfectly acceptable" to me means acceptable to national magazines and publishers.

I give my clients work that I am proud of, but I do not give them more quality than they pay for. This is a business not an aesthetic charity.

Kirk...I wasn't knocking you in any way, believe me, you're one of my heroes. My comment was more directed at the client and their mentality. The "good enough" mentality in so many cases takes away from the craft and the discipline that take so many years to accumulate (in any field) to become truly good at what you do. The message to young people coming up in the world is "why go through all that when you can take the shortcut". There's no substitute for experience, and along with that I would have to say that you must learn and be aware of the history of your trade or art in order to have a foundation to launch your own career, before you can begin to make your individual mark.

Technology is the great equalizer. Unfortunately it sometimes allows people with no talent to sell their wares to others who couldn't tell from talent if it bit them on the proverbial ass...

Rafael Garcia

15-Mar-2007, 04:19

JW Dewdney

15-Mar-2007, 04:35

Sorry to burst your bubble but not only did the Architectural firm I worked in for 12 years in Atlanta have high-end scanners, they also have an in-house dedicated professional photographer using LF equipment. Your responses to my comment are a gross generalization on your parts.

I don't think anyone was countering your comment- only that, of the 200 or so offices I've been in, I've yet to see a really serious setup. I'm absolutely SURE there are offices out there that have some nice stuff. Just not 99.5 percent of the ones I've seen. I think we were just chiming in on our own experiences. But, well... if you want to talk about gross generalizations - your experience with one office being somehow highly representative of the field... we could talk about that...

David Luttmann

15-Mar-2007, 07:52

Brian, With PC in PS you are stretching (interpolating pixels) at the top of the frame. This is not without penalty as with any upressing and interpolation. Now if there is nothing there but sky it may not be a problem, but if there is detail, there will problems the more you stretch. Rule of thumb? I tell my students, if you have to stretch more than 1/3 the width of the frame-forget it if there is detail. For many shooting circumstances, that much PC correction in PS is not nearly enough for a given scene. For critical client work? I use pc lenses and correct as little as possible, just as I upres, in general, as little as possible from the native resolution of a processed raw file. PS correction, in general, because of the destructive nature of edits, is usually (not always of course it depends on the correction) inferior to shooting it right to begin with. All of this is especially true with dslrs as we need every bit of resolution from these relatively small files to produce decent work.

The other problem of course comes up when you now need to print the file at a large size. Once you've made corrections that involved interpolation at the top end of the photo in the order of 33% to 50%, you would then be re-interpolating the photo for a large print....thus compounding interpolation softening at the top of the photo.

To maintain the most detail, I find that Capture One is best for the Raw conversion. Then use PS for the corrections, then something like SAR for interpolation for increasing file size to print. Sounds like a lot....but it's a quicker process then even scanning a piece of film.

Thanks for the info on lenses.

Brian Ellis

15-Mar-2007, 08:30

"At the extremes these lenses are not great because of CA primarily/"

What's CA?

DrPablo

15-Mar-2007, 09:24

CA = chromatic aberrations.

I have Canon's 24mm TS-E, and it has pretty severe red/cyan CA. Even under low contrast lighting I find myself having to correct it with every image. It's also a very soft lens at all apertures, even if it's not tilted or shifted at all. I use it on an APS-C camera, so I'm generally not operating at the fringe of the image circle.

Basically its functionality sets it apart, and as an amateur I enjoy it, but it's optically fairly weak for its price tag. The Zuiko looks better, though it's much more expensive.

Marko

15-Mar-2007, 09:56

Marko...I meant the substitution of synthesizers/samplers/sequencers for real instruments and musicians...

Paul, that was meant to be a joke, hence the big smiley at the end of it. As in all jokes, there is also an element of truth there as well, because as you were connecting the "good enough" mentality with digital, so was I connecting certain mindset so characteristic to musicbiz to their failure to understand the coming technology for what it really was.

My comment was more directed at the client and their mentality. The "good enough" mentality in so many cases takes away from the craft and the discipline that take so many years to accumulate (in any field) to become truly good at what you do. The message to young people coming up in the world is "why go through all that when you can take the shortcut". There's no substitute for experience, and along with that I would have to say that you must learn and be aware of the history of your trade or art in order to have a foundation to launch your own career, before you can begin to make your individual mark.

Technology is the great equalizer. Unfortunately it sometimes allows people with no talent to sell their wares to others who couldn't tell from talent if it bit them on the proverbial ass...

My point, in the end, being that it is false to blame the technology for the "good enough" mentality when it is general human laziness that brings it up and there are certain marketing circles that will push certain products by appealing to that human trait. Hence all those commercials that expound on this gizmo or that being "so easy to use that anybody can do it in three steps" or some garbage like that. That's nothing new, that aspect of the human psychology has been around long before the steam engine, not to mention all the good stuff after that...

Blaming technology for all of the mediocrity around us only facilitates the "good enough" trend described above. In fact, mastering any trade, no matter which technology is currently mainstream is never easy and it always takes concerted effort of many years of learning and practice to trully perfect.

GE (Good Enough) syndrom has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with greed, plain and simple - a continious push to get more for less, to get everything cheaper and cheaper. It is the consequence of Wall Street and the next quarter results driving the economy instead of being the other way around. In such a setup, aspects that take years to develop and establish, such as quality, take the back seat or vanish alltogether. It used to be that everybody had their business and money was a business of investment and banking sectors. Today, making money has become everybody's business and everything else has become secondary.

It just happens that we are witnessing it in photography now, but it's been happening in other fields too. Current wasteland in the public radio, public television and popular music are all examples of this "next quarter" push. Nobody wants to invest the time and resources needed to really develop a talent or audience.

Kirk Gittings

15-Mar-2007, 11:10

Your responses to my comment are a gross generalization on your parts.

Yeah, but it is a gross generalization based on 28 years in this business working with hundreds of architectural firms all over this country.

Kirk Gittings

15-Mar-2007, 11:56

Rafael Garcia

15-Mar-2007, 15:52

Yeah, but it is a gross generalization based on 28 years in this business working with hundreds of architectural firms all over this country.

Fine. All I was doing was trying to provide guidance from inside the profession as to what was important to us, as your clients, for someone who asked. The scanners we use are mostly for prints, but they are very good. The comment that what we have is not good was uncalled for. It is not so for the use we put them to. Maybe for fine art photography they are lacking, but that is not what we do for a living, and the question was about Architectural photography, not artistic photography.

My experience is based on most of the architectural offices I know. 28 years ago they would not have had the equipment, so it's not fair to use your experience from all those years either. If I were to count the years before scanning was available then I could call on 33 years of professional experience, but you know as well as I do that the digital equipment has been in general use a lot shorter than that!

I am not looking to argue here, but I thought the generalization unfair. So be it. Keep your opinion, I'll keep mine.

Henry Ambrose

15-Mar-2007, 16:07

Thanks for your input Rafael.

I know I've experienced nearly all levels of computer expertise when dealing with clients. Some can take the computer apart and put it back together blindfolded and others have to be shown where the CD or DVD goes in. And neither extreme was necessarily better to deal with. Like in the rest of the world, it takes all kinds, I suppose.

JW Dewdney

15-Mar-2007, 16:54

Rafael -
I wanted to take the opportunity for thanking you for your considered reply - but not only that - bring up a clarification. Simply that, while you may have been lucky in your office - most offices use astoundingly poor equipment - equipment that is really not suited to reproduce visual images. Documents maybe. Letters, etc... that is fine. I am not for a single moment looking down on those with their 'low-end' equipment in any way... but this, in conjunction with practices which are very common in MOST architectural offices - is something that affects the reputation of people such as Kirk and myself.

Namely, that our work is getting reproduced on equipment that is not up to the task, by people who are not well-versed in the ins and outs of reproduction. That means that the work of photographers is getting scanned and printed on color lasers and epsons, whatever, with who knows what kinds of bizarre aberrations.

Most of us work hard to keep an open policy to provide low-cost or no-cost help with respect to reproduction (providing prints, sometimes at cost, etc...) so we can make sure OUR work AND THEIR work looks it's best. Okay - maybe I'm being nit-picky about this... but if you actually consider the problem - we can lose work because of practices like this - especially if it gets distributed. I'm not really uptight about it... even though I seem to be... but I am concerned. It happens. Nobody can stop it... because that's the way architects work (under deadline, etc..). But it's something that would best be avoided, and it's something that I thought relevant to bring up within the context of the discussion. I hope that makes sense.

Thanks for letting me bend your ear.

Fine. All I was doing was trying to provide guidance from inside the profession as to what was important to us, as your clients, for someone who asked. The scanners we use are mostly for prints, but they are very good. The comment that what we have is not good was uncalled for. It is not so for the use we put them to. Maybe for fine art photography they are lacking, but that is not what we do for a living, and the question was about Architectural photography, not artistic photography.

My experience is based on most of the architectural offices I know. 28 years ago they would not have had the equipment, so it's not fair to use your experience from all those years either. If I were to count the years before scanning was available then I could call on 33 years of professional experience, but you know as well as I do that the digital equipment has been in general use a lot shorter than that!

I am not looking to argue here, but I thought the generalization unfair. So be it. Keep your opinion, I'll keep mine.

neil poulsen

15-Mar-2007, 22:02

DrPablo,At least with my samples, the Canons have all been better than all the Zuikos I have tested. i have now compared a dozen or so PC Zuikos of various focal lengths against my two Canon TS. I personally now think that the Zuiko mystique is a myth.

Have you compared the two 24mm PC lenses? The Zuiko 24mm PC with the Canon 24mm TS? I've heard from some sources that the Zuiko is better, and they can auction for upwards of $2500 on EBay.

At the same time, I have the 24mm TSE, and I'm quite happy with it. It distorts a bit, but this is correctable in PS. So, I wonder if I should really aspire to the 24mm PC Zuiko. Not sure.

Kirk Gittings

15-Mar-2007, 22:55

Neil,
I compared one that a friend of mine had, but it too was softer and had more distortion than the Canon. I do not get this rep that he Zuikos have. None that I have compared are better than my Canons. I do use a 35 Zuiko to fill in the gap between the 24 and 45 Canon. It is usable. And I just bought another. I will test it against the one I have and sell the lesser.

Howard Slavitt

16-Mar-2007, 07:54

I agree with Kirk Gittings that the Canon t/s lenses can be excellent. I tested 2 24mm tse lenses, both new. One was quite a bit better than the other, so I kept it. It is excellent. When not shifted, it will, in many circumstances exceed the resolution of the Canon 5D sensor. When shifted it is still very good to excellent until the last mm or so of shift. I use it primarily at f11. The Canon 24mm tse does not do as well on my Rebel xti, which has higher pixel density (thus demanding higher resolving lenses), but it's still pretty good. The 45mm tse that I have (again tested two and kept the better one), is superb, whether shifted or not, and regardless of whethr used on the Canon 5D or xti sensor. The only problem with both lenses is that when shifted or tilted they can produce quite a bit of chromatic aberration, but it is fairly easy to correct in photoshop with an "action" that I bought from someone off the web several years ago for $5 or $10.

Michael Mutmansky

16-Mar-2007, 08:28

The Zuiko PC lenses were hand assembled from my understanding. There are a number of not real great samples out there, but apparently, the best samples beat the Canon lenses hands down. They apparently can have very little CA, and are sharper, as well.

I have a cherry picked 35mm Zuiko, and it is a great lens. I also have a Canon 24 TS, and I find it to be acceptable, but with some CA and distortion.

Actually, I find all of the retrofocus lenses (TS or not) to have high levels of distortion, but that is the nature of smaller format camera systems. You get spoiled with LF optics, and nothing else quite holds up after that.

I don't know if things get better in the MF digital options, but it pains me to make images with the 35mm options after using LF exclusively for a number of years.

What about viewing in the field? Kirk, are you working tethered? I was wondering about plugging a larger screen into the camera, and was thinking about whether there are viable options out there for a screen that does not require a computer to be attached.

There used to be two good forums (RG and FM) that had subforums for things like the Zuiko cross-use and these 'alternate' applications, but they've gone away. Anyone know where the goo people from those forums have gone?

---Michael
---Michael