Architectural photography. Large format vs digital

[luis a de santos]

I have been questioning architectural photographers regarding their use of digital cameras for their work.A good number of people have been using the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II for their final work not just for composition and lighting .
I would be interested to hear from member of this forum who do a significant amount of architectural work if they are using film or digital for their work and if so if what conditions etc.
Thank you in advance for the answers.

Luis

[Photojeep]

I use both and teach both for Architectural Photography. There are many times digital is more suitable for some architectural photography. Unfortunately the reliance on "fixing it in Photoshop" makes many photographers ditch the use of large format in favor of digital without knowing much about the ramifications of just such a "fix".

Like anything else, there are times when digital is the correct tool for the job and there are other times where large format is the correct tool. Each brings something to the table and it is up to the photographer to choose the correct one for the job at hand while weighing the pros and cons of each. Unfortunately, more and more clients think that digital is the be-all and end-all for professional photographers. I guess we have the camera manufacturer's marketing folks to thank for that. :(

Respectfully,

Randy

[DominiqueMarcWehrli]

I was using a 1Ds Mk II for half a year before exchanging it for a medium format back. The quality of the canon with good WA lenses (Zeiss Distagon) can be extremely good. Distortions can be corrected nearly perfectly with the right tools. I did some enlargements to 120x80 cm for a client and they were still good in comparison to a enlarged 6x9 cm.
But I was missing the ability to compose on location. I really like to see the composition, the relation to the edges of the image. I need a camara with vertical and horizontal shift. Now, for over one year I am using a 22 MP digital back (now with a Gottschalt DS-30 Camera) and have never used film again. I don't like to fix too many things in post, but i think the possibilities of digital go beyond fixes.

Regards
Dominique

[Bill McMannis]

Unfortunately, more and more clients think that digital is the be-all and end-all for professional photographers. I guess we have the camera manufacturer's marketing folks to thank for that. :(

Respectfully,

Randy

Randy,

I feel very lucky. My clients prefer the final output created from a 4x5 transparency over a "straight digital" image. I recently had a job that I completed the assignment per the specified 4x5. As light was still quite good, I shot some additional exteriors using my EOS digital with my 24mm TS-E lens (essentially giving me a miniature digital view camera). I personally felt the digital shots were pretty good so I included digital proofs with my tranny proofs. NONE of the digitals were selected to fill the order.

[Jim Noel]

No contest - Large format for architectural work.

[David Luttmann]

No contest - Large format for architectural work.

You might want to ask Kirk's opinion on that.....

[PViapiano]

Has anyone tried the Cambo X2-PRO system that supposedly turns your Canon dSLR into a view camera?

I also noticed that for this system as well as the Cambo Digital Wide DS that only digital large format lenses are being paired with them. Will normal large format lenses NOT work with these systems?

I saw these in the latest Calumet catalog and I'm curious...

[Kirk Gittings]

I just wrote this very long reply and promptly accidentally erased it and I don't have time to redo it, as such, as I am in Chicago doing final critiques at SAIC.

The point is, if you are interested in doing this for a living you, need to use the right tool for the job and not think that past standards (4x5) is still the end all and be all. In many cases 4x5 is simply overkill quality wise or too slow to turn around when the client only wants files (all clients want files these days except for a few, very few, magazines). Editorial is a prime example, a well handled Canon 5D with TS lenses is capable of quality far exceeding the needs of any magazine.

For more reasons than I can go into now, IMO the best tool kit right now is a good 4x5 LF camera/scanner setup and a good Canon full frame DSLR with TS lenses. Everything else is not well targeted or not cost effective. Those two cameras cover all bases and allows me to do a cost effective, quality job for any potential client. My client base is extremely diverse from local and national magazines to hotel chains, ad agencies, top tier architects and local builders plus books, posters and calenders. On top of that my architectural related artwork shows all over the country and I do HABS reports and teach AP at universities and workshops. I have used Betterlight backs, MFDC and the Cambo X@ Pro. None of which I would take on a job for many reasons, expense, awkwardness slow workflow, you name it. What I am saying here comes from real day to day experience in the AP trenches, but I also have phenomenal access to test all the equipment that is out there.

I use a 50 year old 4x5 Calumet Wide Field and a 4x5 Zone VI with 47,56,90,120,150,210,305 lenses with an Epson V750 scanner and a Canon 5D (+30D for emergency backup) with Canon 17-40, 28-70, 70-200, 24TS, 35PC (Olympus), 45TS. and 135 lenses, a ton of lighting and a good assistant that knows my gear. With these two setups I can handle anything that comes up with a quality that meets my standards (which are always higher than my clients-always exceed your clients expectations and you will never be without work, exceed them too much and you can't make a living).

[JW Dewdney]

I basically agree with Kirk. Learning to think of film as an intermediate digital capture medium simplifies the problem greatly however. It makes quite a bit of sense.

[luis a de santos]

Thank for all the answers.
I particularly appreciate the opinion of people with real hands on experience rather than theoretical .
For Kirk, if you have time whenever you return home, send me that long reply you mentioned to my private emal.I would be most grateful.

Luis

[Henry Ambrose]

My experience (and equipment) is practically the same as Kirk's. A DSLR is more than good enough for many assignments. When its not, 4x5 skillfully scanned on a good flatbed is.

I've shot 4x5 and 5D side by side on the same jobs and for many clients and uses there is no difference in final output quality. Many times speed is more important than being able to make a huge print and at small reproduction sizes there is no difference to be seen.

Film will hold a wider range than digital but blending digital captures with different exposures can overcome that problem. My 4x5 lenses have much less distortion than 35mm DSLR glass. But again, that can largely be fixed in post production on the computer.

In a perfect world I'd shoot 4x5 color negative film and scan. But for some things its not the best way to get the job done.

[sinohotos]

It's 2012, and Mr. Ambrose' assessment of the architectural photography field is still probably an accurate view from a pro of how it's done. I wonder if the photos of Ezra Stoller or Julius Shulman with their artful compositions using the unique perspective that only a view camera can provide, would be possible today. Or at least if it would be possible for them to start out as they did in the beginning and find clients. I've used a Nikkor Tilt lens for a long time, now with both 'chrome' and digital media. It isn't the same. We all now that. But the clients don't. Or at least don't seem to care. to be fair, I've seen some fabulous work done by ESTO and photographers like Rainer Viertlböck. In Mr. Viertlbock's case, he had the will to design a camera that would produce the vision that he had for a project. How many clients would even have the patience for that? My humble opinion is that the commercial market is willing to pay very excellent photographs. But they aren't willing to take it to the same level as the great photographers did. That is now the domain of the fine arts photographer who dodges homeland security (I've heard that you need a permit just to photograph with a tripod inside NYC), and lugs around heavy view cameras, scans film and produces prints. I guess there are still a few that can afford run a color darkroom these days. I've done allot of research. Today's digital backs require too many tradeoffs to make it worth all of the money it would cost to put together a view camera system, just for a few more degrees in movement than an Artec camera, for example, could provide. The pros can correct me if I'm wrong. Actually I really hope that I'm wrong.

[Merg Ross]

It's 2012, and Mr. Ambrose' assessment of the architectural photography field is still probably an accurate view from a pro of how it's done. I wonder if the photos of Ezra Stoller or Julius Shulman with their artful compositions using the unique perspective that only a view camera can provide, would be possible today. Or at least if it would be possible for them to start out as they did in the beginning and find clients. I've used a Nikkor Tilt lens for a long time, now with both 'chrome' and digital media. It isn't the same. We all now that. But the clients don't. Or at least don't seem to care. to be fair, I've seen some fabulous work done by ESTO and photographers like Rainer Viertlböck. In Mr. Viertlbock's case, he had the will to design a camera that would produce the vision that he had for a project. How many clients would even have the patience for that? My humble opinion is that the commercial market is willing to pay very excellent photographs. But they aren't willing to take it to the same level as the great photographers did. That is now the domain of the fine arts photographer who dodges homeland security (I've heard that you need a permit just to photograph with a tripod inside NYC), and lugs around heavy view cameras, scans film and produces prints. I guess there are still a few that can afford run a color darkroom these days. I've done allot of research. Today's digital backs require too many tradeoffs to make it worth all of the money it would cost to put together a view camera system, just for a few more degrees in movement than an Artec camera, for example, could provide. The pros can correct me if I'm wrong. Actually I really hope that I'm wrong.

Your remarks are perhaps as true as when this thread originated a few years ago. Only those actively working in architectural photography can give you the correct answer.

However, as one whose livelihood in the 1960's, 70's and early 80's was derived from architectural photography, I found that the quality of work was very much defined by the client. When I started, a fair amount of my assignments were re-shoots of assignments by "professional" photographers who did not rise to the standards of Shulman, Stoller, Baer and other AP giants of the day. In effect, the clients, be they magazines or architects, based their expectations on work of a very high caliber; too much wide angle and distortion, and the work was rejected.

From what I see today of much architectural photography, the clients have lowered the standard. Architectural photography as a livelihood is, as it was in the past, defined by the client. As the standards of acceptance are lowered, so is the product. It is still an honorable profession, and much fine work is being produced. Those meeting the needs of the clients will be rewarded. Times change, and we move on.

[sinhof]

I use both. When I need big resolution and shift, I use the 5Dmk2 as the databack with my Sinar P. The lences are CZ Biogon 75 or Super Symmar MH 150. I have the Topogon 60 too, but the barrel is still without lensboard.
I connect the pictures with CS 5 and it´s automate-photomerge.
The 5Dmk2 alone with 17mm-, prime EF 28, Micro-Nikkor (old) 55, and 135 SF (without soft here).
I use film today with Arca Swiss 6x9 with Apo-Grandagon 45, SA 65 and longer.

[Kirk Gittings]

Merg is absolutely right. The clients drive the quality.

I've been at this since 1978. In that time many developments were game changers. The first was high quality color copy machines. Why? Because prior to that I did tons of small prints for architects proposals oftentimes 20-40 copies of each. Those small prints were a cash cow. But color copiers quickly replaced that and I was only asked to do 1 copy. Was the "quality bar" lowered? You bet but the color copiers provided adequate quality for the intended use. All other changes in the AP market have been driven by the same forces-lower cost and adequate quality for the clients purposes.

[schafphoto]

Without rewriting what others have eloquently stated... I also agree. My clients either require 4x5 or 5x7 corrected photos (HABS, HAER) or the architects in a my area 1 hour north of Los Angeles are satisfied with 12MP Nikon Digitals. (perhaps NY & LA are different) I often think my clients do not even have a use for the full-size TIFFs I deliver on the DVD. They seem to be most interested in the Jpegs for the website/emails.

You do realize that you have asked this question on a Large Format list? ;-) I imagine the answers would skew more digital on other lists. If I upgrade to a full Cambowide DS, P45+Back & Digitar-lens system... I have recently priced the kit at $70,000 without the laptop, etc. That makes a camera with one less zero in the price like the rumored 36MP Nikon look much more digestible.

-Schaf