Hedrich-Blessing again

[Kirk Gittings]

Yearly update.....see two years ago here.... http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=14380&highlight=hedrich+Blessing

I took my architectural photography class at the Art Institute of Chicago to Hedrich-Blessing again this year. If you are unaware, Hedrich-Blessing is an architectural photography firm in Chicago that goes back to the 20's. They have 8 full time photographers that travel the world and with probably twice that number in support staff. Almost anyone who put together a list of the top ten APs in this country would include 4-6 of these guys. I have been taking my class there for the last 8 years. They are real gentlemen, very sharing and thorough going professionals. They are at the very top echelon of their field and the bell weather of where the field is going as they are very conservative technically and do not follow fads. I really appreciate the time they take out of their busy schedules to talk to my students.

FWIW

They are still shooting 70-80% film, Kodak EPN and Fuji 160 Pro S. Digital is Phase One backs and Canons. They are not thrilled by the digital cameras/lenses available for use right now for AP. All film is scanned. In their new building (a superb fascility built specifically for them), there are no wet darkrooms at all, just Imacon scanners and inkjet printers. They have grave concerns about the future of the films and Polaroid they depend on and as a result are following industry developments closely.

Advice to my students from the managing partner.........(if you knew these guys you would know what a radical statement this is for them)........"I wouldn't spend much time learning traditional film based architectural photography techniques."

[PViapiano]

I understand that that is a radical statement from them, however, any artist needs to be grounded in the fundamentals of his/her chosen craft, art or profession.

Standing on the shoulders of giants is the best way to move forward and have credibility in the world.

I know your post was intended to show their statement more as a "doubt" that film will always be available in the future, rather than a film vs digital thing...interesting nevertheless...thanks for posting!

[davidb]

Keep in mind they are using and talking about color film.

[Kirk Gittings]

A bit more.

As might be expected, there is a bit of a divide between the experience of the assistants and photographers. Allot of experimenting is being done by the assistants with digital which is being watched by the senior photographers, who don't like "the look" of digital, but are amazed at some of the obvious potential.

Scanning of color negatives is opening up the workflow a bit as much of the color correction is being shifted to the scan.

[Kirk Gittings]

Keep in mind they are using and talking about color film.

I'm not sure what this means? Are you referring to film availability? They are, of course, commercial photographers whose clients overwhelmingly require color. The worry about the potential loss of Polaroid is as great as their favorite trans films. They seemed to have some inside knowledge related to the future of Polaroid which was causing some real worries.....Like me they are primarily strobe lighting guys and Polaroid is crucial to this lighting method.

[Gordon Moat]

Some Fuji representatives I spoke with recently suggested that they would be interested in larger volume Instant Film sales in North America. Fuji license the technology from Polaroid. While FP100C is not exactly like type 690, it is better colour rendition than Polaroid 669. The big downside for some will be that they are more interested in pack films, meaning a cropped view from 4x5.

I use to have some inside Polaroid connections, but it has been a few years. When the new owners purchased what was left, they were more interested in the brand name. However, just over a year ago they upgraded the environmental qualification status of most of their plants. So they are modernized enough to continue production, but only as long as that business is profitable.

I would hope Fuji would entirely fill any gap left in Polaroid production, but I don't think they would produce individual sheets, only pack films. It also sounds like a planning issue for photographers. We might expect current films to last at least a year until their expiration dates (or longer). So how far ahead (in years) should someone plan to change equipment?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Henry Ambrose]

Thanks for telling us about your visit, Kirk.

I'm worried about Polaroid too. I'd be in a bad way without Type 54. If it does go away I sure hope Fuji makes a similar product that matches 160S. Otherwise my big camera won't be of much use.

[Brian Ellis]

Interesting post, thanks Kirk. It sounds like HB is still doing very well despite what I gather is the fall-off in business/profits for many areas of professional photography. Is 8 about the same number of photographers as they've had in the past?

[Frank R]

I have one of Hedrich-Blessing's 4x5 enlargers in my basement. I put a $100 bid on it on a lark, not expecting to win the bid. It turned out I was the only bidder. When I went to pick it up (this was last summer) I found the sellers were a Chicago architectural photography firm. Very nice people, even gave me some extra chemicals. I had no clue they were such a famous firm. I just visited their website; I recognize some of their famous photos.

This was the most foolish thing I ever purchased on Ebay, since I live in Dearborn, Michigan. I had to drive four hours each way to retrieve it. I spent another $100 on gas. I made it into a worthwhile trip though, by taking a side trip to tour Frank LLoyd Wright's Robie House.

The enlarger is a Super Chromega D. It came with all three lenses too.

[Gene McCluney]

The allusion to Polaroid difficulties expressed above concerns me also, as about 80% of my studio output is color transparencies, shot under strobes, and I absolutely need polaroid for accurate exposure testing. I shoot 4x5 sheet polaroid materials, and use color, but I could get by (in exposure and composition testing) with b/w polaroid.. if that is the only thing available in the future. All the variables of bellows extension, different lenses of different ages, etc., makes transparency shooting a potential crap-shoot if no accurate testing is available.

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you're in the studio at least you could have a Jobo for processing test shots, and an E-6 run doesn't take too long. For architecture that's a lot to schlep around.

[George Kara]

I dont get it. I use my canon eos1ds to check lighting ratios. This is a better solution in my opinion. I use pola 55 alot and have quite a bit of the fuji 4x5 instant film. Its not the end of the world if the instant print stuff goes away. Although 55 would be a real shame lose.

[Bill_1856]

Thank you, Kirk; this is very interesting, (even though it has almost nothing to do with me or my own photography). Although many of the members of this forum are professional photographers, there is actually little information or discussion here (or on other forums) about what is actually going on in the industry, other than how individuals are affected by ecconomics and the materials of the craft.

[Kirk Gittings]

Brian,

I believe so, 8 is the number I remember from earlier times. There is more good local competition in all medium to large cities, unlike the past, but they are holding there own.

George. To me Polaroid proofs film well and digital proofs digital well. It is not the end of the world no, but if I was going to proof interior strobe setups with digital I would only do it tethered (so that I would have a decent size image to look at) and then I may as well shoot digital.

[Greg Lockrey]

I dont get it. I use my canon eos1ds to check lighting ratios. This is a better solution in my opinion.

Shhh Shhh! Not here.;)

[neil poulsen]

Schneider observes on their website that a 24mm lens on a medium format back (37mmx49mm) corresponds to a 65mm lens on 4x5. Of course, one can go a lot wider on 4x5 with a 45mm lens.

I remember reading an article in VC where Charles Cramer compared 4x5 with a medium format back and found that a good 4x5 scan was just perseptibly better in detail than what was possible for the highest resolution (at that time) medium format back. This comparison was at high zoom magnification, so let's say that scanned 4x5 is at least as good in resolution as a medium format digital back.

So, I can see Hedrich-Blessing's point. While one can achieve extreme wide-angle with 35mm digital, say with a Sigma 12mm-24mm lens or the Nikon 17mm-35mm lens, it stops with 35mm and one reaches a resolution ceiling with digital.

While we worry about the loss of large format film, what's even more telling is the loss of infrastructure that supports 4x5 color film. For example, a local lab can no longer get spare parts for their dip and dunk tank processors.

On the positive side, with either scanned 4x5 or digital capture, digital offers a lot to architectural photography that wasn't previously possible with film alone. For example, blending layers at different exposures makes it a lot easier (or possible) to extend the dynamic range in photos, show detail in windows. Digital photography doesn't require as much lighting horsepower. Photoshop also makes "camera movements" a lot easier with it's perspective controls. We no longer need to worry as much about mixed lighting as with film alone. Reciprocity failure and color shift isn't as much of an issue. We can remove unwanted details like litter or telephone lines. Etc.

On balance, given the added capability versus the ceiling we reach in resolution, I feel that architectural photography is better off with digital than without. (Purely a personal point of view.) While the improved resolution is nice with film-based photography, is it needed? Architects' and builders' needs rely a lot more than previously on digital display like jpgs on web pages and Powerpoint presentations versus prints.

I truely enjoy large format photography and would hate to see color film disappear. But one thing's for sure, we're moving to a different world. We have to make the best of it. As for large format color film, we at least can enjoy it while it lasts.

[Gene McCluney]

I have found that shooting products, or architecture with DSLR's, that the wide angle, and often other focal length lenses have an unacceptable amount of barrel or pincushion distortion. So, even though one can correct for perspective in Photoshop, there are other "issues" to equal a good large-format image.

[tim atherton]

I have found that shooting products, or architecture with DSLR's, that the wide angle, and often other focal length lenses have an unacceptable amount of barrel or pincushion distortion. So, even though one can correct for perspective in Photoshop, there are other "issues" to equal a good large-format image.

who needs a photographer for product shots...? :eek:


http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2007/06/ha-real-or-fake_4219.html

take the test!

(and soon just get your architectural shots from Autocad...)

[Gordon Moat]

There was a similar issue a few years ago, when it was expected that CGI models of cars would simply be dropped into interesting backgrounds. That included the usual expected comments about that putting current automotive photographers out of business. PDN even did a big feature article on the trend.

So here we are a few years later, and CGI has become just one more tool. It is not really used that often, and it has not really replaced automotive shooters.

Technology might replace or change the way we accomplish tasks, which is not always a bad thing. What it cannot replace is a creative vision.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Michael Alpert]

"I wouldn't spend much time learning traditional film based architectural photography techniques."

Kirk,

Many thanks for your report. Chicago is a great town for both architecture and photography. I wonder about the advice, though. So much of technique is a matter of historical convention, as well as a matter of specific technology. I would think that a solid grounding in film-based technique would be very useful to a young photographer, even one who will never use a personal darkroom.

[chris_4622]

A bit more.

As might be expected, there is a bit of a divide between the experience of the assistants and photographers. Allot of experimenting is being done by the assistants with digital which is being watched by the senior photographers, who don't like "the look" of digital, but are amazed at some of the obvious potential.



Kirk,

This "look" that is mentioned got me thinking; does a scanned image from film look different from a digitally captured image? How so? What was the output used.

chris

[paul r w freeman]

Digital files from something like a Phase One P45 or an Aptus 75 do have a distinctly different look from film, particularly if you are the sort of person that spends their life at 100% view in photoshop.

Differences include

1) Lack of grain in digital file. This looks very unnatural. Images look better once grain has been added back in by a plug in like Alien Skin Exposure

2) Lack of grain/noise in digital can result in images looking 'painterly' at 100% view. But maybe one simply should not look

3) DOF relationships are very different in digital due to the small chip sizes. If one wants pin sharp detail from foreground to infinity this is very easy to achieve with the MF digital backs because there is huge depth of field. However this means digital doesn't have an LF 'look' in DOF terms.

4) Colour is very different in the digital file. Shooting RAW it doesn't have any intrinsic colour balance, you decide what it should be. In a sense then the colour is up to how the photographer chooses to interpret the data.

5) There will be different distributions of colour information in the digital file to scanned film. Colour film noise (colour variation in grain) is part of film/exposure characteristics. In the case of digital, chroma noise is partly eliminated by the camera firmware and subsequent processing, as a result colour information is lost that is retained by the grain in film. I think that digital may have less colour information, but with advances in tech, this will disappear, and is already probably a minor issue with the high end backs.

6) In terms of resolution. There is just something different about the probabilistic recording of information in the grain of film at its resolution limit, and the way that one has a regular grid of pixels at the resolution limit of digital. The way details are resolved kind of degrades gracefully with film where it seems to shelve off abruptly with digital

7) Film gives you the option of making true photographic prints. For me, thats its ultimate charm. Digital prints are fantastic, but just different. Theres nothing like a silver print for a monochrome image... even if the results from inkjets are now fabulous. I've spent a lot of money experimenting with digital prints onto the new Ilford silver paper. Actually it was a failure for a number of reasons. I have the feeling that there is a more natural match between silver paper and film than will be achieved soon with digital printing.

Lots to debate there.

[HB_Chris]

Paul,

Your post was insightful and I agree with many of your points. I just thought I'd add my own experiences to the mix.


Background: I've been shooting primarily 4x5 transparency film for the last dozen years for my commercial clients. My personal work has been on black and white neg of varied formats and I've spent almost 20 years honing my darkroom skills.

Presently, I'm exploring the Phase 1 P45 for commercial shoots and still shoot my personal work on neg. However, I now drum scan all my film and find the inkjet outputs to surpass anything I was ever able to achieve in the darkroom.


So, this is a new box of tools. Film and digital are so very, very different and yet the manufacturers have done such a good job of making the captures look like what we're used to that we inevitably end up comparing apples to oranges. Then we sit around and wonder why the oranges aren't red.

Personally, I don't miss the grain. The aesthetic takes some getting used to, sure. Then again, one of the reasons I love large format is the grainlessness, the continuity of tones.

Shooting Raw is akin to shooting color neg. Because of this, I really prefer to shoot tethered, but then I'm often working in doors and I can compare the image on a calibrated screen to the reality of the moment. I find this on site color balancing to be of tremendous value, as the color palette is a primary concern of my clients. Also chromes always possess crossover. Even when I nail the overall color, the image will often go green in the shadows and magenta in the highlights. It is almost weird when this doesn't happen in a digital capture, weird but good.

Now, the chips respond way differently to the lenses than film does and the lensmakers are trying to compensate. The chips have greater resolution than film and the new lenses are designed to be 5-10 times sharper. I have a 35mm Rodenstock Digital and it is so, so sharp. The pitfall is that chips respond poorly to diffracted light. The image will go soft as you reach the image circle much faster than film does. I'm still experimenting, but it looks like the chips will never allow the movements that film does, at least not while trying to shoot wide.

It's a frustrating time, and the target is constantly moving, but many of the results have been astounding. Now if I can just get around the shortcomings....

Cheers,

Chris

[Kirk Gittings]

I agree with most of the above, having said that........I sometimes mix digital capture files with my scanned film for magazine articles. I have little difficulty making them "look" the same in webpress reproduction.