Is large format overkill for informative Web site?

[Ben Calwell]

My wife and I are in the planning stages for producing a Web site for a historic district in our neighborhood. I plan to shoot photos of the area, but am thinking that using my 4x5 would be overkill, since the images are for the Web only.
I have access to an Olympus DSLR for the project.
Should I use my 4x5, or just use the DSLR? I'm thinking that for photos of homes, I would use the view camera for perspective correction.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I don't think it's overkill to have the advantages of a view camera for architectural photographs. If you might have other uses for the images, like print sales to property owners or to the city or a historical museum, large format originals would give you some more possibilities.

[Ralph Barker]

I agree with David. I'd use the view camera for control, so the buildings are presented in their best form.

[Ken Lee]

As David says, If anyone wants to order color prints, then by all means use the better equipment.

Photoshop allows you to perform perspective control: given an image with sufficient pixels, you can stretch the image all over the place, and web viewers won't be able to tell the difference.

If the images will be in color, on the web only (and thus rather small), it would be far easier to shoot things digitally. The only limitation might be dynamic range, but if you bracket, you can merge layers and correct for that too. Again, Photoshop enables that with minimal effort.

[Brian Ellis]

There's no question but that 4x5 is overkill for the web. So I'd be inclined to use your digital camera and correct any distortions (e.g. keystoning) in Photoshop or a similar program if you have that capability. That's especially true if you're bearing the costs of the project (e.g. film and lab). The only reason I can see to use a LF camera for a web project like this would be if you don't have an editing program such as Photoshop that would allow you to correct distortions (assuming, as you say, that the photographs are solely for the web).

[Aender Brepsom]

I would also use the view camera, but try to shoot digital too, so that you have both formats available, should you need them. But I recognize that it requires quite a lot more work.
Scanning your 4x5 images on a flatbed scanner should be good enough for web use.

[David A. Goldfarb]

You can correct perspective distortion in one plane easily using PhotoShop, just like using rear tilt/swing or tilting the enlarging easel. It gets more complicated (or just doesn't look quite right), if the image has any barrel or pincushion distortion, which will depend on your DLSR lenses, or if the building isn't just a simple straight facade, and there are multiple planes at varying distances to the camera. The non-view-camera solution to multiple planes is to shoot wide and crop, if you've got enough pixels.

[Gene McCluney]

It is shortsited to only use the minimum equipment needed. Architectural photography always benefits from large-format which has available many more controls for getting the image straight and in focus. (simply put). There are few, if any, perspective control options available for any DSLR, as swing/tilt functions for depth-of-field control.

[Jim Jones]

Perspective control in architectural photography for web publishing can be done with a good digital camera, wide angle lens, and cropping. However, such publishing may create a demand for prints of LF quality. Don't count on reshooting those images with the 4x5. Buildings evolve and even disappear.

[Steven Barall]

Apart from the technical advantages of view cameras, view camera photos just look different. There is a formality, visual correctness and thoughtfulness to view camera photos I think because of the size of the camera and the toil and expense of operating it along with of course the necessary use of a tripod. I think that's why view cameras are so perfectly matched to architecture. They are alike in many ways.

Anyway, when you project is done let us know. I would love to see your town. Cheers and good luck.

[walter23]

My wife and I are in the planning stages for producing a Web site for a historic district in our neighborhood. I plan to shoot photos of the area, but am thinking that using my 4x5 would be overkill, since the images are for the Web only.
I have access to an Olympus DSLR for the project.
Should I use my 4x5, or just use the DSLR? I'm thinking that for photos of homes, I would use the view camera for perspective correction.

There's more to large format than resolution, as others have probably pointed out.

[neil poulsen]

You can also correct for barrel and pincushion distortion in CS2 Photoshop. In fact, all "view camera" related adjustments are in the same window. That includes distortion, perspective (vertical lines), vignetting (light or dark corners), and rotation.

I usually start with vignetting and then rotation, and adjust from there. But, you can jump from one to another, until the image finally looks the way you want.

There could possibly be a problem in that, some lenses display a so-called barrel/pincushion "moustache" distortion that can't be corrected. But, it also doesn't sound like you need super-professional results.

If someone wants prints, you could return with your view camera and give them the full treatment.

[Ben Calwell]

Thanks, everyone. I'll probably use the DSLR for overall neighborhood shots and details and my view camera for individual structures.

[Daniel_Buck]

I agree with others, for web-sized images a digital camera would be just fine. I highly doubt you would see any difference (assuming you know how to process digital images)

Here is one I did digitally, since the parking lot isn't very big I couldn't get very far away, so I had to do alot of perspective correcting in post. I even printed an 8x10 and it held up for a decent print (not great, but decent) after I painted out the dust hits.

So in my mind, a web image would be perfect for digital. Now, beyond that (if folks want prints) that's a different story. But purely for web, I'd say digital no question. you can push and pull the pixels any way you want, and when you down size it'll all be nice and neat.

http://danielbuck.net/wip/hayden.jpg

[Vaughn]

How about a rollback for the 4x5?

Perspective control with the ease and cost of 120 film. 6cmx7cm scans nicely for larger digital prints, also.

Vaughn

[Los]

if it's worth setting up a tripod and tripping a shutter at all, i'd say use the large format. make small scans for the web. ever make a really good shot on a limited format/medium? i get a tummy ache.

[r.e.]

Saying that one should shoot 8x10 or 4x5 for the web is like saying that one should shoot 70mm for YouTube.

[Los]

the quicktime movie trailers on apple.com are shot on 35mm film. there are clips on youtube shot on HD, too. they look good on the web, a big screen hd tv set, and projected 40 feet wide on a movie screen. why shoot for the lowest common denominator?

[Daniel_Buck]

why shoot for the lowest common denominator? if your GOAL is web images, then that isn't your lowest common denominator, it is your goal. :)

[Los]

ben, to answer your question more directly, if you have the resources to shoot the pictures on LF (budget and time not an isssue), i think the quality is not wasted on the web. i have seen LF examples in picture posts on this forum that impress and inspire. i've also read posts in this and other forums where people responded to what they called the clarity and smoothness in LF captured images being displayed on the web. also, if you decide to do a test or comparison between your LF and dslr cameras for web exhibition, please post your results and let us know what you find.

just my .02 cents.