90mm & architecture – why the popularity?

[Heroique]

When it comes to 4x5 architectural (exterior) photography, why do so many experienced shooters recommend a 90mm lens for general use?

No other lens wins so much of their praise and affection.

It’s enough to make one think that architects have this focal length in mind when they select building sites & draw their plans.

I can almost see the spec at the bottom of the blueprint: Site selected & plans drawn to accommodate a 90mm lens on 4x5 film. :D


• Is there something inherently natural & pleasing about this match (90mm + architecture)?
• Does the trade-off between field-of-view & distortion help explain things?
• Might common client preferences have something to do with all this?
• Do you think the 90mm lens would enjoy the same popularity across architectural styles & cultures – for example, Prairie School, Anasazi, Byzantine, Greco-Roman, etc.?

Please share with us what you think...

[rfesk]

"trade-off between field-of-view & distortion help explain things?"

It is a practical choice mostly. You choose the focal length that lets you accomplish the task at hand with the least distortion. And yes, the 90mm focal length on 4X5 is often the one chosen because you can only get so far away from a building before other things intrude (poles, trees, etc.)

One well known architecture photographer commented that the longest lens he nomally had in his kit was a 180 which is close to a 50mm lens in 35mm photography.

[Old-N-Feeble]

For one thing, AFAIK, until fairly recently the widest commonly-available lenses that cover 4x5 with generous movements were 90mm. The 72mm SA XL has changed that but, as with all things, changes/ideals/opinions can take decades to evolve. Other than that... the previous reply is far better than mine here.

[John Kasaian]

When it comes to 4x5 architectural (exterior) photography, why do so many experienced shooters recommend a 90mm lens for general use?

No other lens wins so much of their praise and affection.

It’s enough to make one think that architects have this focal length in mind when they select building sites & draw their plans.

I can almost see the spec at the bottom of the blueprint: Site selected & plans drawn to accommodate a 90mm lens on 4x5 film. :D


• Is there something inherently natural & pleasing about this match (90mm + architecture)?
• Does the trade-off between field-of-view & distortion help explain things?
• Might common client preferences have something to do with all this?
• Do you think the 90mm lens would enjoy the same popularity across architectural styles & cultures – for example, Prairie School, Anasazi, Byzantine, Greco-Roman, etc.?

Please share with us what you think...

If the print is the answer, why do you question praise and affection by guys who obviously know their stuff? Would you ask a skydiving instructor why pull the ripcord? You're certainly free to choose any lens you wish and heap lots of praise on that lens, but there is more credibility if darned near every other architectural photographer found that same lens just as useful.:)
I don't know what the Anasazi, Byzantines or Greco-Roman architecture photographers used on their 4x5s.

[Gem Singer]

John,

We ancients used 120 super wides on our 4x5 cameras.

We had more room to back away from our subjects.

[David A. Goldfarb]

A 90mm lens has the feel of a 28mm lens on a 35mm camera--about as wide as you can go without having an obviously "wide look," so it's often a good choice for exteriors where you don't want an exaggerated perspective. Maybe you could go to 80mm, but most 80mm lenses were historically designed as normal lenses for medium format, and tend not to cover 4x5".

[Heroique]

A 90mm lens has the feel of a 28mm lens on a 35mm camera--about as wide as you can go without having an obviously "wide look," so it's often a good choice for exteriors where you don't want an exaggerated perspective. Maybe you could go to 80mm, but most 80mm lenses were historically designed as normal lenses for medium format, and tend not to cover 4x5".

Interesting – so if I understand, the 90mm (on 4x5) is favored because it goes as wide as possible w/o diverging too “obviously” from how the human eye would render the perspective.

It certainly makes the 90mm, as a lens for architecture, sound style-proof and culture-proof.

Very convenient. :^)

[Leigh]

Another advantage to the 90s is Image Circle (IC), which governs the amount of lens movement available.

The diagonal of 4x5 film is about 162mm. Of course the diagonal of the image area is a bit less.
I use the 162mm value since it allows for gradual degradation of the image near the edge of the IC.

Modern 90s in my data base have large ICs, ranging from 216mm to 236mm (plus the Super-Angulon XL at 259mm).

By contrast, the 75mm lenses are all 200mm or less, and the 65s are all about 170mm, which just barely covers 4x5.

The 90s will definitely permit greater movements than the shorter ones.

Going the other direction...
There are few choices in 105mm, with ICs ranging from 155mm (Nikkor W, won't cover 4x5) to Fujinon at 250mm.

At 120mm the ICs range from 139mm to 312mm (the classic Nikkor SW 120/8).

- Leigh

[Vick Vickery]

LIke most of the others, I use a 90mm lens a great deal on architectural photography. That said, my kit includes several other lenses; I'll use a normal lens or around 165mm if I can (less distortion even than a 90mm); I also carry a 215mm for normal shots if room allows (good modeling) and for architectural detail shots; and I carry longer lenses, just in case I need them. And those are the same reasons that I always have a 35mm kit and a 6x6 SLR kit along, too. No one lens or even camera is going to do it all!

[Corran]

I used a Nikkor 120mm f/8 for some architecture stuff the other day on 4x5. I haven't dev'd the sheets yet but just having that much IC to play with was just awesome. I have had some shots in mind for a while that just did not work with a 90mm - too wide.

[Heroique]

…The 90s will definitely permit greater movements than the shorter ones.

If a shorter focal length – let’s say the 75mm – permitted, generally speaking, greater movements than the 90mm, I’d be curious if the 75mm would become the new “favorite” for architecture, or whether the 90mm’s more “human-like” field-of-view (despite its inferior movements) would keep it champion of general purpose architecture lenses.

[Old-N-Feeble]

RE coverage...

72mm SA XL = 229mm (https://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=168&IID=1842)

90mm f/5.6 SA = 235mm (https://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/super-angulon/data/5.6-90mm.html)

... pretty close to the same coverage according to the manufacturer. Yes, these are different vintages/series but, IMHO, most folks are thinking of thinking of older series lenses. If we're discussing lenses of different FL's all with "enough" coverage then this post is valid.

As a previous poster stated, FL depends on positioning vs preferred amount, or the limiting of, distortion.

[Drew Wiley]

At one time the major pro photo schools would tell their students to buy a 4x5 along with
a 210 for portraits and 90 for architecture. This would cover most of the needs with a miniumum investment and give an image circle generous enough for movements. These were considered the "basics". Now it's a cell phone scavanged from the bottom of a Cracker Jacks box.

[Leigh]

RE coverage...
72mm SA XL = 229mm
90mm f/5.6 SA = 235mm
But the SA XL is probably the most expensive lens series in existence at any focal length.

- Leigh

[Old-N-Feeble]

Price isn't the point, Leigh.:) It's about popularity of focal length for architectural photography. My argument is that until the 72 SA XL was on the scene the widest commonly available lenses that cover 4x5 with enough movement for architecture were 90mm. The 72 SA XL changed that. Price? If you're a professional you might pay for a good used one with one or two jobs. That would NOT be me, BTW.;)

[Leigh]

Price isn't the point, Leigh.
I'm glad it's not for you. It is for most people.

The SA XL is a relatively new series of lenses, with much wider coverage than previous offerings from any maker.

This thread is talking about popularity. It takes time for any lens to build a reputation and a following.

Given the high price of the SA XL series, it's not likely to be warmly embraced by the majority of shooters.
They simply can't afford to try it, regardless of its performance.

- Leigh

[Old-N-Feeble]

never mind

[SergeiR]

"trade-off between field-of-view & distortion help explain things?"

It is a practical choice mostly. You choose the focal length that lets you accomplish the task at hand with the least distortion. And yes, the 90mm focal length on 4X5 is often the one chosen because you can only get so far away from a building before other things intrude (poles, trees, etc.)

One well known architecture photographer commented that the longest lens he nomally had in his kit was a 180 which is close to a 50mm lens in 35mm photography.

Classic schools (european) of painting recommends field of view approx. equal to 35mm (32 actually, but hey) lens on 35mm camera.. This considered to be most "natural" way of perceiving architecture for human.

[Robert Opheim]

A newer 90mm lens is a great workhorse for general architectural images (I have used a 90mm 6.8 Grandagon for a number of years) - with the abiltity for a lot of rise or fall for control of the perspective. Most architectural shots want to be a 2-point perspectives - that is to say the converging veritical lines are corrected to not converge by using the back of the camera parallel to the building facade. 90mm lenses also makes the building look bigger, and have more depth. 120mm and 135mm lenses are very useful as well especially on exterior whole building images. It does depend on what you are trying to show and intent of the image. Details are often shot with longer lenses - such as door handles and other smaller parts. For interior shots the 90mm lens is the starting point for me. I often use a 75mm Grandagon and have used a 58mm lens in the past for a really tight situation with a stairwell image. I have also had issues with where can I set a camera up and gain access to an image of a perticular building - some locations really suck - long lenses make a great difference. These images have been for commercial architectual images for my business as an architect.

[Frank Petronio]

I think anything wider than a 90mm on 4x5 falls into the category of, "The client wants the whole damn room in the picture and this is the only way to do it" versus taking a considered approach to describing the space by intelligently selecting what is significant via a longer lens.

It's like going to the Grand Canyon and popping on a super wide lens. Yeah you got it all in but you also emptied out most of the meaning.

I bet you rarely see many wider-than-90mm shots in the better portfolios.

And a $600-$800 90/4.5 Rodenstock Grandagon is an awesome lens with nice coverage but not as ridiculously clumsy as the Schneider XL lens.

[MDR]

I'll second Frank Petronio's opinion 90mm is wide angle with a moderate wide angle = still natural look 75mm is super wide angle territory = unnatural look. Good for some things but rarely used in a good way.

Dominik

[Old-N-Feeble]

4x5 vs. 135 focal lengths

47mm = 13mm
58mm = 16mm
72mm = 20mm
75mm = 21mm
80mm = 23mm
90mm = 25mm
110mm = 31mm
115mm = 32mm
125mm = 35mm
135mm = 38mm
150mm = 43mm

Some folks don't like wide angle distortion. I don't always either but I often do. It depends on the subject matter. If my goal was to make the most realistic rendering of a structure as is practicable then, if space constraints allowed it, I'd select a normal or slightly long lens.

[rdenney]

ONF, it's hard to compare with too much precision. The aspect ratios are different, and the effects of movements make a given lens seem wider, by introducing more rectilinear distortion to parts of the frame. This is particularly true when the image is selected from close to the edge of the image circle, such as for tall structures that require a LOT of front rise to get into the frame. A 90 on 4x5 works about like a 24 on 35mm in my experience, when both have movement capabilities.

For me, I like the 90 for buildings when at least one of two things are true: 1.) there is an angle on the building that is particularly dramatic when portrayed with some rectilinear distortion, or 2.) a longer lens is infeasible because of foreground objects or room to back up to capture the whole structure.

When (1) is the case, a 72XL may be desirable, because the rendering might be even more dramatic. But it may also call too much attention to itself as an effect. With the exception of the 72XL, other lenses that short and shorter usually don't have the movements necessary for exteriors, unless vertical convergence is acceptable. For interiors, where one doesn't need as much rise, a shorter lens can be a problem solver.

But when (2) is the case, the driving force for me has been to use the longest lens that provides the appropriate field of view feasibly.

In most cases of amateur architectural work, the building has some striking aspect, which is the reason people want to photograph it. Drama is good. But for commercial work, the building may be boring, and in those cases, the added drama of deep rectilinear distortion may be what sells the work.

Rick "who studied architecture and photographs it as an amateur" Denney

[Frank Petronio]

Ha good point about distinguishing amateur versus professional work, sometimes professional work means photographing a low, flat, long warehouse as nicely as possible.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Hey Rick... We both just stated the same thing though your post is more thoroughly explanatory. :)

[bdkphoto]

Lens choice is just the beginning of making a successful architectural image. The 90 is quite useful, and a common choice for focal length but there is no magic with it. You have to have a pretty full kit of lens choices to work successfully. The most common mistake I see with architectural photography is shooting to wide. My own preference is to shoot as long as possible given the circumstances. The amateur vs professional thing is a bit moot too, the big difference is the ability to shoot and light interior spaces- that is what really separates the two--that and the fact that there is very little professional work being done on film today.

[rdenney]

The amateur vs professional thing is a bit moot too, the big difference is the ability to shoot and light interior spaces- that is what really separates the two--that and the fact that there is very little professional work being done on film today.

The point in distinguishing amateur versus professional work is not about the difference in quality--there are professional hacks and deeply expert amateurs as well as the reverse. The point is that the amateur chooses what building to photograph, while the professional does not have that choice. Thus, they have different problems to solve, which may require different tools.

And, sure, commercial pros may not be using film. But in that case, the question might well have been, "Why would the Canon 24mm TSE lens be the go-to lens for architectural photographers, and not the 45, or the 17?" Same question, in terms of aesthetic reasoning, as the one posed here.

Rick "hoping to avoid another 'pros vs. amateurs' debate" Denney

[Drew Wiley]

Around here 75mm lenses were mainly used for taking shots in crammed areas like a bathroom or small kitchen (often important subject matter commercially). Nowdays that
kind of thing tends to be done with DLSR's, since the bulk of client presentations are shown on laptop screens, and only serious brochure of magazine cover shots seem to still warrant view cameras. 90's and 120's are a lot more versatile on 4x5. And I personally hate the distortions which come with the shorter focal lengths, at least for architecture per se. Something very unprofessional about getting too "creative" when a client is footing
the bill and wants his work shown realistically. Totally different than personal "art" photog.

[jb7]

It's disingenuous to suggest that anything photographed at less than the magic 90 number is going to show 'distortion'. The lens does no more than project an image, and if the photographer chooses to put identifiable forms on the edge of a 120º image circle, then they will be stretched, and will be met with distaste by the non-skateboarders among us.

The photographer may choose to project a different image, that doesn't draw attention to the extreme corners.

This is the last image from the 72mm that I posted on this forum, uncommented on in the 'Post your Churches' thread. Is that because you were all sickened by the distortion? Since I got the 72mm, I hardly ever take the 90mm out, and it's a 5.6, pre XL version, with a similar image circle.

Lenses are just tools, to say that they will inherently 'distort' is misleading. Photographers distort.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7164/6466835071_bfeb72fb4e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joseph-jb7/6466835071/)

[Drew Wiley]

Did the architect or the contractor hire you to shoot the cathedral? Yeah, that would be
a legit usage, but if it were more in the 120 range of lens I'd reach for my 125 Fuji W rather than a typical 120 SW like a Super Angulon simply to avoid stretching the edges
and having so much illumination falloff & CF need. But that option isn't always possible due
to the more restrictive movements. There is a reason rectilinear designs like the Biogon
were once made - too bad it was so heavy with so little wiggle room. Any typical 90 wide
has a lot of distortion, even a 120 SA will. I hated it - but what can you do when you need
the coverage?

[Old-N-Feeble]

Why would a 120 SA need a CF when a 125 F-W doesn't? Do you have examples of "stretched edges" of the SA vs. the less distorted F-W?

[jb7]

The Architect has been dead for 800 years.

I use heavy lenses, I know what a heavy lens is, none of my Super Angulons are heavy. There's minimal difference in weight between the 72XL and the 90 5.6.

The physics of the optics, for non retrofocus designs, mean that a centre filter may be necessary for the picture you might want to make; I'd prefer to make the picture than have to move on to a different one, determined by a desire to use a particular lens. Super Angulons are rectilinear lenses, distortion is no more than 0.5%, according to both Schneider's published data, and my own observations.

Are you referring to the apparently stretched projection of objects at the edge of the frame when you talk about distortion? That isn't distortion, that's perspective projection-

Here's another from the same day, from a 1929 120mm Zeiss Tessar, that doesn't cover the movements. Just to show my taste in lenses is catholic.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7145/6466835081_a95b87d2f8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joseph-jb7/6466835081/)

[Frank Petronio]

It's disingenuous to suggest that anything photographed at less than the magic 90 number is going to show 'distortion'. The lens does no more than project an image, and if the photographer chooses to put identifiable forms on the edge of a 120º image circle, then they will be stretched, and will be met with distaste by the non-skateboarders among us.

The photographer may choose to project a different image, that doesn't draw attention to the extreme corners.

This is the last image from the 72mm that I posted on this forum, uncommented on in the 'Post your Churches' thread. Is that because you were all sickened by the distortion? Since I got the 72mm, I hardly ever take the 90mm out, and it's a 5.6, pre XL version, with a similar image circle.

Lenses are just tools, to say that they will inherently 'distort' is misleading. Photographers distort.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7164/6466835071_bfeb72fb4e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joseph-jb7/6466835071/)

No question, it is an excellent photo. Sometimes you clearly need the width although when I look at it cropped to approximately what a 90mm would give it's a keeper too. In fact one could argue that the relative increase in size of the distant areas would be beneficial. It's not like Frederick Evans wasn't able to describe a cathedral's space with his more limited range of lenses back in the day.

Were you able to keep it all straight in-camera or is there some post work to fix the perspective and vignetting?

Not picking a fight, I wouldn't kick a free 72XL out of bed!

[Frank Petronio]

It's disingenuous to suggest that anything photographed at less than the magic 90 number is going to show 'distortion'. The lens does no more than project an image, and if the photographer chooses to put identifiable forms on the edge of a 120º image circle, then they will be stretched, and will be met with distaste by the non-skateboarders among us.

The photographer may choose to project a different image, that doesn't draw attention to the extreme corners.

This is the last image from the 72mm that I posted on this forum, uncommented on in the 'Post your Churches' thread. Is that because you were all sickened by the distortion? Since I got the 72mm, I hardly ever take the 90mm out, and it's a 5.6, pre XL version, with a similar image circle.

Lenses are just tools, to say that they will inherently 'distort' is misleading. Photographers distort.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7164/6466835071_bfeb72fb4e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joseph-jb7/6466835071/)

No question, it is an excellent photo. Sometimes you clearly need the width although when I look at it cropped to approximately what a 90mm would give it's a keeper too. In fact one could argue that the relative increase in size of the distant areas would be beneficial. It's not like Frederick Evans wasn't able to describe a cathedral's space with his more limited range of lenses back in the day.

Were you able to keep it all straight in-camera or is there some post work to fix the perspective and vignetting?

Not picking a fight, I wouldn't kick a free 72XL out of bed. Or even a 75/8!

[Drew Wiley]

That's fairly simple subject because you're mainly using rise. If you took a vantage point from a balcony and had to use compound movements there would be quite a few stretch
marks, which is in fact a form of distortion, and quite obnoxious when dealing with intersecting vertical and horizontal lines (again something less obvious in Gothic - and, of
course, I was making a wisecrack about the architect - but if he were alive, he might not
like stretching either). Otherwise, when not confined by interior space, simply shoot something analogous from a distance using a long focal length lens versus chose-up wide
angel and note the difference.

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah but did his 75/5.6 Schneider pre-XL Super-Anglon have the image circle? Purely a camera geekery question.

[bdkphoto]

The point in distinguishing amateur versus professional work is not about the difference in quality--there are professional hacks and deeply expert amateurs as well as the reverse. The point is that the amateur chooses what building to photograph, while the professional does not have that choice. Thus, they have different problems to solve, which may require different tools.


And, sure, commercial pros may not be using film. But in that case, the question might well have been, "Why would the Canon 24mm TSE lens be the go-to lens for architectural photographers, and not the 45, or the 17?" Same question, in terms of aesthetic reasoning, as the one posed here.

Rick "hoping to avoid another 'pros vs. amateurs' debate" Denney

What stops a professional from choosing to shoot interesting buildings on his/her own? Most pros shoot for themselves constantly, as its necessary to keep the portfolio fresh and good marketing to boot. The big difference is that we get to go inside the building and shoot all the stuff that amateurs will never have access to without a client, assignment or insurance coverage. Building exteriors are only one part of architectural photography.

As to the lenses there's nothing magic about a 24 TSE either. You need lots of different lenses to produce quality work. I work with everything from a 17 to 200.

[jb7]

Were you able to keep it all straight in-camera or is there some post work to fix the perspective and vignetting?

Not picking a fight, I wouldn't kick a free 72XL out of bed!

I went back and checked, yes, that's as it came out of the camera, no cropping or geometric transformations. I think I'd prefer it a little wider myself- some more space below the railing, it's just too tight. However, moving back would have required steps, to keep the altar in the background separate from the railing.

And to answer your enquiry in a subsequent post, the 90 5.6 SA has a 235mm image circle, bigger than the 72.



That's fairly simple subject because you're mainly using rise. If you took a vantage point from a balcony and had to use compound movements there would be quite a few stretch
marks, which is in fact a form of distortion, and quite obnoxious when dealing with intersecting vertical and horizontal lines ...

Drew, you seem to be going out of your way to invent scenarios to back up your descriptions of 'obnoxious' and your use of the word 'distortion'.
As I said earlier, control of these effects is in the hands of the photographer, and it would be perverse to use the techniques you describe, if it were to produce bad pictures, unless your motive was to illustrate the effects you find so distasteful.

Simple is good, and using rise on an XL is just playing to its strengths.

I've made my point, don't see any benefit in flogging this one any more, so I'll leave it at that...

[Drew Wiley]

If I was putting togther a portfolio to represent myself as an architectural photographer it
would be a very different thing from a portfolio of personal artwork. Someone might hire
me in the first place due to that latter aspect (which was generally the case back when I
did this sort of thing) - but they'd expect THEIR work to be represented professionally,
without a bunch of oddly converging or bending lines, so I'd keep a portfolio of that kind of thing around too. It's probably even more important today ... if you can't even control
perspective issues, might as well just have their niece with the hundred buck digital camera do the whole shoot.

[Drew Wiley]

It's not to be argumentative. Sometimes the nature of the job dictates the camera position. It's not like picking and choosing for what will make the "best" possible shot.
The client tells you what to show or include, and it can be less than ideal with respect to lens performance. Whole different ballgame. You might be able to make the verticals converge but then have to sacrifice something else. The big coverage lenses are wonderful
for doing this kind of thing, but something gives. But back in the day when I did this kind
of thing, I sure couldn't complain if a single shot paid for the whole damn new lens and the
center filter too. The rest was gravy. So I'm not talking hypothetical anything. A commercial portfolio would be one thing, a personal portfolio something different.

[jb7]

Were you able to keep it all straight in-camera or is there some post work to fix the perspective and vignetting?




oh, and the vignetting- I used a centre filter...

It was also my first time developing a full tank in 510 Pyro, stand development. Unfortunately, I didn't use it strong enough, so the negs are a bit thin. It does give a long tonal range though, just about ok for scanning, but you wouldn't get a wet print out of this one...

[Old-N-Feeble]

I was going to write something like, "I have my personal opinion and everyone else is wrong. I'll argue until everyone is too tired and fed up to care anymore so I'll have the last word", but I changed my mind.

Distortion is a part of photography. We can only control some distortions to some degree. We can minimize some types that are objectionable and take advantage of other types that, to some people's eyes, are advantageous. I'm not going to proclaim anything else other than it's all about making the client happy whether the client is the one who paid in advance for a photograph to be made or if he's a buyer of an already made and presented image.

[Heroique]

…For me, I like the 90 for buildings when at least one of two things are true: 1.) there is an angle on the building that is particularly dramatic when portrayed with some rectilinear distortion, or 2.) a longer lens is infeasible because of foreground objects or room to back up to capture the whole structure. ...For commercial work, the building may be boring, and in those cases, the added drama of deep rectilinear distortion may be what sells the work...

To complement the vertical gothic cathedral, here’s a horizontal corporate warehouse by Norman McGrath using 4x5 transparency film. He crops off the top half of each shot.

The warehouse is 45 feet tall – measuring from the top of the berm.

The top shot was made w/ a 90mm/5.6 SA.

For the bottom shot, McGrath moved about half the distance to the near corner (which removed the trees), and used a 75mm/4.5 Nikkor. “The combination of these two changes results in a greatly increased contrast between the relative size of the near and far corners.”

Instructive that he avoids the term “distortion.” In any case, if I were the owner of the building, I might not immediately recognize it in the bottom shot, but I would enjoy the shot’s more entertaining drama.

[Frank Petronio]

What company had the money to have top notch arty architecture and a top professional photographer to photograph it? Just curious because the Fortune 500 warehouses around me are simply functional boxes, solidly built but without any thought to architectural quality.

[Heroique]

The architects were Richard Dattner and Associates in collaboration with Davis Brody, but McGrath doesn’t identify the building’s owner or location. Someone here may be able to recognize it and tell us more.

[rdenney]

What stops a professional from choosing to shoot interesting buildings on his/her own? Most pros shoot for themselves constantly, as its necessary to keep the portfolio fresh and good marketing to boot.

There's a word that describes a pro shooting a subject of his own choosing just because he wants to please his own aesthetic without regard to anyone else's specifications, real or prospective. .

It's called "amateur".

You know what I mean. No need to be argumentative.

Rick "'I want my sheet metal warehouse sown from this angle to show the sign--and make sure you can see the whole building'" Denney

[bdkphoto]

The architects were Richard Dattner and Associates in collaboration with Davis Brody, but McGrath doesn’t identify the building’s owner or location. Someone here may be able to recognize it and tell us more.

It's probably an older project. McGrath's been shooting digitally and the project is not on Dattner's site.

It's a good example of perspective, but they are both boring shots.

[rdenney]

Instructive that he avoids the term “distortion.” In any case, if I were the owner of the building, I might not immediately recognize it in the bottom shot, but I would enjoy the shot’s more entertaining drama.

Excellent example--thanks for posting it.

I don't use "distortion" as a pejorative, of course. All three dimensional objects must be projected to be presented on a flat surface, and that requires some form of distortion. Which form is best depends on the subject and composition. That point has been made a couple of different ways.

McGrath had a fisheye photo in one of his books, but the composition hid the fishiness. Even spherical distortion can sometimes be used for architecture.

Rick "who would definitely not pass on a free 72XL" Denney

[bdkphoto]

There's a word that describes a pro shooting a subject of his own choosing just because he wants to please his own aesthetic without regard to anyone else's specifications, real or prospective. .

It's called "amateur".

You know what I mean. No need to be argumentative.

Rick "'I want my sheet metal warehouse sown from this angle to show the sign--and make sure you can see the whole building'" Denney




There's a word that describes a guy with a day job and a photo hobby who thinks he knows the photography business.


It's called "poseur".

You know what I mean.

Bruce "who has real clients that collaborate with him to get the best work, period".

[Drew Wiley]

It is a nice shot of the cathedral and a very appropriate lens choice. But engineers and
architects have rivalries back then too, and if they did have cameras, I can just imagine
one of them wanting to point out what a better job he did designing the floor than his
competition. So you'd have to carry your camera up to the reader's pulpit way up there, try to keep your verticals true on the opposite wall, and then use every bit of remaining movement lowering the lens on the front standard to get the floor, while some detail in the foreground would also need focus correction due to the odd perspective. Something's gonna get warped, no matter what you do. That's commercial photography. You do the best with what's assigned. And the lens can only do so much.

[rdenney]

It's probably an older project. McGrath's been shooting digitally and the project is not on Dattner's site.

It's a good example of perspective, but they are both boring shots.

Boring, maybe. And certainly not recent, though I fail to see how this is an issue of digital or film or when it was done. But I bet he got paid. And I suspect that the shot fulfilled its requirements, especially within the context of the portfolio on that building. That's the job of a professional, no matter what the field. The clients get the best work they are willing to pay for.

Rick "who has hired lots of photographers" Denney

[bdkphoto]

Boring, maybe. And certainly not recent, though I fail to see how this is an issue of digital or film or when it was done. But I bet he got paid. And I suspect that the shot fulfilled its requirements, especially within the context of the portfolio on that building. That's the job of a professional, no matter what the field. The clients get the best work they are willing to pay for.

Rick "who has hired lots of photographers" Denney

Someone asked about the project. I've met Norman several times, and know that he's been shooting with digital, and I've worked with Dattner. Led me to surmise it's an older project. That's all.
You don't know what the assignment was, and whether the client requested that specific shot, or left McGrath to his own choices on the project. It's also possible it was just shot for the book. You are just guessing.

Perhaps you will have the opportunity to hire Norman for one of your shoots.

[rdenney]

Someone asked about the project. I've met Norman several times, and know that he's been shooting with digital, and I've worked with Dattner. Led me to surmise it's an older project. That's all.
You don't know what the assignment was, and whether the client requested that specific shot, or left McGrath to his own choices on the project. It's also possible it was just shot for the book. You are just guessing.

Perhaps you will have the opportunity to hire Norman for one of your shoots.

Considering that you seem to agree with my guesses, I'm wondering why you are arguing.

Rick "who could do without the ad hominem" Denney

[cosmicexplosion]

jb7, i only really noticed the distortion because i was looking for it!

my eye followed the bright high roof, down to the left and to the back. the image gives me a sense of the scale of the building and the effect that the architecture is designed to have, an awe inspiring one.

[Kirk Gittings]

There's a word that describes a guy with a day job and a photo hobby who thinks he knows the photography business.


It's called "poseur".

You know what I mean.

Bruce "who has real clients that collaborate with him to get the best work, period".

Not always. Look at Richard Wasserman's Chicago River Project-started and largely completed when he owned and managed his family's lighting company (since sold). That project has launched a second career for him. Sometimes great professional level work is done by amateurs (in the classic sense of the term).

[Richard Wasserman]

Thanks for the kind words Kirk—they are much appreciated!




Not always. Look at Richard Wasserman's Chicago River Project-started and largely completed when he owned and managed his family's lighting company (since sold). That project has launched a second career for him. Sometimes great professional level work is done by amateurs (in the classic sense of the term).

[Robert Opheim]

99934

A 75mm is very useful when there just isn't enough space to get a longer lens to work. This an interior image of an eating area looking into the kitchen that I designed a few years ago. I often use a Tota-light balance to daylight for some infill light.

[Robert Opheim]

99934

A 75mm is very useful when there just isn't enough space to get a longer lens to work. This an interior image of an eating area looking into the kitchen that I designed a few years ago. I often use a Tota-light balance to daylight for some infill light. The problem with wide angle lenses is the distortion especially at the corners and edges

[Robert Opheim]

Frank I have designed many boxes here in Western Washington - but I have seen pictures of a airplane hanger in Ketchem Idaho with curved glass block corners on all corners. It wasn't the least expensive airplane hanger to build. The few hangers I have designed were metal pre-engineered boxes.