Best 4x5 camera for Architecture

[Kirk Gittings]

David,

I'm sorry that I teed off on you. It drives me a little crazy when I see wrong info passed on to new photographers, particularly suggestions that needlessly complicate things.

I once ran into a well known arch photographer from Santa Fe who shot from a tent structure for every exterior shot to keep dust off of everything. He insisited that this was what "real professionals do". He had two assistants to help him move the thing. I laughed so hard I thought I would vomit. His client fawned "yeah he does 4 great shots a day". I guess the fewer shots you do the better photographer you are. I remember when I used to work for Architectural Record. They wanted twenty a day, interiors and exteriors. That made me know my stuff to heart and work quickly with no BS.

Because of my relationship with Calumet in Chicago and teaching Arch. Photo at the School of the Art Institute, I have had the opportunity to try most of the advanced View Cameras out there at one time or the other (even the Sinar Ultima 35). Most in my opinion have alot of unnecessary bells and whistles (as far as architecture photo is concerned). Most people make Arch. Photo far more complicated technically than it is. My biggest problem with your posting is this "This is not acceptable for professional architectural work." It is simply and categorically a false statement. It is very misleading to entry level people. I have spent alot of time at Hedrick Blessing with my students and watched Nick Merrick and many of the great photographers there. They work quickly,simply and intuitively with sturdy solid equipment. Hursley and Peter Aaron too and the fine photographers at HABS and HAER. I have never seen any of them use DOF scales. It is more about vision and experience than cameras. Keep it simple. Know what your lenses and film do. Stay at f22 or below (4x5) focus carefully a third of the way into the scene and you virtually never have to worry about DOF with a 90mm lens and most of us use a 90mm 90% of the time. I primarily use a 50 year old Calumet Widefield, because it will handle from a 47 to a 210 on flat lens boards and the stock bellows with full movements. The last one I bought (three years ago)was for $150 at Universal in Chicago. Nothing fancy and not pretty or slick, but with a few adaptions solid as a rock and a near perfect Arch. camera. I use the best lenses. I probably have $8,000 in lenses (and a $150 VC!!). Most of my students walk in with a "better" VC than I have.

I say if you needlessly complicate things is when you make mistakes. Keep it simple. The biggest problem students have is how to see architecture. They have no sense of composition or what light does to form.

After the current book project settles down I hope to update an earlier text that I wrote a lifetime ago for the National Trust. I'm sure that it will not include a discusion of DOF scales on VC's. I think it is an unnecessary distraction. Nor will it include the tent.

[Frank Petronio]

Kirk, treat yourself to a decent camera, you've earned it! But I never found DOF scales worth the trouble either, and even if I had one, I'd still be checking what I've got on the camera itself. The whole reason you have a ground glass and movements is so that you can SEE what you're doing. Knobs and calulators get misaligned, and human error is all too easy. Most of the time you're trying to hit your optimal aperture, and in a pinch you stop down further... Trust your eyes (or get auto-focus.)

[Ellis Vener]

re: Krk's approach.

well obviously it works and goes really cares hw you getthere as long as the pix are great.

I think we all must be clear aboutthe debts all of us in the cult of gear owe to St. Ansel of Carmel who once, as it is written i nthe holy text "The Camera', proclaimed: "if a man has something worthwhile to say he will find a way to say it even if he only has a pinhole camera. Of course he could probably say it more effectively , an reach a larger audience if he used a modern Sinar or Arca-Swiss view camera..."

Who walks among us that is strong enough to always resist the call of that siren?

cya

Ellis

Disclaimer: This forum post is intended to impart a sense of humor. Given
the internet's inability to carry inflections, tone and facial expressions it may
fail miserably in its intent. The sender acknowledges the limitations of
the technology and assigns to the software in which this message was
composed any ill feelings that may arise.

[Kirk Gittings]

Frank, You know what I need? More time and gas money to shoot my own personal work. A new camera is great in theory, but a higher overhead just keeps me chained to the commercial work. My goal is to free myself from that and lowering my costs as much as possible helps me get there.

[Frank Petronio]

Hear ya. I got a Noblex 150 six weeks ago and have shot that many rolls (for myself). And one 4x5 shot for myself, plus only a 100 or so baby/xmas pix. The rest is work, work, work... to pay for cameras? (more like taxes and colleges, but you know the drill.)

[Kirk Gittings]

Yeah, I'm in my 10th consequtive year of putting kids through out-of-state schools with maybe a couple more to go. That has forced me much deeper into the commercial quagmire than I had ever intended.

I'm really just whining-not relly complaining. It has been a great life. I haven't had a real regular job since 1976. I can't imagine having had to work a regular job for a lifetime like my dad. What I am doing was his dream. He got me into photography.

[David E. Rose]

Kirk,
Thanks for the apology- no blood, no foul! I think that you may have misunderstood my point when I wrote "This is not acceptable for professional architectural work". I meant the out of focus foreground/background, not a camera without a DOF.

I started serious architectural photography with a Bender 4x5 that I built myself, so like you I have worked with some very basic cameras. I very much agree with the concept of simplicity in equipment and technique (think of Edward Weston). Understanding and having a vision for architecture is by far the most important thing. I owe a lot in this area to my photographic mentor Balthazar Korab. He shoots with a Sinar F-1, which is the main reason I went with it in the first place. When I first started with my Sinar, I did not use the DOF calculator, and I still have never used the tilt/swing calculator. At some point I read the instructions for the DOF and tried it, and I was amazed that it removed the guesswork from focusing, pretty much insured the desired result, and took about 10-15 seconds to use. For me, there is just no reason not to use it.

Sorry to be such a pest about this issue, but it did generate a lot of good thoughts and information for Jay- I wish him luck in finding his own simple and effective working method! I also look forward to seeing Kirk's book.

[Jay Lnch]

Thanks everyone for your great input. I have chosen a camera and it should be here in a few days. I picked up a older Arca Swiss model AB. It comes complete with camera Lens shade both standard and bag bellows all for under $350. Jim at Midwest photo helped me out.

jay...

[Kirk Gittings]

I'm sure you will be happy with it. I don't want to be preachy but I love arch. photography. At best the camera is just a good or better tool. As I'm sure you know it is really not about the camera. It is about light and form and that little shiver that goes down your spine when everything come together on the ground glass. Go and create your brains out and I hope to see your work some day. Best of luck.

[Ted Harris]

I was gonna add something but all I can do is read the thread again and smile. Well said Kirk.