What's the point?

[Mark Sawyer]

There is no point.

And you, sir, shall be banished to the Pointless Forest!

[Jay DeFehr]

I think the same question could be posed regarding any use of a view camera vs a DSLR. Architecture is supposed to be the one realm in which a view camera is meant to be the best possible tool for the job. If the view camera has lost its edge there, there must be no use for which a DSLR isn't better suited. Which leaves the enjoyment of the process as the last best reason to use a VC, or film, for that matter, and I think it's a very good one.

[B.S.Kumar]

I started shooting architecture and interiors with a 35mm Nikon SLR and a couple of PC lenses. In a couple of years, I managed to save up enough for a Sinar F2 and lenses from 45mm to 150mm. I shot 6x9 roll film exclusively, because my clients didn't want to pay for 4x5. Then I bought my first scanner, an Epson 3200 and VueScan Pro. Other than dust spotting, which takes some time, the scanning process isn't very time consuming. Later I bought a Betterlight, and then a digital back. Straight lines ought to be within 1/2 to 1 degree from true. If you need to correct them extensively in Photoshop, it seems to me that your shooting technique needs to be improved. An easier way to do the corrections is to open the files in Camera Raw, and use the straighten tool. It's a real time-saver.
Also, if you can straighten SLR files in under 5 minutes, why is it taking you an hour to do the same thing with scans?
I've been tempted many times to buy an FF SLR and a couple of T/S lenses, but at least for me, there's no need. I resist that temptation by buying LF stuff

Kumar

[Ari]

I started shooting architecture and interiors with a 35mm Nikon SLR and a couple of PC lenses. In a couple of years, I managed to save up enough for a Sinar F2 and lenses from 45mm to 150mm. I shot 6x9 roll film exclusively, because my clients didn't want to pay for 4x5. Then I bought my first scanner, an Epson 3200 and VueScan Pro. Other than dust spotting, which takes some time, the scanning process isn't very time consuming. Later I bought a Betterlight, and then a digital back. Straight lines ought to be within 1/2 to 1 degree from true. If you need to correct them extensively in Photoshop, it seems to me that your shooting technique needs to be improved. An easier way to do the corrections is to open the files in Camera Raw, and use the straighten tool. It's a real time-saver.
Also, if you can straighten SLR files in under 5 minutes, why is it taking you an hour to do the same thing with scans?
I've been tempted many times to buy an FF SLR and a couple of T/S lenses, but at least for me, there's no need. I resist that temptation by buying LF stuff

Kumar

As for straightening, there's a difference between a rough edit just to see what can be done, and fine-tuning a photo for professional presentation. I was merely pointing out what can be done in a short amount of time in PS.
As for my technique, well, let's not get into that
And, as for you buying LF gear, I end up buying quite a bit of it from you
Except for reasons attributed to "personal preference", I can see no reason not to use digital equipment in this highly specialized realm. But like most of you, and for the same reasons as most of you, I'll continue to use LF because that's how I prefer to work.

[B.S.Kumar]

As for straightening, there's a difference between a rough edit just to see what can be done, and fine-tuning a photo for professional presentation. I was merely pointing out what can be done in a short amount of time in PS.
As for my technique, well, let's not get into that
And, as for you buying LF gear, I end up buying quite a bit of it from you
Except for reasons attributed to "personal preference", I can see no reason not to use digital equipment in this highly specialized realm. But like most of you, and for the same reasons as most of you, I'll continue to use LF because that's how I prefer to work.

Ari, straightening a scan does take only a couple of minutes, if you use the straighten tool in Camera RAW. The only difference would be the processing time for DSLR vs. a scan from 4x5. So I'm not really getting this. If your scans are off by more than 1 degree, I suggest using a good carpenter's level on the camera back.

There certainly is no reason not to use digital for architecture. I just prefer to use a digital back that allows me to have the same experience as LF.

You don't know half the things I have. Otherwise you'll end up buying even more

Kumar

[Brian C. Miller]

It really comes down to what the client wants, doesn't it? What is "good enough" really depends on what somebody wants.

Why did Kodak produce Techpan in 8x10? I doubt that it was for pictoral usage. I'm sure that somewhere, somebody produced a highly precise lens which would do this film justice. And I bet that lens was exhorbitantly expensive. Somewhere, a client wanted that detail in a negative, and so the appropriate equipment was developed and used.

Kumar's clients didn't want to pay for LF. But some clients do want to pay for it. If the client is satisfied with X and Y comes at a premium, the client won't pay for Y. (just like Kodak and TMY2 in 8x10...) A few years ago a coworker asked me to scan a 4x5 E6 of a Japanese scroll. Art dealers examine LF photographs before making a purchase decision. They don't use small formats, which is what digital is.

Since your clients are satisfied with your pictures, then there is no reason to use a view camera.

In absolute terms, does a Canon 5D equal a 4x5 or 8x10? No. But in the client's terms, the results from the premium image aren't worth it for what they want.

[Ari]

Kumar, Brian, I agree whole-heartedly.
Brian, my inexperience in architectural photography notwithstanding, my clients are usually happy with what I give them, regardless of the format used, and I'll use whatever serves the photo the best. I would be quite leery of anybody who thought my experiment from the car window was any good, it just served to prove a point:
a lot of photography today, good or not, is a result of the editing process, whereas not that long ago, you had to get it right the first time, on film, or you weren't hired again.
What kids are doing today is amazing, but they never grew up with the discipline of film nor the darkroom. They've become much more skilled at PSing an average photo to look fantastic, rather than using skill, care and patience in composing and exposing, trying to nail a photo in camera.
Against that backdrop, I was wondering what place does the ultimate photographic tool, the view camera, have?
I know quite a few architectural photographers who have traded their LF gear for digi, and their clients pay them just as much and are just as happy as before with the photos.

[B.S.Kumar]

Yes, my clients couldn't afford LF those days. But now they and I have grown, and they don't question my fees for scans, digital capture or DVD backups I use whatever format I think is appropriate, and don't get asked any questions about why I'm using this or that.

I agree that satisfying the client is important. But more importantly, you have to figure out a way to satisfy yourself and the client, in that order.

Ari, There is a place for view cameras, even with digital. They just need to be more precise for this application. The Sinar P series, Arca R series, Cambo with their new tilt panels are all evidence that view cameras are also evolving.

Kumar

[Ari]

Kumar, I've always appreciated your opinions, and everything I've bought from you has been first-rate, but right now I'm mostly impressed that you get paid to burn DVDs!

[B.S.Kumar]

Ari, everyone charges for this, some separately, some build it in. Depending on what the client needs, those back-ups include some or all of the following:
1. Scans/captures at the largest native size, 16bit
2. Copies of the files I use for the prints I give to clients
3. Files for printing on clients' in-house inkjet printers, properly sharpened and sized according to their requirements.
4. Files properly sharpened, sized to 8x10 or 10x12 for printing at mass printers
5. Jpegs for emailing
6. Files for magazine printing, sized to 8x10
7. A pdf presentation
8. Web sized jpegs, according to clients/web designer's requirements, so that they don't screw up the presentation of my work.
All files for printing/distribution have project, architect and my names, so that there is no confusion.

All this takes time and effort, and is paid for. Clients appreciate that they can simply send a copy to their web designer or PR person, without having to do any extra work.

And yes, the DVD surface and jewel case cover have a hero shot printed on them, again with project, architect and photographer's name. I don't charge for this

Kumar