The future of view cameras for professional use in product & advertising photography?

I'd like to hear some opinion of where large format is going for the

commercial/advertising industry in the future? I've always thought that the

widespread adoption of digital would have little effect on the choice between

an SLR or view camera. I assumed that most pros who use view cameras would

move to medium format sized ones, to adopt to digital backs. But I thought

that if a photographer had a need for a view camera when they shot film, that

they would have the same need with digital. However, as a commercial

photographer recently pointed out to me, almost all of the commercial

photographers in Sacramento, CA where I live had a view camera when they shot

film, and almost none of them have one now that they shoot digital.

 

So my question is, is there a future for view cameras? I'm a college

student/photo assistant hoping to work as an advertising photographer either

in Sacramento or San Francisco/other bay area cities. I hope to specialize in

product photography and always invisioned doing so with a view camera. But

I've heard opinions saying that you can do so much with digital and photoshop,

that you really don't need a view camera anymore. Is this true?

 

One estimation of mine is that view cameras have dissapeared in some areas

because digital backs are expensive, but digital shooting is a must. So

photographers sacrifice view cameras because because they do all there other

shooting with a Digital SLR. By this reasoning it seems that view cameras

might make a comeback once digital backs become cheaper.

 

Or is my view just distorted because I live in Sacramento, where there aren't

any strictly product shooters. Has the move to digital not affected view

camera usage in larger markets?

 

One more thing, I know theres naturally a lot of film shooters in this forum.

Let me say that I shoot large format currently, mostly with slide film, but I

have no intention of ever running a business with using film, and I'm not

looking for a film vs digital debate.

 

Thanks

There is always going to be some need for view camera movements, especially in architectural work, though computer manipulation can now do a lot of what once was impossible to do without one, straighting verticles for instance. But digital is a must. I wouldn't waste my time with film at all for commercial work due to the slow turnaround time as compared to a digital workflow. But for fine art or if your client is not in a big hurry, then large format can still work. And 4x5 film is certainly the biggest bang for the buck as far as quality goes. A good view camera with lens and holders can be had for a few hundred dollars vs the $20,000 for an equivalent digital back. Ultimately it depends on what you plan on doing.

In my point of view the digital had already won a lot's of commercial photographer's heart as its fast and probably lots of costumers requires fast action too. They like to put out catalogues fast to the market and those daily advertisings you find in your mailbox require that. It's also cheaper because your costumer don't have to pay for film and developing as their products are nowadays an everyday product and they like to save money. This is un-stoppable and its okay but, you will always need a view camera for a technical work and when you need quality than large format and film is still above anything else as it had been stated above.

 

The view camera as I see it is more like to be as in my case for the fine art in the future. This is one aria which the digital never going to compete with my larger cameras. In my eyes this is not only a technical view but a very ethical thing too. Let me explain why.

 

The opening up any image correcting program on your computer is like letting in indirectly more than a hundreds of other people into your work. Just looked all those names appears on the first page when opening up your Photoshop and I don't mind if it's a commercial stuff. But I do when it's my own work.

 

You know, there was a time when I stop to shut colour because I had to send the film away for developing and to print the image. I just couldn't face to sign any work of mine like this and exhibit. Because let's face it it's not yours!

 

As an artist I would say that there is a lot of different medium available for an artist but oil on canvas is the upper quality. I think the same way when talking about photographic art there is a lot of medium available to creating images but film and film cameras are the upper class for it's self. That is the real you and nobody else if you follow the process all along by yourself with out any interfere by others!

 

Making the print is the art itself and that would the digital never compete with ever.

Any camera that will make things cheaper/faster for the commercial shooter will always win

hence the success of digital in the pro and amateur ranks. When photography first came

about the 'death of painting' was on everyones lips but artists of any nature will still choose

whatever materials they happen to like the look of or have an affinity for....there are still a

great number of oil-on-canvas folks around even now in spite of a couple of hundred years

of photography.

If you want the movements of a view camera, think about a fujiGX680. They work with digital backs (which are dropping in price like crazy)...

I really don't think that a view camera is necessary for the product work I do. It would be convenient for certain things, but the extra cost of more equipment, etc isn't worth it in the end. One of the reasons people used LF in the past was because of the quality of the files more than anything. These days you can use MF digital or a high end dslr and get a file big enough for most applications, especially since interpolation has come such a long ways.

With the dumbing down and less demanding clients and the quest for cheaper and faster, I see it going away.

 

I am even guilty of tipping a camera up and fixing converging verticals in ps. It works if you don`t carry it to extremes.

 

Demanding clients will always want view cameras, but they are usually under cost pressure too. Therefore the number of demanding quality conscious clients will diminish.

In advertising photography that requires 3 point perspective (top, side and front of an

object shown without converging lines and with or without foreshortening for emphasis

the view camera or the digital view camera is far easier to use then post processing on

the computer to get that effect afterwards.

 

If any shot that involves controlling the shape of the object is important - glasses, plates,

football, baseballs, etc. the view or digital view camera is far easier to use the post

processing controls on a computer.

 

However the real question isn't will the view camera be needed in the digital age - it is,

the question is can all of these shots be taken with a digital back on a view camera? And

they can. And that saves a substantial amount of computer time and costs. But the Digital

view camera lens will also be as important in this application as the cameras. Maybe even

more so.

Josh, I, for one, am pleased to hear a student wish to learn how to use a view camera.

When you learn how to use a view camera properly you learn how to render the three

dimensional world in two dimensions. This is extremely important for product

photography. I work in a studio where we photograph furniture, jewelry, small objects,

artwork, sculpture, etc. and the view camera is essential to rendering these products

faithfully as far as perspective and scale. We are strictly digital and use a Leaf back on a

Sinar p2. The means of capture is secondary to the fact that, with the view camea, we

control every aspect of the image. I also use a view camera to photograph interiors and

exteriors but there I shoot film. Until there is an affordable digital back that is full frame

4x5 I intend to shoot film for location work. The point being is that I believe there is

definitely a future for view cameras in product, advertising and architectural photography

because you can naturally control perspective, etc. at the point of capture rather than in

time-consuming post production. Now, the reality may be that end-users of images begin

to care less and less about a properly rendered object or building but that is a discussion

for another time. If you do learn to use a view camera you may just be creating a nice little

niche for yourself in the future. Good luck to you!

"But I've heard opinions saying that you can do so much with digital and photoshop, that

you

really don't need a view camera anymore. Is this true?"

If you want to be a really good pro, it's not true. But you don't need to ague with the

opinions neither... It'll be more clear as you get more experience yourself.

Last 10 years, I was in the debates, and I'm doing as a pro in still life(products...) in NY for

about 4 years. For now, here, you need to(want to) do everything: films, digital, view

cameara, medium format, photoshop, and more....

Have a open mind and don't decide just yet : )

Cheers!

Film is almost completely going away as a viable medium for commercial but that doesn't mean view cameras are --you'll just use them with digital backs, like those from http://www.betterlight.com or with "medium format" digital backs like those from Jenoptik/Sinar, Leaf Aptus, HAsselblad, or Phase One. these backs mare all more demanding of basic image qualities like resolution than is possible with all but the very best older view camera lens designs can produce so you should be looking at lenses optimized for working with digital media however.

KAng's attitude is right on the money.

 

As I wrote earlier film is "almost" going away as a viable commercial medium butthere are still many uses for it. The reasons it is mstly goign away are simple: time -- the time spent waiting for polaroids to develop, the film top be loaded and unloaded for m the holders, and the time spent waiting for the film to be processed and come back fro mthe lab, and then the time the client loses while getting the film scanned and the scans dust spotted. In the commercial /professional world , time is big money. Which brings us to the other problem : money: Polaroid, film, processing, scanning and delivery costs up front cash -- you have to mark yup these expendables by at least 100%. But You also needto charge for digital capture and processing and this is often as much as the marked up processing, film & processing would have been, but you save the client big money by eliminating the scanning fees and time waiting for the processing and scanning.

I think digital view cameras are mere blips in commercial photographic evolution.

 

In the next five years we'll see a sudden rush away from still photography and lithography and toward online video catalogs, art books, nature and travel magazines, education etc.

 

Why would an advertising agency want clients' budgets frittered away on lithography, targeted mailing, and postal expenses when online video (with optional music and voice in multiple optional languages!) will allow them to pocket a bigger piece of that marketing pie at design and production stages?

"In the next five years we'll see a sudden rush away from still photography and lithography and toward online video catalogs, art books, nature and travel magazines, education etc."

 

I can see an increase in video materials, but I don't think the wish of consumers to have a *printed* piece in hand before they fork over their hard-earned dollars is going to disappear anytime soon -- and marketers will likely continue to accommodate that desire.

Ralph, the "wish" for a printed "piece in hand" isn't going to disappear, but the piece itself has already lost ground against the "wish" for greater detail as well as interactivity that's common online...think cars (20% now presold online) , audio visual (Amazon), cameras Adorama), real estate, surgery, college education...

 

Every commercial website takes business from a lithographer. If lithographers lose, so do still photographers.

 

"large format" might already mean video rather than a single Photoshop-mangled perspective-controlled instant...a few minutes of video holds more visual data.

 

Large format: http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/Force_Feedback/482/

The fact is that all the commercial studios in the NYC area have switched to digital. There is very little use of monorails. Pro photographers still get portable large format field film cameras for architecture, interior and fine art work. There is also a large group of amateurs who use their 4x5 and 8x10 film cameras on weekends and vacations. They find it more challenging and valuable an occupation than golf, going to football games or just sitting around.

It's a little more complicated.. as usual..

Here is one example. They are a feature story pictures done for NY magazine recently by

Mitchell Feinberg who is one of most respected/ high-paid commercial still life photographer

in town.

The pictures were done through 8 by 10 chromes without post-retouching.

Check out the jewelry with dessert pictures...

www.apostrophe.net_look for Mitchell Feinberg_go to Jewelry section....

If you shoot film, you are future-proofing your work, as a scanned LF original can provide

much more detail than the average digital capture.

Let's dispose of the film/digital debate for now as either with work for an advertising house as long as they a digital or scanned digital file for their layup.

 

Even though lighting and the quality thereof is 95% of photography, the other 5% one must learn before all else is how a camera works. There is simply no better tool for learning the ins and outs of having your brownie pointing at an odd angles than a full-motion view camera and preferably film because of the larger viewing area on the groundglass - that larger area will show you better what you're doing. You also have a chance to correct focus and converging lines.

 

Lastly, the major benefit of knowing the view camera - you'll never again be at a loss as to why a shot didn't turn out the way you wanted it because, for the most part, that bad shot won't happen. That knowledge transfers to whatever picturebox you have in your hands.

 

Enjoy

 

Frank