Tilt-Shift photography - what options in digital?

<p>Hello!<br>

Away from my normal photography work I've discovered a passion for architectural and environmental photography. I began to experiment and eventually shot a full project with small format Canon 5d mark II and 17mm TS and 24mm TS tilt-shift lenses. Some gallery curators are very happy with a project, but all of them said that resolution of small-format is a limitation. <br>

What options do I have in middle format? Clearly Hasselblad is the best possible solution but even with a used body H3D ($10000), their HTS 1.5 tilt-shift adapter ($5000) and two wide lenses the total is more than $20000 which is no option for me right now. </p>

<p>If it helps: I have a Contax 645 film (no digital back) body, which is now collecting dust. </p>

<p>So basically I would love to have a digital system with perspective-control lenses. Where to look? My old Contax 645 with Mamiya/Leaf Aptus back? But what lenses? Sell contax and get Mamiya 645? What tilt-shift options there? </p>

<p>And, to be honest, I really wouldn't love to get over $10000 in total. </p>

<p>Thank you very much for replies!</p>

<p>For a long time, magazine editors, and such-like innocents, wouldn't accept film images under 4x5".<br>

I suspect that someday your curators will catch up with technology that is pretty close to what can be done digitally on larger-than-24x36mm sensors.<br>

In the meantime, why mess around with small formats like even 6cm images? Shoot your work on view cameras, with the full panoply of shifts, tilts, front and back, and Scheimpflug technology in general. Anything even remotely comparable on digital will co$t. </p>

<p>Scan your large negatives or simply submit those to your large-format curators. They'll know how to handle film. I suspect that few of them are really up-to-date on digital, if past history is any guide at all. Shoot large enough and you won't even need an enlarger and darkroom, you can just give them 8x10 contact prints.</p>

<p>What do you know about the galleries you have approached? I have been showing for the last fifteen years of so, and have not once run into anyone running a gallery who cared about the original format. What they care about is what will be on the walls. Your original files (or negatives or transparencies) aren't going to be on the walls. A print is the result of a number of processes that can have different effects on the result. Anyone who is serious about the gallery business knows this and asks to see a print. The questions about the format may a result of quality issues, but that would be it.</p>

<p>I would consider looking at more knowledgeable galleries and working with what you have.</p>

<i>" [...] all of them said that resolution of small-format is a limitation."</i><br><br>So considering looking for "more knowledgable galleries" is considering looking for galleries that do not care. Would you want that?<br><br>A LF camera with full movements, with the lenses and parafernalia you need, is cheap.<br>Has been, and still is, the perfect tool for the job.

<blockquote>

<p>So considering looking for "more knowledgable galleries" is considering looking for galleries that do not care. Would you want that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Did you read what I said? They CARE about the results. One can shoot with anything and get lousy results. Once again, I've never heard a legitimate gallery dictate format.</p>

<p><em> and working with what you have.</em><br>

<em><br /></em>Jeff, thank you for your input! This is not about the galleries, this is about the quality. i DO NOT own a full-frame digital SLR, doing all my work with a cropped 1D mark IV. That means that investing in a small-sensor body ($3500) and two wide tilt-shift lenses ($2200 and $2500) is already close to $8000 and this is only 24 Mpix, small-format! That's why I'm asking what options (other than expensive Hasselblad) I have in middle-format, considering I have a middle format body.</p>

<p><em>Shoot your work on view cameras, with the full panoply of shifts, tilts, front and back, and Scheimpflug technology in general. Anything even remotely comparable on digital will co$t.</em></p>

<p>JDM, thanks! While being stellar in terms of quality, large format is bulky. And for the type of subjects I'm exloring - abandoned industrial plants, military bases and railway objects there is often a need to work really quickly as proper and legal access can not always be obtained, so sometimes this is "shoot and run to the car" project. That's why i'm looking for a solution in middle format. </p>

<p>I have had 5Dii work displayed in galleries, and whilst I've had my share of rejections, I've never had anyone make comments on format. I do have a strong suspicion that gallery owners struggle for the right words to say "no" and rarely if ever indicate that they simply don't like the work. But everything I've heard relates to the work or the presentation of the work, or to the position of the gallery ( many of them have had several years of well below-par sales now and want to concentrate on current artists until the market moves up a bit) The only way I'd expect to hear comments on the format is if you've shown gallery owners prints that are pretty clearly unsharp at arms length. If you fix the apparent format objection with these people, will they then come up with a different reason?? </p>

<p>Fact is that you can make a large print from a 5Dii original if both the original and the process are good. You are not going to achieve much bigger from a 645 film startpoint and you'll add scanning ( and possibly expensive scanning) into your workflow. A MF digital approach would make larger prints easier to make, but unless you're talking top galleries and pricing here, it is entirely possible that you will never recover even $10 000 investment. </p>

<p>I have had 5Dii work displayed in galleries, and whilst I've had my share of rejections, I've never had anyone make comments on format. I do have a strong suspicion that gallery owners struggle for the right words to say "no" and rarely if ever indicate that they simply don't like the work. But everything I've heard relates to the work or the presentation of the work, or to the position of the gallery ( many of them have had several years of well below-par sales now and want to concentrate on current artists until the market moves up a bit) The only way I'd expect to hear comments on the format is if you've shown gallery owners prints that are pretty clearly unsharp at arms length. If you fix the apparent format objection with these people, will they then come up with a different reason?? </p>

<p>Fact is that you can make a large print from a 5Dii original if both the original and the process are good. You are not going to achieve much bigger from a 645 film startpoint and you'll add scanning ( and possibly expensive scanning) into your workflow. A MF digital approach would make larger prints easier to make, but unless you're talking top galleries and pricing here, it is entirely possible that you will never recover even $10 000 investment. </p>

<p>Jeff -- maybe for the kind of work you do, format is not a consideration. It might be different for Victor's style of work. I know you do mostly street and event work...grittier stuff, no? For architecture a gallery might legitimately want to present the work on a large scale (80cm to 1m on a side or larger), and that is still best done with higher resolution cameras and formats. But if it is not an issue of the technical quality at a larger size, then I agree...it's a bit odd for them to ask that. That could well be the D800 these days, which has incredible resolution. It could also be medium format digital, or medium or large format film. <br /> So, Victor, barring different galleries, my advice would be a D800, or waiting for whatever Canon will do to try to outdo it. Based on your need for low budget, high speed and high resolution, there are not may other digital options. Photokina is also not that long from now, so it is probably worth waiting to see what is announced, as it may bring prices down and open up other avenues for consideration. <br /> Another good option could be a Pentax 645D and either trying to find something like a 45mm Super Rotator or the 75mm Pentax 67 T/S lens, or just doing the T/S in Photoshop. I know that is perhaps not the best route, but CS6 has come a long long way in terms of blur and bokeh simulation, as well as distortion correction. The software is enormously powerful these days.<br /> The other cheap large format digital option would be a 22-33mp back on a technical camera, but I doubt you will find many that are less than 10,000 (some of the tech cams and lenses alone can push that, notably Alpa). Finally, you could look at something like a medium format film technical camera...a Horseman SW 612. This one has shift, but no tilt. 6x12 scanned on a good scanner can give you a lot of high quality image to work with...at least 1mX2m without breaking a sweat.</p>

<p>"For architecture a gallery might legitimately want to present the work on a large scale (80cm to 1m on a side or larger), and that is still best done with higher resolution cameras and formats."</p>

<p>Who is creating the art here? The gallery shows the work as you present it to them and if they think they dictate that, then you need to find another gallery. The format is thus irrelevant but the images are not. </p>

<p>If the work doesn't distinguish itself aesthetically from what else is out there, then technical factors can matter(a lot of redundant work is out there selling, but it has to meet a certain threshold technically). But if the work is unique and aesthetically significant, then technical issues are pretty much irrelevant -as long as the work is relatively archival.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Who is creating the art here? The gallery shows the work as you present it to them and if they think they dictate that, then you need to find another gallery. The format is thus irrelevant but the images are not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Exactly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know you do mostly street and event work<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Recently I have been showing large prints of portraits, 20x30. They are from a dSLR with 11.3MP. It takes a fair amount of work to get them to that size, but they show well. I don't get any negative comments on the image quality, people discuss the photos for what I am showing, which brings me to this:<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If the work doesn't distinguish itself aesthetically from what else is out there, then technical factors can matter</p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<p>which I completely agree with. <br>

</p>

<p>I have to agree with the others. I feel that the gallery may not want your images simply because they don't want them and want to give some reason rather than they just don't like them, or more likely, they don't think they will sell. This spares feelings. I am not saying it is impossible for them to request a different format, but all they see is the end point and they may have no idea of the original medium unless they ask. Many gallery owners are not sophisticated about photographic equipment - but they know what they think will sell. So be wary about rushing to the conclusion that you simply must have a large format camera.</p>

<p>There are some "field" cameras that are a more portable than the 8x10 monsters, and even with having to find an enlarger and so on, you'd still have spent a lot less than larger format digital. There is, in the end, nothing else like a decent view camera for architectural work. Tilt/shift lenses are a partial substitute but do not equal the full movements of the view camera.</p>

<p>However, I'm with Jeff, this time, on the issue of the 24x36mm sensor ("full frame") being able to produce prints as large as any curator could want. If the ~22 MP of the Canon 5Dmk ii/mk iii is somehow not enough, you can always go higher with a new Nikon D800. At 36+MP it is pretty close to the 40MP MF digital cameras costing 3 to 4X more, not to mention TS lenses for the medium format.</p>

<p>It's not the size of the original in-the-camera image in mm, but in pixels that counts. I will grant that there <em>may</em> be less noise with the larger sensors, but I have not seen any practical proof of that, only the theoretical argument. Not that I've been looking for the proof, since I know that I personally would not go to the $20,000 cameras.</p>

<p>I just did some test shots, wanting to see if my 45 PC-E would hold up for the 36 MP D800. Looking at 200% crops, this combo is incredibly sharp. I think this could be up-sized and and could give you a high quality 30x40 print. My guess is that no one could tell this from MF and probably not from aa scanned LF print, if they did not know..... Yes it is a $5000 investment, but just saying.</p>

<p>You can rent a 4x5 view camera relatively cheaply (compared to digital) from Calumet or others which will have all the movements and resolution you could wish for. A 90mm lens is good for most interior work, and 75mm lenses give you twice the "normal" angle of view, but with limited coverage.</p>

<p>That said, Photoshop accurately performs most perspective control actions you could do with a view camera, with the exception of DOF control via tilts and swings. DOF is usually not a limitation with small and medium format photography as it is with large format work.</p>

<p>Several companies make view cameras to which you can attach an MF digital back, or even a Canon or Nikon DSLR. I'm not sure they are much smaller nor any easier to use than a 4x5 film camera. A field camera is a view camera that folds into a box, making it relatively portable. The cheapest "field" camera is probably a Speed or Crown Graphic, though with extremely limited movements.</p>

<p>I've strolled through historic sites like Charleston and Williamsburg with a monorail camera in a 22" roll-aboard suitcase. You'd want something with larger wheels for gravel and cobblestones, like a folding luggage cart, which I've used with a Lightware case. Large cases can carry the camera by its rail, without the need to remove the bellows and fold the standards. It's not exactly "run and gun", but workable.</p>

Hello Jeff,<br><br>Yes, i read what you wrote. Galleries raised concerns, you suggested to look for another, more knowledgeable gallery.<br>I would think, would you not?, that those galleries that raise concerns are exactly the galleries that care (or should i write CARE? ;-) ).<br><br>Generally, not caring about format is fine. To each his or her own, and all that.<br>But if you think it shows deeper or more knowledge not to care about format, it cannot but make me wonder why we don't all use Minox's 8x11 mm miniature format.<br>How whould you explain that people don't, and generally do care about format? Using the fact that you not once encountered a gallery that cared?<br><br>It's nonsense to suggest that only what the picture shows counts. The way it is shown - the choice of, and use of, technique - is integral part of the work. It's quite possible that, say, a 11 MP camera simply will not cut the mustard, no matter how great someone's creative genius. Which (creative genius) would only be great if it uses technique - including format choice - to achieve the thing it set out to achieve.<br>If the peculiar way an 11 MP camera leaves its mark on the result is precisely what was looked for, use an 11 MP camera. If it does not, it would show great ignorance to suggest that any suggestion that it indeed does not would be humbug, and that what's needed is not a technique to match the desired result, but a "more knowledgeable gallery".

<p>I have an Arca-Swiss 6x9 view camera to sell... I was thinking of posting an ad in the Classifieds, but I hope it's ok to mention it here. It's an earlier model, from the late 60's, but I just had a new bellows installed by the Arca Swiss people in France. Also has a bag bellows. It has six lens boards, three recessed to various depths, and three flat. Also 3 rollfilm backs - I had a Galvin bail back installed to make for easier previewing and easy insert of the rollfilm back. Also has a Graflok back. I'm guessing a digital back might fit the Graflok adapter. Please e-mail off-thread for details. (Sysop: please delete if this is in violation of Photo.net policy. Thank you.)</p>

<p> Victor, remember that there is always the possibility of 'stitching' pictures to get more resolution from your images. It may be an alternative to changing gear to Nikon, or other larger formats.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> It's nonsense to suggest that only what the picture shows counts.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's all that gets hung on the wall, the picture. If it is something that shows well and someone wants to buy (assuming we are talking about a gallery), that is all that matters. Nobody is buying the camera, the technique, the drive to the location, of the thing itself. They are buying what is hanging on the wall, period.</p>

<p>And, having had numerous gallery shows, and knowing others who have, I have never heard of the format used to take it being questioned. When you take your prints in, you don't take your camera or anything but the prints. The prints are what they are, and how the photographer gets there is the photographer's problem, not that of a knowledgeable gallery.</p>

"That's all that gets hung" and that's the very (and only) thing that shows how it is made.<br>Just like you see a difference between an oil painting and an acrylic painting, the choice of camera, format and lens shows itself in the final result. That's why, Jeff, we don't have just one camera, just one format, just one type of film, just one type of paper, just one means of transfering what the camera captured onto that paper (or canvas, board, etc.) etc.<br>A Stieglitz or Adams would look quite differently had they been taken using your 11 MP digital machine (that can be made to stretch a bit to please you and your gallery). A Salgado would not have looked the same had he used an 8x10" instead of a 35 mm machine. And so on, and so on.<br>The galleries that cared knew that, and made recommendations accordingly. If you rather deal with "more knowledgeable" galleries, that's up to you, of course.<br>It's still utter nonsense to suggest otherwise.<br>"How the photographer gets there" is indeed "the photographer's problem". A more knowledgeable gallery will see when a photographer needs a bit of help to get there, and not just put anything on their walls.

<blockquote>

<p>"But if you think it shows deeper or more knowledge not to care about format, it cannot but make me wonder why we don't all use Minox's 8x11 mm miniature format."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For some, the Minox might be just the thing to get the job done and no other camera could make the images--so they should be excluded solely due to the camera? Certainly, we choose equipment with what we intend to do in mind, but the proof that we did so is the print itself, it resonates or it doesn't--Minox or 20x24 banquet camera.</p>

<p>Galleries like to know process because it is part of the sales pitch. If I use an 8x10, wet plate collodion or an iPhone, they just want to package what I do if the images are worth selling--the story probably wouldn't be much different, they just plug in the pertinent facts!</p>

Indeed John,<br><i>"If the peculiar way"</i> a Minox <i>"camera leaves its mark on the result is precisely what was looked for, use"</i> a Minox <i>"camera. If it does not, it would show great ignorance to suggest that any suggestion that it indeed does not would be humbug, and that what's needed is not a technique to match the desired result, but a "more knowledgeable gallery".</i><br>That choice is large part of why something does or does not "resonate". More knowledgeable galleries know that. The better ones will tell the photographer why they won't accept the not-yet resonating thingies presented to them.<br>It's not about the caption, about the story. It's about recognizing an appeal that sells, or the lack thereof. They're not in the business of giving anything a chance to get looked at. They want the stuff on their walls to dispappear off their walls as soon as possible again, for the most money they can get for it.

<p>The Fuji GX680 is a great MF body and offers full front movement with all lenses (except the 50mm which has limited movement). They are available at reasonable used prices and the MkIII is the way to go as it has no built in rechargeable battery so you can use standard rechargeable or disposable cells (CR2, CR123). It is a 6x8 film camera but there are digital options although this is not cheap. A good scanned 6x8 film image (I use a Nikon 9000) produces a higher resolution image than my 5DII (I also use the 17 F4). That said the camera weights about 10lbs and is very slow to operate.</p>