Which lens for architectural pictures?

I would like to take some pictures for local architects. Houses don't

move, so speed, of film or lens, is not an issue. I am thinking of colour print film, perhaps Fuji Reala. I need a new wideangle lens, but which one? Voigtlander seems a cost-effective option, but 15, 21, 25, or 25? I am tempted by the 15.

David, architects are notoriously picky about such things as

converging lines, etc. What you need is a perspective control lens. It

will allow you to photograph buildings without tipping the camera up

(which makes them look as if they were falling over backward). What

you do NOT need is a 15, which is too wide for most uses.

<p>

I do most architectural work with a medium-format Fuji GX680, which

has the rising/falling/shifting/tilting front movements of a view

camera. My most-used lens is the 80mm, which has about the same angle

of view as a 40mm lens on a 35mm camera. I also have a Nikkor 35mm PC

lens which I use on my Canon EOS cameras via an adapter.

<p>

At some point I may get the Canon 24mmTS (tilt/shift) lens, but so far

have been able to get by just fine without it.

Dave; what an excellent answer!

If one is on a shoestring budget one still may get good results.. One

thing is to have a small level to insure that the cameras back is

vertical. If the camera is tilted up or down; the buildings will look

wrong. Use a tripod when one uses a level.....The swings and tilts of

Davids view camera allow alot of control. One can offset the camera

from a bad object (lightpole); and use all the fancy lens & film

tilts to make the build appear correct....I recently got a 35mm PC

nikkor for the Nikon F off of ebay for about 200 dollars....It has

about an 11 mm shift...

by a cheap, used 4x5 with a 90mm or wider lens. don't even consider

getting into architectural photogarphy with a 35mm. (altho if you

must, chec out the zork devices, available at ken hansen photo in

NYC.)

Well, an even less expensive way to get the job done is to use a

wide angle lens you already have and correct it with the

perspective controls in PhotoShop. Just give yourself a little extra

around the subject when shooting so there's enough image

edge to edge after you adjust.

Marc:

<p>

You are correct if one has a computer and Photoshop.

For the cost of the needed computer outfit and a legit copy of

Photoshop, one can buy an excellent used 4x5 camera and 90mm WA lens

and do it right with much better quality, I venture to say.

<p>

Also, David, unless one does use Photoshop, most architectural work

is done on transparency film. These days, for pro work, slides are

scanned on high-end drum scanners and output digitally direct to

printing presses or to digital processes such as Fuji Frontier or

other digital media which are FANTASTIC.

<p>

Cheers and keep the lines parallel.

What Roger said...

<p>

In addition to the converging lines that Dave mentions, you also have

to worry about distortion and falloff (which cannot be easily

corrected for in PS). All of these issues are minimized with a view

camera, and even a simple 4x5 with an older 90 will make an ideal

architectural outfit. You might consder renting one for one of your

assignments; if you do, you'll probably never bother to shoot

architecture again without one.

<p>

Cheers,

Another possibility, if the building isn't too tall, is to use a wide,

non-PC lens to take in the whole building without tilting the camera.

This will give you a lot of foreground, but if you can find something

of visual interest in the foreground, it can make for a great

photograph. Many of the photos in my Rock City Barns book (for which I

did NOT use a PC lens) were done this way. It was a real challenge to

take whatever the situation gave me and make something out of it, and

resulted in many of the best photos.

If you use an R Leica, the best bet is the 28mm PC-Super Angulon R.

Much more flexible than setting up a 4X5, and for most purposes

perfectly adequate. Unless you go to a very expensive Sinar, Canham

or comparable, the adjustments on a 4X5 will not be precise enough to

give you much advantage over a first-rate 35mm. Also good wide angle

lenses for view cameras cost as much as the PC Super Angulon.

"Unless you go to a very expensive Sinar, Canham or comparable, the

adjustments on a 4X5 will not be precise enough to give you much

advantage over a first-rate 35mm."

<p>

Oh I don't know about that. When I took an architectural photo

course at the junior college, I checked out a 4x5 Cambo. A nice

little (?) camera that doesn't cost a fortune. I also checked out a

90mm lens, as Jack Flesher recommended. I got very nice results, and

had no problems with adjustments. It is the right way to go, for

best results. I'll also mention that I get very acceptable results

with my 35mm PC-shift Nikkor. It doesn't have the control of a view

camera, but converging verticals, the biggest single issue with

buildings, is at least controlled well.

A very neat camera is the Horseman VH-R, which is a 2x3 technical

field camera that takes rollfilm backs. It has drop-in cams that

couple a number of lenses from 65-180mm (Horseman's own lenses, made

by Toyo Kogaku better known as the mfr of Topcon SLR's in the

60's...or any 4x5 lens in a #0 shutter will fit in a Horseman board)

to a built-in rangefinder and (separate) viewfinder with bright lines

for each focal length. Both the viewfinder and back rotate for

vertical composition without turning the camera. The front standard

has rise, fall, fwd and reverse tilt, and side shift. The rear of

the camera can also be tilted. You can usually pick up the body and

3 lenses for under $1500. I had one of these, it was a nice setup.

If you're using negative film, can't you also corrective for

perspective using the enlarger?

There are two issues that other forum members may want to respond

to. One is the issue of the use of your photos. If they will be

used for publication, then 35mm. will be fine. If they are to be

used for marketting brochures, then medium format may be necessary.

<p>

Item two is interior versus exterior. Most exterior work is done

with available light on a tripod. Medium format with bellows or 35

mm. with PC lens work well there. As mentioned earlier, perspective

control can be done with any lens by keeping it level. The most

challenging area IMHO is interior photography with artificial

lighting. I think that this really separates the pros from the

amateurs. Wide-angle lenses work well here, but if you don't know

how to balance light, you're shooting in the dark. There are books

dedicated to interior lighting and most equipment that can be

rented. Any suggestions?

<p>

Cheers, Pat.

If you can't find a way to use a view camera (highly recommended,

and use slide film), another alternative is to use a wide enough lens

to include the top of the buiding when the camera is vertical and

level, then crop off the unused portion at the bottom. Converging

verticals fixed, at the expense of enlargement ratio.

<p>

Joe

Thanks everyone, as usual, for the comprehensive answers. As usual, I

am in a bit of a hurry and shall digest them at leisure. Just briefly:

this is a part-time venture, not a full-scale career and I don't want

to spend megabucks and invest in a brand new system just yet, though

4x5 would be fascinating. The PC lens SLR suggestion is good, so are

wideangles, and I agree absolutely about converging verticals and

available light. Why slides, when the end rsult required is often

prints, and/or CD? How about other Leitz RF lenses? Thanks

again...must dash!

Being an Architect, I'd like to respond. I work at a fairly large

corporate firm which employees photographers on a continuous basis.

Work is done with 35mm slide, or digital. Why 35mm slide? Our

marketing department has a huge inventory of slides, and photo CD's

which are constantly being used in in-house desktop publishing

proposals. (Scanned with a 4000 dpi film scanner, I might add.) Also,

Architects are notorious photo hounds themselves, with many smaller

firms doing their own photography. About fifteen years ago, I saw an

amazing exhibit where the photographer used a Leica M + a 16mm (?)

Zeiss. The big secret is to use a step ladder and get up high. Also

there is also nothing wrong with highly stylized work (converging

lines) either, but it really has to be stunning. We have a number of

display photos done this way. Believe it or not, a lens would be at

the bottom of my list. If I were going into this type of work, the

very first thing I would buy is a high quality, studio, tripod that

goes up high, and needs a small step ladder to use at max height. The

second would be a 4000dpi film/slide scanner and 13x19 photo printer

with archival quality of at least 25 years. It almost seems as if you

have the idea that you can buy a lens and some film, take a few

pictures, have them developed at Walmart, and make a couple of

hundred bucks, and indeed, you might, for one job. But it's that

repeat business that makes a successful career. Have you actually

approached any of the firms you're interested in doing business with

to see what their requirements might be? I would contact their

marketing dept (or person) and talk with them, see what they'd like

to see in a initial interview. And consider the fact that you'll

probably need to make some sort of marketing proposal yourself at

some point.

Excellent advice Glen. As to the approach I mentioned (Existing

equipment and PhotoShop controls ) I assumed the poster has

a computer as he is asking on this forum. And most people

have some form of an imaging program if they shoot

photographs. However, if David is looking to get into this to any

degree, Glens' advice is right on the money.

In general, architects prefer large format. Perspective control is a

must. No one can tilt the verticals to be arty all the time and get

away with it. That's called being lazy. If you don't want to get a

4x5 with a 90mm lens, buy a used Nikon and get a 28mm PC-Nikkor,

along with that big tripod. Can't recommend the R-cameras, only

because I can't guess at the price/availability of the Leica PC

lenses. and first, get a copy of Norman McGrath's

book, "Photographing Buildings Inside and Out". It's essential.

The bible for architectural photography is Julius Shulman's

"Photographing Architecture and Its Interiors". If you're not familiar

with Shulman's work, you need to be. The Ansel Adams of the built

environment, he was the foremost chronicler of MidCentury Modernism in

Southern California (and across the globe, for that matter). Very

famous photographs you'll probably recognize of the Case Study Homes

and structures by Charles Eames, Richard Neutra, Pierre Koenig, and

others.

<p>

Frank Lloyd Wright said of his Shulman's pictures of Taliesin West that

they were the best photographs ever taken of any of his buildings. No

small compliment from the monster/genius of modern architecture

himself!

Seems architectural photography is a Serious Business, not to be

undertaken by amateurs, and most of you reckon Leica ain't up to it.

Cripes, all I wanted to do was take some occasional "happy snaps" for

some architects I know. As the editor of a monthly lifestyle and home

features section, I write about them and se their work on a regular

basis. Many of these guys here in New Zealand are one-man bands, they

do not have glitzy PR departments or American-size budgets with

squillions of dollars to throw around (more's the pity).

Even our big brother neighbours the Aussies can be modest sometimes.

Glenn Murcutt, this year's Pritzker Prize winner, is definitely a

one-man band. You can check out pictures of his work on

www.pritzkerprize.co. Strewth, he even had the gall to take some

pictures himslef and they're pretty damn good.

What's wrong with "minimalism", "less is more" or "form follows

function" - architectural dicta which could well apply to Leica BTW?

Few people have bothered to answer my original question? This IS

supposed to be a Leica forum after all!?

Glen: tried to reply off-list but my email address boomeranged.

As for scanning, I wouldn't attempt it, I'd get it done

professionally. Happy snapping, folks!