Required movements for church interiors?

[johnw436]

I am contemplating buying a LF camera primarily for interiors. I don't need to

shoot in a bathroom or anything so extremely tight, but I do want to photograph

church interiors such as stained glass windows where I'm always looking upward.

 

In the past I have used my MF cameras for this kind of stuff and then done

perspective correction in photoshop. It just seems it would be so much simpler

to get the shot right in the first place. I need movements!

 

I have researched this to death both in the PN archives as well as the usual LF

photography sites. Now I am really confused. There appears to be a divide.

One group of people hold that I need a monorail camera with front tilt, swing,

and shift as well as the same movements for the film back. Other threads and

articles suggest one could get acceptable results with a Crown Graphic.

Everything I read leads me to a 90mm lens.

 

Am I on the wrong track? I don't do this for a living so I cannot justify a

dream machine. I am willing to jump through a few hoops, but I'd rather not

have to fight the camera tooth and nail to get what I need.

 

I have been thinking along the lines of used cameras such as :

 

$250 range: (camera only) such as a Cambo SC or Calumet 45. Crown / Speed

Graphic. How about a really... REALLY old ebay camera like a Korona View?

 

Am I being realistic or am I completely off base? I have never done any LF

photography before therefore I am at the mercy of whatever I read.

[john_shriver]

What you mostly need is a lot of rise, or a REALLY tall tripod.

 

You may also need the capability to use a bag bellows with a wide angle lens.

 

I don't think you're really going to get enough rise with a press camera like the Graphic. Also, 90mm is getting to be a tight squeeze on that camera.

[sattler123]

The folks suggesting a mono rail for interior shots have it right. You need front rise mostly - none of the press cameras, incl. the Linhof Technikas will give you enough rise! John is also correct that you will need a bag bellows and you'd need a 90mm with lots of coverage - read expensive. The reasonably priced 90mm lenses do NOT have enough coverage to allow for extensive movements. What you are trying to achieve is not a cheap solution. I would look for a used Sinar F1 or F2 (they can be had for about $500) and a 90mm f4.5 lens (plan on spending at least $1000 for a used one).

 

Depending on where you live you might be able to rent an outfit for the weekend and see for yourself - it might save you a lot of money if it turns out that LF is not for you (you woulnd't be the first one)

 

Sorry, wish I could give you better news, but you'd do yourself no favor by going the cheap route - you might then as well use what you have now.

[mona_chrome]

I have done interiors for years with a zone vi wood field camera. I use lenses down to 75mm with a bag bellows. The main thing you need is a wide lens and a bag bellows. If you have to use recessed lensboards, you will complicate your life. Also, beware of view camera backs that will actually cut off the image long before you run out of movement. Some just set the ground glass so deep and don't bevel the back interior--you lose a lot of practical movement.

 

A monorail camera is sometimes better than a field camera, but like I said, I have used the field camera while I have had the monorail collecting dust. I just find it more fun to work with--I do this for a living. I do remember standing in the middle of a major airport, on a ladder and using a 9 foot tripod and having a photographer come by and say " I never thought I would ever see anyone shooting architecture with a wood field camera", but then, I am used to not being conventional!

[Troll]

It is better much done in Photoshop than you could possibly do with a view camera and wide angle lens. Only if you're going to print conventionally would using a view camera be better, and even then you can make the corrections during printing by tilting the negative carrier or the paper easel. I'd stick to Photoshoping it.

[michael_briggs2]

As some of the others have said, the main movement that you need is front rise. Swings and tilts may be useful in some cases. The inexpensive way is to get a used lower-end monorail. There are plenty of these on the used market. They are less convenient to transport than a field camera, but will do the job, and better than some field cameras. Just be sure that it has a bag bellows. You don't have to have a f4.5 90 mm to have lots of coverage, e.g., there is the 90 mm f8 Nikkor-SW, but of course the image on the screen will be darker to focus and compose with. What focal length depends on the scene. What focal lengths are you using in using in MF? You can scale by the format dimensions to get some guidance. "much better done in Photoshop" I think is it better to capture the photo right. One disadvantage of post-taking perspective correction is that photo becomes trapezoidal -- cropping back to rectangular, and you lose some of the scene that you thought that you had.

[ronald_moravec1]

Any wide lens should should have lots of coverage, 90mm or 110XL.

Bag bellows makes life easy as when bellows are compressed for wide angles, you can not make movements easily.

 

A camera that provides rise is required. This leaves out speeds and crowns. Second is swings and tilts. so you can focus on a wall without the back being parallel to it.

 

My zone VI does all this so I am happy. Monos are more convenient to use but harder to carry around. Either will get the job done. Lots of woods do not offer everything so be careful. Also the bag bellows needs to be removed to fold it up so that kind of negates the nice easy transport. Also most lenses need to come off.

 

Stay away from the 90 Angulons and Wallensaks as they were made for speeds and crowns and have no room for movement.

[friedemann_pistorius]

Another (expensive) option is a non-folding Ebony 45SW camera with 60mm front rise, which should be sufficient in most cases. Easier to carry around and less bulkier than a monorail, if size and weight is a concern.

<br>There's a cheaper clone of this camera (Shen-Hao TFC45, if my memory serves me right), but I can't say anything about built quality. Personally, I don't like clones...

<p>Lenses with large image circles (230mm or more with a 90mm lens, for example) will do the job, but don't forget to think about longer lenses too - some details can be far away. I find myself using 150mm and even 300mm lenses in big churches more often than I'd thought I would.

[Monophoto]

John -

 

Front rise - absolutely.

 

Wider lenses - absolutely. 90mm at least. You can buy used Super Angulons for a reasonable amount, but you will pay a premium for faster lenses. I bought a Caltar 909mm f8 for $365 a few years ago - that's Super Angulon with a private label and is a fine lens, but you have to be prepared to deal with focusing on a very dark ground glass.

 

Others have suggested a monorail. Ideally, yes although they are less convenient to schlep around than a field camera. They usually allow for interchangeable bellows, and you will need a bag bellows for lenses larger than 90mm (and perhaps for 90s to get maximum movement). But you can do decent work with a field camera.

 

Finally, for inspiration, see the Texas Church Project site, http://www.texaschurchproj.com/overview.html. Note that these guys use mainly very old wood field cameras, and their work is drop-dead gorgeous.

[ChrisSpeaker]

Some have said to look for used lens at over $1000 but I'd check out B&H for Nikon lens. They are no longer being produced by Nikon but are still very very good and can be had at reduced prices. A new 90 f4.5 is only about $899. See http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/37043-USA/Nikon_1345_Wide_Angle_90mm_f_4_5.html

[jtk]

You'll be better off if you can photograph those windows from a distance than from close-up. That wouldn't require as much camera movement (and distortion) as a wide lens...a "normal" lens will cost half as much as a wide..

 

...various superb 150-210mm lenses will cost well under $400. You'd find it hard to beat a cheap Xenar or Optar or Ektar.

 

For the wide lens you certainly don't need a $900 item..an f/8 Super Angulon will be far more than satisfactory...a 75 or 90 will give you plenty of movement.

 

You might be happiest with the cheapest Cambo or Toyo. A "field" camera would hinder architectural work.

[johnw436]

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to answer my post. Good stuff. Now I can at least narrow my camera search a bit since I know more about what I'm looking for.

 

With my 6x4.5 stuff I'm using mainly 50mm, 75mm, and in very rare instances a 150mm. Very often I wish I had a 40mm when I can't back up. Part of my reasoning for large format is so that I can crop to create what I would have gotten with a wider lens had I had one when I took the photo.

 

Keystoning is my main concern.

 

So, if I am understanding correctly, a monorail is easier to use but a field camera much more convenient to transport? That does make sense. I guess I'm a little surprised that any large format is easy to transport. I keep picturing in my mind a camera, lenses mounted in boards, a pile of film holders... I use a rolling bag now for a tiny little Bronica!

[Troll]

John, many field cameras are easy to transport, although most 4x5 monorails and 8x10s get pretty heavy. In addition to the bags full of accesory crap, it's the bloody big tripods that are the PITA -- both heavy and awkward!<P>Wouldn't it be cheaper just to buy a WA or PC lens for your 4.5x6?

[johnw436]

Hi Bill,

 

You're probably right. A wide angle, well let's call 40mm wide for 645, because that's the widest available, costs about 300 dollars last I checked. Pennies on the dollar from what it cost new. That would help me to a good degree, but it's about the same price as I've seen LF kits go on ebay and it's the LF camera PC that I am after.

 

As far as a PC lens for a Bronica... I'm not sure they're out there. I'll check around. If it's going to cost me a grand or so I think I'd be better off with an old monorail and the best lens I can afford. At least that's where this thread is leading me.

 

After all, I can do what I need to do in PS, although the results are far less than ideal. Did I mention I am not a photoshop expert? I have found in my meager experience that it's just so much easier when I get it right in camera.

[jtk]

You'll get far less keystone with a long lens than a short one, assuming you're not shooting from a ladder :-)

 

Will your 150 be too long for the purpose, shooting from the center aisle or far side of the church?

[johnw436]

Hi John,

 

I use the 150 on occasion, but for 645 it's pretty darn long inside all but cathedrals. For isolating specific murals, etc. the 150 works well if I can't move closer. So far, moving closer isn't nearly as challenging as moving back. While the churches are usually large, Catholics are fond of marble columns! I have tried and tried to make interior columns look interesting, but it's tough.

 

75mm being normal, it's my go-to lens. 50mm lets me get a look of grandeur. There are plenty of 40mm lenses out there but any tilt to the camera at all yiels a lot of distortion (and keystoning).

 

It sounds like I might need a high-lift more than I need a view camera!

[Troll]

One other thing -- we are used to looking UP at stained glass windows, and just a little keystoning in the final print often seems nore natural than perfectly squared images. (Same applies to tall buildings.)<P>I am also attaching an image in which extreme keystoning was corected by tilting the paper easel during printing.