LF vs Digital for architecture?

[jnorman2]

i have been looking at a digital camera forum trying to learn a bit

about them for my daughter, who is a photo-major at USC. i do LF

architecture for a living. someone on the forum recently asked a

question about doing architectural model photography with a digital

camera, and i gave her an answer. i would be interested in the

reaction of this forum to the way my response was received by that

forum:

<br><br>

the original question:<br>

I'm looking for the best value (£500 or under) digital for getting

close (3cm to 3ft) to architectural models. Images should be good

resolution for A4 max PR/brochures (so assume 4 Mpixels?). Models

would be in daylight or indoors with a good lamp. I've read many

reviews and the nikon coolpix 4500 looks favourite. Is there a

cheaper camera that could do the job?<br>

 

--

my first reponse:<br>

lily - i do architectural photography for a living. i am not sure

what your clients are after, but mine invariably require perspective

control, whether on models or actual buildings. there are no non-SLR

digital cameras which offer this capability. a nikon D100 with a

nikkor 28mm PC lens would give you this control, but is not

inexpensive. good luck.<br>

 

--

another fellow chimes in with this:<br>

"I do architectural photography for a living. I have my own business

doing this. I can help you.

 

Considering all the loss that occurs with cropping , effective versus

actual pixels , non 100% of frame viewfinder etc. You will need at

least a 5MP camera. If the aspect ratio of the sensor leans towards

square and your final image is closer to 2:3 then you'll need at

least 6MP camera. Even then you may not reach 300dpi on the long

dimension.

 

<b>Secondly - one of the beautiful things about digital is the fact

that stuff like perspective control lenses ( and even 4 x 5 cameras )

are dinosaur stuff now. You can do all the perspective controls

needed in a quality image editing program."</b>

<br><br>

___

to which i responded:

<br>

 

 

 

wow graham - i cannot believe any kind of professional architectural

photographer would say something like this. you and i must live on

different planets. most of the work i do is for HABS/HAER for the

library of congress, and they wont even accept anything except

archivally-processed b/w 4x5 (or larger) negatives. every

architectural publication i have ever shot for has also demanded

image perfection. the last stuff i submitted was 60MB files of

scanned 4x5 CTs. and even if you are using photoshop v7, you must be

aware of the image degradation associated with doing PC via software.

 

<br><br>

---

and he came back with:<br>

Um - I belived the original thread was asking about using a digicam

for shooting the architectural models.

 

Lets stay on the track here.

 

I am very impressed about your clients requirements but what does

that have to do with the subject?

 

I gave good advice for the job at hand.

 

And yes there is image degredation when doing PC correction

digitally - but that is only if your file is below a certain

resolution.

 

It wont happen to a file that has a minimum of 2400 pixels across.

Also you sharpen after the PC correction.

Look - If I need real quality - I shoot 6 x 9 film and scan at

4000dpi.

 

I don't screw around with 4x5 even though I trained for 2 years at

college for it.

 

Its way to time consuming and expensive.

 

With digital PC correction the very last excuse for still using a 4x5

has gone away.

 

If the customer demands 4 x 5 I just assume they don't really know

what they are talking about and the are just using old standards

because they don't know any better.

 

I tell them to hire another photog.

 

 

Like I said - I was addressing the question of using a digicam for

studio arch models. In this case the 4 x 5 and PC lenses are

dinousaurs.

 

<br><br>

---

okay. i know i am over 50 years old, but is this really where the

world of architectural photography is going, or is this person just

playing with toys and convincing himself he is doing professional

work? i was rather taken aback by his attitude. what do you folks

think?

 

 

 

[ken_lee11]

I may be missing something, but it occurs to me that perhaps you are approaching this backwards: Why not choose your equipment last ?

 

In other words, find out what the client needs or requires, and then choose your equipment accordingly. If all the client needs is some crude digital files for the web, you can get by with one set of equipment and methodology. On the other hand, if they need 40x60 prints with superb definition and archival quality, that calls for another set of tools. Leave the "religion" for the other guys.

 

As the old saying goes: Use the right tool for the job.

[henry_a]

Neither of you are completely right. He's right for the original question in terms of a low quality project. You're surely right about how to do it the best that it can be done. Don't forget there's lots of room in between. I've done some Photoshop PC correction on 35mm film scans that looked wonderful. Same for 6X6 and 6X7 from a camera without movements - the 11X14 prints looked great. Of course 4X5 would look even better and without any need for PC correction in the computer. But if the picture is running 4 inches wide on the printed page will anyone other than you ever know how you made the picture?

 

I do think its funny that he said "the last excuse for 4X5 has gone away..." As far as I can tell its still what you use if you want the best results for architecture. And I'm pretty sure that the 4X5 camera with movements will be the last refuge of film.

[sandy_sorlien]

Does the end justify the means? The last two posters put image quality issues in perspective (sorry) very well, but I would like to put forth the revolutionary concept that work done physically with the hands engages the brain in a different way than work done on a flat screen. Creatively, isn't it possible that the view camera work (of whatever format) which relates to the buildings on site, not after the fact, will produce a more sympathetic vision of the architecture? The more time spent outdoors with the real buildings the better. If you want to make pictures indoors of scenes that exist outdoors, you should be a painter.

 

Cheers from a former studio painter of architecture, now a photographer of architecture on location,

 

Sandy

[domenico_foschi]

I agree with Sandy, and might i also add that this is a sign of the

times we live in, where true craftmanship is disappearing,

where quantity has replaced quality, and where who has the

time to tilt and shift?

This is becoming frightening.

If a client asks me to shoot a building and objects to the use of a

view camera, i will refuse the job, because ultimately who pays

the price is not the client, but me , having compromised the

quality of my work.

That new generation photographer stated that is too costly to

use a 4 x 5 . Hw much is he charging $ 25 p/hour?

I am 40 and realize that the market has changed, but i will never

bend to compromise quality, and i will never get to the point

where i will forget why i love photography.

[d_g]

I've been using computers for 15 years now,

and 5 years ago i've start LF, after 6 month i was thinking that PS or another perspective control software was enought to control perspective ...then i improve my technique, now i can say that a lf camera have much possibilities than any software. Software are ok to correct an image, but most of images, can't be done without real world movements.

As an example, in the book "photographing buildings inside and out, from norman mc grath, on page 110: "i set the camera up with optical axis of the lens directly along the counter and with the film plane parallel to the entrance wall of the restaurant. I then shifted the lens to the right to eliminate the back counter area and to..."

The only way to make this shot with a digital camera, is by cropping the image...the best and more expensive digital slr is more or less egal to 35mm film, when you crop...

[david_goldfarb]

Digital perspective control doesn't let you do anything you couldn't do in the darkroom by tilting the easel or by shooting with the camera level and a wide lens and then cropping the excess. As before with the conventional methods, you'll lose some quality by cropping, but maybe it will be good enough for some purposes. For more demanding purposes, all these methods of cutting corners--digital or film-based--will be seen for what they are.

 

Architecture aside, you still can't manipulate the plane of focus convincingly by digital means.

[chris_patti1]

Although I'm not an architectural photographer, I've been doing perspective control digitally for some time now using the Picture Window Pro software (a photography-oriented alternative to photoshop)for a series of architectural interiors I've been working on. I am using a medium format camera and scanning the film. I find that that I can do anything digitally that I could do with camera movements but digital is much quicker and easier. I've not found much problem with image degradation resulting from the digital perspective control process. My impression is that, unless you need to control the plane of focus or require the extra resolution you would get from the bigger piece of film, digital PC would work quite well for architectural photography.

[domenico_foschi]

I find unjustified the use of photoshop for perpesctive control if

the reasons are time or money.

If you are a starving photographer who doesn.t own a view

camera, i could understand, but if you have no time to set up a

tripod and correct the film plane ( what about exposure and

balancing light ratios?, THAT is time consuming!) , you have no

place in architectural photography.

Oh well, i guess people are right when they see me with my 4 x5

or 8 x 1O and say " that is an old time camera, isn't it?

[mark_sampson]

A question not addressed in the above discussion: Who pays for the time spent fixing the images in Photoshop? The client may not want to. And if they don't, how much is your own time worth? Not much I guess! And if you're not in it to make a profit, why bother with clients? Choose your own assignments and do it however you want. (That's currently called "fine-art" photography, or "a hobby" for short.)

But if you get it right in the camera, all that time at the computer disappears. And if your work (decision-making) is done in-camera, you are then interacting with the subject, The Thing Itself; which means that you are more likely to get a good photograph. I certainly am not opposed to Photoshop, or digital manipulation of photographs as necessary, but relying on it as a crutch to solve your own laziness is an approach doomed to failure.

[ken_lee11]

You might find that this artilce on the <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/imagealign.shtml">Luminous Landscape</a> website "stretches" your understanding a little. It takes this subject to its extreme.

[sandy_sorlien]

If you love buildings, you will want to spend as much time with them as possible. Either outside photographing them, or inside the buildings themselves photographing them. NOT in another room looking at a virtual image on a screen.

 

If you don't love buildings, why are you photographing them?

 

Sandy

[sandy_sorlien]

PS to James Norman,

 

My last challenge was not directed at you; I know you love structures. It was a rhetorical question to the community at large.

 

The large community.

 

The large format community.

 

Better sign off now.

 

Sandy

[dave_t]

I do the PS "correction" reasonably often, works great if your output requirements are not terribly demanding or your corrections are small -- and I shoot only for myself (that is, I can't imagine a heavy duty buyer accepting it). It is definitely a second-rate solution, though, especially for moderate or greater corrections -- the vertical stretch gets severe for even moderate adjustments (I wish PS would automatically calculate that for you assuming vertical sides). PS of course cannot adjust the POF either, so PS is an extremely valuable addition to the toolkit, but no replacement for a camera with movements. So get the image right in the first place, use PS to fix what can't be done otherwise. Eg, for travel/vacation shots when you don't have the big camera around and all you need is shift, well, sometimes PS correction is the best you can do.

[jnorman2]

wow - thanks for all the great and thoughtful responses. this is truly a super forum, and it is so nice to be able to communicate with so many people who share this interest in LF. ken - thanks for the link - very cool. sandy - yes, i surely do love shooting architecture. the best days of my life are the ones where i spend entire days shooting buildings and bridges - i enjoy wandering around for an hour or so checking out vantage points, then waiting until the light is just right. i just shot some major bridges along the oregon coast for a NRHP nomination - completely exhilarating. oh yeah - i agree with the person above who believes that LF will be the last bastion of film-based photography - hear, hear! take care.<div></div>

[chris_patti1]

I get a chuckle out of the frequent claim that making photographic corrections digitally rather than "in-camera" is "lazy." It suggests that there is some inherent virtue both in making corrections before the shutter is released and in doing things the hardest possible way. I don't understand the basis for either idea. Whether or not perspective control is one, there are some corrections that are simply done better digitally than in-camera. I tend to think the real "laziness" is the insistence on doing it the old, comfortable way rather than exploring new methods.

 

By the way, why would anyone who loves buildings want to spend his or her time in them fiddling with camera movements?

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

I think there is one point which has not been explored and that is the relationship of the objects within the building once that PC has been done. There is a very good example of this on Leslie Stoebel's book, in it he places two ping pong balls stuck on rods one behind the other one so that they are aligned perfectly and you see only one. Next picture he raises the front standard and you get to see the top of the ball behind, next pic he shifts the front standard and again you get to see the side of the ball behind. In a building this kind of effects gives the picture a 3 dimensional quality. Specially in buildings that have columns, etc.

 

I imagine with PS no matter how much you straighten the lines and make them run parallel you will not get this effect as the imagine is not captured like this.

 

Wether this is good or bad is up to the photographer to decide but I would rather have control and understanding of my equipment than just hope I can "fix" it later on the pc.

 

BTW, I know I am going to get heckeled here for sounding like Bob S. but I image we are actually talking about image distortion correction, which is the correction of converging lines and not perspective corrections which is merely moving the camera back and forth.

[john grunke]

I cannot imagine any greater gratifaction than handing over to

my architectural clients a perfect 4x5 transparency held over

a new lightbox that I bought for them as a gift to view

thier old school trans, receiving a $2500 check with the words

from the client " We did'nt hire the other guy because he wanted

shoot digital" Maybe we'er not as savy as what can be done digitally

but the $$$ from my un sophisticated clients is still is very green.

[kelly_flanigan1]

If one is printing digital large poster print; a better image many times is with a nice well done 4x5 negative that the photographer has done all the tilts correctly; and the negative is scanned.<BR><BR> A digital image; or a scanned image of a "falling down" building may be corrected in Photoshop. BUT massive corrections are remaping the pixels differently at the top and bottom portions of the building. This remapping cuts the image sharpness. Mild corrections will be lost in print; and ususally not a problem. Massive corrections reduce the sharpness alot at the buildings top; where the pixels were remapped to be several across; instead of one...............<BR><BR>Go shoot a very tall building; tilt the camera way back to get it all in (using no tilts or shifts); then correct it in Photoshop to look normal. Mild corrections are not a sharpness problem; but massive corrections should be studied for sharpness issues; before one discounts using a proper camera with shifts and or tilts. We do printing of posters; and the general public thinks one can do massive corrections with digital; and not have any penalty. This is not true; but the customer is always right? ? Many will scoff and sing the sirens song of digital is always better; but I have to wonder when we correct a building; shot with a camera tilted 20 to 40 degrees; to get the entire thing on the film. Even a simple 35mm F2.8 PC nikkor on a Nikon F will correct alot of falling building sins; but this requires work for the shooter.... :) <BR><BR>Correcting the image by tilting ones enlarger doesnt cause this problem; but the enlarger cannot do massive massive corrections with ease. Most all photographers who tilt their enlargers would try at least to do some tilts/shift first with the camera.... <BR><BR>LF allows one to remove clutter using proper tilts and shifts. In digital one has to erase alot of this stuff; were as one can many times just do it before the photo is shot..........<BR><BR>Using a shift lens on a digital body will correct some sins; before they get helped/garbled in a photoprogram.....................LF gets alot correct from the start; and a BIG 4x5 transparency is a COOL thing to view; and require no software to be understood.. <BR><BR>Interiors of buildings is alot about lighting; the local photog for the home building magazine spends several days just on the lighting; to shoot the inside of one fine house.

[brian_c._miller]

I think y'all missed a key component of the question: photographing small models, from a distance of 3cm (appx 1-1/2 inches) to 3ft.

 

This is more like macro photography.

 

Do you really need that much perspective control when you are photographing a model?? What you really need are long bellows. I think that my Super Graphic gets within 12 inches at maximum extension with the standard lens. The lens would have to be stopped all the way down for DOF.

 

For this particular application, I would go for the digital camera. A new Canon G2 is available for $500 from a few places.

[dave_karp]

Am I mistaken? Isn't the PC correction in Photoshop limited to the image captured on disk? View camera users regularly use swings to correct or change perspective, in addition to rise to maintain verticals. This possibility is lost once the image is "captured."

 

The full controls of the view camera make it possible to do far more than just correct verticals. This is true for architectural models, buildings, or products.

 

It all goes back to what others have said: It depends on how much quality you or your client want in the finished architectural photograph.

[dan_smith]

"- one of the beautiful things about digital is the fact that stuff like perspective control lenses ( and even 4 x 5 cameras ) are dinosaur stuff now. You can do all the perspective controls needed in a quality image editing program.""

 

Yep, doing the job right has always been "dinosaur stuff" in that so many are not willing to do the work required.

 

With the manipulation/replacement/interpolation of "pixels" how can you present your images as being an accurate representation of what was in front of the lens?

 

As for the digital capture/photoshop images being able to do anything we can do with a film camera... I am waiting for your excellent 12x20 platinum/azo/carbon contact prints of the image. Or your 8 hour exposures by moonlight as the moon moves across the sky lighting up the nooks & crannies of a detailed section of a subject while you also capture the star trails in the sky.

[steve_gangi2]

Use the right camera for the job. Think of model photography as being table-top photography. You will be very close. You will need front tilt to keep the entire "table" in focus and you will need to watch the film plane to keep the little buildings from falling over. Stop down and use a lot of light. Since these are models (small things) you want to preserve all the little details. When you get good negatives and prints (or slides) then you can scan. Digital can do some neat stuff but never forget.... GIGO. Garbage in = garbage out. The less "post-production" you have to do on the computer, the better your final image will be. Now if the final pictures in the brochure are only 1 or 2 inches tall, then I doubt it would matter what you use. If you are determined to use a digital camera, shoot at the highest resolution it allows and save in an uncompressed (TIF or RAW) format. And make sure it is a good quality digicam. Cheap ones don't cut it.

[sandy_sorlien]

In spite of my previous answer in favor of view cameras, I do occasionally need to correct keystoning distortion on snapshots done with my little digital, which I post on the web for screen viewing only. My question is, which version of Photoshop has this capability? I only have PS 5 and it doesn't seem to have it.

 

Thanks,

Sandy