Tilt-Shift photography - what options in digital?

[Spearhead]

<p>All I'm hearing is hardware-speak. No references to any gallery experience. I don't have a website for hardware, it's for photography. I have shown numerous times and submitted work for fifteen years. While hardware enthusiasts may say that galleries look for specific hardware being used, one more time, galleries don't. That's not just my experience, I haven't heard it anywhere except from hardware enthusiasts. </p>

[Brad_]

If it were me, I'd stay away from a gallery that is more concerned about capture technicals than

compelling content. Much better to let your heart and passion direct where you go with your photography

and then seek out galleries that support your vision and work.

[john_a5]

<p>Jeff, I don't think QG is really saying something completely different than we are, he is just coming at it from a different angle. If someone's work didn't measure up, a gallerist might suggest that it is the equipment--especially if a 35mm was discussed for architectural work and the gallery owner was more familiar with large format shooters. The same would have been said to a landscape shooter using 35mm back in the film days, unless the work was wonderful like Michael Kenna's or Henry Wessel's, which was rare.</p>

<p>Most gallerists don't know that detail most photographer's know about equipment (but may be well versed in various darkroom processes and such that yield the prints they have sold) and may just have been trying to be helpful. But I think QG knows it wouldn't have been an issue if the work held up otherwise--at least that is the way I read his comments.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

You may not have a website for hardware, Jeff, but you're engaging in a hardware discussion in a digital photography section of a medium format forum.<br>Such forums exist, because people know that there is a difference between what you can produce, how your pictures look, using different formats, different bits of hardware.<br>I don't know why you find it difficult to acknowledge that you need tools to do what you do, and that these tools matter.<br><br>The more knowledgeable gallerist will know photography, i.e. all the flavours it comes in. Will know that you cannot separate technique from how the thingies he or she is asked to put on the gallery walls look. Will know that tools leave their mark on the work produced using them.<br>If your gallerists never paid any attention to the hardware you used, Jeff, it's either because they or not very good at what they do, or because your 11 MP digital camera fits the work you do. Not (!) because it's all the same, whatever you use.

[victor_boyko]

<p>First of all, gentlemen, thank you very much for all your valuable replies! QG described best that I'm looking for a hardware solution, not the way to persuade the abstract gallerist that 21MP image for architectural photography is enough and I'm not able to print it larger than 40cm x 60cm just because "that is how I see it". </p>

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>That is exactly my point. I want to have the ability to make some really large prints. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Stuart, I would love to buy Nikon, but the thing is that sometimes I have to go really wide, and Nikon does not have 17mm T/S, and Canon has. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Finally, you could look at something like a medium format film technical camera...a Horseman SW 612. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is really useful, I'll look into that! By the way, I didn't know about Alpa, seems very interesting! (and expensive too....)</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>John, the point of my topic is that i WANT to create a larger resolution images.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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>

</blockquote>

<p>JDM, 36 MP sounds really fine, but Nikon unfortunately does not produce a super-wide T/S lens, the widest available is 24mm which is not enought for my work. Canon has 17mm...</p>

<blockquote>

<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). </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Philip, thank you! I didn't know about this camera. Very reasonable prices indeed. As I understand, a GX680 with a 50mm less sees less than a 5dII with 17mm TS?</p>

 

[john_a5]

<p>I don't know how large you want to print, but a 5dmkII can print impeccable prints up to 40x60 inches (101cm x 152cm). I don't know how much larger you need to go.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>If your gallerists never paid any attention to the hardware you used, Jeff, it's either because they or not very good at what they do, or because your 11 MP digital camera fits the work you do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Most of my shows were from medium format cameras until five years ago. I still show photos taken with medium format cameras. Please don't tell me what cameras I use.<br>

<br>

And you have offered no evidence to the contrary on the gallery curators. You make vague references. I've submitted and shown for years. I have even shown to galleries that would never accept me (not famous) but the feedback has never been on technical issues. It's always around what types of work they show, work being defined by content, not hardware, and sales dollars, which is also not hardware.</p>

 

<p>It's fine that you're a hardware guy, but that doesn't have any relevance to the art world, where hardware is not the point unless it's arcane stuff like pinholes or panos.<br>

<br>

Oddly enough, Victor's followup post says that it's his choice, not the curator's, to look for a larger format.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Jeff,<br><br>Nobody is telling you what camera to use.<br>Not here, anyway. But if a gallery would, it would be their way of telling you that, in their knowledgeable judgement, you don't do your job well enough with the camera you happened to have used.<br><br>"Vague references"? Pointing out the extremely obvious, it being that the tool you use does matter, because it shows itself in the final result?<br>Would you care to answer the question posed a couple of days ago, "why we don't all use Minox's 8x11 mm miniature format"? Or would you rather stick to your vague view, that galleries that "CARE" don't care about how the picture looks, while the ones that do are not "knowledgeable" enough?<br>"Offered no evidence", while this thread exists because of (as mentioned in the very first post) galleries that comment on the quality of the images? Of course it's Victor's choice to look for something that might be acceptable too those gallery curators...<br><br>And again that hardware theme... "hardware guy"... How silly that is, Jeff.<br>Why, oh why, Jeff, are you frequenting a hardware forum, discussing hardware question? Could it be that you secretely do recognise that the tools you use matters (viz. your "most of my shows were [etc.]")? You told yourself what camera to use?<br><br>Bottom line: it is and remains utter nonsense to suggest that galleries that comment about the technical merits of your work are not knowledgeable enough.

[peter_roberts4]

<p>I use both GX680 and Hasselblad Flexbody with Leaf 36x48mm digital back. Lenses of Fuji were designed for 60mmx90mm film size while lenses of Hasselblad were made for 60mmx60mm film area. All these lens allow generous allowance for camera movement with 36x48mm senor.</p>

<p>I use GX680 to shoot close up because of its long bellow extension whereas Flexbody is used to shoot landscape and citycape. </p>

<p>I don't have 5D II so I don't know how it is compared with Leaf digital back in terms of image quality. Maybe someone can tell me the difference between 24mmx36mm and 36mmx48mm, not mention the dynamic range of digital back over that of 5D II.</p>

[mac_hordam]

<p><em>" .......I didn't know about this camera. Very reasonable prices indeed. As I understand, a GX680 with a 50mm less sees less than a 5dII with 17mm TS</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>If as your title suggests you are wanting a digital solution the GX680 would be a waste of time particularly given that you are dismissing the best digital option for you, the D800, due to it not having a tilt shift lens wider than 24mm available. I say "best digital option for you" because it has the file size and resolution to do the print sizes you want and also the portability and speed of use needed for that "quick get away".<br>

<br>

As the "best" solution for you isn't an acceptable solution I'd say your "next best" would be something like the 5Dmkii and 17 & 24mm lenses that you presumably borrowed or hired. Given your need to "shoot and run to the car" at times this would seem the sensible, if not almost the only, solution. Any problem you might have in being unable to produce prints to satisfy gallery owners with that combination would I suggest be addressable by more attention to capture and post processing skills as the hardware in this instance should be capable of the results you need. (That might sound like criticism, it's meant as a point of consideration in case that is where the problem lies).<br>

<br>

Given your stated requirements I can't quite understand why large format and film shooting options are being put forward as approaches to the problem. But perhaps you're open to doing it all a harder way than needed, who knows?<br>

<br>

Based on what you've said so far (you need digital, you have a $10,000 limit, you want portability, you need to shoot fast and get out quick and you want something wide like a 17mm on full frame DSLR) I'd go for the D800, 24mmPC-e and 14-24mm and what you can't do with lens movements do with software. Medium format digital isn't going to do the requirements in parentheses above.<br>

<br>

Plus I'd start my own gallery and go hang the rest of them:-) ......Or<br>

<br>

Rather than embarking on an up to $10000 spend on new gear I'd be more inclined to look around for more amenable galleries. <strong>If you are comfortable with your prints (and I assume you were in order to approach galleries in the first place) and are satisfied you have the necessary high standards of print quality</strong> then by the time you get to the gallery all aspects of capture methodology are beside the point. The gallery owner sees the print nothing more. (Well they do see you and how you present your prints and that can be a consideration too, just saying) They either accept or reject your work based on its merits and suitability for their gallery.</p>

<p>If they start talking about capture format or other technical stuff then either they are letting you down gently or something in my <strong>bold </strong>sentence above needs addressing. That may indeed require a different format but that will also mean your pictures won't be the same pictures you're now presenting them with. Do you want your work to be manipulated in some way by the requirements of someone else or are you still so comfortable with your prints that you still feel okay to approach galleries with them. These are things you need to decide yourself, we haven't seen your work so can't advise there.</p>

<p>I've had work accepted by galleries that I shot on a Panasonic LX2 digicam, there was never any mention of format, they didn't ask, I didn't say. The pictures have sold based on whether or not the customer liked them enough to buy them. I've never heard anyone question the capture format, that's not to say I wouldn't have liked to have shot some pictures on a different camera but at the time that wasn't an option. The bigger problem with a lot of galleries is not getting them to accept one's prints per se, but getting them to accept that photography can sit alongside paintings at all. (Obviously photo-centric galleries are excluded) I've had a lot of comments along the lines of "we like your work but we don't do photography it doesn't sell" Now that too could be a gentle let down but as they don't have any photography on show it seems to be more of a mindset. One such gallery did grudgingly take on some prints and their first payment notice came with the message "photos are selling like hot cakes we need some more" we haven't looked back since. These are some of the hurdles you have to overcome to get your work in front of the buying public. Just remember it's not the gallery owner who is buying so don't be too swayed by what they say. They aren't always right when it comes to selling your work for you. I've had work sell okay for a while and then sales drop off, until I presented some graphs showing sales figures compared with how and where the photographs were displayed in the gallery. Once the display position was remedied the figures went up again. This has to be done carefully and tactfully, gallery owners don't want to feel you're telling them how to run the business (this is where you need to be careful that gallery owners aren't telling you how to run yours). But sales for you are sales for them so everybody can benefit.</p>

<p>There was a brief period of changeover from where the mainstream was film to mainstream becoming digital where I used to get asked if I shot on digital and it was asked in a way that made it sound as though the result would be less acceptable than film. That has long gone, there also used to be a reticence about inkjet prints compared to wet prints that also has long gone. It's now back to the customer saying the same as they did in the film days and now say in the digital days "you must have taken these on a good camera" Whether I display shots taken on digicam, DSLR or medium format the only people who are interested in which was used are other photographers and they very rarely buy. So if you're getting comments about format used think carefully before being propelled towards a big spend, there might just be an unspoken subtext.</p>

[shlomi]

<p>The camera that you need is Fuji GX 680 III (not IIIs, I or II).<br /> The total for all the parts except digital back, should be like $2500 if you can find it used.<br /> You will need a Kapture Group control module (OneShot), and an adapter to mount your digital back to the Fuji.<br /> There is a cheap Chinese adapter on eBay, or the better kind from Kapture Group, which also rotates.<br /> The shift of the Fuji is only 7.5mm, which might not be enough for you to counter architectural distortion.</p>

<p>If that's not enough, then the other solutions are quite expensive:<br /> - Phase One 120mm TS - $5000 only for the lens, plus ~$2000 for a used Mamiya body<br /> - Large format - $1500 for a used body, $1500 for a new back adapter, $1500 for a good lens - if you want electronic shutter and shutter control then a few $1000 more<br /> - Alpa</p>

[mac_hordam]

<p><em>"The camera that you need is Fuji GX 680 III (not IIIs, I or II)."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

How's he going to get 17mm equivalent which is what he says he wants?</p>

<p>How's he going to run to his car when the situation demands? </p>

[peter_roberts4]

<p>Well, the widest lens for GX680 is 50mm which is about 35-40mm equivalent to full frame dslr when used with 36mmx48mm sensor. Of course, it would be wider if you attach it to bigger sensor.<br>

<br />But you can stitch several images in Photoshop in case you need wider coverage.</p>

<p>Shlomo is correct. You can easily find GX680 III with a lot of lens at xbay at very reasonable price. The lens of Fuji for GX680 is very very good and sharp.</p>

<p>Yes. GX680 is heavy. I still can put GX680 with 50mm, 100mm and 210mm lens in my backpack. You need tripod as well.</p>

<p>Other solution is Flexbody with hasselblad 40mm lens which is about 30mm equivalent to full frame dslr when shoot with 36x48mm sensor. again, you stitch images in photoshop. the quality is very good.</p>

<p>My digital back is for hasselblad. Then I bought an adaptor to attach digital back to GX680. It costs me US$100. GX680 can rotate the back so no need to buy from Kapture Group at much higher price. But you need Kapture Group control to trigger digital back with GX680.</p>

[mac_hordam]

<p><em>"Well, the widest lens for GX680 is 50mm which is about 35-40mm equivalent.."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

But he's already said he's not attracted by even the 24mm lower limitation of Nikon's T/S lenses and prefers the 17mm option Canon offers. He's also trying to limit himself to £10k, he's ruled out Hasselblad as too expensive and above all once he's actually photographing he's needs at times to shoot quick and be able to get out quickly too.</p>

<p>I think that as threads get over long perhaps the goals of the OP become overlooked or buried in the mass of answers but I really don't think his needs are going to be satisfied in the medium format digital realm. D800's the answer at present. But, I think he may decide to wait until Canon respond to the D800 challenge. I think also he may have just gone off taking photos and we're all simply talking to ourselves. Happens.</p>

[peter_roberts4]

<p>"I think that as threads get over long perhaps the goals of the OP become overlooked or buried in the mass of answers but I really don't think his needs are going to be satisfied in the medium format digital realm. D800's the answer at present."</p>

<p>Obviously another cheap sales effort in the forum. This effort would be perfect if listing the hyperlink to B&X photo Video or SXmy's Camera...</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The tried and tested, and still best, solution would be the thing traditionally used for such work: a view camera. Simple, and cheap. And delivering all the quality you would need.<br>Scan the negs if digital is required.

[mark_l6]

<p>"The tried and tested, and still best, solution would be the thing traditionally used for such work: a view camera. Simple, and cheap. And delivering all the quality you would need.<br />Scan the negs if digital is required."<br>

Exactly right, perfect answer, tried and tested over decades. If you need to get away in a hurry, pick up camera and tripod as one, run to car, deposit on back seat and drive off. Works for me. I've twice had to do exactly that when being approached by gangs of skinheads in the north of england. I'm no coward but I do know when to run and when to stay.....</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Or would you rather stick to your vague view, that galleries that "CARE" don't care about how the picture looks, while the ones that do are not "knowledgeable" enough?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Actually quite the opposite, as I said. And someone else said better:<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>

<blockquote>

<p>Aesthetics is what matters to galleries.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

which addresses this:<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would think, would you not?, that those galleries that raise concerns are exactly the galleries that care</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

...<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If your gallerists never paid any attention to the hardware you used, Jeff, it's either because they or not very good at what they do,</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

<br />I really don't like playing the name game, but I was in a portfolio review by the director of the <a href="http://www.fraenkelgallery.com/">Fraenkel Gallery.</a> The Fraenkel gallery is the premier photo gallery in the US, maybe in the world. While Richard Avedon was alive, they represented him. They are hardly "not very good at what they do." There were about 25 people who had their portfolios reviewed. There wasn't a single comment about equipment used, they were about aesthetics, presentation, style, and quality of the prints.</p>

<p>Maybe you can share your photos and your gallery experience so we can compare.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Jeff,<br><br>You chose a reply in which you shared your view that people who recognize that the tool you use (be it a subminiature Minox, a APS-C digital thing, or an 11x14" LF camera - to mention just the format-aspect of our tools) leaves its mark on the final result are ignorant and don't "CARE".<br>You can go on and protest that that is so, that if confronted with the bit of common sense, i.e. that it indeed does make a diference, by 'ignoramuses' who pose as gallery curators, we should run and seek more 'knowledgeable' ones who do CARE".<br>But i'm sorry, but all you would be doing is continue the one and only display of true ignorance in this matter. Just one offer of help, to make it easier perhaps to get your mind around the matter: do you think that the "aesthetic quality" of the works of, say, A. Adams would have been unafected by his choice of hardware? (And it would be good if for once you answer the question, instead of repeating that you never knowingly encountered someone who gave you the impression of having been in possession of that little bit of common sense that you label "ignorance".)

[mac_hordam]

<p>From the OPs first posting of this thread "<em>Tilt-Shift photography<strong> - what options in digital?</strong>" </em>in the Medium Format forum.</p>

<p><em>"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?"</em><br>

<br>

Now for those who don't read every word I would just draw attention to the <em>"digital system"</em> in that quote. Some may interpret that as shooting film and scanning but I don't feel this is what the OP was asking. (I wouldn't go into a store and ask for a digital system and expect to come out with a film based camera and scanner, but that's me)<br>

<br>

So when it comes to answers about view cameras and shooting with film and then, quote <em>"Scan the negs if digital is required." "Exactly right, perfect answer" </em> Perfect answer to what question? Not one hitherto contained in this discussion. And yes I've suggested a D800 as the nearest "ideal" solution which doesn't sit too well as an answer in a MF forum either, but that, I hope I've explained, is a "best fit" with all his declared needs and <strong>is</strong> a digital system.<br>

<br>

He's still away somewhere taking photos though, which isn't really playing the game. I hope we can keep this going long enough till he gets back or we're going to look a right bunch of gear nerds.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I guess there's no examples of interactions with gallery curators. Or any experience with putting on shows. I give up, I can't argue about art with hardware junkies. I'll go back to discussions with photographers.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Stop hiding behind that extremely silly "hardware junkies" thing. Jeff.<br>You can't seriously discuss art, without discussing everything that goes into making art. You rather talk to "photographers" you say... what are those people, Jeff, but people who made a choice what medium to use, what technique and what tools they need to create the kind of art they envisage?<br>Why do you not go discuss art with 'artists' (whatever that then may be), if you think people who make a choice in how they are going to create art, and think that choice was not just a random one, are "hardware junkies"? No.. "photographers"... Did you know that photography is a rather divers field, with parts of it requiring a different approach than others? You don't, do you? In your quest for "more knowledgable" people to talk to when you run into the fact that not every Minox a Gursky make, you show how very little you understand of it all.<br>And how are you not a "hardware junkie", being here at all, and saying that you "go back" to discuss things with "photographers"? Do you understand what this is you are displaying here?<br><br>As long as you do not understand that the medium, the technique, the tools, all leave an indelible and largely decisive mark on the art that's being produced, that artists do not choose their medium, etc. nillywilly, you, Jeff, can't discuss art. Period.

[fotografz]

<p>Victor, I'm not sure there is a Medium Format solution to meet the specifications and demands you have outlined ... all the reasons are buried in amongst all the personal debates and squabbling.</p>

<p>Cost to do it right would be the chief reason, but not mentioned is the aspect of a more shallow DOF and limited ISO performance inherent with MFD. The most limiting factor is getting the T/S focus spot on with MFD in the field ... hard to do even with the Hasselblad and T/S-1.5 which I own and use on a H4D/60. Remember, there is no Live view on the LCD and no 10X zoom in while using life view to perfect focus. MFD and "hurry up" are not compatible concepts. There is no 17mm T/S equivalent for use on a MFD SLR body anyway.</p>

<p>The Canon seems to meet all the requirements and the 17 and 24 wide T/S lenses are proven ... save one aspect that <strong>you</strong> desire: resolution. This may be so simple a solution that it gets over-looked ... but have you tried up-resing the existing Canon files with Genuine Fractals? It is now called Perfect Resize 7 and is $99. </p>

<p>http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/suite/perfect-resize/?ind</p>

<p>In your situation, I would explore the possibility of a Canon 5DMK3 which while "only" 22 meg, offers a newer sensor technology and a more powerful and function rich processing engine, which is reputed to produce cleaner pixels, smoother tonal transitions and more detail than the 5DMK-2 version. Plus, it is both possible and probable that Canon will answer the Nikon D800 with a higher resolution 35mm DSLR in future ... allowing you to use the T/S lenses you already own, and up the res without a software solution like Perfect Resize</p>

<p>The caution regarding 35mm DSLRs that pass the 24 meg FF threshold is demand on the optics. The Nikon D800 has proven that out pretty quickly ... even the higher spec Nikon glass is being stressed by the demands of such a pixel packed sensor, and their PC lenses are lacking in many respects compared to the Canon offerings.</p>

<p>I'd explore the Canon 5DMK3 were I in your shoes. </p>

<p> </p>

[mac_hordam]

<p>Marc, well said but wasted I'm afraid.</p>

<p>Victor is currently being held by a private security militia and being interrogated as to why he had the temerity to shoot in their establishment without a view camera and then have the gall to approach a gallery with the hope of having his sub par photographs displayed.</p>

<p>His anguished cries will fall as confirmation of his wrong doings on those with large format ears and serve only to harden their resolve to ignore the actual parameters of his and others' questions. Something you, I can add with relief, have not done. We should mount a rescue attempt. I'll tell you where he is, you can do the brave stuff.</p>

 

[victor_boyko]

<blockquote>

<p>Victor is currently being held by a private security militia and being interrogated </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm literally now at EURO 2012 football championship, two games a day, finish way after midnight. Thank you for all the posts, I will love to continue this discussion!</p>