Using 6 x 9 for architectural interiors

[bill c.]

I'm about to go bidding on a series of architectural interiors, and I

am seriously considering switching to 6 x 9 instead of 4" x 5". One

reason is that I have a Super Coolscan that can handle up to 6 x 19,

and that will help a lot in turnaround. The problem is I have no

experience with the format. I like the Fuji GX 680, but I don't know

if it has lenses wide enough for my needs (I often use a 90mm on

4x5). I know that it has a lensboard for taking view camera lenses,

but does it recess enough for something like a 47mm?

 

These will be for a national magazine, but not blown up much more

than 8 x 10 inches. Designers may want blow-up later, but not huge

ones.

 

I'll be shooting lighting tests on digital, but like all paranoid

photographers, Polaroid ability would be nice.

 

 

At any rate, here are my choices as I see them:

1- Stick with 4 x 5, and put up with the expense and cumbersomeness.

2- Get a Hartblei PC lens for my 645. Possibly not enough resolution.

3-Get a "baby view camera"

 

And what about shifting between the back and the ground glass? Which

is the best system for that?

 

Anybody out there shooting architectural interiors for magazines with

6 x 9?

 

Many thanks for all help. -Bill Cornett

[art_haykin]

>>>"These will be for a national magazine"<<< unless this is a pulp magazine for low end trailer park homes, they'll surely want good stuff, and most interior pros use view cameras of 4x5 or larger to get optimum image quality and full swings and tilts. Then there's lighting, which can be the biggest headache, and you haven't even mentioned it. I've assisted pros in this field, as a younger man starting out, and HOURS are often spent just setting up a single shot. If they require quality, and you are inexperienced in this field, be advised, and good luck. Don't forget, you can always rent.

[._._z]

Don't jump the gun. Find out what film format the magazine wants for its photographs.

 

If they accept 6x9, and you already are familiar with 4x5 (your post is unclear on whether you currently use 4x5 or not), then just use a rollfilm back on the back of your LF camera.

[lars ake vinberg]

Bill - the obvious reason you mention for going to 6x9 is the LS-8000 scanner. No need to get a new camera for that, just a rollfilm back. That way you can also use your current polaroid film. To get as wide as a 90 on 4x5 you need a 65 or 58 on 6x9. So what you need to do is make sure that you current camera can handle such a short focal length with enough shifts.

[armin_seeholzer]

Hi Bill

 

Yes I'm shooting 35mm and 6x9 and 4x5 inch for Arch. mags.

But with a 90mm lens on 6x9 forgett it! You need at least a Rodenstock APO Grandagon 55mm, or even better the 47 XL from Schneider!

But as already stated ask the mag wath they need!

Good light and good luck!

[kinesisphotogear]

I have shot many interiors with roll film backs (6x7) on my Sinar p. It allows me

to quickly bracket in sets of two, so the client can have two "originals." I

primarily use the non-XL Schneider 47/5.6 (equal to about 24mm on a 35mm

camera). I also use a 65/4 whenever possbile for less distortation. The 47

mandates a recessed lens board, which I had custom-made. The 65 works fine

on a flat board. Of course, both lenses require bag bellows. At times I wish I had

something a little wider than the 47mm though. Sometimes I would switch to

4x5 film with the 65mm lens for those ultra-wide shots. I have had some trouble

with Calumet "slide in" roll film backs and have posted comments about them

on <A HREF="http://www.kinesisgear.com/opinion.html"> my site.</A> The

Polaroid back I use with 6x7cm is the model 505. I made a mask from opaque

paper and taped it over this back to similuate the 6x7 crop.

[bill c.]

Richard-- Have you found a better solution for a rollfilm back, and if so, what? And what camera platform do you use for 6 x 9?

 

Armin-- What camera platform are you using for 6 x 9?

 

Everyone else-- Don't worry about my qualifications or experience. I cut my teeth on architectural jobs that used ten generators and a forest of lightstands. When I was assisting, I was known as the assistant who could light anything, and I did. There were top-level pros who literally would not take a job in the DC area unless I was available to light the job. Since then I've done assignments for the National Geographic Society, The Washington Post, American Heritage, and more publications than I bothered to keep track of both here and in Europe.

 

I sold off my view camera gear a decade ago, and am working with a Sinar 4 x 5 on long-term loan (I fixed the bellows on it in return). But I'm working lighter and simpler now, and would prefer a camera properly suited to the task rather than lugging around the 4 x 5 if I don't have to.

 

I'm asking the question because I sense that many pros are moving to smaller formats because digital processes are making up the quality difference. Day rates haven't gone up, but equipment and other costs have, so if rollfilm can help with expenses and make the work go more efficiently, that's something worth looking into.

 

Many thanks for all feedback. -BC-

[henry_a]

Hi Bill,

If you want to do the scans and are willing to take the time to do that work too, then I can see the advantage to roll film. Otherwise you might look at having 4X5 scanned for you. Prices are much lower for that now than a few years ago and it might save you a lot of time and effort. I can get 100MB high quality 4X5 scans here for around $16 each. (I usually scan 4X5 myself, I've researched this for the time I won't want to do a large quantity or don't have time) The Fuji 680 is not a great solution as the widest lens is a 50 and it won't give hardly any movement. The reflex design elimnates any real wide lenses. Your 4X5 with roll film backs and a few wide lenses seems like the best way to go to me. If your Sinar will focus with a 47 , 58, 75 you'd be covered for roll film with your current 4X5 IMO. On the other hand, if you see the new camera investment as something you'll be using for more jobs in the future, a 6X9 camera outfit might make sense. The smaller view cameras seem about the same work as 4X5, just smaller. I often use Grafmatics with 6 sheets in each so speed of roll film is not much different. Readyloads are fast and convenient too! I think if money was no object I'd have a smaller view camera just for the size and weight, but otherwise its hard to justify owning everything under the sun. And of course there's the part about that bigger 4X5 GG thats so easy to see and compose on! Good luck.

[janko_belaj]

<p>Bill, I don't think that Fuji GX 680 will cover all your needs in architectural work (specially not

with some very wide angle lens). I have seen it and hold it in my hands, but I didn't work with it

so all I'm writing is just viewers impression. I just don't think that you will be able to shift the lens

so much as you will need it. At least I can't do it when I want to shoot some medieval or baroque

church where I have meet one colleague with that camera... We were on the job for same book,

he was doing sculptures, and I was doing wall paintings and architecture. For some altars he had

to step on the top of the ladder while I was able to shot larger amount of wall from my tripod...

<br>

I was choosing new LF (or better to say "shift-swing-tilt") system for such work few month ago

and was considering between Sinar 4x5" and Linhof 6x9cm. Although Linhof is lighter and

smaller and have almost all I need (missing direct rise and fall but includes possibility of mounting

some holder for 6x9cm EFKE's sheet film:)), the price, availability of used equipment and

availability of camera itself (in my country) have forced me to choose Sinar. I'm not sad, better to

say I'm delighted with it! :)) <br>

And yes, I'm working in big prepress house where I can scan on big drum scanner without

limitations... my good luck.</p>

<p>Oh, yes - what do you think of Linhof M-679 for your job? Little bit expensive, but nice if

you can rent one.

<p>Janko</p>

[dick roadnight cotswolds]

It seem that, when people want a wider angle shot, they only think of using a wider angle lens.

 

Even if you get a small 6x9 camera, keep the 45, and when you want something wider than 6x9 cm on 47XL, use a 6x12 roll film back or shift and tile.

[armin_seeholzer]

Hi Bill

 

You was asking for my camera: In 35 mm Nikon F5, in 6x7 Bronica GS1, and in 4x5 Arca Swiss F-line or Horseman HF.

I use Rollfilmholders from Horseman 6x7+6x12 and Toyo 6x9

Most used lenses 75mm, 55mm, 47mm, 90mm,not much in use 135mm,150mm, 210mm, very seldom 300mm or 480mm. I love the Arca because she is much lesser in weight, then the other Swiss make Sinar wich is to heavy for my taste but of course a very fine camera!

Good light!

[armin_seeholzer]

Hi Bill

 

Forgott to mention the Fuji GX is not a good joice for architectural things to limited, if you really want go only with rollfilm then the baby Arca is a full system camera.

I had a friend wich had one, he switched very soon to an Arca!

Good luck!

[steve_hovland]

Just want to add a note on the Cambo backs- my 6x7 does not insert all the way because the film chamber hits the ground glass holder before the back seats completely.

 

I don't use it much so I just wrap the focusing cloth around the back of the camera to block the light.

 

This back was bought for half price from a photographer who only used it once for a client who "wouldn't pay for 4x5 film." That was not a good investment.

[mark_sampson]

I would have trouble evaluating the image on that small groundglass, and it seems that tiny movements of the standards would tend to cause big changes in perspective/dof. If you can handle that I don't see a downside.

[fg]

I am using a Linhof Technikardan S23, with lenses ranging from 47 to 180 mm. It's

really good for architecture, lots of movements, very light and portable, the 6x7

format is very convenient. The same camera is also used in he studio for my usual

advertising work, but with an Ixpress digital back tethered to a G4. Cannot use the

back for architecture, though, for the following reasons: small size of CCD limits

wide-angle capabilities, poor quality of Schneider lenses appearing too soft for

digital. just my two cents.

[steve_hovland]

I have a Fuji GSW 690 with 65mm lens that works pretty well. But I think they dropped that model. It has a symmetrical lens with great image quality, and the price was right.

 

I have thought that a Mamiya 6 or 7 with the wide lens would be a good alternative.