Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: shift options  (Read 9131 times)
Kumar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 652


WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 14, 2006, 03:23:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Marc,

Don't get me wrong. In an architectural shoot, there's a lot of waiting - for people and vehicles to move, the light to change (or not change!), clouds to move - stuff like that. For interiors, there's prepping to do, moving/removing/adjusting stuff. This is what takes the time. I started off shooting 35mm, and now use a Sinar with rollfim and occasionally 4x5. I bought a Betterlight last year, and a Cambo WideDS six months ago. My speed has remained the same - with all cameras/formats. I honestly can't imagine myself shooting at that pace! But I guess whatever works for you  

Cheers,
Kumar
Logged

marc gerritsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 14, 2006, 04:29:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
what's happening to the  other 70%?
Taking up a hell of a lot of storage on your hard drive?


stored on dvd


Quote
how long will it take to coerrect the shots in ps?

but the tread makes me a little bit tired.



3 to 8 photos per hour depending

sorry to bore you
Logged

TorbenEskerod
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #22 on: December 14, 2006, 04:51:14 AM »
ReplyReply

xx
« Last Edit: January 20, 2008, 06:23:09 AM by TorbenEskerod » Logged
bavanor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 14, 2006, 09:39:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just for the record – I made these test in PS for my own curiosity to see whether it could be done or not.

As an Architectural photographer I newer do these corrections in PS. I still shoot a lot of 4x5 film and always try to maximize my images in the taking. The same goes when I shoot with Canon (I use 24TS, Nikon 35PC, 45TS) when I use longer lenses I do correct in PS.

It could be tempting to go for a H3D/39 and 28mm and do the rest in PS, but for my personal shooting style I would go for a dedicated camera like the Alpa. I am still testing and have not made up my mind yet for camera and back combination.

As to the discussions of shooting speed:

I have the book Zones of Exclusion (Chernobyl) by Robert Polidori, there are 180 images in the book (all shot with 4x5 Arca and Color Neg) and he properly shot much more. All photographs were taken June 6-9, 2001.

It is an amazing book and I cannot understand how he could cover so much ground in 3-4 days, it is unbelievable when you look at the quality of the images (especially the interiors).

I guess he had to hurry because of nuclear pollution.
Best

Torben
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Torben,

I think I would be moving quick with the possibilty of getting radiation poisoning looming in the backrgound.  Robert Polidori probably went into that photographic zone.  Wow, that would of been something to see.

Back to the subject, I don't have any shift lenses so I have to do all of my perspective changes in photoshop.  And it takes a lot of time.  I personally would much rather have a physical shifting capability (either in the camera or the lens), especially after seeing Jonathan Hillyer using shift while photography the Coverdell building here at UGA.  I believe spending the money on a shift system, and the time to set it up will be much cheaper then the time I spend in photoshop correcting the images.

Just some of my thoughts,

Aaron Britton
asbritton.blogspot.com
Logged

rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1127


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 14, 2006, 10:04:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
stored on dvd
3 to 8 photos per hour depending

sorry to bore you
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
which makes 125/3 = 40hrs   or
125/8 = 15,6 hrs or average calculation... app. 28 hrs. for perspective corrections of your 2 days assignement.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2006, 10:05:04 AM by rehnniar » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
Gigi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 415


WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 14, 2006, 10:10:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Back to the subject, I don't have any shift lenses so I have to do all of my perspective changes in photoshop.  And it takes a lot of time. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90520\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The best economical answer is to shoot film, with a 4x5 and shift in the film. Yes, it will take time to scan, but that can either be done commercially, or based on the correct selection of images, at your leisure.

Shooting 6x_ film is another option. 6x12 is easily scannable for good width, 6x6 gives good quality up to a point (2'x3' prints).

Going digital for shift is pretty expensive, and then you have to get all the lenses etc. Keep in mind the good back will probably run $15-20k, not to mention the up-to-date lenses and new camera types.

Of course, if you go with older backs, you could step back a moment in time, and have some nice 645 setups. Hassy, Rollei, Contax offer some options, but not a lot of range, and only a few lenses - by the time the crop factor sets in, not too wide at all. The Hassy Arcview might be the best of all that generation.

Geoff
Logged

Geoff
ericstaud
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 384


WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 14, 2006, 12:59:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The best economical answer is to shoot film, with a 4x5 and shift in the film. Yes, it will take time to scan, but that can either be done commercially, or based on the correct selection of images, at your leisure.

Geoff
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90524\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


At the end of three years I will own a P45+, Alpa 12SWA, and 4 digitar lenses (because the loan will be paid off).  ALL paid for by the clients at a similar rate to the expense of shooting film.  At the end of three years shooting 4x5 film, I just have to go out and keep buying more film.  In three years you could buy my whole setup from me for $1.00 and I would be no worse off than I would have been shooting film.  It's just "pay up front" versus "pay as you go".
Logged
richardhagen
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


« Reply #27 on: December 14, 2006, 01:27:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I bought the Alpa 12 SWA & Phase One P45 combo to avoid this kind of retouching.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90440\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Eric,
I am considering purchasing a Alpa 12 SWA for a Phase One 25. And I am being very careful before I buy. I am curious how this combo helps you avoid this kind of retouching. Can you explain your procedure further for my education. Thank you,
Richard
Logged
marc gerritsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 14, 2006, 01:34:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
which makes 125/3 = 40hrs or
125/8 = 15,6 hrs or average calculation... app. 28 hrs. for perspective corrections of your 2 days assignement.



My 2 day assigment would consist of shooting max 125 set up shots.
The client lets me decide, what, how and when to shoot, which gives me
the freedom, but then of course they only take about 40 to 50% of the photos


BTW
I am not saying these things to boost or brag, just informing you what I do.
Everybody has their own way and this one works well for me and all of my clients.

cheers
Marc
Logged

ericstaud
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 384


WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 14, 2006, 04:07:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Eric,
I am considering purchasing a Alpa 12 SWA for a Phase One 25. And I am being very careful before I buy. I am curious how this combo helps you avoid this kind of retouching. Can you explain your procedure further for my education. Thank you,
Richard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90562\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

-With the 12 SWA I can shift up and, with a digital back, I can shift down (reversing the lens to the back of the camera).  This eliminates the need to use the transform tool in Photoshop for correcting perspective.

-With the Digital Non-retrofocal lenses there is no Barrel distortion.  This eliminates the need for a special photoshop pluggin to remove the distortion.  The pluggins usually work as a batch, but can take 15-60 seconds per image to apply.

-There is no chromatic abberation.  This eliminates the extra step in ACR of zooming to both sides of the image at 100% while adjusting the CA tool.

I had shot many small, quick jobs with a D2x, 17-35, 17-55, and 12-24.  35mm digital does not handle highlight blooming as well as MFDB's do.  This is very difficult to retouch.  My 17-55 lens had CA which was uneven on each side.  So I could correct one side or the other, but not both.

So with the Alpa and P45 I have reduced image correction to two issues.  
#1- I need to shoot the white plexi and and assign the LCC.  This is about as diffucult as shooting a gray card and clicking two bottons in C1 Pro (I shot 15 images yesterday, and it took 5 minutes to do the LCC correction on all 140 captures).

#2 - I also shoot brackets and blend images together much the way many architecture shooters used to use ND grad filters.

It is hard to describe all the ins and outs of using an Alpa, Cambo, or other similar camera.  I was able to rent the cambo for an annual report and also used the Horseman SW for a book cover project.  These cameras have a lot more in common with a 4x5 than with an H1 or 1ds.
Logged
richardhagen
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


« Reply #30 on: December 14, 2006, 04:15:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
-With the 12 SWA I can shift up and, with a digital back, I can shift down (reversing the lens to the back of the camera).  This eliminates the need to use the transform tool in Photoshop for correcting perspective.

-With the Digital Non-retrofocal lenses there is no Barrel distortion.  This eliminates the need for a special photoshop pluggin to remove the distortion.  The pluggins usually work as a batch, but can take 15-60 seconds per image to apply.

-There is no chromatic abberation.  This eliminates the extra step in ACR of zooming to both sides of the image at 100% while adjusting the CA tool.

I had shot many small, quick jobs with a D2x, 17-35, 17-55, and 12-24.  35mm digital does not handle highlight blooming as well as MFDB's do.  This is very difficult to retouch.  My 17-55 lens had CA which was uneven on each side.  So I could correct one side or the other, but not both.

So with the Alpa and P45 I have reduced image correction to two issues. 
#1- I need to shoot the white plexi and and assign the LCC.  This is about as diffucult as shooting a gray card and clicking two bottons in C1 Pro (I shot 15 images yesterday, and it took 5 minutes to do the LCC correction on all 140 captures).

#2 - I also shoot brackets and blend images together much the way many architecture shooters used to use ND grad filters.

It is hard to describe all the ins and outs of using an Alpa, Cambo, or other similar camera.  I was able to rent the cambo for an annual report and also used the Horseman SW for a book cover project.  These cameras have a lot more in common with a 4x5 than with an H1 or 1ds.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90580\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Eric,
Thanks very much for your very good description! This will be a big help to me. If you don't mind one other question, what viewfinder do you use on the Alpa? I have seen the one that Alpa recommends and think it is not accurate.
Richard
Logged
ericstaud
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 384


WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 15, 2006, 12:07:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I have not had a chance to try out other viewfinders.  I use the Alpa viewfinder very little for my work.

With a 4x5 camera I would walk around a scene and choice a position and height where I felt the elements fell together nicely.  I would then place the camera there and choose a lens to crop the scene.  I am not relying so much on a viewfinder.

With the Alpa I work the same way.  With each capture I adjust the exposure, composition, focus, lighting, and set styling ( just like shooting polaroids).  The Alpa viewfinder is not that accurate (just because it has lots of barrel distortion, and lots of parralax), but it is not a big deal in the way I work.  This is why I say it has a lot in common with a 4x5 camera.

I have shot a little hand held personal work.  I will definitely be looking into other viewfinders along the way.
Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1127


WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 15, 2006, 12:42:16 PM »
ReplyReply

i still work with groundglass, with a stitching back gottschalt made for me. i think he made now a second one for someone and he will make them if someone asks for. i also use viewfinders  to look after which lense i take for my views, which i find similar than eric. i have a very nice 21-24-28 finder from leica which fov equals my 28+35hr and which is not very distorting. also i like the linhof finder for 13x18, starting from 90mm till 360.

shifting and image composition i do on groundglass. the gottschalt has a rotating back so i dont have to remove it for horizontal or vertical shots- i like that. what i like less is that i have to remove 3 screws to put the back on a mf adapter, cause they are to fat to allow this rotating mechanism.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2006, 06:22:00 PM by rehnniar » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
richardhagen
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


« Reply #33 on: December 15, 2006, 02:30:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Eric, Rainer,
Thank you for sharing your information. It will go a long way to help me reach a buying decision.
Richard
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad