Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: best digital camera for architecture??  (Read 20216 times)
Peterretep
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


WWW
« Reply #40 on: February 12, 2008, 08:30:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You'll get some very good advice here, but there's no substitute for practical experience. I'd suggest a doing a week in architecture at The Maine Photographic Workshops, the Santa Fe Photographic Workshops or one of the other well known workshops in the US. Spend an intensive week with your peers, learning some technique from an established architectural shooter. You'll learn a whole lot more than you think, make some good friends and come back inspired.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174386\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That is the kind of education I referred to earlier, just didn't have the names.  I think that would be money well spent. If money is not a factor as if in you have plenty then a upgrade in equipment is good too. I wish I could justify the expense of a higher end digital system. Up until a couple of weeks ago all my work has been with a 1Ds. It is capable of very good work. Often print them to 16 x 24 and if your careful during capture and then in processing the images are striking.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2008, 08:39:41 PM by Peterretep » Logged

david o
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310



WWW
« Reply #41 on: February 12, 2008, 09:06:40 PM »
ReplyReply

I have myself nothing against DSLR quality it's up to most of the needs. Though the 35mm proportions are not my favorite far from that and for interior the MF it way better, you can still crop, I do it, I don't have my DB yet, but cropping is not something I like to do as when I shoot it took me more time to figure out my crop... don't ask why it's like that.

and right now I am shooting products and I figure out that MF proportion would have been better here again to avoid the big empty space at the top of the frame...
Logged
stacibeth
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #42 on: February 12, 2008, 09:35:54 PM »
ReplyReply

how are you guys lighting, I've heard of several different techniques, one of my main issues is getting those crisp whites without getting too yellowish, and overpowering my strobes. Are you doing alot in post with color management?
Logged
Adina
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


« Reply #43 on: February 13, 2008, 02:10:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi
Quote

look at my right picture in my post ...

[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=22425&st=120]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....ic=22425&st=120[/url]
« Last Edit: February 13, 2008, 02:18:00 AM by Adina » Logged
rsmphoto
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 122


WWW
« Reply #44 on: February 13, 2008, 08:20:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Stacy,

With lighting, like cameras, there is no one right solution.

Personally, I like to travel light, and with interiors I always like to make use of the existing light, sometimes to reveal the lighting design itself, but also to capture a mood, a sense of the space as it is, not how I can make it, and then I help it out, with....

Several cases loaded with a large variety of tungsten lights.
Multiple cases of strobes (Comet) 2400ws and 1200ws (some bi-voltage) - for spaces predominantly daylit.
BUT I always start with the existing light. I admit, that can take some planning because different times of day will provide dramatically different light in a space, but that's the way I see it.

I should add that I do a fair amount of layering of various exposures to produce each shot. Ah, the beauty of shooting digitally!

Other photogs I know will choose to re-light the entire space, others will use HMI's, still others, for speed, will shoot available light only and layer. There's no right or wrong, just a particular style of shooting.

Trying to decide which lighting to use to shoot a particular space comes with time and experience. As I said, it's good to actually see how others do their work (workshops). Some solutions you'll like and adopt, others not. Your style will evolve. Mine certainly did.

To answer your last question, "Are you doing alot in post with color management?" The problems you don't solve while shooting, you have to solve in post. So the broader your knowledge of lighting technique becomes, the easier post production will be.

One last thing for you to think about with architecture, concise composition.

Hope this helps.

Richard


Quote
how are you guys lighting, I've heard of several different techniques, one of my main issues is getting those crisp whites without getting too yellowish, and overpowering my strobes. Are you doing alot in post with color management?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174420\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
David Blankenship
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« Reply #45 on: February 13, 2008, 08:34:29 AM »
ReplyReply

You do Amazing work Richard, what is your standard camera outfit  "Lenses, bodies & Film or Digital backs for a average  architectural shoot.  I know there is nothing average about your approach to architectural photography. .

Thanks,
David



Quote
Stacy,

With lighting, like cameras, there is no one right solution.

Personally, I like to travel light, and with interiors I always like to make use of the existing light, sometimes to reveal the lighting design itself, but also to capture a mood, a sense of the space as it is, not how I can make it, and then I help it out, with....

Several cases loaded with a large variety of tungsten lights.
Multiple cases of strobes (Comet) 2400ws and 1200ws (some bi-voltage) - for spaces predominantly daylit.
BUT I always start with the existing light. I admit, that can take some planning because different times of day will provide dramatically different light in a space, but that's the way I see it.

I should add that I do a fair amount of layering of various exposures to produce each shot. Ah, the beauty of shooting digitally!

Other photogs I know will choose to re-light the entire space, others will use HMI's, still others, for speed, will shoot available light only and layer. There's no right or wrong, just a particular style of shooting.

Trying to decide which lighting to use to shoot a particular space comes with time and experience. As I said, it's good to actually see how others do their work (workshops). Some solutions you'll like and adopt, others not. Your style will evolve. Mine certainly did.

To answer your last question, "Are you doing alot in post with color management?" The problems you don't solve while shooting, you have to solve in post. So the broader your knowledge of lighting technique becomes, the easier post production will be.

One last thing for you to think about with architecture, concise composition.

Hope this helps.

Richard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174528\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
BrianWoolf
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


« Reply #46 on: February 13, 2008, 09:46:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Stacy,
If you can figure out what you might want or afford . You should rent it for a day and see if it fits in your workflow. An older Phase H back that needs to be tethered to a computer to operate, might not be right for your shooting style and the newer 'P' much more similar to a DSLR camera, so they might be a much better fit for you.
The Cambo wide Ds and Alpa are kind of 'expensive point and shoot' cameras. Combined with a high end back and a good digital lens they can produce incredible images. The add on 'viewfinder' is how accurate. I would think that the only way to know what is 'exactly' in your frame is to make an exposure and check the image in lcd screen on the back. Does that chair need to be moved in or out of the frame? Do you need more at the top to show the crown molding? You would rack the lens up and do another exposure and check it. It might be a trial and error type arrangement to get the right composition. If you switch from an image of a long view of a deep restaurant to a detail of a bar stool and tile counter, how easy is it to change your focus. I have never used these cameras but have been very interested in them as they have a lot of potential and can be used to stitch photos with the right lens. I use a 4x5 sinar p and a Hasselblad with Phase and Leaf backs, as well as the Bettterlight Scanning back.
If you can't rent the exact combo of camera and back - at least rent the back that you are interested in and put it on a Hasselblad so you can experience the workflow, especialy if leaning towards an older 'H' Back.

Brian Woolf
Logged
rsmphoto
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 122


WWW
« Reply #47 on: February 13, 2008, 10:15:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You do Amazing work Richard, what is your standard camera outfit  "Lenses, bodies & Film or Digital backs for a average  architectural shoot.  I know there is nothing average about your approach to architectural photography. .

Thanks,
David
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174533\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

David,

You're very kind. Thank you.

I'll keep this short since this is Stacy's thread....

Early on I shot 4x5 with Linhof Kardan B, then Sinar P2. Travelled more and more, so that got way heavy, switched to 6x9 Arca (much easier for travel).
At those times lenses were 47, 58, 65, 75, 90, 120, 150.

Also carried Hasselblad FE203 and added Nikon D1 when it came out, then D1x, switched to Canon 1Ds, then 1DsII (all for details only.)

So, now you might expect me to use an Alpa, which I've considered, but in fact, I shoot with Hasselblad H3DII-39 tethered (mostly) - I like the integration (DAC), with 50-110, 35, 28. Also have the 1DsII for a backup - but never touch it! MF is a must for me because I want 16 bit for exteriors. It's the only way to get a decent sky.

At times I shoot with the expectation of a fair amount of perspective control in post, and have to compose the exposure in expectation of that, so I prefer the larger 39mp file. Over the years, I've found no perceptible issues shooting this way vs a camera with movement, BUT I have urged Hasselblad to develop a TS lens or two. With DAC it's a no-brainer.

As I said, shooting styles evolve. I'll likely get a multi-shot with the next upgrade.

Richard
Logged
David Blankenship
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« Reply #48 on: February 13, 2008, 01:42:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Richard,

I am also sorry for highjacking Stacy's thread......... but.......... your  answer  to my first question has most likely saved me a ton of money & time.        
 Now if I could be your UNPAID ASSISTANT for a month or two..........  I may reach Photo Nirvana............            

Best,
David

Quote
David,

You're very kind. Thank you.

I'll keep this short since this is Stacy's thread....

Early on I shot 4x5 with Linhof Kardan B, then Sinar P2. Travelled more and more, so that got way heavy, switched to 6x9 Arca (much easier for travel).
At those times lenses were 47, 58, 65, 75, 90, 120, 150.

Also carried Hasselblad FE203 and added Nikon D1 when it came out, then D1x, switched to Canon 1Ds, then 1DsII (all for details only.)

So, now you might expect me to use an Alpa, which I've considered, but in fact, I shoot with Hasselblad H3DII-39 tethered (mostly) - I like the integration (DAC), with 50-110, 35, 28. Also have the 1DsII for a backup - but never touch it! MF is a must for me because I want 16 bit for exteriors. It's the only way to get a decent sky.

At times I shoot with the expectation of a fair amount of perspective control in post, and have to compose the exposure in expectation of that, so I prefer the larger 39mp file. Over the years, I've found no perceptible issues shooting this way vs a camera with movement, BUT I have urged Hasselblad to develop a TS lens or two. With DAC it's a no-brainer.

As I said, shooting styles evolve. I'll likely get a multi-shot with the next upgrade.

Richard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=174567\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad