Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Part 2: "Becoming A Great Arch. Photographer  (Read 65526 times)
JoeKitchen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 659



« Reply #200 on: December 23, 2009, 06:36:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Yelhsa
Sounds like you when to a lot of effort here.

Who's the image aim at i.e. who's going to buy it and what do they need it for?

Cheers
Ashley.
It is for the designer for their marketing.  Not to much effort (or at least I am not thinking of it that way); I had gotten (in addition to color correction gels) some theatrical color gels and had been looking for a way to use them.  This image only required tungsten lighting and the subject matter made it seem like a good shot to use them for.  The designers also told me that they wanted some semi-abstract shots.  
« Last Edit: December 23, 2009, 06:38:30 PM by JoeKitchen » Logged

Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
"Try not to be just better than your rivals and contemporaries, try to be better than yourself."  William Faulkner
JoeKitchen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 659



« Reply #201 on: December 23, 2009, 07:50:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Yelhsa
The designer of what and / or what is this image marketing ?
Is it the window frames and / or the material on the glass of windows and door ?

It almost looks like a CAD drawing or something like that to me - there is no life or depth to the image and it seems to totally lack a focal point. So I'm just not sure what your brief was here - hence the questions.

Bottom-line: if the client is happy with the image and it fulfills their needs, then it's a good image.

Cheers,
Ashley.
The interior designer, and she designed the window and what is on it as well along with everything else.  She has not seen the final image yet, but knows the composition and liked it.  She is a good client and trust my intuition.  

Lack of a focal point?  This comment really makes me think.  I understand what you mean, just something to think about.  Thanks.  

Merry Christmas
« Last Edit: December 23, 2009, 07:56:42 PM by JoeKitchen » Logged

Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
"Try not to be just better than your rivals and contemporaries, try to be better than yourself."  William Faulkner
Lust4Life
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 429


WWW
« Reply #202 on: December 23, 2009, 08:40:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Now that I have the 5DMkII and the 17 TS-E, 24 TS-E II, 45 TS-E, 85 Ziess, etc. I've been running a lot of test shots.

Question:
On interior shots, what are you using to get an accurate color value set out of a scene?
Shoot one frame with color chart, then balance in CS4??

Jack
« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 10:20:00 AM by Lust4Life » Logged

hs0zfe
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #203 on: December 24, 2009, 10:17:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Howdy,
I see Arch as  t h e  field for LF gear. A 4x5 with a 90 mm super Angulon will blow your handheld XYZ away. Parallel lines are not converging... Whjo needs 55 shots if a few good ones suffice?

Starters can pick up a check LF system for say $ 1,500, WA bellows and all.

IMHO, this is one area where "handheld" is plain wrong.

Chris
Logged
ihv
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


WWW
« Reply #204 on: January 07, 2010, 01:10:23 PM »
ReplyReply

A bit off topic, nevertheless a nice aesthetical piece about the architecture (12 minutes video):

Warning - it is CG.

http://vimeo.com/7809605



Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1543


WWW
« Reply #205 on: January 07, 2010, 03:13:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Howdy,
I see Arch as t h e field for LF gear. A 4x5 with a 90 mm super Angulon will blow your handheld XYZ away. Parallel lines are not converging... Whjo needs 55 shots if a few good ones suffice?

Starters can pick up a check LF system for say $ 1,500, WA bellows and all.

IMHO, this is one area where "handheld" is plain wrong.

Chris

Maybe I missed something. Who was suggesting shooting architecture hand held?
« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 03:14:59 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Lust4Life
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 429


WWW
« Reply #206 on: January 08, 2010, 02:57:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Here is an update:
I've purchased the 5DsMKII and now have a stable of lenses that include:
Canon TSE - 17, 24-II, 45, 90.
Canon 135 f2
All purchased new USA.

Initial tests - very pleased with results.  At this point I have NO regrets moving to SLR from Hasselblad.

Favorite feature of the body - live focus with magnification!

Did test out the Zeiss 85 for the Canon and also the Canon 100mm Macro - rejected both as the 90TS-E produced a better image.  I expected that with the 100 but was surprised with the Zeiss.

Jack
« Last Edit: January 09, 2010, 05:00:46 AM by Lust4Life » Logged

JoeKitchen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 659



« Reply #207 on: January 08, 2010, 11:02:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Don't think this would be a discussion for a whole separate topic, but for those of you who use bellow digital view cameras, do you see an advantage in using them for architecture and interiors?  I know when working with film, the swings and tilts helped, but it seems that the sensors do not respond the same way (or so I have been told), and the sharpness of modern lenses resolve every thing anyway without having to resort to swings and tilts.  I feel that a plate camera like the 12 max with its smaller body is the best option, though I am not totally sure?  I would love to rent a bellows camera just to see, but there is no place near me that has one.  I also am concerned about not being able to bring a bellows view camera on a plain as a carry on or getting it in really tight places.  

If I was shooting products, I would defiantly use a bellows camera, but architecture does not seem to demand that type of camera nowadays?  Any thoughts?  


Also, I am looking for a cover for the ground glass that does not magnify the image.  Just some thing I can place on the ground glass that enables me to see the whole image at once without having to resort to a focusing cloth.  Anyone know of something that would work or would it be best just to make something myself.
Logged

Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
"Try not to be just better than your rivals and contemporaries, try to be better than yourself."  William Faulkner
LiamStrain
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116



WWW
« Reply #208 on: January 09, 2010, 01:28:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Joe - at least with film the swings and tilts are for perspective control, and viewpoint control, not just for focal range. I think the same advantages would hold true for using movements with a digital back. But I admit I have not used them personally to say with certainty.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2010, 01:28:37 AM by LiamStrain » Logged

CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #209 on: January 09, 2010, 08:33:50 AM »
ReplyReply

I still use tilts and swings on occasion with a digital back.  The added sharpness of the digital lenses doesn't give you any added depth of field in the longer focal lengths.  Depth of field in the wide stuff is amazing, though.  I use the fully geared Arca M Line 2 and find it to be very compact.

I fit the camera, sliding back, Hasselblad SWC viewer and 6 lenses in a Pelican rolling case that fits in the overhead compartment of most jets....  

While plate cameras themselves are quite compact, the lenses take up much more space than their view camera counterparts.  I would guess that a plate camera system is more compact than a comparable view camera until you get to 3 lenses and then it becomes more cumbersome.

That said, I'm going to be trying out an RM3D next weekend, I'm actually considering using it as my wide lens solution, maybe with just the forthcoming Schneider 28mm.  This Arca plate camera has much finer focusing than all the other plate cameras due to it's unique mechanism, has built in tilt (no adapter required) that works with all lenses and would work with my sliding back... Have I justified buying ANOTHER camera yet?

btw... here's the viewer I use mounted on the Kapture Group Slider....

More often than not, though I just use a loupe

-CB
Logged
asf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 506


WWW
« Reply #210 on: January 09, 2010, 08:50:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CBarrett
While plate cameras themselves are quite compact, the lenses take up much more space than their view camera counterparts.  I would guess that a plate camera system is more compact than a comparable view camera until you get to 3 lenses and then it becomes more cumbersome.

-CB

You sure about this? Looking at my mounted lenses I doubt it ... Perhaps lenses above 100mm are a bit more compact in overall length, but that's not much.
Logged
ThierryH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409


« Reply #211 on: January 09, 2010, 10:09:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JoeKitchen
... do you see an advantage in using them for architecture and interiors?  I know when working with film, the swings and tilts helped, but it seems that the sensors do not respond the same way (or so I have been told), and the sharpness of modern lenses resolve every thing anyway without having to resort to swings and tilts.

Joe,

the very same optical laws apply for digital, the same way they apply for film: there is absolutely no truth in saying that swings and tilts do not help or that the sensor responds differently. A sensor, like a film is a capture medium. It gets exposed with light and "circle of confusion" dots the same way. The only difference coming in count are the sizes of the capture medium, which with digital is usually (much) smaller than with MF and 4x5" (and of course the diffraction effect, but that's another story). Therefore, due to this size difference in the capture medium, the needed tilt or swing or both movements together are much less in terms of "degrees" to achieve the same plane of sharpness.

Best regards,
Thierry
« Last Edit: January 09, 2010, 10:24:40 AM by ThierryH » Logged

ThierryH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409


« Reply #212 on: January 09, 2010, 10:22:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CBarrett
The added sharpness of the digital lenses doesn't give you any added depth of field in the longer focal lengths.  Depth of field in the wide stuff is amazing, though.
-CB
CB,

There is no "added" depth of field with longer focal length lenses, nor is there any more DoF with "wides": there is ONLY and solely a different reproduction factor between a long and a short lens (from the same view point), thus giving the feeling that there is more DoF, which is simply NOT true. Do the experience: to compare one has to compare apples with apples, understand at the very same reproduction ratio. If one enlarges the image taken with a short lens ("wide") to the very same reproduction scale as the one image taken with the long lens, then the 2 images do have exactly the same DoF.

Note also that I do not like to use the term "wide" lens: it is confusing because "wide" refers to the coverage angle of the lens, not to the focal length. It happens that short focal length lenses usually have a wide® coverage angle, compared with long focal length lenses.

Best regards,
Thierry
Logged

Lust4Life
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 429


WWW
« Reply #213 on: January 09, 2010, 10:45:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm posting this in the spirit of sharing, and just that.  Not to start a "range war" about bits but I felt the answer was of interest to all:

Dear Jack

My apologies for this late reply. I was forwarded your mail from a colleague.

When designing the architecture of a digital camera, the handling of noise is a central and important theme.
The noise handling covers several physical and mathematical disciplines, for which the digital technology is tailored. The sensor first picks up and converts light in terms of photons to electrons (charge) in the pixel "wells".
In the single pixel the charge is mixed with electrons originating from other sources. A single pixel has a dynamic range smaller than 84 dB of a 14bit ADC. To make a digital camera work however, the behavior of the average pixel is recorded in the sensor calibration phase, done at the manufacturing plant, and in the imaging phase of each capture.
The handling of dark signal subtraction and non-linearity corrections is computed and used in full 16 bits. The resulting image is then constructed with correct representation and without artifacts like banding. This also enables a downsized image to maintain a dynamic range higher than the performance of a single pixel.

Hope this clarifies a little.

Best regards

Anders Espersen
Hasselblad USA Inc.
Tech Support Department
support@hasselbladusa.com
Logged

CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #214 on: January 09, 2010, 10:54:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ThierryH
CB,

There is no "added" depth of field with longer focal length lenses, nor is there any more DoF with "wides": there is ONLY and solely a different reproduction factor between a long and a short lens (from the same view point), thus giving the feeling that there is more DoF, which is simply NOT true. Do the experience: to compare one has to compare apples with apples, understand at the very same reproduction ratio. If one enlarges the image taken with a short lens ("wide") to the very same reproduction scale as the one image taken with the long lens, then the 2 images do have exactly the same DoF.

Note also that I do not like to use the term "wide" lens: it is confusing because "wide" refers to the coverage angle of the lens, not to the focal length. It happens that short focal length lenses usually have a wide® coverage angle, compared with long focal length lenses.

Best regards,
Thierry

My most common lens for interiors used to be a 90mm with 4x5 film, now it is a 45mm with the P65+.  The 45mm has substantially greater DoF than the 90mm.  Therefore, yes, I have more Depth of Field in practical application than I used to.  

Like it or not, photographers call short lenses "wides."  It's the industry standard... I've never had a client ask if the shot could be a little "shorter."  Wider, yes but never shorter.

Now I've gotta go pack up my lenses (wide and long) and catch a plane to Colorado.

-CB
Logged
ThierryH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409


« Reply #215 on: January 09, 2010, 11:53:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CBarrett
The 45mm has substantially greater DoF than the 90mm.

Simply not true, with all due respect for your work. I suggest you to make the test as described


Good packing,
Thierry
Logged

ThierryH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409


« Reply #216 on: January 09, 2010, 11:54:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CBarrett
Like it or not, photographers call short lenses "wides."

I know this "standard" in the praxis and among photographers. It simply leads to confusions.

Thierry
Logged

JoeKitchen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 659



« Reply #217 on: January 09, 2010, 11:58:13 AM »
ReplyReply

CB,

Looks like a nice camera and I really like the fact that bellow cameras in the digital age are a forth the size of their 4x5 counter parts.  I am assuming that the mounted lenses are not as expensive either since they require no helical mount.  Although I would really like to have a camera with swings and tilts on the lens plane that could be shot hand held if needed (like once in a 1000 images produced).  The 12 max is a really nice camera, but the tilt adapter can only be used with certain lenses and can not do any kind of diagonal tilts, such a disadvantage.  Also, it seems that the Artec has only the Rodenstock lenses available to it? and can not be hand held effectively.  I will have to now look at the Arca Plate camera.  (and please no one suggest the 5D as an option  )

Something that I read in an earlier thread was that plate cameras are much better at holding the lens plane parallel to the film (sensor) plane then bellow cameras and from Thierry's statement this would be important in the digital age.  Do you find trouble with this with the M Line 2?  

I am also looking at the Sinar P3 as a possible camera to get but the lenses available to it are limited to the Rodenstock ones, or so it seems.  Anyone know if that is true?  

And last, although Philadelphia has limited access to camera stores that have these cameras there to look at, NYC is just a short trip away.  Anyone know of any stores in NYC that would have these cameras available to look at or rent?
Logged

Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
"Try not to be just better than your rivals and contemporaries, try to be better than yourself."  William Faulkner
ThierryH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 409


« Reply #218 on: January 09, 2010, 12:12:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JoeKitchen
CB,

... Also, it seems that the Artec has only the Rodenstock lenses available to it? and can not be hand held effectively.
True.

Quote from: JoeKitchen
Something that I read in an earlier thread was that plate cameras are much better at holding the lens plane parallel to the film (sensor) plane then bellow cameras and from Thierry's statement this would be important in the digital age.  Do you find trouble with this with the M Line 2?
It is very important to have a stable standard. In this respect the p3 is perfect, probably the M Line too. 1/2 mm difference between top and bottom of the standard, in respect to the distance to the sensor, in an "infinity" situation, means already an unwanted sharpness plane going from the front of the camera to the infinity direction of the subject.

Quote from: JoeKitchen
I am also looking at the Sinar P3 as a possible camera to get but the lenses available to it are limited to the Rodenstock ones, or so it seems.  Anyone know if that is true?
True, only Sinaron Rodenstok lenses. And the p3 isn't that much for location shooting, when weight is a factor you are looking at.

Thierry
Logged

Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1543


WWW
« Reply #219 on: January 09, 2010, 03:45:50 PM »
ReplyReply

"Simply not true, with all due respect for your work. I suggest you to make the test as described"
Good packing,
Thierry

Have I been dreaming? Maybe I don't understand your point, but my experience tells me though worded wrong, practically speaking on a job, Chris is right on.

For many years I shot 35mm slides along side my 4x5 transparencies, because there wasn't a good duping service here, and architects needed 35mm slides for design competitions. So I would use a lens on the 35 that was comparable in field of view as the 4x5. Say a 28 lens on the 35 when I had a 90 on the 4x5. Given the same exposure (f stop actually) I had considerable more depth of field in an 8x10 enlargement with the 28/35 combo than with the 90/4x5. Right? What am I missing here? See this from Wikipedia too:

"When a picture is taken in two different format sizes from the same distance at the same f-number with lenses that give the same angle of view, the smaller format has greater DOF."

or

"To maintain the same field of view, the lens focal lengths must be in proportion to the format sizes. Assuming, for purposes of comparison, that the 4×5 format is four times the size of 35 mm format, if a 4×5 camera used a 300 mm lens, a 35 mm camera would need a 75 mm lens for the same field of view. For the same f-number, the image made with the 35 mm camera would have four times the DOF of the image made with the 4×5 camera."

What am I missing? Chris is right. Right?
« Last Edit: January 09, 2010, 10:56:57 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Pages: « 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad