- - The original note follows - -
Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.architecture
Path:
psuvm!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!co
ncert!ecsgate!ehr
From: ehr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ernest H. Robl)
Subject: Re: architectural photography -- tools & techniques?
Message-ID: <1993Nov10.222908.24059@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Followup-To: rec.photo
Summary: it all depends, he said, once again ...
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
References: <CG2B80.455@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CG77GH.MKp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<1993Nov10.102401.19162@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1993 22:29:08 GMT
Lines: 48
Xref: news.cac.psu.edu rec.photo:18462 alt.architecture:690
In article <1993Nov10.102401.19162@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, williaj4212@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
writes:
> At the risk of sounding like a snobbish photographer, the only way to get
crisp
> photos of the exteriors of buildings is to use a large format view camera with
> all swings, shifts, and tilts. There are limits to what a PC lens can do, and
> the difference in area between a 35mm and a 4x5 inch neg is huge. Part of the
> reason that the magizine pictures are so sharp is that they don't have to
> enlarge the image as much (ie. to print an 8X10 from a 4x5 requires a
> magnification factor of 2x, whereas from a 35mm, it takes a magnification
> factor of more than 50x.)
While I will agree that for many applications within architectural
photography, large format is superior, the lack of large format
equipment should not scare anyone away from trying this subject.
I've sold quite a few stock images which could be classified as
architectural (for books about a specific city or state) and
these were all made in 35mm and most were even (groan ;-() hand-held!
No, I have no illusions that an architectual specialty publisher
would consider 35mm -- but then these are not the markets that I
aim at, nor is it what my equipment is geared toward. (I typically
carry two 35mm bodies and five to seven lenses with me. There's
no way I could also carry large format equipment.)
Yes, I own a PC lens -- the Nikon 28mm -- but most of the
"architectural" images that I've sold were NOT made with it.
Particularly when you are shooting interesting details, every
vertical line does not have to be parallel. Sometimes the only
way to shoot these details is with a long lens.
And, it depends a lot on what the inteded use of the photos is.
If you are shooting primarily for stock or for a slide
presentation to a specific audience, you probably don't want
to start with 4x5.
If you are interested in a subject such as architecture, go
as far as you can with the equipment you have and can afford.
Then, decide if you want the specialized equipment.
-- Ernest
--
"My other computers are Nikon N8008s and an SB25." -- Ernest H. Robl
Ernest H. Robl (ehr@ecsvax) Durham, NC, USA +1 919 286-3845
(I'drather be on the train.) FAX: +1 919 286-1696
This .signature meets plate C specifications (for rec.railroad fans)
Newsgroups: rec.photo,alt.architecture
Path:
psuvm!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!co
ncert!ecsgate!ehr
From: ehr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ernest H. Robl)
Subject: Re: architectural photography -- tools & techniques?
Message-ID: <1993Nov10.222908.24059@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Followup-To: rec.photo
Summary: it all depends, he said, once again ...
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
References: <CG2B80.455@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CG77GH.MKp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<1993Nov10.102401.19162@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1993 22:29:08 GMT
Lines: 48
Xref: news.cac.psu.edu rec.photo:18462 alt.architecture:690
In article <1993Nov10.102401.19162@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, williaj4212@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
writes:
> At the risk of sounding like a snobbish photographer, the only way to get
crisp
> photos of the exteriors of buildings is to use a large format view camera with
> all swings, shifts, and tilts. There are limits to what a PC lens can do, and
> the difference in area between a 35mm and a 4x5 inch neg is huge. Part of the
> reason that the magizine pictures are so sharp is that they don't have to
> enlarge the image as much (ie. to print an 8X10 from a 4x5 requires a
> magnification factor of 2x, whereas from a 35mm, it takes a magnification
> factor of more than 50x.)
While I will agree that for many applications within architectural
photography, large format is superior, the lack of large format
equipment should not scare anyone away from trying this subject.
I've sold quite a few stock images which could be classified as
architectural (for books about a specific city or state) and
these were all made in 35mm and most were even (groan ;-() hand-held!
No, I have no illusions that an architectual specialty publisher
would consider 35mm -- but then these are not the markets that I
aim at, nor is it what my equipment is geared toward. (I typically
carry two 35mm bodies and five to seven lenses with me. There's
no way I could also carry large format equipment.)
Yes, I own a PC lens -- the Nikon 28mm -- but most of the
"architectural" images that I've sold were NOT made with it.
Particularly when you are shooting interesting details, every
vertical line does not have to be parallel. Sometimes the only
way to shoot these details is with a long lens.
And, it depends a lot on what the inteded use of the photos is.
If you are shooting primarily for stock or for a slide
presentation to a specific audience, you probably don't want
to start with 4x5.
If you are interested in a subject such as architecture, go
as far as you can with the equipment you have and can afford.
Then, decide if you want the specialized equipment.
-- Ernest
--
"My other computers are Nikon N8008s and an SB25." -- Ernest H. Robl
Ernest H. Robl (ehr@ecsvax) Durham, NC, USA +1 919 286-3845
(I'drather be on the train.) FAX: +1 919 286-1696
This .signature meets plate C specifications (for rec.railroad fans)