Laurie
Your point about the use of tilt-shift etc. controls for architectural is well made. In my minds eye I was seeing the classic Arch Dig. image of some new-fangled interior shot - which is far more about lighting than the use of the controls. For interior work you aren't using selective focus, and vertical and horizontal shifts can usually be acomplished by moving the camera. As for the 'quality of image' issue - given the resolving abilities of modern films, even a high quality publication like AD isn't screening their printing at resolutions beyond 4000x6000 dots (in reality they aren't even close to that) for a full page spread - which puts it squarely in the resolving abilities of 35mm film. Nor can the dynamic range of a mass printed publication like AD take advantage of the enhanced tonal rendition you get in larger format film (more on that later as it is what my #4 point was about). I also agree completely with your description of the use of polaroids. What did I mean by #4: - well it all has to do with "information density". About 9 mos ago I gave a small local seminar introducing 4x5 to a bunch of 35mm amateurs. As a preview, I shot the same architectural interior in B&W with both 210mm 4x5 and a good quality 35mm zoom set to the same field of view as the 4x5. Film, exposure, development, printing filtration, printing enlarger were all the same. I printed 3 shots: full frame 8x10, 8x10 cropped out of 11x14, and 8x10 cropped from 32x40. Even at 8x10 you could tell the difference and normal viewing distances. Not by grain or sharpness, but by tonal 'depth' in the shadows. In essence the 4x5 is able to capture more subtle tonal variation before limiting out either by grain or by lens/diffraction than 35mm film is. This makes logical sense at very large enlargements where grain is pronounced, but it applies down to much lower enlargements as well, simply because there is more ability to capture the information coming through the lens. This translates to an increased latitude of exposure - becuase the greater tonal rendition essentially lets you be less precise with your deepest shadow exposures. After all, if in a perfect exposure in deep shadows you would 'flip' 4/8 crystals on a 4x5, getting it wrong might only flip 2, but something was captured. Wheras on a 35mm, that variation might be completely contained within a single crystal, and not getting it to 'flip' essentially loses that detail, even though on a properly exposed test chart, that level of resolution is within the bounds of the film. Did I explain that clearly? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:10 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: shoot first, fix it later [EMAIL PROTECTED] <> wrote: > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: shoot first, fix it later > > > I believe most architectural is still shot 4x5 - or 8x10 > 1) in part because until recently, film wasn't good enough to capture > the details otherwise and so its 'how it always has been done'. > 2) if you 'polaroid' the shot, its WYSIWYG > 3) lenses have much greater coverage - a 90mm 4x5 lens is roughly > equivilent to a 25mm lens for 35mm camera and a 60mm is a 15mm > 4) larger film area gives you more latitude in lighting > > Its true that 4x5 scanners ain't cheap - but that's what service > bueroes are for (damn I can't spell that word). I was hoping to avoid getting involved in this discussion; but a few of your comments have compelled me to add my two cents. While I agree that a large number of not most architectural and interior design photography is done with 4x5 and/or 8x10 when they are intended to be high quality images for use in high quality publications and advertising campaigns or PR campaigns, there are a number of purposes for architectural photography that do not require such high quality but merely documentation such as progress reports or for annual reports to clients, shareholders, directors, or funding sources in the case of grants from foundations or goverment agencies or loans from venture capitalists. In such cases medium format may suffice and frequently even 35mm will do as long as one cancontrol perspective so the building does not look distorted or like it is toppling over. My main focus was on your points 1 and 2. Regarding point 1, I believe it is not so much the size of the film as much as the fact that rail based view cameras tend to allow for greater perspective control in terms of tilts and shifts, the Schumflage effect, and the like which are not available in fixed body and lens cameras that make up most medium and small format cameras even when used with tilt and shift lenses. The 35mm and medium format tilt and shift lenses are limited in both their abilities to tilt and shift as well as in their focal lengths. With respect to point 2, polariods give one a preview of what one may get; but they do not provide any certainty that WYSIWYG obtains. They are good for determining how highlights and shadows will fall, if the composition is good and everything that needs to be shown can be see, if the distortions are as planned if such distortions are intended or do not take place if they are not wanted, if the lighting is even or has hot spots and deep shadows, and if the general exposure is in the ballpark. They are not good for determining exact exposures since the film speeds of regular film differs from that of polaroid film in most cases with a few notable exceptions where they may be identical; nor ar they really good for determining color renditions since the dyes used in polaroids are different from those used in regular films so as to represent and present two somewhat different color spaces. I am not really sure what you mean by point 4 so I will not comment on that point, except to say that as I understand the notion of latitude in lighting there really should be not differences due to film format. If such a difference does exist at all, it may be due to the fact that some films are available only in large format and are not available for use with roll film cameras and it is the characteristics of the film which will define the latitude. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 11/20/02 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body