[filmscanners] Re: shoot first, fix it later

["Karl Schulmeisters" <karlsch@earthlink.net>]

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).

----- Original Message -----
From: "Youheng" <youheng@public1.sz.js.cn>
To: <karlsch@earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 10:12 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: shoot first, fix it later


Are most of the photos on Architectural Digest taken with
 at least 4 x5?

Or are 645 & 6x6 with wide angle lens
say 40mm not good for architectural shooting (interior &
out)? the 55mm PC shift lens may be good for perspective
control but I think it's not wide enough for the applicat
ion, and too much $$$.

Aside from the equipment, quali
ty 4x5 filmscanners really costs. Sorry for somewhat off-
topic and off-line if you like, thanks.

JMS

> Remem
ber, my original example was quarter-page usage. If it wa
s
> full-page-in-Architectural-Digest usage then I'd fir
mly be on the side of 4 x 5, not even 6
> x 6 + shift le
ns would likely be good enough.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body