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" <laurie@advancenet.net>
To: <karlsch@earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:10 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: shoot first, fix it later
filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk <> 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 ().
Version: 6.0.422 / Virus Database: 237 - Release Date: 11/20/02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
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
