what was I thinking?
Monday, September 1, 2008 at 10:01PM 
My awe and enthusiasm have waned in the intervening hours since dinner. It's not usual for me to say much of anything about tech, but this one is so cool I've got to mention it.
My brother loaned me his D70 a month or so ago to play with to learn about flash photography. That's been coming along. I won't bore anyone with details. I've become the most cooperative model I know... The most recent work has been within the house using the flash to light bits and pieces of rooms, usually with a lamp and a window somewhere in the frame. I've used my Sekonic meter to get a flash reading, then change the percentage readings and vary the settings on the camera accordingly. This has worked fine, but the problem is learning anything from this requires downloading the images to the computer and looking at them there.
Roger suggested Camera Control. Whoa... After installing it twice, charging the battery, changing the USB port setting on the camera, damned if it didn't work! Set the camera on a tripod, connect to a laptop via USB cable, and most of the basic functions (and a lot more) can be controlled from the computer, and then view the image on screen, instead of the shitty little LCD. Great for studio work, that's for sure. Or any kind of remote photography. In fact, with the addition of another $580 wireless device, you can connect the camera to a WiFi network and go wireless. Wouldn't that be too cool? On top of that, the newer more expensive cameras (Nikons) will generate a live feed to the computer.
I can see that these are the tools I should be using for the architectural photography that I've started to do. Especially with interior lighting, it's nice to be able to get instant feedback on the settings that work the best. One more example for me that there is no reason to do any commercial photography using film. I still prefer using the view camera, but these digital tools do way more a lot faster. For the sizes that I'm likely to need for people, a current SLR is likely to have plenty enough quality.
Alas - another nail in the coffin. I exposed five pieces of 4 x 5 film in the past three days, and it was still a lot more fun. Not as gee wizz, but still ultimatley more satisfying. I see a possible division of tools coming: more digital capture for other people, architecture, and that sort; continued use of the 4 x 5 for more personal work which I might want to print larger.
Reader Comments (2)
What about tilts and shifts that you get with a view camera? Canon has three tilt/shift lenses but I'm sure they give you nowhere near the control you get with a real view camera. Whenever I shoot any interiors (and what I do is strictly uninformed and experimental) I am always struggling to get a deeper field of focus.
Tommy, perhaps I should explain...
View cameras are my primary capture devices. I've been working with a 4 x 5 kit for a few years for architectural photographs. My brother loaned me his Nikon to experiment with flash, and now that I have access to that tool I've experimented with it for architectural work as well. The tilt-shift lenses are obscenely expensive, so I think what most people who use digital are doing is adjust the perspective in computer with software. The time spent making these adjustments can eliminate the speed advantage for digital capture, and the viewfinder evaluation for exposure is so nearly worthless, that I investigated the Camera Control option. As I mentioned above, it would be great for studio work, not practical on location for moving quickly. I can set up my 15 pounds of tripod and view camera nearly as fast and have an exposure with hundreds of times more information than what I get out of the APS sized digital sensor.
My last architectural session I worked with a combination of both cameras. In tight spots such as a bathroom, the digital was much simpler to set up. But the exteriors I much prefer the view camera, where depth of field isn't quite as much of a problem either.