Keeping Camera On Same Plane for Diptych, Ttriptych, Panorama

[spacegoose]

I'm interested in doing some 4x5 multi-panel images and am wondering what's a good method for keeping the camera on the same plane for each image?

So far, I've been carefully moving the camera, and although the images are close, straight lines in each image do not quite align. For example the straight edge of a rug, the top of a shelf, etc. where they continue from one image to the next.

I imagine it's something to do with slight movement of the camera from shot to shot, or the camera/flim not being on quite the same plane for each shot.

Thanks,
Bill

[Jim Michael]

You could buy/build a slider like used for cinematography. Or for larger scale moves, a dolly and track. Lot of diy plans for either.

[AA+]

It sounds like a problem with converging horizontal lines not matching in the photographs

It could be convenient (but not necessary) to keep the back vertical.

Could you shift the front/back of the camera (assuming sufficient lens covering power) to take your additional photographs? That would keep the camera back in the same plane for all pictures which should keep your lines consistent.

Best wishes --- Allen

[C. D. Keth]

You need to either be panning the camera around the nodal point of the lens or you need to be moving the camera laterally without changing the camera's bearing. It sounds like you prefer the look of the latter. You could construct a camera platform out of a 12 foot 2x4. Multiple point along that would always be in precisely the same line and then, with the aid of a compass and inclinometer, you could keep the camera bearing the same as well.

You can also refine the way you've been doing it by laying out the camera positions with a chalkline and/or laser level. Use a pocket digital camera to take a photo of the groundglass of each composition so you can have reference for the next shot in the line.

[spacegoose]

Thanks for the ideas. I need more than just shifting for the scene I want, and am not sure what other effect that could have. I think a dolly / track setup might be what I seek, the 2x4 method could be another possibility.

I am trying to maybe do something similar to : http://www.davidhilliard.com/The_Tale_is_True.html

Bill

[C. D. Keth]

It's tough to tell in some, but in many (maybe most) of those photos the camera is being panned, not moved. In that case, you would need to construct an offset so you could put the nodal point of the lens over the pivot point for the pan.

[Leszek Vogt]

The approach to these are not the same. You should be able to pull these off by using longer lens....I mean, longer than "normal". Another way is to do it is a pano, stitch it...and then put the breaking lines where you need them.

Les

[spacegoose]

Actually if you look at some of those panels, I think the straight lines (in some) also do not line up entirely. Chris, I will try panning, though to me it seems panning will capture the scene from different angles and distances and necessitate more focusing from shot to shot, and therefore make it even harder to line up the images to look panographic (then if using a dolly / track)?

Bill

[Nathan Potter]

As Chris says it is necessary to have the lens nodal point exactly over the pivot point for panning in cases where you need to have horizontal lines in the image line up.

There is a secondary misalignment that occurs when using wide angle lenses where, roughly, the lens focal length is less than the diagonal of the format. Even with wide lenses that are rectilinear there is image distortion (elongation) which becomes severe as it approaches the corner of the format. Thus when one tries to stitch the left hand side of a right image to the right hand side of a left image the distorted edges will not line up due to that image elongation.

Check out the "Really Right Stuff" web site for good equipment and an explanation of pano shooting.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Kimberly Anderson]

I think you guys are confusing two things:

1. The way the OP is referring to David Hilliard's method.

2. The way *you* would shoot a panorama using the lens' Nodal Point, and thusly think that the OP should shoot that way as well.

I shoot a LOT of panoramas like this and the thing that allowed the easiest leveling of the camera is the use of a cinema bowl-mount leveling head. There are several ways to skin that particular cat, but IMO, looking at David's panoramas, the only thing he's really that concerned about is keeping the camera level and the lines straight. Nodal Point panoramas are a much different beast and are usually used when stitching or perfect matching of the images is intended.

The way Hilliard is achieving his alignment is by leveling out the head, then in a separate move, he's leveling out the camera. There are many occasions where a front rise/fall will be used instead of tilting the camera up or down. Only by leveling out the bed of the camera and making sure it's level *during* the pan is there any hope for horizon lines and elements that are level not ending up all over the place.

I have used bowl-mounted self-levelig heads by Gitzo, Bogen, Miller and my current tripod is a cine-tripod from O'Connor from the 60's. I also use 3-4 different levels simultaneously on a very regular basis. I triple check my levels against each other and have taken back many levels to the store telling them that my reason for returning it is that "This level ain't".

If...and this is a long road filled with expensive brackets, calculations, naval-gazing and second-guessing...if you want to approach the Nodal Point method of shooting panoramas there are a plethora of wonderful tools that the above posters have alluded to. I am keeping my comments within the scope of the OP and looking at Hilliard's work.

There is a large group of people who shoot LF diptychs and triptychs like this. It has a rich tradition and I would encourage the OP not to get hung up on equipment but instead emphasize composition and story.

Good luck! I look forward to seeing what you come up with.