LF vs. Stitching with a DSLR

[Martin Patek-Strutsky]

Having been very sceptical about digital cameras in the past I still bought my very first DSLR (Canon 20D) some weeks ago. In fact this is my first AF and my first digital camera, so this acquisition is a real cultural revolution for me.

I am deeply impressed with the qualities of this camera but with a resolution of 8.2 mega pixels it does of course not compete with LF.

Now I am making my first steps towards creating panoramas by stitching several pictures together. Lets say if you create mosaics with 8 pictures you end up with a file with more than 64 mega pixels.

This approach is technically quite demanding as well in capturing (you need specialized panoramic heads and you need to know how to use them) and in post processing (using stitching software like Panotools correctly takes a steep learning curve) but my first experiments tell me that it can be done.

Could a little DSLR together with a panoramic head become a serious alternative for LF? Is anyone else experimenting in this direction?

[Tom Westbrook]

It might if 1) your subject is pretty static and can hold still until you finish with all the seperate exposures (or you're after a special effect that depends on subject movement), 2) you don't need movements, 3) you have the time and patience to make the seperate exposures & do the post-processing required.

For me, it would be far too much work, most of it staring at a computer screen. I hear that you'll go blind doing that ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4008185.stm ).

[Ken Lee]

In addition to Tom's excellent answer:

One of the issues that I still see with digital cameras is their limited tonal range, such that high values are generally blown out. I use b&w film and develop in Pyrocat HD: the tonal range is quite long. However, the process of blending multiple exposures with a digital camera can overcome this problem, as long as the subject is suitable.

Here are some subjects where the stitching approach will fail: portraits, group portraits, scenery with quickly moving clouds, boats, cars.

For those people for whom time is money, this approach may not prove cost-effective.

[Roger Hein]

I've started doing stitched panos with excellent results. There are advantages (control) and disadvantages (workload).

Here's some useful sites:


http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/


http://gregwired.com/pano/Pano.htm


http://www.panoguide.com/


http://webuser.fh-furtwangen.de/%7Edersch/


http://www.kekus.com/

[Frank Petronio]

If you're willing to do the work of stitching, then extending the tonal range FAR BEYOND THAT OF ANY FILM AND DEVELOPER combination is not much more work. Simply combine the best aspects of an under and over exposued frame.

In theory, I could make a huge, highly detailed image far superior to any ULF film using my lowly camera-phone. But it would take weeks of work!

[Leonard Evens]

In terms of perspective control and framing, you can in principle do anything you can do with a view camera with a DSLR and appropriate stitching and manipulation software. But it is not as intuitive in that you have to previsualize the scene before you make the exposures. With a view camera, you pretty much see what you are going to get. As others have pointed out, subject movement could be a problem. And of course it is technically quite demanding. Note also that while you can begin to approach the resolution you would obtain with a view camera, there is no rule saying you can't stitch multiple exposures taken with a view camera exactly the same way. so it is not either/or.

There is no way with a DSLR and stitching that you can control the plane of exact focus as you can with a view camera. There are lenses for 35 mm which have limited shift/tilt capabilities, but they don't have the degree of flexibiity you would have with view camera movements. On the other hand, depth of field with a DSLR is ordinarily so large that controlling the plane of focus may not be an issue.

The upshot is that these are different kinds of photography, each with its strength and weaknesses, and any simple overall comaprison is likely to be misleading.

[Greg Miller]

I generate panoramas using multiple frames from a 35mm film camera. On average my images involve 10 to 13 images (I have done as many as 18 images to create a 360+ degree image). You can see some at www.gregmillerphotography.compage.

The biggest benefit of using this method is that your image can "see" more than a fixed lens (i.e. no fixed lens can capture a 180or 160 degree view).

Having a true panormamic head is not that important unless you have both very near and far objects in the image. I use an L'bracket and mount my camera vertically. This minimizes parallax distortion between frames and maximizes resolution vertically. You can also use a Wimberley M-8 bracket to be able to move your camera forward or backward to center the lens nodal point over the pivot point,

I do not use automated stitching software. I do it all manually in Photoshop. The first few are hard but its not too bad once you get the hang of it. One of the tougher parts of stitiching is handling color shifts in the sky area. SInce exposure tend to be long in the twilight area and the light is also changing quickly, you end up with color and exposure shifts between frames. Automated software does not handle this well or give you the control you may want.

[Michael Chmilar]

When you are shooting for a panorama, make sure you turn off the Out-o'-focus (AF). Focus changes will make it difficult to stitch.

[QT Luong]

I think it wouldn't be too bad to produce a panoramic composite, since there is only one axis to worry about and
generally those photos don't involve near-far compositions. I'd be wary of doing more square composites for the reasons
mentioned by Tom.

[Dave Moeller]

Just to add a "smart alec" answer here...you could also shoot multiple frames of ULF film and stich them all together, thus increasing the challenge for anyone wishing to match the resolution of film with digital capture. With the appropriate tripod head (i.e., with the camera swinging around the nodal point of the lens), the actual shooting isn't much work at all. Printing them, though, would be a real nightmare.