Could a Large Format Redwood Tree Portrait compete with National Geographic's photo?

[NightHeron]

Hello All,

I'm a newbie interested in finding out if it is possible to take full sized redwood tree portraits using large format that are somewhere near the quality of the photo that Michael Nichols achieved for National Geographic. See: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/re...gatefold-image. Mr. Nichols ran an array of DSLRs along a vertical tramway in front of a tall redwood tree and shot over 80 images to stitch together to form his portrait. I would like to try to photograph an entire 300' -380' tall tree without having to get either me or my camera way up in the air.

I imagine that it might be possible to use a long, large format lens with a large image circle to create a number of distant shots to stitch into a vertical panorama shot without perspective problems. Naturally this would require an unobstructed view of the redwood tree from quite a long distance. This would certainly limit, but I don't think it would eliminate, possible subjects.

Can this type of image be made using large format, and if so how?

[Paul Fitzgerald]

"I'm a newbie interested in finding out if it is possible to take full sized redwood tree portraits using large format that are somewhere near the quality of the photo that Michael Nichols achieved for National Geographic."

they did that a century ago with 'sky-scraper' cameras, should not be too hard to duplicate today.

Front rise introduces diverging verticals, looming, mushroom head
tilting the camera introduce converging verticals, falling, pin-head
using half of each would cancel themselves to parallel verticals.
the only problem is to move far enough back to avoid an enlarged center, cigar shaped.
Move back as far as the tree is tall, farther would be better.

[Brian C. Miller]

Folmer & Schwing Mfg. Co., Sky Scraper Camera, Improved

Looks like the lens on that is a Wollensak 6-1/4 inch (159mm) lens. The "Sky Scraper" had a lot of front rise to it, but I don't see a mention of how much rise. The previous version looks like it had about four inches, using an additional board at the base.

The Wollensak wide angle lens shown there does not have a lot of room for movement. (I have one.)

So there you have it: use a wide-angle lens with a lot of coverage, and you'll need a lot of rise.

(Actually, just about any monorail, and a good number of field cameras, can do this. It's not that special now, not like it was in 1903.)

[dperez]

Sure, you could use the exact same method with the rail tramway, but use a large format camera instead, and then stitch the images together. Check out Jeff Liao's work in Habitat 7, which used multiple 8x10 exposures that were stitched together.

-

[Brian Ellis]

I've photographed quite a bit in the redwoods around Crescent City, CA. I don't see how you could get far enough away from the tree to make that kind of photograph without getting up in the air, which you say you don't want to do. I'm sure I've missed some but the groves I've been in have been pretty dense.

[Jim Galli]

Probably not. However if you could get to the 100 foot level and then use rise you could probably achieve something similar. Or pick a tree that allows you to back up so that an 80 degree lens can capture it. OTOH what they accomplished is a nice scientific document, but it isn't art. Who could stand to look at the mess they made out of the tree trunk off to the right.

[Brian C. Miller]

You'd need something like the Rodenstock Grandagon N 200mm. It has a 495mm image circle, so you'd get nearly four inches of rise from it on 8x10 on the long side. So, yeah, photographing a redwood in one shot is possible, but not arbitrarily just any redwood tree.

[NightHeron]

Thank you all for your replies.

I thought that there would be limited opportunities to make complete portrait photographs of tall redwoods using a large format camera and vertical shifts, but I still have not found any images that I know were made that way. The only full portrait redwood photos I have found were stitches of many DSLR photos by either Michael Nichols or James Balog. I would really like to see some photos made with roughly this approach if anyone knows where these images are lurking.

The specific approach that I imagine is to use a long (360mm - 480mm) large format lens with a very wide image circle on a 5X7 field camera with generous vertical shifts available to make two vertical shots to be stitched together. The tree would need to be quite distant, on the other side of a river, or across a long clearing. Among the many things that I don't know is whether there would be sufficient DOF with such long lenses to to keep both the trunk and the branches sharp.

Those of you that have suggested lens sizes have recommended lenses in the 150mm to 200mm range. Why do lenses in this normal to mildly telephoto range seem like the correct approach to those of you recommending them?

Thanks again.

[John Kasaian]

The Grizzly Giant in Mariposa Grove has been shot full length many times. Also Sequoia NP has opportunities near the General Sherman, which has a steep mountianside staircase allowing you enough elevation to tackle nieghboring redwoods.

[Jim Galli]

If $$$$$ were no object, ie. you had a pac fund to spend wildly from, I'd look into having Richard Ritter build you one of his 8X20's with the vertical back option. That would get you very near the 6.5:20 ratio of the image you've shown. Then I'd buy the Schneider ULF 550mm lens and start doing the math to see exactly how far back and how high you'd need to be to duplicate the image. Once done it would certainly beat the digi version.