59 Image digital mosaic

[Ron Marshall]

Thanks for a very interesting post. I use a digital camera (Canon 5D) quite a bit and I have no knee jerk reaction against what you've done.

I'm glad you enjoyed the post. But I didn't do it, I don't own a digital camera. I posted this because I was amazed at the photographers dedication to achieve his sought after level of quality, and I thought it might interest some here.

It is not the route I would go. Near-far compositions are more problematic and a signifigant amount of post processing is required. Also the potential for movement between shots. But to each their own tools and methods.

This proceedure is essentially a poor man's digital scanning back.

[Brian Ellis]

I'm glad you enjoyed the post. But I didn't do it, I don't own a digital camera.

Sorry for the incorrect attribution Ron. I got caught up in reading the text and didn't pay attention to the name of the author.

[sanking]

Some of the critics here need to read the article carefully ! From a standpoint of results, the mosaic approach looks good, but the process also does seems tedious to me, esp. if computer work is factored in.

With the emphasis on tedious! If the emphasis is on detail and sharpness he could most likely have achieved a lot more in about the same shooting time with a 6X7 or 6X9 film camera, 220 film, and a wide angle lens. You have the extra step of scanning of course, but how many 8mp shots would you have to make to equal one 6X9 scanned at 4000 dpi?

Sandy King

[Ted Harris]

With all due respects, in addition to tedious Roger has many imags and results that he has posted on the web over a number of years that are all stunning but few if any have been able to reproduce similar results. Perhaps it lies in the time that we are not prepared to spend, perhaps elsewhere.

[Mark Sampson]

I find it interesting that the photographer claims that it takes him 30-45 minutes to set up a 4x5 landscape shot and expose a few brackets. That seems kind of slow... the sun will have moved 10 degrees in that time. My own experience suggests that if I take that long, my seeing is not good, and the image doesn't turn out to be worth much after the fact.

[Chris Strobel]

He actually claims that it takes only 10 min to snap all the images, as opposed to much more to set-up to LF camera.

So does that mean with a 16mp EOS 1Ds MkII camera He could do the same shot in 5 min

[Greg Miller]

I have done a very similar process many times. The difference is that I create panoramic format images that are impossible to create with a stationary fixed lens camera. One could use a swing lens (or film plane) camera to accomplish the same result but that means the added expense of more hardware and more gear to haul around. I do all my stitiching manually but it goes pretty fast after you have done a few.

[QT Luong]

Very nice images, Greg. How much time is "pretty fast' ?

[Greg Miller]

Very nice images, Greg. How much time is "pretty fast' ?

Thanks. My "typical" image is about 13 images. For images where I used digital capture this usually takes under 30 minutes including opening all the images. Images taken during twighlight hours can take more time because the light changes so much from beginning to end.

[Ron Marshall]

Thanks. My "typical" image is about 13 images. For images where I used digital capture this usually takes under 30 minutes including opening all the images. Images taken during twighlight hours can take more time because the light changes so much from beginning to end.

Greg, I am curious why you use 13 images for the composite. For a composite I think of, for example, three rows of 4 or three rows of 5.