DSLR Stitching Again

[Kirk Gittings]

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/...opic=15605&hl=

Here is one of those forum threads in Luminous Landscape which presents DSLR stitching as a superior capture method to LF film. He does not talk about the capture time involved but states it took two months of computer time to make this image from 160 exposures. It does not seem like an image worth that kind of effort IMO. Jack Flesher and Doug Dolde, who also participate here, present some well informed rebuttal's.

While I think DSLR stitching can be a real problem solver at times with my commercial work, give me a scanned 8x10 transparency for this kind of image any day.

[Leonard Evens]

There is nothing to prevent you from stitching large format images, and there are situations where it makes sense. In fact there are advantages to doing that. The images don't suffer much from barrel or pincusion distortion, for example, so they need less massaging when stitching. In fact I Iplan to do just that. That way I will get the best of both worlds.

[Kirk Gittings]

There is nothing to prevent you from stitching large format images, and there are situations where it makes sense.

No s___? In case you didn't read my thread, I was talking about DSLR capture vs. single capture LF film.

[Walter Calahan]

Some people have too much time on their hands if it takes 2 months to do a stitch.

At least they are not on the roads adding to traffic. Grin.

[Jack Flesher]

Some people have too much time on their hands if it takes 2 months to do a stitch.

At least they are not on the roads adding to traffic. Grin.

Nor are they going to be very prolific artists! I think some folks do these things just to prove it can be done...

FWIW and IMHO only (I know Doug agrees ), the image the poster presented in the above thread is pretty ho-hum overall and certainly not worth more than a few hours of work tops (postcard status maybe). Not only that, it is poorly processed if you look at the crop area he linked to (way over-sharpened at some point in the processeing). But to be fair, had I been there with my 8x10 in that light, I would have probably burned a few sheets... More likely is I would have waited until the light on the hoodoos was more interesting. He did get a decent sky though.

Cheers,

[Michael Mutmansky]

He did get a decent sky though.

That probably the worst part of the whole image...

[naturephoto1]

Hi Kirk,

I just glanced at the link. I am not sure, he initially indicates that there were 45 images stitched. Whether 45 or 160 and 2 months of time to stitch the image, that is a bit over the top. Certainly a real waste of time on the part of the photographer. How much time did it take for him to capture all of those images? Then the question is were the conditions the same for all of those images. Don't jump on me for this but, if someone needed that size and detail, wouldn't it be better for a single capture on a large enough piece of film or if need be to perhaps stitch 6??? original 4 X 5 sheets (agreeing with both Leonard and your response)???

Rich

[ageorge]

Hi Kirk,

I just glanced at the link. I am not sure, he initially indicates that there were 45 images stitched. Whether 45 or 160 and 2 months of time to stitch the image, that is a bit over the top. Certainly a real waste of time on the part of the photographer. How much time did it take for him to capture all of those images? Then the question is were the conditions the same for all of those images. Don't jump on me for this but, if someone needed that size and detail, wouldn't it be better for a single capture on a large enough piece of film or if need be to perhaps stitch 6??? original 4 X 5 sheets (agreeing with both Leonard and your response)???

Rich

From my experience, it only takes about a 4x2 stitch (8 images) from a 1DsII to beat the image quality of a desktop scanned (epson 4990 @ 2400dpi) 4x5 TMax 100 scan. The file dimensions are roughly equivalent at ~11000x9000. A drum scan just about equals it, but the edge in quality still goes to the stitch, I my experience. Setting up and taking a 4x2 stitch takes a little less time, for me, than setting up the 4x5 and completing an exposure (including recording the exposure notes which is not necessary with the stitch capture and making a duplicate negative). You still have to meter, compose the shot (actually you have to compose in your head as there is no single piece of GG to look at), and execute the exposure(s). It takes less that 30 seconds to actually record the images. When I am out stitching (so to speak), I record about the same amount of images as with my 4x5, 10 is a good day. There are many more similarities than differences.

I spent 3 hours at the location below. I ended up with 7 compete images (~250 individual images, but I also bracketed every shot for HDR), which is about what I would have done with the 4x5. BTW, the extreme dynamic range in these conditions is why I selected stitching (w/ HDR) over the 4x5, over 13 stops from shadows to highlights.

2 stop 3 bracket HDR, 4x2 stitch, 1DsII with 45mm TSE, ~12000x9000

[D. Bryant]

From my experience, it only takes about a 4x2 stitch (8 images) from a 1DsII to beat the image quality of a desktop scanned (epson 4990 @ 2400dpi) 4x5 TMax 100 scan.

Nice work! However I think you can get comparable results with a view camera using a wide view lens and doing stand or semi-stand development - if you are shooting B&W.

Don't get me wrong though, I just purchased a DSLR and I'm itching to do some digital stitches. The HDR twist also sounds interesting. I've heard that CS3 has a much improved HDR engine.

Don Bryant

[SAShruby]

IMHO, I'd say that spending two months to do one picture is very expensive and not very productive for profesional photographer.

Doing murals is one job, but I doubt many people can afford to do that. You need lots of money and investment to print it in that detail.

Just my thoughts...