Non traditional photographs

[Jan Pedersen]

(lets try to always sidestep the bickering about the medium used and move apart from it whenever we can, this forum must have a horrific proportion of threads overtaken by the LF debates. After all the end result is what everyone should be concentrating on.)

This is the large format forum, not photo.net

[cobalt]

Kirk, You continue to want to discuss something apart from the stated purpose of this thread. Can you tell me why that is the case? I ask that question because, quite honestly, I am confused by the content of your contributions. It seems that your contributions are intended to take things off their stated direction. I do not care to discuss abstraction and it's place in the historical or hierarchal scheme of things. I simply wanted to post and see some images that were not typical illustrative depictions of known objects. Is that too much to ask? If you want to discuss this in the context that you wish then you might consider starting a thread to discuss it.

I get kind of upset when I watch the Antiques Road Show (which happens quite rarely, by the way) and see the value of some of the "junk" I threw away in my lifetime. Have a great holiday season!!!

Well stated, Donald.
And, excellent thread starter, accompanied by equally superior work.
I have no images at hand, and unfortunately cannot contribute at this time.

[Jim Galli]

Bickering aside, I don't see where either photo fits the intent of the thread other than to say look at me, I can make a digital picture soooooooo big. Now if you looked into the mud pattern in the greenish ooze at the bottom of the second photo and stitched a few giga pixels of the pattern in the mud that at least would satisfy the threads intent. Have fun with your Canon Mr. George.

[Daniel_Buck]

here is something interesting (I think)

[ageorge]

Bickering aside, I don't see where either photo fits the intent of the thread other than to say look at me, I can make a digital picture soooooooo big. Now if you looked into the mud pattern in the greenish ooze at the bottom of the second photo and stitched a few giga pixels of the pattern in the mud that at least would satisfy the threads intent.

Jim,

The title of the thread is "Non traditional photographs", given the context of this forum and the images that are typically posted, I consider those two images non-traditional. If you see differently, please explain, in what way are these images traditional?

Have fun with your Canon Mr. George.

I will, thank you.

[Greg Lockrey]

This is a pinhole image . The intent was to photograph the interior of a room. The exposure was about an hour. Low and behold, a plant "walked" into the picture.

[Shen45]

This is the large format forum, not photo.net

I agree with Jan and Jim.

so what if you can stitch a gazzillion mega mixels -- it still isn't large format. It is just a big electronic file.

[ageorge]

This is the large format forum, not photo.net

I agree with Jan and Jim.

so what if you can stitch a gazzillion mega mixels -- it still isn't large format. It is just a big electronic file.

You can ping QT on it, but as I understand it, stitching is allowed. If that bothers you, perhaps you should raise it with QT or perhaps you would be happier sticking with APUG

It's my opinion that this is a "non-traditional photograph" (given the context), which reading the title on this thread, is what this thread is about.

1DsII, 45mm, tripod w/ RRS pano head, 2x4 stitch, 8623x7349

[Andrew O'Neill]

so what if you can stitch a gazzillion mega mixels -- it still isn't large format. It is just a big electronic file.

Exactly.

[ageorge]

so what if you can stitch a gazzillion mega mixels -- it still isn't large format. It is just a big electronic file.

Exactly.

Again, you can ping QT on it, but it's my understanding that stitching is allowed.

Another color "non-traditional" photograph....

1DsII, 45mm, 2x4 stitch, 9640x8811