Post Your Ultra-Wide Photos

[rdenney]

How about a thread for photos made with extremely wide optics?

I'm thinking a lens with a focal length of well under half the image diagonal. That would limit us to 47mm for 6x12, 65 for 4x5, 90 for 5x7, and 120/121 for 8x10. (You guys can do the math for larger formats than that )

Here's an initial entry:

Cannon and French Castle, Fort Niagara, September, 2009. 6x12 format on Velvia. 47/5.6 Super Angulon (theoretically a 6x9 lens but with -just- enough coverage for 6x12 if you don't mind about four stops of falloff). F/22, but I just didn't write down shutter speeds that day. For critical work, I'd need a center filter, though this is about as extreme as it gets by using Velvia with a lens right at it's coverage limits. I don't really mind it here, though--it helps isolate the subject while still showing the open emptiness of the place.



I originally scanned this on the Epson V750, but for some reason it could not handle that sky gradation without banding strangely, so I scanned it in two parts in my Nikon 8000ED. Aligning images isn't quite as easy as people say it is, when working down to the pixel level for a 150-megapixel image. I guess I need a new computer!

Rick "who laid on the ground to avoid casting a shadow--typical problem with ultra-wides" Denney

[Mick Noordewier]

Great theme for a thread. If you simplify the rule to allow FL of half the film diagonal or less, you'll allow 75mm on 4x5 and the equivalent on other formats. This is still plenty wide, and will probably substantially increase the participation.
-Mick

[rdenney]

Great theme for a thread. If you simplify the rule to allow FL of half the film diagonal or less, you'll allow 75mm on 4x5 and the equivalent on other formats. This is still plenty wide, and will probably substantially increase the participation.
-Mick

I'll accept that friendly amendment, not that my approval is needed for where the thread goes. I just like the idea of seeing how people visualize images with fairly extreme wides. We have heard that they are only useful if you do X, and maybe someone has done Y with theirs and can refute that assumption by example.

Rick "hoping for lots of participation" Denney

[jb7]

Very good...

Here's one from last night-
65mm ƒ/8 Super Angulon on my p&s Plank-

This one on Fomapan 200-
it metered at 20 seconds, I gave it around 40-
the interior was very dark, although it seems like daylight outside-
street lighting on the building across the road.

There was a session going on in the corner, very good musicians-
three sets of pipes, a whistle, a flute, and a squeezebox.

I waited until they took a break, the movement during the playing-
to say nothing of the vibration from the leader keeping time by banging on the floorboards,
might have made the shot even less defined than it is-

Taken upstairs in The Stag's Head in Dublin.

I've got a few more from the day to scan,
haven't even looked at them properly yet-

[Ed Richards]

65mm on 4x5, first image on this page:

http://www.epr-art.com/galleries/a1-new/

Serious wide, but not 4x5 - all of these are 12mm on full frame 35mm:

http://www.epr-art.com/galleries/c3/

[rdenney]

Serious wide, but not 4x5 - all of these are 12mm on full frame 35mm:

Sigma 12-24 on a 24x36 DSLR or a 12mm Heliar on a Voigtlaender Bessa?

Rick "knowing of no other choices" Denney

[Ed Richards]

A good sigma 12-24 on a D700, with DXO. Even without DXO there is very little distortion, it is a magic lens if you are an ultrawide nut. (But you might have to buy more than one to get a good one.) That was a self-assignment to see if I could get enough shots for a picture book in one afternoon. Even had time to have lunch in the second to the last place, the one with the smiling lady and the yellow paint.:-)

[rdenney]

A good sigma 12-24 on a D700, with DXO. Even without DXO there is very little distortion, it is a magic lens if you are an ultrawide nut.

Heh. I have one for my 5D. A little soft in the corners, even if it's a good one (and mine seems excellent). The 47 Super Angulon on 6x12 provides about the same horizontal field of view (which is what seems relevant for 6x12) as a 14 on 24x36. I don't know if it's the difference in format, but the SA is sharply resolved right into the corners. I'm seeing sharp blades of grass right at the edge of the coverage. Remarkable! I've had the 47SA for several years, with the idea of doing just this, but when I could not get it to focus on my Cambo, I put it aside. I pulled it back out this year when I decided to get back into view camera usage, and bought the Sinar system just to be able to focus it (and the 65). It lacks coverage for 4x5, but it's adequate for 6x12 and worth the $300 I paid for it. Now I just have to learn how to use it.

I wouldn't be without the Sigma, but I don't expect to be making large prints from it.

Rick "who also has a Sigma 14mm prime and actually prefers the zoom" Denney

[Mark Stahlke]

What a fun idea for a thread. I love ultra-wide angle lenses even though I find them very difficult to use well.

Here is my home office. I had just finished re-doing this room when the UPS man brought me an HP Combi-Plan and a box full of chemicals. Anxious to develop my own B&W film for the first time ever, I decided to snap some pics of this room. I actually got usable negatives. Imagine my surprise.

Shen Hao PTB 4x5, APO Grandagon 55mm, Schneider IIIb center filter, FP4+ in DD-X, flare from the ceiling fixture .

Cheers,
Mark

[Ed Richards]

Just do not put anything in the corners that matters. That is the real secret of UW.:-) DXO is doing a free 30 day trial - download it and see what it does for your 12-24. You might really like it. As for big prints ,if the image is graphically strong and does not depend on blades of grass, I am amazed how good the prints from FF digital can look. I use digital where 4x5 does not work - check out the Bouchere or Jazz Mass shots. With 4x5, my doors would have been impossible because most of the business owners would have run me off. OTOH, where I can use 4x5, it is my favorite wide. At some point I will also go for a 47XL.