Jack Dykinga: another one bites the d

[D. Bryant]

There is a claim underlying what some people are saying in this thread that people like Wall, Burtynsky, Jordan are not doing large format photography.

What is the basis for that claim?

I'm not sure if I understand your question but if they are using a DSLR like a Nikon or Canon or a MF digital back attached to a MF body like a 'Blad or Mamiya or even a Leica S2 then they aren't doing large format photography.

I've not looked at Wall's work in a while and when I did I found his output banal, maybe that's changed.

Jordan's worked has morphed into graphic art, IMO, which I find clever but boring.

Burtynsky has always been enjoyable for me though I've not seen his latest.

Aside from the LF issue, what makes their work so important and special?

Don Bryant

[paulr]

Jordan's worked has morphed into graphic art, IMO, which I find clever but boring.

I've heard the "graphic art" comment before, and it confuses me. I don't see any connection between what Jordan does and the graphic arts (either traditional or contemporary interpretations). He works in photography, in the traditions of montage or compositing, which have been with us since the mid 19th century.

Aside from the LF issue, what makes their work so important and special?

I don't know what makes Burtynsky's work special. Jordan and Wall do work that doesn't look quite like anything I've seen before. It strikes me as the product of unique and strong individual visions.

[D. Bryant]

I've heard the "graphic art" comment .

Paul,

Notice I said, IMO, whether that's technically accurate is immaterial to me.

Don Bryant

[paulr]

Notice I said, IMO, whether that's technically accurate is immaterial to me.

Cany you clarify why it's something besides photography? And if the distinction, in your opinion, applies to all the photo-based art from the last hundred and fifty years that's put together from multiple images?

[Brian Ellis]

. . . I don't own T/S lenses so the panos were made by rotating the camera. As a result I loose resolution from having to crop the image after the stitch but never the less images can be made that one has visualized in their head before firing the shutter, including scenes with clouds. So I don't see what is so spectacular about Jack's methodology. His equipment is very nice - more than I can afford but the MO is sort of hum drum once you have done it and mastered the mechanics. Of course the MO is hum drum but wonderful images can be made. . . .
Don Bryant

I don't know that "spectacular" is the word but I think that what's different about Dykinga's methodology is his use of shift with a tilt/shift lens to create the panorama rather than rotating the camera. It seems like a good idea though an expensive one.

My problem with T/S lenses for digital is that I've never thought it would be very easy to use tilt and tell when things are in focus. It's one thing to use tilt on a 4x5 or 8x10 ground glass where the image is pretty big and it's not difficult to adjust tilt and see when the near or far has been brought into the plane of focus. But doing that while squinting through the little viewfinder on a DSLR has always seemed like it would be pretty difficult.

[Don Hutton]

I don't know that "spectacular" is the word but I think that what's different about Dykinga's methodology is his use of shift with a tilt/shift lens to create the panorama rather than rotating the camera. It seems like a good idea though an expensive one.

My problem with T/S lenses for digital is that I've never thought it would be very easy to use tilt and tell when things are in focus. It's one thing to use tilt on a 4x5 or 8x10 ground glass where the image is pretty big and it's not difficult to adjust tilt and see when the near or far has been brought into the plane of focus. But doing that while squinting through the little viewfinder on a DSLR has always seemed like it would be pretty difficult.

Brian

It's not really that much of an issue:

1. you're typically dealing with lenses of much shorter focal lengh where the apparent depth of field is greater.
2. Almost all newer DSLR bodies offer Live View which enables you to accurately assess focus at pixel level all the way around the frame before you capture. Most have very decent LCD screens to accomplish this too.

That said, the performance of most of these lenses at the extremes is not stellar.

[Kirk Gittings]

If you want to know what the new Canon 24T/S II is capable of read through this thread on LL comparing the new Canon with MF digital. The main poster/tester, Rainer V. is one of the top architectural photographers in Europe.

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/...pic=39887&st=0

Also, look at the differences here between the new one and the old one. These differences are also very pronounced in the corners with the lens shifted by my tests. It is a sweet lens and a game changer for AP.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...3&LensComp=347

[Marko]

It is primarily the type of camera, that is what is referred to as a view camera. If you want to drift away from that then create a sub-forum or start your own website. Or you may enjoy conversations about this topic more on getdpi.com.

[...]

It really seems to be more of a problem for you and a few others than most of the people who post here. Instead of thrashing the topic to death create a poll and see what kind of response you get. You may need to perform multiple polls to gain clarity since the polling mechanism is limited.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions, but I really don't know where you got the idea that I somehow want to drift away from or that I may have a problem with the topic of this site?

What I do have a problem with is yahoos who make it their mission to disrupt and derail any discussion about any topic they deem unacceptable. I also have a problem with anybody other than the actual forum management making up "rules" and telling me what I can or cannot discuss here.

I don't care about polling. These are primarily the questions for the management - I thought it would be really useful to clarify the boundaries and policies and leave no one confused about them. Maybe then we could finally go back to discussing photography...

[JeffKohn]

I don't know that "spectacular" is the word but I think that what's different about Dykinga's methodology is his use of shift with a tilt/shift lens to create the panorama rather than rotating the camera. It seems like a good idea though an expensive one.

The nice thing about "flat" stitching with lens shift is that there's no warping or projections as is typically the case with pano software. The images line up nice and neat, just as if you had shot the same scene with a single capture from a larger format.

I couldn't help but chuckle at the way the OP article makes it sounds like Dykinga had invented some ground-breaking new technique though. I've been using shift lenses to stitch for a few years now; and I certainly wasn't the first, as I'm sure people have been doing it for as long as DSLR's have been around.

The one thing I find strange is that the example photos all were captioned as being a combination anywhere from 5-7 shots. That makes no sense to me, because there is no reason to take more than 3 shots with this technique. Maybe he thinks extra overlap helps with parallax issues, but it's not a complete solution. A far better way is to move the camera in the opposite direction you're shifting the lens, so that the net effect is that the lens is stationary and you get the equivalent of a rear-standard shift.

Oh, I also found it kinda funny that OP chose one of Dykinga's 4x5 film shots for the cover this month, rather than one of his "secret view camera" stitches...

My problem with T/S lenses for digital is that I've never thought it would be very easy to use tilt and tell when things are in focus. It's one thing to use tilt on a 4x5 or 8x10 ground glass where the image is pretty big and it's not difficult to adjust tilt and see when the near or far has been brought into the plane of focus. But doing that while squinting through the little viewfinder on a DSLR has always seemed like it would be pretty difficult.

As Don mentioned, live-view is a real life-saver here. Not only does it make manual focusing much easier, but it also allows you to check the DOF effect of your tilt by zooming in on various parts of the frame. My approach is to calculate (or estimate) the amount of tilt needed, then choose my focus point and manually focus with the lens wide-open by zooming in to 100% on the LCD. Then I stop the lens down and check DOF throughout the frame to make sure everything is sharp. I agree using these lenses would be pretty difficult without live-view (or any other manual-focus lens, for that matter).

On the "should digital be discussed here" topic, I can understand not wanting this forum to get overrun with talk of digital this and that. But I'd certainly like to see talk about using view cameras with digital technology allowed. I'm a digital shooter who mostly lurks here, because although I have no interest in shooting film I do have an interest in view cameras, and am considering one of the DSLR-compatible rigs as a near-term solution until the price and feature-set of MF digital backs becomes more reasonable.

[Gordon Moat]

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/im...or/n17_1_e.htm

Original manual from the 1960s showing the PC Nikkor (shift lens). One of the techniques was to take a shot with the lens fully shifted one direction, then rotate the lens to the exact opposite point to make a second exposure. Then you could print the two frames together to get one image. (Scroll to near the bottom of the page for an explanation.

I have a very old 35mm f.28 Nikkor shift lens, and I have used that technique with film to get panoramic images. Of course I have an advantage over original users of that lens, since I have software to blend the frames together.

The point is that this is hardly new, and hardly something that was "invented" with D-SLRs. Claiming this as revolutionary today is only going to impress those who are clueless, or easily impressed. Of course just the other day I was explaining two shots panoramas on my 4x5 using rear shift, and this guy nearly twice my age didn't even know that a 4x5 could shift at the rear, though he claims to have used a Crown Graphic when they were new.

This is a rant, but it is almost like people have become stupid and lazy. The history of photography and photographic tools and techniques might be in danger of disappearing, because all most people seem to give a shit about is the latest shiny object and some software widget that does it for them.