Jack Dykinga: another one bites the d

[Don Hutton]

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

Kirk

I believe it's a great lens; and the reason I qualified the my generalisation with "most"...

[Brian Ellis]

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.

What? You mean this stitching stuff wasn't invented by Adobe solely for digital photographers? It actually was done with film? And in a fume room no less? Next thing you know someone will be telling me that 19th century photographers used to move skies from one photograph into another in the darkroom.

[Brian Ellis]

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...


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.

Thanks. I just got my first camera that has Live View a couple weeks ago. I've used it for checking depth of field and it's been great for that with my aging eyes. But since I don't own a T/S lens any more (used to have a shift lens with my Pentax 67 camera but it didn't have Live View : - )) I hadn't thought of using it in conjunction with a T/S lens.

[Kirk Gittings]

But I'd certainly like to see talk about using view cameras with digital technology allowed.

It is allowed.

[Mike Anderson]

What? You mean this stitching stuff wasn't invented by Adobe solely for digital photographers? It actually was done with film? And in a fume room no less? Next thing you know someone will be telling me that 19th century photographers used to move skies from one photograph into another in the darkroom.

Stitching was invented by the Talking Heads, about 1979. They weren't very good at it:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ngsandFood.jpg

...Mike

[Paul Kierstead]

I can't figure out how the origins and/or use of stitching is relevant in any way shape or form to any of this discussion.

[Robert Hughes]

I was in the field this weekend. My digital camera konked out on me (weird dancing bars on the viewer). So I had to resort to some 50+ year old press camera - and film! - which worked like a charm. Of course...

[Kirk Gittings]

I can't figure out how the origins and/or use of stitching is relevant in any way shape or form to any of this discussion.

Paul, It's because the article referenced by QT about Dykinga's switch to digital seems to imply that he invented the shift/stitch method. Ridiculous claim of course, as many of us, myself included, were doing this with view cameras and film to create panoramas long before it became popular with the DSLR crowd and employed it with DSLRs as soon as we bought one with T/S lenses (for me that was about 3 years ago).

[r.e.]

I can't figure out how the origins and/or use of stitching is relevant in any way shape or form to any of this discussion.

I for one am following this part of the discussion very closely. If it can be the subject of another thread without people having apoplexy, that's fine too.

[tgtaylor]

...used to have a shift lens with my Pentax 67 camera but it didn't have Live View : - ))

You sure did! The P67 comes fully equipped with "live view." It's called the view finder. You look in it and you see your composition "live."