What is the Best Way to Make a 4x10 Image From Two 4x5 Images?

[r.e.]

I raise the question here because the answer starts from the camera as a piece of hardware.

I am interested in doing this because the 4x5 camera and 360mm lens that I have will result in the composition that I want if two frames can be combined. I don't want to buy a 4x10 camera and I want to know whether this is a good or bad alternative to buying a 600mm lens for my 8x10.

Thanks.

[wfwhitaker]

Have you considered simply doing a diptych? (Pan the camera between shots, of course.) Diptychs and triptychs can be very effective, if not overdone, and the hardware required beyond what you already have is nil.

[r.e.]

Have you considered simply doing a diptych?

Thanks, yes I have considered it.

[Ken Lee]

I plan to try some 5x8 shots. If things work out, I'll show an example. It can't always work, but it's cheaper than a 5x8 camera and holders.

[cjbroadbent]

A diptych is like a double-page spread with a gutter down the middle - harder to compose than a triptych where the wings are there to add peripheral vision to a main subject and the gutters do not intrude.
Scanned 4x5s can (with a little hassle) be stitched together with Adobe Stitcher, just take care of the nodal point with the tripod and the focal length setting with the software. With two shots in landscape mode you would get 4x7, three shots, 4x10.5.
So it might be better to go vertical mode for three shots to get 5x9.

[Frank Petronio]

The Nodal point concerns lessen the closer to infinity focus you get. I suspect longer lenses lessen the concern as well. In practical application it depends on how detailed and precise you want to be -- for most landscapes all that matters is that the horizon lines meet seamlessly.

[Ken Lee]

"With two shots in landscape mode you would get 4x7, three shots, 4x10.5. So it might be better to go vertical mode for three shots to get 5x9."

OK - Thanks !

[Ed Richards]

You need to shoot three sheets, not two - the more overlap, the better the job the software does. Nodal points really do not matter with modern software, esp. for long lenses - assuming, as Frank points out, you are close to infinity. Level really matters for the rotation, and you probably do not want to use a polarizer. The best way is to use the index on your pan head and work out the position for each shot ahead of time. Do not crop tightly - leave a little extra at each end to give some latitude in stitching. Then you can just stop down and start shooting, rotating the camera to the next index mark for each shot.

[r.e.]

Thanks, these responses are very helpful. I'll be using a 360mm lens at infinity.

People who, like me, are completely new to this might find it useful to have a look at a paper by Doug Kerr, who used to participate on this site, called The Proper Pivot Point for Panoramic Photography: http://doug.kerr.home.att.net/pumpkin/Pivot_Point.pdf

I'm not sure how to square what he says about parallax shift with references that I've seen to using shift rather than panning around the nodal point (or, as Mr. Kerr prefers, the entrance pupil). He does say: "In reality, unless there are objects that lie quite close to the camera, the parallax shift caused by even a substantial error in selecting the position of the panoramic pivot axis will be negligible". If one is using a long lens on a distant subject, such as a town, are there any advantages to moving the camera laterally on a rail (basically, more capacity for what amounts to front shift) instead of panning?

[jb7]

Wouldn't that lens cover 4x10?
You could just shift the back, and take two pictures within the same image circle?
Same nodal point then, no messing about...