I guess it's an aesthetics topick, so should be posted here.
I've been shooting landscapes for some time and after some tests and experimentation, found out that for my personal taste, the 28mm on 135 and 90mm on 4x5 come very close to create that "like being there" effect on a normal print. They are wide, but not too wide and don't have that distinctive "in your face" look that is very popular now with the advent of accessible UWA lenses on digital and bothers me a bit.
And since I've made few prints from this formats I can more or less visualize them on paper.
But what about panoramic shots? There are a lot of 6x17 and 6x12 on the web but they are all tiny and I can't find any photos of prints to be able to really imagine how one of these actually look on a wall. Do anybody have "print" photos to share? Something like this: http://www.horolezec.cz/aktualni/eng...dnice2_en.html
The other thing that really intrigues me, it's the old 6x12 vs 6x17 question, but from an aesthetics perspective. I'd like to hear from panoramic shooters on this topick. Which format creates the "being there" effect without the need of an excessive panning from the viewer, once hanged on the wall? I'm talking about a normal viewing distance for a fairly large print 1.2 or 1.5m wide
For example, I've made this shot
On the Lanin Volcano using a 28mm lens. My 90mm would be fairly the same on 4x5. But what panoramic format would be the most lifelike in this case? And what FR?
All comments and input are really appreciated,
Thanks!
Bookmarks