Just wanted to say thank you to all those who submitted their experiences/opinions - this was very helpful for me. Thank you.
Just wanted to say thank you to all those who submitted their experiences/opinions - this was very helpful for me. Thank you.
Art and Kevin
I respect your views, no problem there and I certainly don't want to start a flame war but this is my view of extended panoramas.
Like you, a few years ago before I started shooting these panoramas, I thought of them as nothing more than a gimmic....I just didn't see the point of it all. Then I came across a vintage print and was totally blown away by the concept.....prior to that I'd never seen a good one in the flesh.
If well executed, extended panoramas, at what ever degrees of rotation they happen to be, exercise the mind of both viewer and photographer....we all know we can't see that much in one view but we can build up (with experience) a mental image of the view and in fact the photographer has to do that....there are no view finders or ground glass that will show such a wide image. And should an image challenge the thinking of a viewer?....I think so.....
You will also find a surreal element in some of them....there is an interplay of time and motion that is rarely seen in conventional panormas....we don't physically see this (when shooting) but the camera records it and we view it in the print.....call it another gimmic if you want but I think it opens up an area of image making worth investigating. Below is an example of what I'm talking about.This is a tiny section from 180 degree panorama, as you can see camera and subject movement have synchronised to give this effect. I'm not saying it's good, bad or desireable......it's simply shows there is some depth to these images that you might not have seen with casual observation. In fact I didn't see it in this image until about a week after I'd printed it....there is so much detail that in may be 6 months before you see the whole image.
I frequently have people who have bought my images telling me they make new discoveries in them everyday.
Of course human vision is nothing like 100-180 degrees, much less in fact but why should we limit ourselves to what we see?
As I said earlier, I respect your view and am happy to discuss extended panoramas or conventional panoramas any time.
Robert: I have an overdue book from the library, now I know why: it was waiting for your question. This book deals in some detail with the varieties of panoramic cameras and the results you can expect from them. it is "Panoramic Photography" by Joseph Meehan, 1990, ISBN 0-81745384-2. Peronally I prefer the distortion (almost) free images from cameras like the Linhof 617 to those from rotating cameras but that is a matter of personal preference. Good luck.
FWIW, I wouldn't loose too much sleep over the issue of format size. I think the old Cirkut cameras are great. I wish I could afford one. I think the old Korona 12x20 and 8x20s are great. I wish I could afford one of those too. I like the Linhoffs and Noblex 617s as well. Gosh I wish I could afford one of those! Even if I sold my mule I probably couldn't afford any of those cameras( theres always the lottery of course. I don't have any elderly rich relatives!) So I'll muddle along with what I've got. If what YOU'VE got is a 8x10, 5x7 , a Speed Graphic or an old TLR or a Holga, you're still in the game. IMHO, Its what you DO with your camera that matters most. Cheers!
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
Robert I think a couple of the things that one has to do in a decision making process such as this, is to consider how much time one has available to dedicate to the format based on what one expects in return, and what one will put up with to use it and at what "cost". From a get your monies worth (or satisfaction) viewpoint, overall, it's always easier to pickup a smaller camera and go out with it if you have a family, than if you don't and have time on your hands to kill. Only you can answer that.
You apparently not having dabbled in LF photography before, would be much better off renting an outfit and going out with a rollfilm back, say a 6x12, before making ANY investment. In it's use you'll learn much about what it takes to get those beautiful panoramic images from a large format perspective, and then what it takes to get them printed and at what price. Being a newbie, you need input, so rent first. After that experince decide if you are willing to put up with shooting in a slower more methodical way involving more steps, or if you would be happier with a sportier smaller camera like a Fuji or Tech among others. Those panoramics are nice, everyone likes a good one, but they are harder to shoot as many times the landscape won't fit the format. (Oh yea, remember to add in travel cost.) From a cost perspective I'd figure spending at least $2 to $3K on decent 8x10 LF equipment for 1:3; Printing is another expensive matter involving either top computer equipment (if you have it) for edits and prints or expensive lab prints. From reading many photographic books, I find most shooting Fuji's and Tech's for their panoramics.
Robert, I apologize for my previous post thatsounds like I trivializing your question. Eqiuiptment costs big bcks and the experienced opinions of those on this forum are invaluable. What I meant to convey was that equiptment should not be more important than your own creative style. All the cameras you and the others have mentioned have been successfully used for landscapes. Using the camera (s)you now have will best help you to determin what and if more specialized equiptment will help you to achieve your vision. If you wait for the "perfect" camera, you'll probably have a long,long wait! Good Luck!
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
I had the panoramic bug for a while. I bought a Widelux, a Brooks Veriwide, and a Voigtlander 12mm; I rented a Technorama, and once I got up to 4x5, I bought the widest lens my camera could accommodate (65mm).
Then I lost the panoramic bug. It's true that good panoramics are very special, but it is also true that subject matter for them is relatively limited. Furthermore, not everyone is a natural panoramist -- I found out that I am not. So I sold the Voigtlander, and the Widelux and Veriwide are gathering dust in the closet. I don't use the 65mm much. But I *do* use my LF cameras.
I think you would be well served by a Canham or similar field camera. Before spending an additional grand and carrying the extra weight, try cropping your panoramas out of the LF view. Heck, cut out a cardboard viewfinder and tape it to the ground glass, it'll help with your visualization. I'm doing the same thing, though, paradoxically, to go square, as I now have the square bug.
If you go 5x7, you can always by the 6x17 back later, though I've never understood the point of them. I'd opt for the chopped dark slide, that turns one 5x7 into two 2.25x7's.
Final word: as a beginner, consider going 4x5 first, to take advantage of Quick/ReadyLoads. Simplify film handling, concentrate on the other beginner's mistakes you will need to be making ;-)
CXC
Wow! what a blast from the past this is...in case Robert is still in the market, he might try looking for an Agfa 5x7 Universal. I paid less than $100 for mine(with a lens!)---seems to be the going price--- but it has a back with sliders a la Deardorff, which will allow you to shoot two 2-1/2"x7" on a 5x7 sheet of film. This has got to be one of the cheapest entries into panoramas going.----cheers!
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks