What's the point?

[sanking]

Sandy, exactly my point....I agree with often you are Sh*t outta luck with anything seriously moving, or if you're moving while shooting. Here are some samples that would be difficult with stitching.

OK, then I misunderstood your point. I thought you were suggesting it was easier to work with film for stitching in those adverse conditions.

I do understand the concept of a professional as it applies to some conditions where one has to get the shot, no ifs, ands and buts. But most fine art landscape photographers, even those who sell their work, are not in that situation. If I miss a shot because of wind or other adverse conditions it does not represent a catastrophic loss. It is kind of like the big fish that got away to a fisherman.

But being prepared for adverse conditions is always a good plan whether one is a professional or beginning amateur. It is nearly always better to get a lesser quality image than to get no image at all. So even if your plan is to stitch with a digital camera or film camera you need to be prepared to do it one shot with either a digital camera at higher ASA or with a film of higher ASA. Fuji Acros is my favorite film but when the wind is blowing and one needs to close down the lens for adequate depth of field there will be a better chance at getting an acceptable shot with TMY, or some other high ASA film.

Sandy

[Drew Wiley]

People have been stitiching photographs routinely at the National Enquirer for decades, and even long before that. Now that every junior high kid knows how to do
it in Photoshop, it will fade from novelty as an art form and just be one more tool in
the kit for those who so choose. We each define our own rules. My rules say I shoot
what I see on the groundglass, or in the case of a smaller camera, the viewfinder.
There an elegance to that kind of composition that I find very appealing. But the fact
is, just about every up and coming photographer today that leans on technology as
his cutting edge will probably be forgotten fairly soon, because the technology will
itself be passe. We live in a very impatient society. The more trendy something is
today, the more boring it will be tomorrow. Look at "light painting" in commercial
photography; that lasted about six months before everyone was sick of it. With a
bit more subtlety it is still hypothetically a tool for someone, and will probably pop
up again somewhere, but otherwise had had its day. In the meantime, great prints
will be thrown by family heirs into dumpsters, until someone finds a few in a garage sale a hundred years for now, and experts can argue over who actually took them.

[Kirk Gittings]

If I miss a shot because of wind or other adverse conditions it does not represent a catastrophic loss. It is kind of like the big fish that got away to a fisherman.

Great analogy.

Though in my commercial work the loss of a great image may hurt my pocket book, it is the lost personal images that truly haunt me years later-just as a few fish I have lost, while fly fishing, haunt me......I never made that connection before.

[Alan Davenport]

I'd like to ask, with the stitching and perspective control available in PS, and armed with, say, a 5D MkII and maybe even a tilt/shift lens, why would I or anyone bother shooting LF?

If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.

[Drew Wiley]

Why shoot a charging rhinoceros with a .60 cal H&H magnum when 50,000 shots from a BB gun have the same net force?

[Ben Syverson]

Why shoot a charging rhinoceros with a .60 cal H&H magnum when 50,000 shots from a BB gun have the same net force?

Exactly. The magnum is faster. And classier.

[Marko]

I'll take a BB gun with 50,000 pellets over an empty Magnum any day.

[sanking]

People of every generation have used the technologies that were available to them at the time. The method of image capture is nothing but a tool and should never be confused with the only thing that really matters, the final product. If someone wants to argue the superiority of a tool, and/or a final printing process they are free to do so, but ultimately the only thing that matters is, 1) is the individual pleased with his/her process, and 2) if the individual is a professional photographer does the method of capture provide financial and/or work flow advantages. For the individual not concerned with the second aspect of this equation people will just do what they want. Some people like to compose on a ground glass, others like to compose on a digital panel, some people like one shot photography, others like to stitch, either with film or digital. None of that matters at all in terms of the value of the final product as that is determined by the reputation and marketing skills of the artist, not by either the tool or the process.

Sandy King

[Jack Dahlgren]

Yeah, your right, I just got myself a new SUV, and already my mind is geared to the built in IPOD and USB ports on the dash. A few 16mb flash sticks, and I'm good to go from one coast to the other and back as far as music (beats a huge box of CD's in the trunk).

I believe I've thrown out any 16mb flash memory I had.

[Jay DeFehr]

My wife recently brought home from Russia several rolls of 35mm film that had been stored in a plastic bag, each one rolled and secured with a rubber band. It took us a while to straighten them out; we washed them in warm water with a little photo flo, and hung them to dry with weights on the ends of the strips. When they dried, they were flat enough to scan. Julia spent at least a week scanning and uploading them. She said her neighbors had as many, or more, but they threw them away because they knew they would never print them. I printed a few of Julia's and they look pretty good at 5x7. Attached is one of my favorites.