HDR with large format

[Brian Ellis]

large format, if you reprocess the color negative 3 times, is this more of a tonemapping look result? Or will there be a noticeable difference compared with taking 3 different exposure shots, then merging in software? Or 6-7 shots if scene has more dynamic range?

Does photomatix give a (better) different noticeable result compared with photoshop?

Is panorama scene stitching achievable with 4x5, 5x7, or best to shoot larger, with 8x10?

What large format film types offer the most realistic color as recorded?
When you upload the film onto a computer (with scanner) is the avail. working color space in adobe rgb? (or prophoto rgb?)

What are today's best performing large format field cameras with versatile movements, lightweight, build quality? (chamonix, shen, gowland's?)

1. As I mentioned before, there's a big difference between scanning one negative three times (presumably once for the highlights, once for the shadows, and once for the midtones) and making three exposures for those same three areas in camera. When you scan one negative three times and then merge them you're starting with a negative that wasn't correctly exposed for one or more of the three areas and you're trying to fix the problems with the software. You may be able to do better than you would by just printing the problem negative normally but you won't usually get as good a result as you would have if you had made three exposures, each correctly exposed for the three areas.

I use three here only as an example, there could be four, five, six, or more exposures depending on the range of the scene and how the range is distributed. I normally make five.

2. I've always used Photomatix so I can't compare from personal experience. However, people who are supposed to know have always said that Photomatix was better. CS5 supposedly has narrowed the gap but there's still supposedly a gap and Photomatix supposedly is still better.

3. I can hardly imagine doing panoramas with 8x10 film just because of the cost. And even 4x5 would likely be prohibitive for many people. Panorama photographers who really know what they're doing and who devote a lot of time and effort to making excellent panoramas from which big prints of top quality can be made often make 25, 50, 75 or more separate exposures when creating a panorama. Just as an example, with a 25% overlap you could easily have say 10 "slices" from left to right, each one bracketed with three exposures and you could be making two passes, one for the top half of the scene (far) and one for the bottom (foreground). That's 60 exposures. Sometimes you bracket not only exposures but also focus, which would add still more exposures. As you can see, the cost of the film plus the processing would be prohibitive.

Of course it's possible to make do with less depending on the scene and your personal standards for quality and big prints but no matter what you do I would think you're looking at a minimum of 5 - 10 exposures even if you don't worry about bracketing or making separate passes for different parts of the scene. Even 5 - 10 sheets of 4x5 film much less 8x10, especially color, isn't cheap.

The rest of your questions are beyond my ability to answer (maybe the first three are as well but I thought I'd give it a try since I use HDR quite a bit and have started getting serious about panoramas). I'm sure there are others here who know more than I do about both subjects so anyone is free to correct any mistakes I've made.

[Adam Kavalunas]

Not to completely disagree...but panos with 4x5 shouldn't be too cost prohibitive. Of course, this is assuming you aren't planning on HDR'ing as well as shooting a pano. With a decent coverage lens, you can just shift, rather than rotating, meaning you only need a fraction of overlap since there is no distortion. Shoot one straight on, shift left maybe a small bit of rotation, shoot again, shift right, again with a small rotation if needed, and shoot again. Now you will have upwards something like a 4x12 pano, only needing 3 shots. Go print it 80 inches!

[Ben Syverson]

3. I can hardly imagine doing panoramas with 8x10 film just because of the cost.

Eh. There's not a huge difference between $20 and $60 once you shlep all your gear somewhere that demands a panorama.

The bigger question is why anyone would "need" to stitch 8x10. ULF is justified by the possibility of huge contact prints, but stitching rules out contact prints. A single 8x10 should be enough to print up to 10 feet. It takes a real Nazi to look at a well-exposed 8x10 and think "hey, it would be great if it had a little more detail."

Besides, if what you want is cheap and good (but not fast) panoramas, look no further than the Gigapan. You can make multi-gigapixel images of static subjects that are far, far more detailed than any single-shot method, including 8x10.

[bobwysiwyg]

It takes a real Nazi to look at a well-exposed 8x10 and think "hey, it would be great if it had a little more detail."

[jp]

I ask if it's necessary first before evaluating it's feasibility.

Because I use negative film, I don't think it's necessary. I can shoot some B&W negative film like Tmax400, develop it in PMK, and I get something I can print with a huge range. If I want something I can scan and have a huge range, I don't even have to use a compensating developer; xtol or d76 would do.

If you want to do HDR because you like doing HDR, digital is probably most naturally suited to that process.

[Brian Ellis]

Eh. There's not a huge difference between $20 and $60 once you shlep all your gear somewhere that demands a panorama.

The bigger question is why anyone would "need" to stitch 8x10. ULF is justified by the possibility of huge contact prints, but stitching rules out contact prints. A single 8x10 should be enough to print up to 10 feet. It takes a real Nazi to look at a well-exposed 8x10 and think "hey, it would be great if it had a little more detail." . . .

The point of panoramas, at least as I make them, isn't to gain more detail by stitching. It's to include more in the image than I can include with a single exposure at the subject size I want. I thought that was fairly typical but maybe not.

$40 isn't a big difference, assuming you make one and only one panorama in your life. But in my experience there's a significant learning curve with panoramas. And as one learns and becomes better there's an incentive to make more. I'd hate to be spending $60 every time I made one.

[Ben Syverson]

If it's just about the aspect ratio, cropping is always an option...

[Brian Ellis]

If it's just about the aspect ratio, cropping is always an option...

Cropping changes the aspect ratio and makes a horizontal image narrower but that isn't what I refer to as making a panoramic photograph. As I mentioned before, to me making a panorama means making a photograph in which more of the scene is included than could have been included at the size I want with a single exposure.

[Brian Ellis]

I ask if it's necessary first before evaluating it's feasibility.

Because I use negative film, I don't think it's necessary. I can shoot some B&W negative film like Tmax400, develop it in PMK, and I get something I can print with a huge range. If I want something I can scan and have a huge range, I don't even have to use a compensating developer; xtol or d76 would do.

If you want to do HDR because you like doing HDR, digital is probably most naturally suited to that process.

If you never encounter a situation in which blocked shadows or blown out highlights are a problem then that's great, you certainly don't need HDR. That wasn't my experience using the materials you mention.

[paulr]

"HDR" is a technique cooked up to deal with the laughably pathetic latitude of digital sensors.

Well, that's often the case. Most of the situations where I use HDR with digital capture you could probably handle with portrait film. But not all.

Color neg film has enough dynamic range for most situations; HDR can have infinite dynamic range. It also offers benefits like virtually noise-free images, and as much detail as you could ever want all the way into the deepest shadows and brightest highlights.

Like any technique it can be abused. It can also work completely transparently. I'd be unhappy if any of my work had an identifiable hdr "look."