The power of Photoshop! 10x8 negatives stitched

[Ed Richards]

I have to admit, the times I think about moving from 4x5 to 8x10 all hinge around not having to worry about resolution anymore. Do you really need to stitch 8x10s to get what you need? Is the perspective that keeps you from either moving back or using a wider lens?

[Joseph O'Neil]

I have to admit, the times I think about moving from 4x5 to 8x10 all hinge around not having to worry about resolution anymore. Do you really need to stitch 8x10s to get what you need? Is the perspective that keeps you from either moving back or using a wider lens?

Just moved into 8x10 from 4x5 myself (still keep my 4x5 gear to be sure), and it's hard to explain, but all the pre-concieved notions one has about 8x10 seem to fly out the window the moment you first use an 8x10. Like a whole new world. For what it is worth, I think the jump is a good way to go. I will still shoot a lot of 4x5 to be sure, but 8x10 - love it.

As for stitching negatives together, one thing that really pushed me the 8x10 way was a workshop I attended in Toronto, and I saw large contact prints made from "digital negatives".

Bascially you scan in an 8x10 negative, then on clear film - the same stuff they used to use for overhead transparencies - you get printed out on a large printer, a negative that is 20x24 inches (or whatever you want), then do a contact print.

The workshop I was at was platinum/palladium, but I always wanted to do van dyke, and essentially the process is the same.

I have a long, long, ways to go, because getting the tonality right on your digital negatives is an artform in itself, (and I need a whole more more computer tan I have right now), but seeing this thread, and seeing what you can do stitching 8x10 negatives together - imagine for sake of arguement stitching together 2, 3 or even 4 - 8x10 negatives, then printing out one, large panoramic digital negative, and doing a large, a really large contact print. Something so large you have to use a mop and bucket to spread the van dyke solution around on your paper.

I know, I'm either smokin' some seriously bad gangi, or I just haven't had enough coffee yet this morning, but wow, it gets you thinking, doesn't it?

[Vaughn]

Thanks, Will...I felt that there was something wrong with my terminology and my "axis of the lens". Nodal point is what I should have been thinking. Vaughn

[nathanm]

My goal was to move up to an 8x10 someday just so I could enjoy the full image circle of my lenses; but here Paul already has one and he wants more more more! Heh! The grass always seems greener I guess! I will sometimes shoot two 4x5 exposures with rear shift and stitch them together, but it still strikes me as being too much 'busy work'. Cobbling together multiple shots is sort of cool in a way, but ultimately it's just not as sweet as a single moment in time on one sheet.

[Pete Watkins]

Paul,
Did you use any movements?
Best wishes,
Pete.

[Paul Greeves]

Hi Pete,

The only movement used was about 20 mm of rise on the front standard.

If I try this again, I think i'll be a little more ambitious and maybe try it on 5x4 with a 90 mm lens. I'll put the back into portrait aspect and shoot 6 sheets with something like 120 degree angle of view. I can then process all 6 sheets together in my Combi Plan tank.

[Paul Greeves]

You will have problems with continuous tone areas in CS4 too. The combined images will open in Photoshop as individual layers, so if one is too light or dark you can vary the brightness to some extend or use Quick Mask to select localized areas to vary the density.
If the negatives or digital files were shot on Manual and the images shot in rapid succession, then there should be no problems with areas of the image appearing patchy. If you are shooting large format negative then be sure that the lens more than covers the format so that even slight vignetting is avoided.