please explain panoramic formats

[koh303]

I went to school with a guy who shot stuff with a panoramic camera (small format), and what he did was interesting at times because the content and concept were interesting, but i just did not understand why everything was panoramic. In his case, he was not cropping something, but actually shooting a panoramic negative with a very rectangular aspect ratio.

Now, i simply do not understand why someone would bother setting up a large format camera, like an 8X10, only to shoot half the negative? Why not shoot the entire frame and cut the negative later if for some reason you want less on top and/or bottom?

Sure, i understand a 4x10 camera can be marginally lighter then 8X10, and same goes for the holders, and possibly the film is cheaper (but you really only get half of it...) - so why would someone invest in such a limiting and dedicated type of camera?

Is it something historical i am missing? Perhaps its a cultural thing?

[Jac@stafford.net]

Panoramic is usually defined as a ratio of 1:3. It is a historical and aesthetic (subjective) thing. However it is made, by cropping is okay. Swing lenses are another story.
.

[Jim Noel]

I went to school with a guy who shot stuff with a panoramic camera (small format), and what he did was interesting at times because the content and concept were interesting, but i just did not understand why everything was panoramic. In his case, he was not cropping something, but actually shooting a panoramic negative with a very rectangular aspect ratio.

Now, i simply do not understand why someone would bother setting up a large format camera, like an 8X10, only to shoot half the negative? Why not shoot the entire frame and cut the negative later if for some reason you want less on top and/or bottom?

Sure, i understand a 4x10 camera can be marginally lighter then 8X10, and same goes for the holders, and possibly the film is cheaper (but you really only get half of it...) - so why would someone invest in such a limiting and dedicated type of camera?

Is it something historical i am missing? Perhaps its a cultural thing?

I own and use three different panoramic cameras - 6x17 cm, 4x10" and 7x17" in addition to my 8x10", 5x7" and 4x5".
There is all the difference in the world in using a 4x10 and half of an 8x10. I tried it and the satisfaction is just not there. My favorite is the 7x17.There is nothing greater for me than looking at that magnificent scene on the ground glass.
If you haven't tried it, don't knock it.

[jp]

It's sort of analogous to why do I shoot square format when I could shoot 24x36mm and crop it square later. I think the basic idea is "this is what I've got, let's see what I can do with it."

[djdister]

1. Framing. Shooting a scene in a panoramic format from the start can be [should be] a different experience from shooting in full frame and then cropping it.
2. Film availability. I have a 5x7 and love the format, but at present, B&H only has 3 types of 5x7 in stock, none of them color. Color 5x7 is quite the rare bird to find. In contrast, B&H currently has 61 types of 120 roll film in stock for my 6x17 roll film back, 17 color negative and 11 color transparency. A roll of Ektar 120 is $5.00, from which I get 4 shots.

To each his own.

[John Kasaian]

I went to school with a guy who shot stuff with a panoramic camera (small format), and what he did was interesting at times because the content and concept were interesting, but i just did not understand why everything was panoramic. In his case, he was not cropping something, but actually shooting a panoramic negative with a very rectangular aspect ratio.

Now, i simply do not understand why someone would bother setting up a large format camera, like an 8X10, only to shoot half the negative? Why not shoot the entire frame and cut the negative later if for some reason you want less on top and/or bottom?

Sure, i understand a 4x10 camera can be marginally lighter then 8X10, and same goes for the holders, and possibly the film is cheaper (but you really only get half of it...) - so why would someone invest in such a limiting and dedicated type of camera?

Is it something historical i am missing? Perhaps its a cultural thing?
Two panoramic shots on one sheet of film is really cheaper. Both my 8x10 and 5x7 have sliders so I don't have to sacrifice a dark slide.
FWIW I enjoy looking at panoramic photographs, but I seldom take them.
What I find is an asset is that you can capture the interesting part while leaving out the extraneous territory. One famous early panorama was a photograph of a locomotive and it's train done for a railroad----a subject much longer than it was taller. To print all the sky and foreground while including the entire train would make for a very dull photograph, IMHO
Some of you might remember the exhibit at Disneyland where a 360 degree camera was hung from the bomb bay of a B-25 and flown over the Grand Canyon---marvelous! They had handrails for people to hang on to because viewers could fall over when the aircraft banked even though the floor of the theater didn't...couldn't move.

[koh303]

Two panoramic shots on one sheet of film is really cheaper. Both my 8x10 and 5x7 have sliders so I don't have to sacrifice a dark slide.
I sometimes shoot two plates of film by sliding the back and then stitch them up to make a "panoramic" frame, but would only do so if both (or at least one) of the frames has purpose and reason to exist on its own, and only when i think it will work in making a larger image that is more interesting then just a wider angle of view.

I mean - why not just mask the GG, or get a reducing back if you must? Its harder to shoot 8X10 on a 4X10 camera then it is the other way around.

As for film availability, in this case i understand the merits of roll vs sheet film, but i guess i am asking about the larger idea of why make a panoramic image.

[StoneNYC]

I sometimes shoot two plates of film by sliding the back and then stitch them up to make a "panoramic" frame, but would only do so if both (or at least one) of the frames has purpose and reason to exist on its own, and only when i think it will work in making a larger image that is more interesting then just a wider angle of view.

I mean - why not just mask the GG, or get a reducing back if you must? Its harder to shoot 8X10 on a 4X10 camera then it is the other way around.

As for film availability, in this case i understand the merits of roll vs sheet film, but i guess i am asking about the larger idea of why make a panoramic image.

A single sheet of 8x10 Velvia50 is $16 (not including processing) so that's $16/shot. (And it's about to be $19.20/sheet).

When the only important part of the image is the 4" in the frame height, why would one waste half of the piece of film. When you can use a half slide and and get two 4x10 images for $16 total.

That's $8/color image instead of $16.

You're saving DOUBLE, it's not just a slight increase its double.

Even HP5+ is $107 for an 8x10 box but $65 for a 4x10 box, which is $130 for the equivalent amount of shots (50) as a single box of 8x10 and a half slide.

$17 is still a savings and if you shoot a LOT it makes sense.

Some cameras like the Chamonix have a decent rise and fall, so shooting 4x10 with a half slide isn't too hard.

I still do agree that 4x10 holders and a back are easier, but not everyone can easily and safely cut down Velvia50 into separate sheets without scratches, dust, cutting errors, etc.

So sometimes a half slide makes more sense.

Hope that helps.

[Alan Gales]

Now, i simply do not understand why someone would bother setting up a large format camera, like an 8X10, only to shoot half the negative? Why not shoot the entire frame and cut the negative later if for some reason you want less on top and/or bottom?

Sure, i understand a 4x10 camera can be marginally lighter then 8X10, and same goes for the holders, and possibly the film is cheaper (but you really only get half of it...) - so why would someone invest in such a limiting and dedicated type of camera?

I used to print 8x10's from 35mm. I always felt 35mm was too long because I always had to crop the long end or ends off. With a splitter or a 4x10 you see on the ground glass the right perspective. I find it best to frame my subject in camera instead of cropping later when printing.

I don't shoot panorama's but that's the way I would look at it plus as mentioned earlier you get two images from a piece of 8x10 film.

[Vaughn]

I occasionally use my 8x10 as a 4x10 camera. I took a metal 8x10 dark slide and cut it down to get two 4x10s on a sheet of 8x10 film. For just the weight of a partial 8x10 darkslide, I have two LF cameras with me at all times. No saying, "Dang, I wish I had my 4x10 camera instead of the 8x10 with me!"

I contact print using alt processes, and usually include the film rebate as part of the image. The modified darkslide allows me to do so...where just trimming an 8x10 negative would not allow me to do that.

And getting two 4x10s on an 8x10 sheet of film cuts my developing efforts in half.

A platinum print and a carbon print:

[John Kasaian]

... but i guess i am asking about the larger idea of why make a panoramic image.
Because the photographer wants to. Probably the same sort of reason why a photographer would choose film over digital, or sheet film over 35mm, or a dark room over a scanner.
Or for that matter, a red head over a blonde.

[Deval]

Well from a human vision standpoint, the human field of vision is much wider horizontal than vertical which can explain the appeal of pano in some sense. Of interesting note the combined central visual field where most visual attention is payed can be more approximated to a rectangle... That's why different flavors for different folks

[Paul Metcalf]

Vaughn - those are really great images, well executed and printed. Question on your modified dark slide: to get a "rebate" between the two 4x10 images did you cut the dark slide a little taller than 4" in height? (Would it be possible to post a pic of your modified dark slide?)

[Vaughn]

Vaughn - those are really great images, well executed and printed. Question on your modified dark slide: to get a "rebate" between the two 4x10 images did you cut the dark slide a little taller than 4" in height? (Would it be possible to post a pic of your modified dark slide?)

Thanks. Here is a drawing of it. I have made several of them. After breaking one made out of a stiff plastic darkslide, I made one from a metal darkslide. It gets tossed in with the film holders, and if it gets a little bent, I can straighten it out.

I also included another platinum image of the upper Yosemite Valley, taken looking towards the sun. If you look at the lower right corner, you will see the typical rebate corner -- do not know what else to call it. On the previous post's image (Last Valley Light, Yosemite Valley), it also had the same rebate corner, but I scrapped off the emulsion to hide it, as it was distracting.

Edited to add two verticals (Bridalvail Falls, YNP...and Girders, Golden Gate Bridge -- both carbon prints). Most 4x10 cameras are not set up to do verticals -- this is one of the big advantages of using an 8x10 camera with a modified darkslide or splitters.

I am also thinking about modifying a darkslide to make 8x8 images on 8x10...also doing the same for the 11x14 (5.5x14 and 11x11 images)

[A_Tabor]

If the image you want to capture is far wider than tall, or more rarely far taller than wide, then why not use an ultra wide film format to capture it on? It isn't like film is free. It isn't the most expensive thing in the world, but it is expensive enough that I'm not a huge fan of the idea of wasting more than you have to to get the job done, so if a 4x10 frame works for what you need to capture, then why not plan to record on a 4x10 format to begin with?

What is the point of an 8x10 format? Why not 10x10? or 9x12? You use the format that presents the image in a way that you want it to be displayed and what works for the content. This is something that attracts me to hand coated plates, as I can easily cut and configure for non-standard image formats as I wish.

[Alan Gales]

I occasionally use my 8x10 as a 4x10 camera. I took a metal 8x10 dark slide and cut it down to get two 4x10s on a sheet of 8x10 film. For just the weight of a partial 8x10 darkslide, I have two LF cameras with me at all times. No saying, "Dang, I wish I had my 4x10 camera instead of the 8x10 with me!"

I contact print using alt processes, and usually include the film rebate as part of the image. The modified darkslide allows me to do so...where just trimming an 8x10 negative would not allow me to do that.

And getting two 4x10s on an 8x10 sheet of film cuts my developing efforts in half.

A platinum print and a carbon print:

Nice images, Vaughn!

I have a very good friend who produces really nice panorama's using a Hasselblad Xpan. I really like panorama's but I just don't see that way. The 8x10 perspective or square are much easier to compose for me.

[Paul Metcalf]

Thanks Vaughn. I love that bridge detail. Now I need to find a metal dark slide.

Another thought wrt panoramic images is that when mounted they occupy (at least for me and the way I mount them retaining the panoramic proportions, both horizontally and vertically) wall space vastly different. In other words, I've placed images around the house in places that would not normally be appealing to mounted standard prints (e.g. above doorways, between a closet door and the wall next to it, etc.). I kind of like the variety as long as the content fits the shape.

[Vaughn]

Nice images, Vaughn!

I have a very good friend who produces really nice panorama's using a Hasselblad Xpan. I really like panorama's but I just don't see that way. The 8x10 perspective or square are much easier to compose for me.

I found my first LF panoramic images going thru my 4x5 proof sheets -- sort of after-the-fact seeing, although I previously had made a series of 5x14 images for a college photo project using my Rolleiflex negs. (I think it was for my second photo class.) I think one finds what one is looking for. Walking around with a card cut-out with 4x10 proportions might help one in seeing panoramically. Compostionally panoramics do work very differently than squares (which I also love). The image below is a study on trying to work with a light side and dark side of a panoramic image to see if I could get it to work -- it kinda does. (no burning/dodging...platinum print - Alabama Hills, CA)

My GG for the 8x10 has a 2" grid pattern, so it is easy to frame up 4x10 images on the GG. I use front rise to get the lens centered on the upper 4x10 portion of the GG (and shift for verticals). Might as well use the best part of the glass! For a second shot of the same horizontal image (perhaps slightly different exposure or for a back-up negative), I just remove the camera back and rotate it 180 degrees.

Paul -- slide does not need to be metal...I can just be a little rough on equipment.

[David A. Goldfarb]

For smaller formats, I agree with the original poster. If I want a panorama, and I'm carrying a 6x6 SLR, I can shoot with a plan to crop, and it's like I get rear rise/fall on my 6x6 SLR, because I can crop a pano from the top, middle, or bottom of the frame.

For 8x10"/4x10", I have a half darkslide mask. I just keep it in the bag, and with no particular extra gear to carry or special effort, I've got another format and twice as many shots, if panos present themselves. I used to have a cumbersome 4x5"--> 6x17cm expansion back for my 4x5" camera, and the 8x10" half-darkslide makes much more sense for me.

For swing-lens, I have a Noblex 150, if only because I'm too intimidated by the logistics of a Cirkut camera, keeping it in good repair, finding the film, and figuring out how to contact print those huge negs.

For 7x17", though, I'd rather deal with a camera of that size than something larger (it travels kind of like an 8x10" camera), though Art Sinsabaugh's 2 to 3 inch panos from 12x20" negs are brilliant. In his case, I suppose, the argument for schlepping such a monster camera around would be to standardize with a single camera and processing routine and neg filing size and then crop the image as desired.

[Tin Can]

Banquet cameras for large groups, which existed before Internet and selfies.

Perhaps this thread is really a survey...

[ic-racer]

Perhaps its a cultural thing?

Yes, it is a cultural thing; a culture of money, or lack thereof. Six dollars or more per sheet of film.

[Alan Gales]

[QUOTE=Vaughn;1269343]I found my first LF panoramic images going thru my 4x5 proof sheets -- sort of after-the-fact seeing, although I previously had made a series of 5x14 images for a college photo project using my Rolleiflex negs. (I think it was for my second photo class.) I think one finds what one is looking for. Walking around with a card cut-out with 4x10 proportions might help one in seeing panoramically. Compostionally panoramics do work very differently than squares (which I also love). The image below is a study on trying to work with a light side and dark side of a panoramic image to see if I could get it to work -- it kinda does. (no burning/dodging...platinum print - Alabama Hills, CA)

My GG for the 8x10 has a 2" grid pattern, so it is easy to frame up 4x10 images on the GG. I use front rise to get the lens centered on the upper 4x10 portion of the GG (and shift for verticals). Might as well use the best part of the glass! For a second shot of the same horizontal image (perhaps slightly different exposure or for a back-up negative), I just remove the camera back and rotate it 180 degrees./QUOTE]




My GG is plain and plastic. I can see how a gridded glass with a 2" grid pattern would really help. I do own a gridded glass that came with my camera that the previous owner used. I'll have to check it out and see the size of the grid pattern. The cut out card is a great suggestion. I guess I could maybe train myself to see wider. :) Thanks for the advice!

[Jim Galli]

I have at my disposal, Kodak Cirkut camera capable of 10X96" film negs, 9.5X20" camera with tons of film available for it, 6X10, 7X11, 5X12 camera also with almost unlimited film, blah blah blah, and most of the time I go click click click with the Nikon and sew them up in photo shop. When did I get so lazy? Oh, forgot the little Alvista 5D which can make 5X16" negs. I have tons of 5" roll film in the freezer.

I dreamed of platinum panoramics. That drove the big sizes. I AM proficient at platinum. Have everything I need. What died along the way is . . . who cares about any of this stuff.

[sun of sand]

Sometimes you can fill an entire frame
Other times you simply can't and you know you're wasting the top and sometimes lower quarters of the frame on bare sky and grass/brush/uninteresting stuff
You can always fill the panoramic frame

[Brian Bullen]

I have at my disposal, Kodak Cirkut camera capable of 10X96" film negs, 9.5X20" camera with tons of film available for it, 6X10, 7X11, 5X12 camera also with almost unlimited film, blah blah blah, and most of the time I go click click click with the Nikon and sew them up in photo shop. When did I get so lazy? Oh, forgot the little Alvista 5D which can make 5X16" negs. I have tons of 5" roll film in the freezer.

I dreamed of platinum panoramics. That drove the big sizes. I AM proficient at platinum. Have everything I need. What died along the way is . . . who cares about any of this stuff.

Jim, if I lived near you I'd help you use that stuff! :) Seriouly though, do it because YOU love it. It doesn't matter what everyone else thinks as long as you're happy.

[Willie]

http://michaelandpaula.com/mp/index.php

Take a look at work from a master with the 8x20 camera. He shoots and contact prints from the negatives. Has other formats but the 8x20 is his main camera.

[Vaughn]

My GG is plain and plastic. I can see how a gridded glass with a 2" grid pattern would really help. I do own a gridded glass that came with my camera that the previous owner used. I'll have to check it out and see the size of the grid pattern. The cut out card is a great suggestion. I guess I could maybe train myself to see wider. :) Thanks for the advice!

Easy enough to draw a line or two on your GG. One situation I have run into, though, is that the center line (defined by the modified darkslide) is not exactly in the center of the GG, since one makes the modified darkslide to leave a rebate thru the center between the two 4x10s on the 8x10 sheet of film (was that clear as mud?) But I can get around that usually if there is an edge of the image that does not need to be exact...that edge is put in the center.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thanks Vaughn. I love that bridge detail. Now I need to find a metal dark slide.


You don't need a metal slide. I use a plastic one from a discarded holder.

[Paul Metcalf]

Roger, copy, I guess I need to find a discarded holder.

[A_Tabor]

I'm curious what organizational methods people are using to manage their film holders in the field when using half sheet exposures.

What checks do you put in place to make sure you're not accidentally putting your half-slide in upside down and leaving one side of your film blank and putting a double exposure on the other.

Do you have any kind of interesting note method to manage +/- development times, or thoughts behind your approach to shooting to help avoid going home with a sheet that was only half used at the end of the day?

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I only shoot my dedicated 8 x 20 camera that I built. I love the format and it is light weight. With my wood shop up and running I was able to stabilize it much more than before and look forward to some vertical 8 x 20's

[Alan Gales]

Easy enough to draw a line or two on your GG. One situation I have run into, though, is that the center line (defined by the modified darkslide) is not exactly in the center of the GG, since one makes the modified darkslide to leave a rebate thru the center between the two 4x10s on the 8x10 sheet of film (was that clear as mud?) But I can get around that usually if there is an edge of the image that does not need to be exact...that edge is put in the center.

Clear as mud, Vaughn! ;)

Yeah, I get it. I think a couple pencil lines will do fine. I'll have to modify one of the darkslides from one of my spare film holders and try it. It would be fun to show my friend Harold (who shoots an Xpan and is looking at medium format panorama cameras) what a 4x10 looks like. He also owns a Toyo 4x5 technical field camera but told me that my 8x10 Wehman was too big. :rolleyes: Thanks!

[Vaughn]

Clear as mud, Vaughn! ;) ...

I re-read it this morning -- embarrassing! All I wanted to say was that it is difficult to exactly frame the edge of the image across the middle of the GG!

But anyone interested in great panoramic images (not LF, though -- and IR) should check out http://www.jordahlphoto.com/framegallg.html

And his book of verticle IR 'panoramic' images http://www.searchingfortruenorth.com/

[Alan Gales]

I re-read it this morning -- embarrassing! All I wanted to say was that it is difficult to exactly frame the edge of the image across the middle of the GG!

But anyone interested in great panoramic images (not LF, though -- and IR) should check out http://www.jordahlphoto.com/framegallg.html

And his book of verticle IR 'panoramic' images http://www.searchingfortruenorth.com/

Don't worry about it, Vaughn. I understood. Sometimes it's hard to explain things with the written word. I've had the same problem trying to explain something on here myself! ;)

Those are some nice panoramic images! IR is pretty neat. I haven't done any of it since the 80's though and then it was 35mm.

[Chuck Pere]

I was wondering how people felt about panoramic photographs in a gallery setting. Does the entire show need to be panoramic work? If not do they need to be grouped together or can they just be sequenced in with non panoramic work?

[A_Tabor]

In my experience I would say that gallery settings are an art form in and of themselves, and you really can't make many general hard and fast rules. There is a lot more to a gallery viewing than just gathering a series of photos and tossing them up on walls. Well, sure you could just display images at random, but the gallery viewings that stand out in my mind have always been ones that were carefully crafted as an experience. Placement of pieces defined how one would progress through the gallery, and how conversation about the pieces flowed. As one of my overly artsy friends once phrased it, "A picture is worth a thousand words, which makes it a very short story, but a good gallery of them becomes a great novel."

So, as to mix and matching panoramic work or keeping it strictly ultra wide format images, then I would say that "it depends". What work is being displayed? What is the point of the gallery? What other work is there to possibly display with it? What is the overarching goal of the display?

[Chance2]

In my experience I would say that gallery settings are an art form in and of themselves, and you really can't make make many general hard and fast rules. There is a lot more to a gallery viewing than just gathering a series of photos and tossing them up on walls. Well, sure you could just display images at random, but the gallery viewings that stand out in my mind have always been ones that were carefully crafted as an experience. Placement of pieces defined how one would progress through the gallery, and how conversation about the pieces flowed. As one of my overly artsy friends once phrased it, "A picture is worth a thousand words, which makes it a very short story, but a good gallery of them becomes a great novel."

So, as to mix and matching panoramic work or keeping it strictly ultra wide format images, then I would say that "it depends". What work is being displayed? What is the point of the gallery? What other work is there to possibly display with it? What is the overarching goal of the display?

Excellent post.

[Ginette]

Thanks. Here is a drawing of it. I have made several of them. After breaking one made out of a stiff plastic darkslide, I made one from a metal darkslide. It gets tossed in with the film holders, and if it gets a little bent, I can straighten it out.

Thanks Vaughn for the drawing. What tool do you use for cutting the metal slide? I was thinking about a router for the plastic one but in metal?? I think I have a metal one in spair (not matched with any holder) and will try to do a 4x10 half slide.
Don't you ever thinking of make a small sketch at the end of the slide to reproduce the 3/4" area where the rebate is not black on both sides instead of having just one exposed?

[StoneNYC]

Thanks Vaughn for the drawing. What tool do you use for cutting the metal slide? I was thinking about a router for the plastic one but in metal?? I think I have a metal one in spair (not matched with any holder) and will try to do a 4x10 half slide.
Don't you ever thinking of make a small sketch at the end of the slide to reproduce the 3/4" area where the rebate is not black on both sides instead of having just one exposed?

Took me a while to find it...

For your convenience I've added the pictures below from my plastic cut half slide:

Just used some clams and a "Fiskers" brand rolling cloth cutter for the plastic.

The plastic is such that it's hard to make that rounded curve at the bottom, safer to keep it a straight or I would fear it could cause a "run" in the plastic.

138636
138637
138638

Someone else will have to comment on the metal slides.

One thing to be aware of is that not all dark sides are the same width. So make sure that you are cutting one that fits all of your holders the same or you might risk light leak (or it just not fitting at all in the slot).

Hope this helped someone.

~Stone

[Ginette]

Took me a while to find it...

For your convenience I've added the pictures below from my plastic cut half slide:

Just used some clams and a "Fiskers" brand rolling cloth cutter for the plastic.

The plastic is such that it's hard to make that rounded curve at the bottom, safer to keep it a straight or I would fear it could cause a "run" in the plastic.

138636
138637
138638

Someone else will have to comment on the metal slides.

One thing to be aware of is that not all dark sides are the same width. So make sure that you are cutting one that fits all of your holders the same or you might risk light leak (or it just not fitting at all in the slot).

Hope this helped someone.

~Stone

Your rotary cutter blade is certaintly scrapped after that. I think standard X-Acto will be more appropriate, giving many cuts without forcing into the material. For rounding the corner, better to sand it instead of trying to cut it.
As I'm really fluent with router (as I work acrylic professionnally) I think that this is the tool that will give the better finition of the sides, no need to sand it.
But metal, I don't know how to work.

[StoneNYC]

Your rotary cutter blade is certaintly scrapped after that. I think standard X-Acto will be more appropriate, giving many cuts without forcing into the material. For rounding the corner, better to sand it instead of trying to cut it.
As I'm really fluent with router (as I work acrylic professionnally) I think that this is the tool that will give the better finition of the sides, no need to sand it.
But metal, I don't know how to work.

Nope, blade works great on fabric still.

The Fiskers only took 3 rolls back and forth.

Remember the "rounding" is outward, so it's also an awkward "tab" to catch on things or bend. But I suppose it's doable.

I softened the edge by simply running a lighter flame along the edge, it left a perfect edge.

I've since sold all the fidelity holders and the half slide so I can't show you the edge, but much cleaner than sanding as far as smoothness I think?

Hey everyone has a method that works for them.

The fidelity slide was the soft bendable kind not the hard rigid riteway style ones. So I think that helped with the cutting.

[Alan Gales]

For metal dark slides I would use tin snips but I'm good with them being a retired Tinner (Sheet Metal Worker).

You are going to need rights and lefts (red handled and green handled). I guess you could use straights (yellow handled). I owned a pair of straights only because Pro Snip gave them to me but normally Tinners owned rights and lefts which can also cut straight.

[Vaughn]

For metal, a coping saw with a fine-toothed blade and a file for the edges and round the corners as indicated in my drawing.

I also have one out of the same material that Stone has ( a more flexible material). I mark my similar.

I keep it simple by exposing two copies of the same image (either at different exposures, or just to have a second copy -- alt processes can be hard on negatives). But I'll just do one 4x10 image on an 8x10 sometimes and not worry about the 'waste'. But I have messed up.

[Alan Gales]

Hey Vaughn, I looked at your drawing. Why do you round those two corners? Just a more finished look?

[Vaughn]

I think it slides thru the light trap of the holder easier -- and no sharp corners storing it in my pack.