polyptych photos

[Rob Henkel]

I couldn't find any recent threads concerning polyptych photographs, so I'm starting this one.
Specifically I'd like to know how to photograph a subject and keep the frames registered, like this:

191082

What tripod head (or other equipment) would be necessary to do this? How would a portrait be taken? How would you calculate the amount of vertical and horizontal movement necessary?

Thanks for any help.

[Ted R]

I'm not sure I understand the question so I'll take a different approach.

The sample image, is it one of yours? A very curious image, I like it.

There is a possibility that this image was made in the following way: photograph the still-life as a single frame; make a print of still life; overlay four glass rectangles having distressed edges and corners; re-photograph the image and make the final print. This might also involve as options working with large format negative and also contact printing.

[Rob Henkel]

The image is by an artist named Nadezda Nikolova-Kratzer. I should have given credit when I posted the image. It's a wet plate collodion image.

Yeah, I'm not sure how to phrase the question. An example I'm thinking of would be four panel portraits - google "Kasia Wozniak", another collodion photographer.

If I'm photographing a head, and I take a picture of the upper left quadrant, how do I then move the camera to take a photograph of the upper right quadrant so that the two images align and there is no overlap along the shared edge between the two images? Assuming I'm shooting 4x5, do I just move the camera horizontally 4" for the second image? And then to photograph the lower two quadrants, move down 5"?

Sorry for not articulating my question very clearly. I hope that made some sense.

Rob

[Pieter]

I have done something similar stitching digital images made with a view camera, but not with the precision you are showing. Here's how I would approach the problem: Take a piece of foamcore board the size of the subject, and grid it into quarters, then make a rectangle the same size as one quarter positioned in the center of the board. Position the board to frame the center quarter and see how much you have to move the back to isolate each of the side quarters.

191154

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I have done this a few times with three 5x7 negatives making a 7x15" final contact print. My approach was to use rear shift rather than move the camera. This won't work with most cameras, but my 5x7 (a wooden Canham) has a great deal of rear shift, and I had a machine shop etch a scale on the rear standard so I know exactly where each image starts and stops. It also requires a lens with a great deal of coverage (I used a 210mm Computar). Sorry, no scanned images.

[aaronnate]

Always been a fan of Dewoud Bey's 20x24 polaroid polyptichs.

http://stephendaitergallery.com/exhibitions/dawoud-bey-polaroid-works/

[Rob Henkel]

Ahh, rear shift!
I didn't think of that, since I have a field camera.
But that would make sense. So when you shifted your back Jason, was it the width of the negative (5") every time?
Pieter - nice image. Thanks for sharing.
And large format polaroids - what's not to love?

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

That is right, I shifted the width of the image, which is a tad bit under 5". I suppose for distant images you might be able to get away with front shift or rise, but the advantage for rear shift is that the point of view remains the same, rather than moving it 5" to the right or left.

I do have one scanned image, which is an older one before I had the scale etched into the back. As you can see, the sides are not perfectly lined up, and overlap a bit. With the etched scale I am more precise and can get the image almost exact.
191160

[Graham Patterson]

There's a way to fake this on a single sheet. Put an opaque cross on the surface of the film and take the exposure. When printed you get separators. Putting clean fine tape lines down is the hard bit - probably a job for IR glasses. A carefully cut internal quarter mask for the lens side of the camera back is another. That's the easier way, and does not require darkroom planning.

I have done this making prints, but never had a need to do it on a film original.

[Rob Henkel]

Jason - on the triptych you posted (nice, BTW) did you compose the middle frame, then shift left and right for the outside frames?
How would you shoot a quadriptych, with two upper images and two lower images, like this Kasia Wozniak portrait:

191201

Assuming a 4x5 negative, would you start with 2.5" of rear rise, compose in the middle, then shift left 2" and rise 2.5" (for the upper left); shift right 4" (for the upper right); lower 5" (for the lower right); shift 4" left (for the lower left)?
Seems pretty clunky. I guess an etched scale would make it easier. You don't have a picture of that, do you Jason? I'd love to see it.
Thanks for everyone's input.

[Havoc]

Does a polyptych needs to give a "continuous" end result? I'm curious about that because those I have seen at a photo exhibition they were just 3 photos that related and were presented as a single piece.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Rob, I am not sure, it was a few years back, but I probably composed from left to right.

I think rear movements are probably the way to go with these. Moving the vantage point of the lens would likely make the images odd looking, with a stereo effect. If I had to do this, I would consider using an 8x10 camera (or larger) somehow place four 4x5 negatives (or plates) right next to one another in an 8x10 film holder and take the exposure at one time. Perhaps an 8x10 vacuum back might allow for this? Careful use of tape? glueing a set of film septums (like from a grafmatic) or film adapters for plate holders in to a 8x10 or 11x14 plate holder? Maybe also look into adapting a Deardorff sliding back. I am not 100% sure how those would work for you, but it might provide a mechanism for rear movements.

As requested here is an image of my camera showing the etched scale:
191229

and an image of it shifted:
191230

[Pieter]

Rob, I am not sure, it was a few years back, but I probably composed from left to right.

I think rear movements are probably the way to go with these. Moving the vantage point of the lens would likely make the images odd looking, with a stereo effect. If I had to do this, I would consider using an 8x10 camera (or larger) with a 4x5 film back precisely mounted in a corner of the back. An image could be made, it could be rotated 90 degrees, and then repeated. Another way of doing this would be to somehow place four 4x5 negatives (or plates) right next to one another in an 8x10 film holder and take the exposure at one time. Perhaps an 8x10 vacuum back might allow for this? Careful use of tape? glueing a set of film septums (like from a grafmatic) or film adapters for plate holders in to a 8x10 or 11x14 plate holder?

I will try to take a picture of my scale later today and append it.

Double-sided tape? https://www.scotchbrand.com/3M/en_US/scotch-brand/products/catalog/~/Scotch-Restickable-Strips-1-in-X-3-in-Clear/?N=4335+3294529207+3294602648&preselect=5003212+5584757+3293786499&rt=rud

[Ted R]

The image is by an artist named Nadezda Nikolova-Kratzer. I should have given credit when I posted the image. It's a wet plate collodion image.

Yeah, I'm not sure how to phrase the question. An example I'm thinking of would be four panel portraits - google "Kasia Wozniak", another collodion photographer.

If I'm photographing a head, and I take a picture of the upper left quadrant, how do I then move the camera to take a photograph of the upper right quadrant so that the two images align and there is no overlap along the shared edge between the two images? Assuming I'm shooting 4x5, do I just move the camera horizontally 4" for the second image? And then to photograph the lower two quadrants, move down 5"?

Sorry for not articulating my question very clearly. I hope that made some sense.

Rob


Thank you.

Now that I see some examples of the technique I have a different response. These are large format images that seem to defy the technical advantage of large format camera work in rendering detail and texture that smaller film formats fail to do. I call these examples manipulated images and the technique is all about the manipulation and little to do with sharpness, in fact there doesn't seem to be much, and it doesn't matter. What this means to me is that the door is open to construct such images by any and all methods available. If I were to attempt this kind of work I might use a view camera if I wanted shallow depth of field, otherwise I would medium format or 35mm and make the portrait as a single exposure that encompasses the entire field of view wanted in the finished print in a single frame. Then I would start on the manipulation part, division of the work print into quadrants, then experiment with various manipulation methods to add borders and distressing to taste. Having achieved a result I liked I re-photograph the manipulated master print to produce copies.
It is my opinion that an attempt to make such an image by making four separate exposures in registration, may involve additional complex technical challenges that even when solved add little to the finished picture.

[EarlJam]

One of the things I noticed in Nadezda Nikolova-Kratzer's profile on her website is that her images are photograms rather than photographs. That explains the tight registration on the image in Rob's initial post, something that I had been struggling to understand prior to reading this blurb:

Focusing primarily on wet plate collodion, she is re-imagining the historic process, traditionally used for portraits and landscape photography, by creating cameraless image-objects that walk the line between painting and photography. (When an object is placed on a photo-sensitive surface that is exposed to light, the object casts a shadow that creates a shape on the photographic surface, resulting in a photogram, a type of a camera-less image.) “I appreciate the photogram’s simplicity and immediacy. Essentially, we are experiencing light and the absence of it, in a careful balancing act.”

https://nadezdanikolova.com/bio/

[Vaidotas]

Your creativity is your box of sand, play with your own rules.
As I understand polyptych - more than one photograph for display, glued together by composition, meaning, color, form, narrative, you call it.
Accurate stitching seems important to you, but personally I don't care. And I think there is no tension between puristic LF position (biggest format, more details and so on) and using of any kind of format with LF camera.

191287

For this display I used all 120 film, 6x12cm x6
Sinar P, Sironar 300, PanF

[Rob Henkel]

Accurate stitching is only important to me insofar as I'm curious as to how it was done, really.
I like the panorama a lot. A good example of slightly less than perfect registration that ends up adding to the final piece rather than diminishing it. Very nice.


"It is my opinion that an attempt to make such an image by making four separate exposures in registration, may involve additional complex technical challenges that even when solved add little to the
finished picture."
Yeah, that's probably true. The really interesting part of these images (at least to me) is the haunting feel of them, which has absolutely nothing to do with how accurately they were put together.

I'm intrigued by the scale on your camera, Jason. You had it custom made?

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Yes, SK Grimes etched it for me. I described what I wanted, and he did it.