slr "stitching back" for LF?

[button]

I have an idea for a type of slr stitching back setup: please tell me if this might work, as I am totally new to LF, and don't know much about it.

Imagine an LF lens mounted on a lens plate, with an adjustable length arm attached to the plate just below (or above) the lens at a single mobile point, which extends behind the lens and is attached to an SLR camera, with its mirror box exposed, such that the mirror box (front of the SLR) were pointed toward the back of the LF lens. Now, mount the lensplate on a tripod and cover the whole thing with bag bellows. If this SLR/arm were moved around the focal area of the lens, and exposures taken, would this solution fix the "off axis" mirror box light falloff that happens to the x/y stitching back SLR devices out there? What would be the effect of lengthening/shortening the arm?

I guess this boils down to whether or not LF lenses are engineered to focus on a plane or a hemisphere. Any thoughts?


John

[Dave Jeffery]

http://digitalphotography.weblogsinc.com/2006/05/10/horseman-ld-digital-camera-bellows/

[Jim Galli]

John, your idea is very sound. Years ago Burke & James sold similar backs for 5X7 and 8X10 that could slide to different positions and make several portraits on a single piece of film. So in that time frame, it was film of course, but you could slide a rollfilm holder with 6X6 area to 9 different places on an 8X10 sheet for 9 different pictures on one film. Your idea is similar but you would have the benefit of TTL viewing while sliding to each successive position. Registration would always be perfect as you're simply moving around to different parts of the single image the lens is transmitting. If you could find one of those old backs and remove all the ball bearing slide stops so you were just manually sliding over to the next spot as you're looking at it, it might work great.

[Jim Galli]

Here are a couple of pages from my 1963 B&J catalog that explain how these worked. Registration is surprisingly solid. They're worth almost zero when they turn up on ebay as there is no modern use for them.

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/BurkeJamesSlideBacks1963.jpg

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/BurkeJamesSlideBacks1963_2.jpg







Had to leave those files kind of big so you could read all the small print.

[Donald Miller]

Excuse me for asking but aren't you in effect reinventing the wheel.

http://www.nodalninja.com/

I have one of these (NN5) and it is perfectly capable of stitching much more than what you would do with a view camera. I have worked with greater than 300 MP scans pretty regularly. This is not limited to panoramic shots. I normally stitch three horizontal rows and sixteen vertical rows with 12.8 MP capture and 20% overlap that comes to 490 MP.

With the perspective control tools in PS there is nothing to be gained from what you are wishing to do...unless I am really missing something here.

Good luck with what you want to accomplish.

Donald Miller

[Greg Lockrey]

My poor-man's scanner:

But like Donald mentioned, the second solution is easier and you can get much larger files.

[button]

Excuse me for asking but aren't you in effect reinventing the wheel.

http://www.nodalninja.com/

I have one of these (NN5) and it is perfectly capable of stitching much more than what you would do with a view camera. I have worked with greater than 300 MP scans pretty regularly. This is not limited to panoramic shots. I normally stitch three horizontal rows and sixteen vertical rows with 12.8 MP capture and 20% overlap that comes to 490 MP.

With the perspective control tools in PS there is nothing to be gained from what you are wishing to do...unless I am really missing something here.

Good luck with what you want to accomplish.

Donald Miller

Donald, your point is well taken. I currently own a Nodal Ninja 5 as well, and the limitation that I'm trying to overcome is the requirement to "focus stack" multiple images to achieve what one can with the tilt of a view camera. Why does this matter? Speed. In fading light, there are only a few minutes max during which we can work to get that "magic shot," and taking more than 15-20 exposures takes a good bit of time. I've looked into using a T/S lens with the NN5, but from what I gather, the time required to change the tilt between horizontal rows is prohibitive. My goal is to create a file that I can print at 36" x 36" at 300 dpi. Maybe I'm missing something?

John

[Bob Salomon]

Donald, your point is well taken. I currently own a Nodal Ninja 5 as well, and the limitation that I'm trying to overcome is the requirement to "focus stack" multiple images to achieve what one can with the tilt of a view camera. Why does this matter? Speed. In fading light, there are only a few minutes max during which we can work to get that "magic shot," and taking more than 15-20 exposures takes a good bit of time. I've looked into using a T/S lens with the NN5, but from what I gather, the time required to change the tilt between horizontal rows is prohibitive. My goal is to create a file that I can print at 36" x 36" at 300 dpi. Maybe I'm missing something?

John

Novoflex makes the PROSHIFT+ shift back which accepts any 35mm or DSLR camera. It in turn mounts to either the Novoflex BALPRO T/S tilt shift bellows or to the standard Novoflex BALPRO bellows. These bellows accepts any 35mm or DSLR lens, most medium format lenses, C mount lenses, microscope lenses or dedicated Novoflex lenses that will focus from macro to infinity.

If it is just a matter of stitching with a DSLR Novoflex makes two different VR systems; the VR and the VR PRO. In addition, if it is just a matter of precisely positioning a camera from side to side Novoflex makes several positioning devices for cameras or equipment. the CASTEL MINI, CASTEL Q, CASTEL L and the CASTEL XL.

[routlaw]

There are two other options worth exploring depending upon your budget and how much weight you want to carry around. Currently I am using one of these with my D3 and getting superb results (when I get my act together correctly) in the field.

Cambo has the X2 Pro, that can be used with a litany of different dSLR's and the real caveat is one can also use many of the Rodenstock or Schneider digital lenses with these setups. I will just cut to the chase and say Nikon or Canon has never made a piece of glass that images like any of these lenses no matter what the lens is and I have tried em all including their newest nano coated lenses. They are nice but not even vaguely on the same level as the digital lenses from Germany.

The other option, similar to the Horseman posted earlier, is the Cambo Ultima 23/35 view camera which I am using. Its much heavier, but its also much more versatile and the beauty here is one can move the rear standard around eliminating any parallax errors stitching as many or as little frames as you like. The files can get to be huge, but with the Rodenstock 105 digital if I shift and rise and fall to the max with 9-12 different frames the final image will provide the rough equivalent view of a 35-38 mm lens on a FF 35mm camera. Personally I don't have a huge interest in pano type of images though occasionally do this, but rather stick to the 2x3 or 4x5 type of format and on many occasions just settle for a square format in post production.

Its takes awhile in the field to setup your image this way, but the final outcome is well worth the effort though I will admit this is not the most fluid method of working as in one could setup a 4x5 field camera in far less time and shoot 3-4 sheets and be done with it. I just got the word from my local lab the other day though that E-6 is going up 50% in price and will only run every other day now. This on top of the already increased price of film. I have no doubts it will only get worse as fewer and fewer people use film and eventually would have to send my film to out of state labs.

Not sure how much fun I would have lugging the whole thing around in an environment like Glacier NP with the steep and deep trails there either but plan to give it a try this summer.

The image below is one shot the other day with 9 frames for a final of 150 mb.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/images/attach/jpg.gif

[button]

Thanks everyone for the replies. So it seems that SLR mirror box light falloff with these stitching backs is a non-issue?

John

[routlaw]

Thanks everyone for the replies. So it seems that SLR mirror box light falloff with these stitching backs is a non-issue?

John

Well within reason yes this is the case. For instance with the 105 lens I can shift 24mm in each direction, and rise/fall 20mm in each direction. However there is a tad bit of fall off or clipping at these extremes on the rise and fall but its a non event because the stitching software, CS3 photomerge, in my case just ignores those areas and makes use of the part of the frame that is properly exposed. With shorter lenses like my 90 mm Rodenstock clipping seems kick in quicker so you have to use more frames if trying to maximize the field of view. Understand however that you can only go to the Schneider 72mm lens and still have enough clearance from the mirror box though I understand MF lenses can be used with special lens boards but have no experience with this. From there the next wider angle lens is the 28 mm Schnieder digitar. I don't think the Rodenstock 28 mm will work due to is rather long protruding rear element, but no doubt Bob Soloman can answer this better than I. Hopefully this makes some sense.

Rob

[doubledark]

The other option, similar to the Horseman posted earlier, is the Cambo Ultima 23/35 view camera which I am using.

Hi Routlaw; can you please contact me re the Cambo system doubledark AT adam.com.au

cheers

[routlaw]

PM sent this morning.

Rob

[PhotoTurbo]

Why not use one of the inexpensive 4x5-to-EOS sliding adapters out of Hong Kong on Fleabay? I have one and it works quite well for the money.

[BennehBoy]

No, I think everyone missed the point, on a typical view camera (where you'd probably use a normal stitching back) in many circumstances the incident light will either be vignetted by the throat of the DSLR, or strike the sensor at such an angle that it does not correctly activate the 'pixels' on the sensor. The most apparent situations where this would occur are with wide glass and 'extreme' (perhaps even small) movements.

My understanding of the swinging arm is that you would have the sensor perpendicular to the incident light at all times? The problem with this is you'd be introducing addtional rear tilt and swing into every 'capture' so you'd end up with one hugely oddly section focused image...

Did I understand you correctly?

PS Ooops, just saw that the previous poster dug this one up from retirement.

[bglick]

Interesting discussion, many of us are facing this same issue.... a few comments....

1) A sliding digital SLR on the back of a view camera is a very appealing product.... I have one...but its very limiting...yes, it may get you 4 clean stitched sensor captures.. (based on fl) however, if you are shooting for more than 4 captures, the deep-set sensor inside the body is problematic. So it has its place, but not for "gig" type captures...

2) Using a MF back and sliding it around a LF image overcomes many of the disadvantages of the DSLR as the back. However, as mentioned, you have light falloff in the corners, and in addition, the further you go out on the image circle, the worse the image quality, as the lens deliver less sharpness the further you get from center, AND the light rays hitting the sensor are not ideal....so you have a huge range of image quality if you scan a larger area, of course this mostly relate to WA and SWA lenses.

3) As for lens tilt .... this is productive IMO only when using a LF lens of normal to longer fl, where DOF might be an issue. In which case, tilt helps...but even then, you need lenses with huge image circles to get good tilt results.... and the angles on the sensor might be problematic..... I consider this a very "ify" proposition.

4) The beauty of the DSLR stitching is the fact you are using ultra sharp lenses, which captures ultra sharp images, on EVERY SINGLE capture as the lens to sensor relationship remains fixed... As for focus, since the fl's are much shooter, you have much greater DOF and much lower apt. giving you faster shutter speeds. If the scene allows it, you can re-focus a tiny big between rows of capture....of course, this is not always possible.

In the past, the downside of this DSLR stitch was low rez DSLR and cumbersome software. But now, with 15 - 25MP DSLR and the amazing advances in stitch software, this method has really trumped just about anything available, specially in the $ dept. If the subject is static, or close to static, you can achieve million dollar results with min. expenditures, with a little practice and software skills...

I was surprised that the Seitz automated panorama DSLR did not take off....it automated this process... I would have bought one myself, but I think they missed a key point...it only automates one row shooting...that eliminates mosaics. So the these manual systems are quite impressive and fast....

This is a classic case of technology continuing to trump traditional capture methods.....which is why its becoming so hard to get film processed.... arggggg....

[Donald Miller]

Donald, your point is well taken. I currently own a Nodal Ninja 5 as well, and the limitation that I'm trying to overcome is the requirement to "focus stack" multiple images to achieve what one can with the tilt of a view camera. Why does this matter? Speed. In fading light, there are only a few minutes max during which we can work to get that "magic shot," and taking more than 15-20 exposures takes a good bit of time. I've looked into using a T/S lens with the NN5, but from what I gather, the time required to change the tilt between horizontal rows is prohibitive. My goal is to create a file that I can print at 36" x 36" at 300 dpi. Maybe I'm missing something?

John

John, Sorry to be so late in responding. The basic reason that I use tilt when I shoot with a view camera is to optimize depth of field. This can now be accomplished with digital using the software identified at the link below. Using this software, one can alter the point of focus throughout each (multiples of the same) exposure (consistant with the parameters of the chosen depth of field) and stack the images to arrive at a combined image with depth of field equal to a view camera without the attenuating diffraction issues that one might encounter when stopping a LF lens down beyond a certain point.

http://www.tawbaware.com/tufuse.htm

Best regards,
Don

[bglick]

Don, what's the advantage of tawbaware vs. PS HDR? Or PS CS4 focus stacking (layer blending)?

[Donald Miller]

Don, what's the advantage of tawbaware vs. PS HDR? Or PS CS4 focus stacking (layer blending)?

Photoshop HDR is not the best HDR program...at least up to CS4. I haven't evaluated CS4 on that score yet. I use Photomatix for HDR images and have used it for sometime now.

Tufuse deals with other aspects than HDR...those being stacking for extending depth of focus and stacking to attain proper exposure based upon the existing conditions. In other words when dealing with depth of field...you could shoot an image at F 5.6 or even more wide open and carry full sharp focus from in front of the camera to infinity...it all depends on making exposures with planes of focus that overlap each other and stacking them in a program like Tufuse. If you manually layer blend in a program like CS4 I believe that you will find that it will be an onerous task and probably not as effective as Tufuse...how will you determine with a stack of a dozen exposures (as an example) where the demarcation exists in each of the images in the stack?

HDR seeks to expand the exposure range and then remap the image to what present displays or printing allow. Eventually, it would seem, based upon the work done by a firm in Vancouver we will have technology that will display images with the full range of an HDR image without the need to remap the image. The costs of their monitors are astronomical now but they have a contrast range that is far beyond anything yet developed. (many orders of magnitude)

To continue and comment on your previous post, the thing that a DSLR mated to a view camera has not addressed is the shifting parallax issues. A pan head covers that by rotating the camera/lens on the nodal point of the lens. I would think that your experience will be what most will find...to gain full advantage of such an adaptation one would need to rotate the view camera in order to cover the desired angle of view and that is where parallax will occur. Even if a person were to cover the full ground glass on an 8X10 image with a shifting DSLR it would not seem to gain anything beyond shooting film.

[bglick]

Don, you may be right.... not sure how CS4 layer blend will compete with your software.... I hear it does a wonderful job.... have you tried the other focus programs out there, like focus stack, Z stack (or something of the sort) ?

Supposedly the new layer blend also does a much gentler HDR....

[bglick]

> To continue and comment on your previous post, the thing that a DSLR mated to a view camera has not addressed is the shifting parallax issues.


With a still lens, and a shifting back, on the XY axis, where is the parallax issues? That is the beauty of it, its acting as a single large capture back? What am I missing?

[Greg Lockrey]

John, Sorry to be so late in responding. The basic reason that I use tilt when I shoot with a view camera is to optimize depth of field. This can now be accomplished with digital using the software identified at the link below. Using this software, one can alter the point of focus throughout each (multiples of the same) exposure (consistant with the parameters of the chosen depth of field) and stack the images to arrive at a combined image with depth of field equal to a view camera without the attenuating diffraction issues that one might encounter when stopping a LF lens down beyond a certain point.

http://www.tawbaware.com/tufuse.htm

Best regards,
Don

This looks to be pretty cool, Don. Now we need a camera that will automatically shift the focal point in specified zones to bring in the maximum depth of field at the same time giving three step @ two stop exposure brackets HDR at the same time to fuse into one image all the while stitch panning. :eek: :D :D

[Donald Miller]

This looks to be pretty cool, Don. Now we need a camera that will automatically shift the focal point in specified zones to bring in the maximum depth of field at the same time giving three step @ two stop exposure brackets HDR at the same time to fuse into one image all the while stitch panning. :eek: :D :D

Leave it to Microsoft to come up with a solution...


http://research.microsoft.com/IVM/HDView/howdone.htm

[Donald Miller]

Stitching is one thing...I invite you to look at what can now be accomplished in the way of creating 3D from a stitched 2D photograph...

http://library.creativecow.net/articles/larsen_carl/cube_world1.php

http://library.creativecow.net/articles/larsen_carl/cube_world2.php

These are twp part video tutorials (play the 1 suffix first) and are fairly large so allow them time to load if you decide to check things out.

[Donald Miller]

> To continue and comment on your previous post, the thing that a DSLR mated to a view camera has not addressed is the shifting parallax issues.


With a still lens, and a shifting back, on the XY axis, where is the parallax issues? That is the beauty of it, its acting as a single large capture back? What am I missing?

If you have a digital camera mated to a LF back, I assume that you are wanting something more than a LF negative. By your own experience if you make more than 4 exposures you run into problems (I would assume that this is from shading caused of the front of the DSLR body being offset...positioned in front of.. the sensor) so my take, based upon what you have said, is that you are not even able to capture the full LF film plane. So in order to gain the field of view that you would want, you will need to rotate the LF camera in order to capture more of than one position will give you. When you rotate you induce parallax since you are rotating on something other than the nodal point of the taking lens.

I think that in order to capture the full frame of an 5X7 or larger negative that you will need to devise some way of not only shifting the DSLR but also the ability to deflect the DSLR position from something other than the 90 degree orientation to the taking lens projection.

It still seems like a long way around to get what is already available...but then my tastes are to keep things as simple as possible.

[bglick]

Don, OK, I follow.... the term parallax in this context confused me......but if you rotate any lens around its nodal point, you rid that issue... no reason it can not be done with LF also.

But regardless, today, with software so sophisticated, a DSLR makes obvious sense...

[Donald Miller]

Don, you may be right.... not sure how CS4 layer blend will compete with your software.... I hear it does a wonderful job.... have you tried the other focus programs out there, like focus stack, Z stack (or something of the sort) ?

Supposedly the new layer blend also does a much gentler HDR....


No, I have not tried these other programs. I have no knowledge at all about them.

I have recently purchased the CS4 Production Suite and have not worked on HDR within that program. I have been trying to get my mind around After Effects since I am more and more moving away from still images to slide show and video production.

[bglick]

Don, After Effects sure demonstrates how far you can push the envelope for displaying images.... but its like learning a foreign language. It sure opens up the possibilities..... makes ol fashion 2d capture seem mundane... :-) ducking under digital cover...

You wonder how much longer a print on the wall will be the preferred method of viewing images ?

[Donald Miller]

Don, After Effects sure demonstrates how far you can push the envelope for displaying images.... but its like learning a foreign language. It sure opens up the possibilities..... makes ol fashion 2d capture seem mundane... :-) ducking under digital cover...

You wonder how much longer a print on the wall will be the preferred method of viewing images ?

Oh I imagine that prints will be around a long time but gosh things sure are moving along in other areas. I enjoy being able to impart time and a more complete rendition of a concept with the things that I am engaging in now. Good luck to you. I have enjoyed our conversation.

[Lenny Eiger]

This looks to be pretty cool, Don. Now we need a camera that will automatically shift the focal point in specified zones to bring in the maximum depth of field at the same time giving three step @ two stop exposure brackets HDR at the same time to fuse into one image all the while stitch panning. :eek: :D :D

Greg,

I actually think you are right on the money here. I recently saw a pretty impressive print made from a series of 12 stitches files made with a mid-range digital camera. The problem is the dynamic range was lousy. If one could combine HDR with stitching a series of files, you could create huge files with tons of detail. i might even buy a mid range Betterlight - or better yet, use a 645 sized camera. It looks like some of the tripod heads are there...

I'm not so worried about the enhanced depth of field - as I don't mind stopping down, but I think we need to combine HDR and Stitch. I'm wondering if this actually already exists. Or if some co is on the way...

I've been very down about the lack of new chip development, but maybe this is a way to go...

Lenny

[sanking]

BTW, the dynamic range of the P45+ back is said to be 12 stops. That is a lot better than color slide film and about the same as color negative film.

Sandy King






Greg,

I actually think you are right on the money here. I recently saw a pretty impressive print made from a series of 12 stitches files made with a mid-range digital camera. The problem is the dynamic range was lousy.
Lenny

[Lenny Eiger]

BTW, the dynamic range of the P45+ back is said to be 12 stops. That is a lot better than color slide film and about the same as color negative film.

Sandy King

Hmmm. That's interesting. Would you see any other downside to using it if one could stitch?

(Other than the obvious problem of severe cost.)

Lenny

[Donald Miller]

Greg,

I actually think you are right on the money here. I recently saw a pretty impressive print made from a series of 12 stitches files made with a mid-range digital camera. The problem is the dynamic range was lousy. If one could combine HDR with stitching a series of files, you could create huge files with tons of detail. i might even buy a mid range Betterlight - or better yet, use a 645 sized camera. It looks like some of the tripod heads are there...

I'm not so worried about the enhanced depth of field - as I don't mind stopping down, but I think we need to combine HDR and Stitch. I'm wondering if this actually already exists. Or if some co is on the way...

I've been very down about the lack of new chip development, but maybe this is a way to go...

Lenny

Already exists via several programs. The new CS4 extended has the capability. Prior to this Panorama Tools (open source) had the capability. There are probably other programs that I am not aware of.

Actually one could do all of the above...extending depth of field, stitching and HDR with what is out there today.

[sanking]

No, I don't see much downside to the P45+ other than the cost. If I could get one for $5K I would probably do so.

LF color photographer have to be considering the switch to the P45 digital back if for no other reason because of the uncertainity of film in the near future. I was with the English photographer Joe Cornish a couple of weeks ago at a workshop in Canada and he was running some tests with a newly acquired P45+ on his 4X5 Ebony.

In terms of resolution one can get a very good idea of the capability of the P45+ just by doing the numbers. It has a sensor size of 47mm X 39mm (1.85" X 1.5") and produces 7216 X 5412 pixels. The theoretical maximum in terms of resolution would be about 77 lpm (7116/1.85/25.4/2). In practice this is reduced to about 65 lpm, maybe less. This means that one should be able to make a print of about 24" X 29" and retain critical sharpness of about 4-5 lpm. For larger prints some type of rezzing up will be necessary but the noise free digital file allows a fair amount of interpolation with little loss in image quality. There is not much wiggle room in these calculatoins because the digital image is what it is, and it is all about the numbers.

From what I have seen you can print a bit larger from 4X5 100 ASA color negative or transparency film, say 30"X40" , and still retain critical resolution of 5+ lines per millimeter. But the difference is less than the size of the sensor compared to the size of 4X5 would suggest, and you have all the added creativity of the immediate feedback with digital. So if the price were right I would find a P45+ very compelling.

On the other hand I can make super sharp 24"X30" prints from my Mamiya 7II negatives which will carry more real detail than a print of the same size from a P45 back. But to get that print requires an excellent scan and a fair amount of work in Photoshop, in other words a lot more time than with the P45.

Sandy





Hmmm. That's interesting. Would you see any other downside to using it if one could stitch?

(Other than the obvious problem of severe cost.)

Lenny

[Tyler Boley]

I'd like to pout this into a slightly different bit of perspective, keep in mind I shoot dslr for assignments and 5x7" or 6x7cm neg for personal work. I also print for others so see a lot of different kinds of files going to paper.
Scenario 1- put small expensive digicam on tripod, look through little hole at part of scene. Make bracket for HDR of the part. Rotate camera a bit, make another bracket, repeat as many times as necessary overlapping for later stitch, never really dealing with my images through the camera as a complete piece. Later, at the computer, I process all this, multiple files, HDR work, stiich work, etc etc... admittedly kind of fun in it's way, hours of work. Then I can address the entirety...
Scenario 2- put my old wooden 5x7 on tripod, look at ground glass seeing whole image, upside down which affects my decisions in important ways, make lens and composition choices. Expose ONE sheet of film, two if paranoid. Expose and develop accordingly to contain any likely range and/or desired result... look for more images... scan (admittedly expensive also) and edit, print as desired.

I just never hear this stuff discussed, I mean let's get real, is this progress? I like it too, honest, but given the above, and throw in the cost factors, and I'm still scratching my head about it all, unless I just love toys and digital fun and am also a lawyer or doctor...

Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/
http://tylerboley.com/

[sanking]

I work a lot exactly the way you describe. If I am working with my 5X7 field camera outfit I also carry along a small digital camera (Canonn G9) and use it on a tripod for HDR color work, and some stitching also, just experimenting a lot. After working this way for an hour or so I have found the one or two shots I want to make with the 5X7 and set it up and make them. There is a kind of synergy between the two ways of working that I find refreshing. And it is pretty amazing the quality one can get up to about 12X16 with the tiny 7mm wide chip on the G9.

The P45+ is not in my future because of the cost. It is currently in the category of a tool for working professionals who can justify the cost, and a toy for the doctors and layers.

Sandy King


I'd like to pout this into a slightly different bit of perspective, keep in mind I shoot dslr for assignments and 5x7" or 6x7cm neg for personal work. I also print for others so see a lot of different kinds of files going to paper.
Scenario 1- put small expensive digicam on tripod, look through little hole at part of scene. Make bracket for HDR of the part. Rotate camera a bit, make another bracket, repeat as many times as necessary overlapping for later stitch, never really dealing with my images through the camera as a complete piece. Later, at the computer, I process all this, multiple files, HDR work, stiich work, etc etc... admittedly kind of fun in it's way, hours of work. Then I can address the entirety...
Scenario 2- put my old wooden 5x7 on tripod, look at ground glass seeing whole image, upside down which affects my decisions in important ways, make lens and composition choices. Expose ONE sheet of film, two if paranoid. Expose and develop accordingly to contain any likely range and/or desired result... look for more images... scan (admittedly expensive also) and edit, print as desired.

I just never hear this stuff discussed, I mean let's get real, is this progress? I like it too, honest, but given the above, and throw in the cost factors, and I'm still scratching my head about it all, unless I just love toys and digital fun and am also a lawyer or doctor...

Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/
http://tylerboley.com/

[Lenny Eiger]

Scenario 1- put small expensive digicam on tripod, look through little hole at part of scene. Make bracket for HDR of the part. Rotate camera a bit, make another bracket, repeat as many times as necessary overlapping for later stitch, never really dealing with my images through the camera as a complete piece. Later, at the computer, I process all this, multiple files, HDR work, stiich work, etc etc... admittedly kind of fun in it's way, hours of work. Then I can address the entirety...
Scenario 2- put my old wooden 5x7 on tripod, look at ground glass seeing whole image, upside down which affects my decisions in important ways, make lens and composition choices. Expose ONE sheet of film, two if paranoid. Expose and develop accordingly to contain any likely range and/or desired result... look for more images... scan (admittedly expensive also) and edit, print as desired.

I just never hear this stuff discussed, I mean let's get real, is this progress? I like it too, honest, but given the above, and throw in the cost factors, and I'm still scratching my head about it all, unless I just love toys and digital fun and am also a lawyer or doctor...

Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/
http://tylerboley.com/

I agree. I don't think it's there yet. However, I think it's going in that direction. I would love to see the work done with the Foveon or similar chip rather than the Bayer, but I think that the software is going to do most of it for you. It's interesting that one can make a large file with a small camera. With a great lens, tis could do a lot. I think they are going to take the control away, the HDR will just take the three exposures on their own and stick it in the file. There will likely be automated things that will fit on a 4x5 back that will automatically move around... I know some of these are already there... but that's where I think its going. The question is when will it be useful enough, inexpensive enough and high quality enough for lf photographers...

Lenny

[Tyler Boley]

but Lenny, why?
I can already do what I want and more...
why move in that direction?
isn't this more complicated solutions to problems I don't have?
By the way, that 5x7 sheet of film? $1.60

my suspicion is that what little money I spend on this stuff is apparently not going to the right people. That's the real "problem" we're trying to solve.

Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/
http://tylerboley.com/

[Tyler Boley]

Sandy, that's interesting. You're using your G9 the way we used to use polaroid.
Tyler

[Lenny Eiger]

but Lenny, why?
Tyler

I'm in total agreement with you. With one minor exception. I think b&w film has already been destroyed already and I am carrying around an 8x10 camera - and getting older. It would be nice to carry something smaller. I need my quality so it has to be enough for me to put the thing down...

Honestly, I think they are going to force us into this. I think, despite some protestations to the contrary, that film will disappear. It's years out - a few I hope, and I can't tell you how many. But I think it's inevitable. I would love to see small manufacturers make film in this country - but I haven't seen any as yet.

Lenny

[sanking]

Lenny,

I think we have been around the block on this story as well. I could not disagree with you more about the quality of our current film offerings in LF. Some of the modern films, Fuji Acros, Tmax-100 and Tmax-400, are just outstanding. Even in MF with a top camera and lens like Mamiya 7 equipment one can easily make exhibition quality prints up to 20X24" , or even larger, with films like Acros and T-Max 100. To say nothing of what one can do with a 5X7" negative.

And if you don't like the modern T-grain films there are still plenty of traditional type emulsion films around, like HP5+, TRI-X 320, FP4+, Efke PL100, etc.

Yes, LF film costs a lot more, and no, it probably won't be around with the current level of variety for much longer, but what we have now is just outstanding, in my very humble opinion.

Sandy King





I'm in total agreement with you. With one minor exception. I think b&w film has already been destroyed already and I am carrying around an 8x10 camera - and getting older. It would be nice to carry something smaller. I need my quality so it has to be enough for me to put the thing down...

Honestly, I think they are going to force us into this. I think, despite some protestations to the contrary, that film will disappear. It's years out - a few I hope, and I can't tell you how many. But I think it's inevitable. I would love to see small manufacturers make film in this country - but I haven't seen any as yet.

Lenny

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny,

I think we have been around the block on this story as well. I could not disagree with you more about the quality of our current film offerings in LF. Some of the modern films, Fuji Acros, Tmax-100 and Tmax-400, are just outstanding.
Sandy King

We certainly have. I don't think we need to go there again. Its just different. I didn't mean to re-make that point, only that it was that - that was driving me to carry around my 8x10.

Lenny

[Tyler Boley]

Another point that no doubt colors my opinion. I hear many in my generation saying they are ready to leave the big camera at home and find a better way. One friend said he was just sick of the big camera, the time it takes, the phutzing with it all, and more than ready to take a little camera out of his pocket and make an image, and move on.
But I'm afraid I'm just the opposite. I've done a lot of things over the decades, a few even legal, and I can think of no more lovely and fulfilling way to spend some time, out in the landscape, trying to drop my mental behavioral crap, let what's in front of me "in", work with the tools I know too well to even be consciously aware of... and live in the world of image and the senses.
Even if I come back with nothing, I could blow a lot of days doing that, and have.
So there's that...
This IS the large format list, I imagine a few here can relate.
Tyler

[Kirk Gittings]

Even if I come back with nothing, I could blow a lot of days doing that, and have.

So true. It reminds me of fly fishing, which I have been doing since i was about 5 or 6. On some of my most memorable days fly fishing, I have caught nothing. There is something almost Zen in the simple effort. I no longer need to shoot LF to make a living, but I NEED to shoot large format for more profound reasons.

[Lenny Eiger]

Another point that no doubt colors my opinion. I hear many in my generation saying they are ready to leave the big camera at home and find a better way.
Tyler

Once again, you are right... I do get frustrated by the weight of the 8x10, actually more the holders, lenses, etc., when I want to take it on a long hike. I want more and more to go far away, where the hand of man isn't so evident, and it gets harder as time goes on. There isn't quite so much time these days, resources, etc.

However, as you say, there is nothing like a view camera. As someone who has taught for many years, I would say there is nothing like a view camera to get someone to slow down, actually look at what they are photographing and connect with it, vs taking one more snapshot.

And there's nothing like the quality one can get from a 5x7 or 8x10 (or larger). I don't care what anyone says, what the math says, etc. The results are pretty clear... I guess I will say that I celebrate everyone's commitment to the view camera, what this list is for... May it live forever...

And maybe I just need to get a mule to help out from time to time.

Lenny

[dh003i]

John, Sorry to be so late in responding. The basic reason that I use tilt when I shoot with a view camera is to optimize depth of field. This can now be accomplished with digital using the software identified at the link below. Using this software, one can alter the point of focus throughout each (multiples of the same) exposure (consistant with the parameters of the chosen depth of field) and stack the images to arrive at a combined image with depth of field equal to a view camera without the attenuating diffraction issues that one might encounter when stopping a LF lens down beyond a certain point.

http://www.tawbaware.com/tufuse.htm

Best regards,
Don.

One should note that when doing this, you need to take several pictures, with the plane of optimum focus progressively moving from "near the camera" out to infinity; i.e., shots with POF 1 ft from camera, 5 ft from camera, 10 ft from camera, 20 ft from camera, 40 ft from camera, 80 ft from camera, 160 ft from camera, infinity (or other intervals).

I bet this would take more time than just doing it with LF to begin with.