Panorama with 4x5

[mcguireek]

I have seen some interesting shots taken of the Brooklyn bridge with a 4x5 that were panoramic. The photographer mentioned that he used half the film (2x5) for each shot. How does this work? Do you just cut a dark slide in half and expose each piece? Would light not leak under the slide?

[John T]

You need to cut it slightly smaller than in half. You also can't cut the area that normally sits in the light trap to make sure it creates a light-tight seal.

[Renato Tonelli]

Toho makes pre-cut slides for this purpose - a little pricey.

[Doremus Scudder]

...or just crop a full 4x5 sheet when printing. Then you don't need to buy and carry extra stuff.

Doremus Scudder

[mcguireek]

Thanks for the replies. I asked about the modified dark slides because I am looking to shoot a dyptic with the same image exposed as a panorama on the same sheet of film, so I will have to fiddle with those recommendations.

[ethics_gradient]

I tried it recently with an old darkslide I cut in half, worked like a charm.

[Lon Overacker]

I did this years ago. Had TAP plastics cut me out a 2" slot out of the middle of a darkslide. Not sure why I did that... why can't you just make some markings on your GG and simply CROP an original sheet of film? I don't get it?

Now, If you actually want to utilize the entire sheet, top and bottom, I can understand that. However, keep in mind about the effects light fall off or vignetting depending on the lens you use. In other words, (and again depends on the lens with WA lens more of a problem) if you use the upper half of the piece of film, you could have more light fall off in the upper left corner compared to the lower right corner.

Another option is to stitch 4x5's in PhotoShop, which can certainly be done and it's not that difficult.
http://www.lonoveracker.com/images/npn/39181PH_1600.jpg

Lon

[D. Bryant]

I did this years ago.

Lon

Nice work Lon!

Don Bryant

[Kirk Fry]

Stitching is the easiest, but you don't get to see the whole thing on the ground glass.
KFry

[Vaughn]

Thanks for the replies. I asked about the modified dark slides because I am looking to shoot a dyptic with the same image exposed as a panorama on the same sheet of film, so I will have to fiddle with those recommendations.

I use a self-modified dark slide to this, but with 8x10. Two 4x10's on a sheet of 8x10 film. Works fine -- one just has to keep track of which half has been exposed, double check the way you put in the half-slide, and don't forget to put back the full-slide before removing the holder from the camera. I have made all those mistakes and some at the same time!

One also has to compensate for the little bit of slop here and there -- the film moves around quite a bit in the holder, and the slide has a little slop in its fit, too. I need to "calibrate" my GG for the 4x10's. Usually not a problem, but occasionally I have an image that is not quite framed properly (as I saw it).

I used a metal dark slide for my 8x10 -- very durable. I used one made of the standard material and eventually broke it somehow. So don't just toss it in your pack/bag like I did!

Vaughn

4x10 --

[dave_whatever]

why can't you just make some markings on your GG and simply CROP an original sheet of film? I don't get it?

You could do that, but if you want to shoot panos it means you're doubling your film and developing costs, and you only get half the number of shots from your holders.....as you say, its good to actually use all the film you're paying for.


However, keep in mind about the effects light fall off or vignetting depending on the lens you use. In other words, (and again depends on the lens with WA lens more of a problem) if you use the upper half of the piece of film, you could have more light fall off in the upper left corner compared to the lower right corner

That is only true if you don't recenter your lens on your image area. If I'm composing on the bottom half of the ground glass, I raise the camera back by an inch. Problem solved!

This is a great an entirely viable technique for shooting panoramics. The aspect ratio is a good compromise between the "sometimes not quite wide enough" 6x12 and the "sometimes too wide to compose for effectively" 6x17.

Here's a few of the shots I've taken in this manner (not earth shattering shots but these are the only ones I've had scanned....):

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2686/4191448722_1cb0b2c636_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2766/4078265307_2ec808170f_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2659/4078994738_6bab21b309_o.jpg

[Thebes]

Stitching is the easiest, but you don't get to see the whole thing on the ground glass.
KFry

I guess it depends upon the person, but I am not a big fan of stitching. To me it seems to make the photo more about what was in front of the camera than about the image itself. It also ties one to a digital print, and for color I love the giclee look but I am not a big fan of it in B&W, and I can't afford fiber lambda prints.

I can't see what's easier about stitching though. With a split darkslide there would be no worrying about moving clouds, no long photoshop processing times just a straight scan, etc. A little extra work up front and a few seconds grabbing for the special darkslide... I am stitching my scans from a 4490 (cuz it was cheap) and those take long enough as it is, a lot more of my time than grabbing a different darkslide would and thats a lot smaller file size.

But each to his own...


BTW, does one get a nice looking rebate with a split darkslide? Or does it fog and bleed some?

[Lon Overacker]

You could do that, but if you want to shoot panos it means you're doubling your film and developing costs, and you only get half the number of shots from your holders.....as you say, its good to actually use all the film you're paying for.

That is only true if you don't recenter your lens on your image area. If I'm composing on the bottom half of the ground glass, I raise the camera back by an inch. Problem solved!

Dave - good and valid points.


I can't see what's easier about stitching though.

Thebes, Can't speak for Kirk, but to get a panorama I wouldn't say stitching is the "easiest" method, but I'll still say that it's not hard to do. I would agree with all your points about forcing you in to a digital print, etc.

Here's a different twist which I didn't say anything about. Personally I've only attempted to stitch 4x5's 3 times. Each time it worked out pretty well. I don't think it's something that is going to be a big part of why I do 4x5. I actually started simply to see if I "could" do it and what would be possible. This is a LF forum, so hopefully I'm safe in saying this.... (shhhh, don't tell anyone) but I took it as a challenge to counter act the digital folks trying to obtain the same detail and enlargement capabilities as scanned LF. While there is certainly truths to the claims that digital capture can come close, surpass or however you want to classify it, LF film capabilities. People are making multi-image stitches in digital to approximate the detail that can be captured on a large piece of film. I'd say photogs are doing multi-image stitches quite regularly and the results are amazing. But when you get in to a 48-image digital stitch (let's say 12x4rows) - I'd say the fun and flexibility of shooting digital would seem to me to get annoying - but heck, it can and has been done. We all know about the Gigapixel project.

Anyway, I thought just to stay ahead of the detail race, one could stitch 4x5's...so I wanted to give it a try. wow, with only 3 sheets of film I could get a 30,000px long image scanning only at 2400. But then, reality sets in... 3, 4, maybe 5 images can work, but if you start considering file sizes and processing power required of your consumer PC or Mac, it's not too practical to stitch LF beyond more than a few sheets. But it can be done.

In the end, the "easiest" thing to do is shoot a full frame image and simply crop to your hearts desire. You even have the added benefit of having that full frame original too. And back 15yrs ago when I tried the slotted dark slide for a bit, film and processing wasn't a constraint... ;)

Lon

[al olson]

. . .
BTW, does one get a nice looking rebate with a split darkslide? Or does it fog and bleed some?

This is an image that I made using the half slide. As mentioned before, there is a bit of slop in it so try to seat it as squarely as you can, pushing the dark slide part tightly against the side of the holder. (You will note that in my sample shot I did not have the dark slide seated squarely.)

Usually I do not want a lot of sky in my photo so I insert it with the dark slide half in the bottom of the holder (as inserted into the camera back). This also keeps gravity from pulling the slide down when it is at the top. (In my sample photo the slide was placed in the upper half of the frame for each exposure, hence there was a little slippage from gravity.)

For the next exposure I rotate the back and again insert the half slide so it is in the bottom of the holder. Using this routine I can take two exposures, as the light changes, without repositioning the camera, as you will note in the accompanying image.

Making the half slide is very simple. Most of my film holders are used, from ebay. For those that are in not so good condition so I retain the dark slides for modification.

With the dark slide inserted in the two-sided holder, draw a line on the dark slide along the edge of the holder. Then with a T-square draw a center line the length of the holder. It is a simple matter to cut along these lines with household scissors to create the dark slide.

A cautionary note: Not every dark slide will fit into each and every make and model of holder. So make certain when you go out shooting that the dark half slide will fit into the holders you intend to use.