Definition of "panoramic"?

[Mike Anderson]

Is there a common definition of "panoramic" in the photography world (e.g. greater than 2x1 aspect ratio)?

Would 2x1 considered "panoramic"?

...Mike

[Gem Singer]

6x7= normal
6x12= wide
6x17= panoramic

[Vaughn]

Is there a common definition of "panoramic" in the photography world...
...Mike

No.

Some people even throw in the angle of view into the definition. So no real consensus on the matter as far as I can tell.

I use the 4"x10" format with focal lengths of 159mm, 210mm, 300mm and 19" and consider the images to be panoramic.

Then also there is the consideration of stitched images (or other ways to combine individual images) taken with a non-panoramic camera, but the final image being a panoramic image.

And also the concept of the panoramic image as a vertical.

Vaughn

[Bruce Watson]

Is there a common definition of "panoramic" in the photography world (e.g. greater than 2x1 aspect ratio)?

Would 2x1 considered "panoramic"?

Getting consensus on things like this is, um.... problematic. Everyone has an opinion however. :D

My personal opinion is that panoramic starts at sqrt(5), so anything with an aspect ratio equal to or greater than 1:2.24 is panoramic. So by my definition, 1:2 is merely "wide".

The use of the sqrt(5) goes back millennia, and spans many (most?) cultures. It's strongly related to the golden ratio, which is (1 + sqrt(5))/2, or 1:1.618.

I'm just sayin' that there's some logic to my opinion.

[Mike Anderson]

Thanks for the response everyone. It seems there is some consensus that a 2:1 print is not panoramic.

...Mike

[dave_whatever]

I wouldn't be so sure about that "consensus". I'm sure there are plenty of folks who would say 6x12 is a panoramic format. Myself included.

[rdenney]

Thanks for the response everyone. It seems there is some consensus that a 2:1 print is not panoramic.

It's just a word. I can't think of any consequences one way or the other of using the word "panoramic" to describe 6x12.

I have used that term to define formats that were wider than the "normal" formats, and the normal formats are 24x36, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14 and so on. Obviously, there are a zillion formats that have been added to these, but these were the conventional sizes following the days of whole plate and before the days of specialty sizes.

As an example of why these are conventional, consider, for example, Schneider's website, where they show the normal format supported by each of their lenses. The formats they list are from the above list (or their metric equivalents).

My thinking is anything that is wider in aspect than one of the standard sheet-film formats and that uses more width than 9cm on 120 film and 36mm on 35mm film can be considered panoramic.

Sinar certainly used the term "panoramic" to describe their 6x12 roll-film holder. And 35mm film adapters for 6x6 cameras, which yield 24x56 images, are also called panoramic. (Yes, I realize 24x56 is a hair wider than 2:1. 6x12 is 56x120 with some holders, and that's a hair wider than 2:1, too.)

Rick "who can't see why it matters" Denney

[Mike Anderson]

Thanks for the response everyone. It seems there is some consensus that a 2:1 print is not panoramic.


I wouldn't be so sure about that "consensus". I'm sure there are plenty of folks who would say 6x12 is a panoramic format. Myself included.


It's just a word. I can't think of any consequences one way or the other of using the word "panoramic" to describe 6x12....

I hereby pronounce the consensus invalid.:)

...Mike

[Lachlan 717]

Mike,

Perhaps you could let the Forum in on what ratio you consider to be Panoramic?

(I'm going with 1:2.5, but understand/appreciate the 6x12 Camp's argument!)

[Mike Anderson]

Mike,

Perhaps you could let the Forum in on what ratio you consider to be Panoramic?

(I'm going with 1:2.5, but understand/appreciate the 6x12 Camp's argument!)

I have no idea. I was just wondering if there was a generally accepted definition of "panoramic" (as applied to a print) and if so what it was. (I see a new consensus forming that anything less than 2:1 aspect ratio is not a panorama.)

...Mike

[keith schreiber]

(I'm going with 1:2.5, but understand/appreciate the 6x12 Camp's argument!)

Hey Lachlan,

Do you realize that by that by that definition 7x17 doesn't qualify as panoramic? :eek:

~ Keith

[Lachlan 717]

Hey Lachlan,

Do you realize that by that by that definition 7x17 doesn't qualify as panoramic? :eek:

~ Keith

The Moderators wouldn't let me have the User Name of Lachlan 6.817…..