a very large project

[Amanda Glynn]

The project: to photograph a lake/ranch in New Zealand over the summer. The ultimate idea is to cover a 12 X 45ft wall with print(s) creating one large picture of the lake. Money not being an issue, I am asking anyone's advice regarding camera, processing, etc. Thanks for all who respond. You can also email me personally, amandaglynn@comcast.com. Again, thanks for your help.

Amanda

[John Kasaian]

Amanda,

A 12'x45' mural? FWIW, I'd start by going to galleries and museums that are displaying photographic work the size you're contemplating. The overall effect of prints that size would probably require some rethinking of your own personal style. I don't know if you're into razor sharpness or pictorial fuzzy-ness or somewhere in between but I think an image of that size, no matter what style, would look very different and feel very different from your normal preference for a 16x20 or even a 20x24 print. The distance from where this huge print will be viewed is also important to consider. Take a look at a billboard: close up they look very different than when viewed from the road. Visit a Williams-Sonoma or Eddie Bauer and look at their displays, which I think are shot with 4x5 cameras and digi backs. Often times government buildings, airports, train stations, special interest museums and corporate headquarters will display huge murals too. You might find a different style or look (I'm referring to contrast, sharpness, saturation, etc...)that will better compliment the size of the finished work, then you can work "backwards" from there. My 2 cents.-----Good Luck and congrats on that commission!

[Paul Kierstead]

Well, this is not a large format answer, but you could have a look at:

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm

This would be one possible solution to capturing the image.

[Amanda Glynn]

i'd rather stay away from digital--but i'll definately end up dividing the wall into multiple images and "stitching" them together. how large can you go, yet retain sharpness, with a large format?

[CP Goerz]

You may want to read Ansel Adams's thoughts on printing large in 'The Print', it may help you decide how to approach your subject.

CP Goerz.

[Daniel Blakeslee]

Are you doing this project in b&w or color?

[jantman]

You said that money isn't an issue. Well, I could then provide you with a fre suggestions.

First, this would be an utterly HUGE print. The diagonal would be 47 feet if it was done as one print. If you're talking about 'stitching' them together, how many prints would you do? I'm not sure if they offer any LF panoramic heads, but that could get complicated.

Ok, now to the point. I usually consider an enlargement of between 6x to 12x the 'standard' that I find to be acceptable. Once you are going up towards 20x it gets a bit grainy. Then again, I've done some 65x enlargements from 2 1/4" without a LOT of grain problems.

Let's assume you do three prints - each 12x15'. That would take three widths of 50" rollpaper to get the 12' width, and each would be a 15' long segment. Process them in an automated machine like a Kreonite. The only problem with this is that you need to find a darkroom which has the capability of doing 12x15' prints.

As for camera, you want the largest format possible. An 8x10" film would give you about 1:20, or a 20x enlargement. If you shoot with the finest grain film you can find (think TMX, Pan F+, Tehc Pan, maybe some ortho copy films), it might not be THAT bad. Jump up to an 11x14 neg, that's only 14x. But you need a horizontal 11x14 mural enlarger, like a durst.

(I'm not sure if there are even many or any commercial labs that would do this).

If you really care about quality, here's the way to go: Collaborate with a camera designer, or do it yourself and have a metalworker help. Get an old process camera bellows, about 25"x25"x6'. Build a horizontal 20x24" enlarger. Get a light grid from Aristo, or build a head yourself - the idea of an LED head looks good). Shoot the project on 20x24" film. You get a 7x enlargement, which I consider near optimal.

[Jim Galli]

Hi Amanda. Color? B&W? I think I understand that you will be making a patchwork of several smaller prints to make the whole. If you use a high quality 210mm and Fujichrome Velvia you will have grainless positives for drum scans and you can output to a Light Jet 5000 print with amazing quality. I've seen things get to 40 X 50 inches from an extremely good 4X5 original and still be tack sharp. I recommend the 210 or longer because you won't have any barrel distortion along the edges that will be meeting each other. Don't forget also that a normal viewing distance for an image even 40X50 adds to the over-all feeling of crispness. 40 X 50's 3 tall X 10 long of a single whole would have a huge impact. Something I'd love to see.

[Jay DeFehr]

You could shoot with a Cirkut camera to get a negative of the same aspect ratio as your final print, and then have it scanned in a drumscanner and printed digitally in large strips. I'd look into billboard printing techniques.

[Amanda Glynn]

We'll most likely end up doing black and white.

[John Kasaian]

Ahhh! B+W!:-) The Cirkuit camera would be my weapon of choice(if I knew how to use one!) I read an article in View Camera awhile back about someone who was using an 8x20 Korona for contacts and got so many requests for enlargements he ended up building a special back to convert his camera into an enlarger. Build a back, rent an aircraft hanger, make some giant trays out of 2x6s and plastic sheeting, invite some friends and have fun! Another camera that might be interesting is the K-19 aerial camera, which is 9x18, no moves though, but you can get your film processed for you t labs that process aerial film and with a 200' roll of the stuff you'll be able to take lots of "back up" shots.

[jnantz]

hi amanda:

last time i asked i found out you can rent a billboard around here ( rhode island ) for a 3-4 thousand dollars a month - this includes rental of the board, as well as making the "art". they don't use any monster cameras for billboards, you could probably use just a 4x5 ... if money isn't a problem, you might ask some of the outdoor ad people if they can turn some of your work into a billboard display. it might be kind of fun, and it would be a "dry-run" since your final image could probably be printed on the same sort of fabric billboards are printed on.

good luck & keep us posted :)

[John Kasaian]

Amanda,

By all means contact Clayton Tume, www.bigshots.co.nz/ I believe he's in Wellington NZ and is an authority on, well, Big Shots! It would be a good idea to check out his website in any case, but he might be able to connect you with sources for suitable cameras, film etc...as well.

[Bruce Watson]

It seems doable, if a huge task.

The 12x45 feet objective gives you an aspect ratio of 1:3.75

With 20" long film, you'd need 5.33x20 for the same aspect ratio.

Sounds like the "best" fit might be an 8x20 camera, masking off the ground glass so you can compose a 5.33x20 image.

You can drum scan this in "slices." It'll take a big scanner - something like a Hell 3900 maybe. The file sizes would be way big, which is why you'd want to do it in slices that correspond to the size of the paper you can print on.

Print the slices on something big like a "Grand format" ink jet printer like a big honking Roland (on canvas) or a wide format lightjet printer (B&W RC papers). I think you can do 60" wide on either. Maybe larger?

Think about how you are going to get the print to the installation site. This alone will probably limit you to slices in the range of 6x12 feet at the largest. To go bigger than 12 feet implies that you are in for really expensive shipping, or you are going to roll it up and carry it with you and mount it in place. Determing this will help you decide how to print it.

If you go with inkjet on canvas, you can mount the slices on traditional stretcher bars. You can do this with very long pieces. Do spray the finished print with a protective coating like Liquitex Acrylic Varnish because people are going to want to touch this monster it they can get near it, and you want it to be cleanable.

If you go with an RC paper, consider getting it mounted on aluminum plate. This will limit you to probably 4x8 feet, maybe 6x12 if you can find a) find the plate, and b) find someone with the expertise to mount to that size plate.

Either technique you can mount on the wall and make it nearly seamless.

I advise doing all your research up front, so that you go into this project knowing exactly how you are going to execute it. That way, you can concentrate on the art, because the rest of the process has already been decided.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi Amanda

It all depends on the quality wich you want to get! If you want very good quality then take a 8x10 camera take the pictures in portrait vertical modus put 4 pictures in row wich you can stich together! If the quality is not so important the same can also be done in 4x5! Ask a specialist for large displays they know what they need! Gigabit film can also help if you like to do it in 4x5 inch! Good light!

[chris jordan]

I think Jim Galli is on the right track. Get about ten boxes of 4x5 film, and go out and scope the exact spot you want to shoot from, and make an imaginary grid in your mind of that whole area. Then, with a lens something like 360mm, shoot a photograph of each part of the grid. You'll end up with something like 25 shots, which, when laid on top of each other and lined up, will produce a huge panoramic image. Then, go to your local lab and have them make a 40x50" print of each image. Line up all the huge prints on your giant wall, and there you'll have it.

good luck!!

[Frank Petronio]

How do you get a job like this if you don't know how to do it?

[Bruce Watson]

First thing is, you don't tell the client that you don't know how to do it ;-)

[John D Gerndt]

Amanda,

There are companies that specialize in this sort of thing, the mural I mean. You’ll have to do some phone calling but when you find a company that can do the output, you can ask them what kind of image requirements they have.

I imagine you will end up doing a careful series of images in a panning view. A series of 4x5 verticals might do. 8x10 would be a whole lot better. The company is most likely going to do some digital magic to them anyway. I do NOT recommend you try this big a job on your own. Stay a photographer and don’t try to become a production company. Congratulations on the commission.

Cheers,

[Amanda Glynn]

The client is someone I met through a friend, and she knows I'm not sure how we're doing it yet. She had a wallpaper person do it, and all they did was take a digital picture of the lake, and blow it up. It came out very pixellated and she absolutely hates it. I had shown her some work I had done previously and she loved it so she has asked me to do the project--well-aware that I've done nothing like it before :) I'm really excited to even attempt something of this magnitude, and again, thank you for all of your input. I'm ordering some books on large format and whatnot, and will make the calls to see about labs in the area, although they were planning on making a lab for me to process the portraiture work that I will also be doing for them ( but I realize the wall project is way too large to do by myself). Thanks again!

Amanda

[Bruce Watson]

Good on ya, Amanda. It does sound like a great challenge, and great fun. Enjoy it.

When you get this done, how about start a new thread and tell us about it? And do tell us how to see it - even if only from a web site.

[Evan Ayers]

Dear Amanda,

I have made a few "stiched" images from multiple large format negs. The advice from others on this thread is absolutely correct. If I may add a few tips that have not yet been mentioned.

>> i'd rather stay away from digital--but i'll definately end up dividing the wall into multiple images and "stitching" them together. how large can you go, yet retain sharpness, with a large format?

Very Large :-) I use TMax 100 8x10, and Bergger "18" 16x20 and get wonderful detail. The trick, of course, is just how sharp is "sharp enough" for _your needs_ :-) Here's the way I do it.

I go on location and test shoot the scene using TMax100 in 35mm. I mark the location from which I want the final shots to be taken from, let's call this the "eyepoint".

Carefuly looking at the scene I find the smallest detail that I want to come out sharp in the final image. I move my 35mm camera to a position 1/10 the distance to that detail from the "eyepoint" and take a test shot of the detail. Then I move the 35mm again to a position 1/20 the distance and take another test shot.

I then develop, scan and blow up those test shots. The initial pics from "eyepoint" give me a rough idea of the perspective, and of the total number of large format negs I'm going to need. The 1/10 shots show me the approximate sharpness I will get if I take the final shots with an 8x10. The 1/20 shots for a 20x24.

If the 1/20 shots are not sharp enough, then I'm out of luck because that's the biggest camera I have :-) It's time to move the "eyepoint" closer :-)

The next set of decisions are based on the perspective and "stiching" needs. When taking multiple images the tendency is to park the camera on a tripod and rotate the tripod head from side to side, taking images at every "X" degrees. The problem with this approach is that the detail at the outermost edges of the frames is very small, so when you stich the images this detail requires the most enlargement and will be the least sharp. You either get a "fisheye" effect at the edges of the "stiched" frame, or you get a slight "vigneting" of sharpness.

You can compensate for this perspective induced problem by using the movements of a view camera. i.e. "enlarging" the outermost edges of each image by fiddling with the swing of the back board. The catch to this is that getting the image edges of two adjacent negatives to align perfectly when using this technique is mighty close to imposible. The resolution of the ground glass is simply not up to the accuracy that is needed. I've done the math, and the accuracy of the various markings on the knobs of a view camera are not equal to the task either. A high-end Sinar comes pretty close.

That's for _three_ images. One in the center and two to either side. If you need more than three there's the additional challenge that you have to match _two_ edges on two of the images.

There's a much easier solution :-) Move the camera.

I mark off a line on the ground parallel to the scene I am photographing. As long a line as the geography of the location allows. I then move the camera for each image, keeping the film plane as close to parallel to the image plane as possible. This greatly reduces the need for micron precision alignment of the camera movements. Naturally, if you can move the camera the complete length of the image plane you would need no movements at all :-)

Nevetheless, even with the above "cheating" and the use of fine Sinar's and plenty of careful calculations I have yet to create a _perfect_ set of negatives where the "stich edges" were sufficiently aligned to make a good "giant" image. The problem is that as you take an image and "expand" one edge to align with another image, the opposite edge "shrinks". In order to make _perfect_ negs that would all stich together you need to either use a zoom lens (with a vernier zoom dial :-), or move the camera along the camera axis to compensate for the "shrinking" distal edge, or modify a camera back to swing on the outer edges of the negative instead of in the middle.

I don't have such a lens (maybe I'll make one :-), I haven't yet had a commision where this solution was workable given the geometry of the location, and my "edge swing" camera is still in pieces in my garage :-)

What I do is cheat again. I take my multiple negs with as much compensation as I can with back movements. Then I scan said negs and stich them digitally :-) The digital file is then printed on a large carriage printer or LightJet. I get the wonderful detail of the large format negs, with the ease of digital.

As an example of the above, see my website image http://www.platinumlegacy.com/AboutPrime.html?tp=1&id=1

I have added an additional image in a hidden directory on the website which you can see here

http://www.platinumlegacy.com/Images/Stiching/LampCloseup.tif

This image is an un-retouched close-up of the building taken from the original tango scan of a TMax100 8x10 at 300dpi. In the full building picture, note the lampost on the front porch. The lamp atop the lampost is reflected in the glass of the front door. In the close up image you can see the reflection of the lamp, as well as the fluting of the column.

I'm not very good at explaining things in text over the web. I'm a visual kind of guy :-) So if I completely muddled it all up feel to write me at

Evan@PlatinumLegacy.com

Evan :-)

[Øyvind Dahle]

If you are in a hurry, do it digitally whit a Canon 1Ds and stich, else, do it the way explained above

Øyvind:D

[tor kviljo]

Biggest thing I have been into is a 10 by 15 feet color print which were produced as a curved landscape-picture for a montage of mounted reindeer. The customer (taxidermist) being tired of undetailed photos - (probably of 35mm or MF originals used for backdrops) which he had been forced to use before, were hapy when I showed him 8"x10" fuji trannis (taking with a Sinar P/P2 & Nikkor W 360mm). One of the pictures were selected, drum scannet to a file of about 1 GB and output in strips by a printer doing five feet wide at max. (don't know the brand of the printer). Customer were very satisfied, and we have later worked out several other background - photos, also using 4"x5" trannies taken with camera rotated around nodal point, and put together as panorama pictures in mac (didn't find a pano-tool working with mac, but manual fitting were very successful once pictures were produced correctly). Biggest problem is maybe finding a mac operator dealing with the 2 GB files..