PDA

View Full Version : Poor Mans 4X10



John Hollenberg
9-Mar-2004, 12:20
I thought others might be want to hear about an interesting approach to LARGE panorama creation I ran across by accident. When I got my 4X5 transparencies back after a recent trip to death valley, I realized that I had panned from one shot to the next and there was a slight overlap (5-10%). Although the light had changed a little in the few minutes that elapsed between shots, I was able to stitch the two photos together using Panotools and PTGUI software and a curves layer to match the luminosity and colors.

To my surprise, even with this tiny bit of overlap the stitching process was nearly perfect. A family member was unable to see the seam even at 100% magnification in photoshop. This was from two 250 MB drum scans. The average distance between matching points of the two scans was only 4 pixels! I thought I could pick out the seam, but when I checked in Photoshop it turns out I had picked an area that was not on the seam. The resulting panorama has an aspect ratio of about 2.5:1. With this amount of information I could print up to 30X75 without loss of quality (but will probably stick with 24X60).

It is a little tricky learning how to use this software combo, but well worth it. PTGUI is a front end (doesn't run on Mac, though) for Panotools that makes panorama creation fairly easy. There is a Panotools group on Yahoo groups and the members are very helpful. Also, you can output each piece to a separate file which can then be put on a separate layer in photoshop, so it is easy to adjust the color matching.

--John

Byron Rakitzis
9-Mar-2004, 12:52
Okay, I was wondering if I could do a REALLY poor man's 4x10 by contact printing two negatives side-by-side. I'd like to make a rubylith mask so that there are black borders around and between the two panels. This would be a diptych, I guess.

I'm wondering about this because I am reluctant to move to a larger format and yet I want to explore contact printing. Rather, I'm tempted to move to a larger format in order to contact print negatives of a reasonable size (at least 5x7) but I want a useful way of exploring contact printing first before I take the plunge. Hence my diptych idea.

Has anyone tried this already? More generally, I'd be interested in feedback on contact printing frames and the use of rubylith for borders. I don't yet own a proper printing frame, and after just one short experiment with rubylith I'm not sure this is the best way to make borders on my prints. But I think this is all going somewhere for me...

Oh yeah, I'd love to see discussion on generating the image, too. Am I right in thinking that it's okay to pan my tripod head as long as I'm focused at infinity? For closeups I imagine you'd need to do it all (if possible) with shifts to avoid any perspective distortions between the two panels.

Byron.

Jeff Corbett
9-Mar-2004, 13:42
For someone who dislikes computers, and enjoys LF for it's independence from the digital/electronic world among other things, I don't see this option as a poor man's 4x10. How much would I have to spend on computer hardware and software to do this method? I'd rather invest in the camera and lenses to actually do 4x10. The price tag may not be much different.

John Kasaian
9-Mar-2004, 14:56
You can find old 8x10s with sliders, allowing you to put two 4x10s on a single sheet of 8x10 film:-)

David A. Goldfarb
9-Mar-2004, 15:46
I use a half darkslide to mask two 4x10"'s on an 8x10" sheet. No computer required.

John Hollenberg
9-Mar-2004, 15:52
Well, since I already have the computer and use digital for printing from color transparencies, the cost to me is:

1) Panotools - free 2) PTGUI - $55

"Poor man" was meant as a cheap alternative for those who already have the other components, not as a way to get into this from scratch. It is simply another option, which for those who already have the hardware and print digitally will require very little additional capital outlay. For those of us shooting 4X5 in color and printing digitally I think it is an interesting alternative. Please don't turn this thread into an argument about traditional or digital processes.

--John

Dennis Mairet
9-Mar-2004, 20:20
I like Byron's idea. Although, I am thinking of printing separately, and mounting the multiple prints behind one mat board with appropriate dividers cut into it.

wfwhitaker
9-Mar-2004, 21:01
Along the lines of Dennis' idea... In a waiting room the other day I was drawn to a photograph on the wall which was a triptych - in this case, three 8x10 black and white prints, not on hinged panels, but mounted and over-matted side-by-side. The images, all taken from the same point, formed essentially an 8x30 -ish panorama. There was no effort made to "stitch" the images together; the over-mat separated the three by a small amount so that it was not one continuous image. From a normal viewing distance, however, there was a continuity to the overall image. I wouldn't have thought of the technique myself, but it was striking.

Mark Sampson
10-Mar-2004, 09:16
If you rubylith two negs together, you'll get white, not black, edges.

Byron Rakitzis
11-Mar-2004, 00:18
My plan is this: cut two 4x5 windows in a 11x14 piece of rubylith for the two negatives. The windows should be large enough to print the whole negative with black borders. I will experiment I suppose (I just ordered a 150" roll of rubylith today!) with the idea of just one 4x10 window for the two negatives, so they are joined with a black border rather than black-white-black.

All this is just a way of getting the photographic paper to simulate a mat anyway. Maybe I need to spend more time cutting mats and less time fussing with rubylith. But there is something attractive to me about having it all laid out on one piece of paper.

Recently I've become extremely accustomed to making black borders with a 4 bladed easel and an oversized glass carrier for 6x6 or 6x9 negatives. Or for that matter with 35mm.

Alan Agardi
11-Mar-2004, 08:01
Dennis and Byron -

Wim van Welzen has been doing just this - using 3 6x6 MF negatives instead of a 6x17. Go to his site at http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl/articles.htm

It's really quite beautiful in some applications, although a regular panorama still has its place.



Ciao.

Alan

George Stewart
12-Mar-2004, 06:20
I've done stiched panoramas before, and they are fun.

The main problem is ensuring that the pivot point is centered on the nodal point of the lens. Not too many view cameras have a mounting point below the lens. If this isn't done, close objects in the scene will not stich together well. If the camera has rear shift, this would be a better option, assuming the lens can cover the new virtual format.

George

Al W
15-Mar-2004, 08:32
I'm not digital yet but have been shooting 5x7, 4x5 and 6x17 360 degree panos with minimal overlap for years. I'm glad to hear that my old shots might stitch. Thanks for the tip on Panotools.

Kerry L. Thalmann
18-Mar-2004, 10:39
If the camera has rear shift, this would be a better option, assuming the lens can cover the new virtual format.

When I contemplated getting back into 4x10, I seriously considered this method. As I already had a 4x5 camera with rear shifts and a number of lenses that cover 4x10. The initial investment would be relatively small (the cost of the stitching SW, and either a new desktop scanner - which I'll probably get anyway - or the price of paying someone else to do the scans). However, I happened to get a great deal on some slightly used 4x10 holders. I then assembled my own hybrid 4x10 camera from bits and pieces I picked up from a number of sources. So, the method of using rear shift and stitching got put on the back burner. George's reply jogged my memory and got me thinking (always dangerous) about this again.

Although I have a 4x10 camera and holders, there are times when I want to go lighter (backpacking). My 4x10 camera and lenses are reasonably light, but the weight and bulk of the holders can add up quickly compared to 4x5 Quickloads or Readyloads. For that reason, I have considered using rear shift to shoot two 4x5 images and stitch them together to produce something close to a 4x10 image (maybe 4x9 with the overlap between the two frames). This would allow me to carry an ultralight camera, like the Toho, leave the 4x10 holders at home and use Quick/Readyloads. This would be the ideal set-up for backpacking. I could also use this same method with my ARCA-SWISS if I'm out in the field and don't have any 4x10 holders with me (or run out of loaded holders and don't have time to reload).

As George mentioned, you need to use lenses capable of covering 4x10, but I have a number of reasonably lightweight lenses with ample coverage. One possible issue I see is asymmetric light fall-off when using wide angle lenses. If this does show up, I assume it can be evened out in SW. Anybody have any experience they can share?

Also, since there should be little distortion using this method (compared to rotating the camera), I would think the amount of overlap between the two frames would be small. Any suggestions on how much overlap would be required to get a good, seamless stitch between the two frames? Another way of saying that is, about how much rear shift should I use to get the widest possible image that will still stitch together seamlessly?

In general, I prefer working with a camera in my intended format. I prefer composing the entire image on the ground glass and exposing it on a single sheet of film. There are certainly advantages to this method. However, for times when it's impractical or impossible, using rear shift and stitching two images together seems to be a viable alternative. As my interest in 4x10 has been rekindled, I'll probably give it a try in the next couple months and see how well it works. In the mean time, if anybody else has tried it, please share what you've learned.

Kerry

Doug Dolde
18-Oct-2005, 21:41
I gave this a shot a couple weeks ago in Colorado. Two sheets of 4x5 film, one with 50mm left shift (back) and one with 50mm right shift then stitched. I had to crop some off each end as this lens didn't have a big enough image circle for that much shift. You can see a slight big of vignetting still in the upper corners.

I think this technique has interesting possiblities for doing panoramics with a 4x5. A better lens that fits my Arca Swiss would probably be a 240mm Symmar. My 180mm Symmar developed a shutter problem on this trip so I couldn't use it.

Arca Swiss Field 4x5, 360mm Tele Xenar, Velvia 100.

Here's the result (http://www.painted-with-light.com/NEW_WORK/18OCT2005_LARGE.jpg)

David Luttmann
18-Oct-2005, 21:55
PT is definitely the way to go for this type of work. I would not bother with the average quality of the stitching tools provided by Photoshop or Canon Utilities Software.....unless your just looking for a quick proof print. Nice work Doug.

Doug Dolde
18-Oct-2005, 22:22
After experimenting with many stitching programs I have found Panavue Image Assembler to be the easiest and most accurate. It now handles 16 bit images up to 100,000 x 100,000 pixels. It's PC only however.

Ken Lee
19-Oct-2005, 11:31
Doug - Your photo is wonderful, and makes me want to be there in Colorado...

...that is, if you like that sort of thing: glistening colored leaves, colossal mountains, deep clouds, awesome lighting effects, etc.

Doug Dolde
19-Oct-2005, 20:32
"Doug - Your photo is wonderful, and makes me want to be there in Colorado... "

Thanks...Yeah I am thinking about moving there. It's so much more photogenic than most of Arizona.

Daniele Minetto
10-Aug-2006, 09:46
I use a half darkslide to mask two 4x10"'s on an 8x10" sheet. No computer required.
Can you explain to me how this darkslide works?
thank you.

Ralph Barker
10-Aug-2006, 11:01
Can you explain to me how this darkslide works?
thank you.

Daniele, the "half" darkslide is a regular 8x10 darkslide that essentially has been cut in half along the length, with enough of a stub at the handle end to keep it square in the holder (or with a 4x10 "window"). After removing the regular slide, the half-slide is inserted to expose either the top or bottom half of the film, and then reversed to expose the other half with another image.

David A. Goldfarb
10-Aug-2006, 11:37
Here's what the half-darkslide looks like--

http://www.benderphoto.com/4x10pa.htm

You can purchase one from Bender, but it's not hard to cut one yourself from an old darkslide, as I did.

Scott Davis
10-Aug-2006, 13:05
I've done triptychs with 4x5, and diptychs with 8x10, to make panoramic-type images. I got lucky when shooting that panning worked out just fine, and was very careful in lining up my frames. I shot it with a 150mm lens, so it kept a very natual, neutral perspective on the scene, which helped. Here is an example. This was done in Palladium on Bergger COT320, in an 11x14 contact frame, with some very careful aligning of the negatives.

Daniele Minetto
11-Aug-2006, 09:47
Here's what the half-darkslide looks like--

http://www.benderphoto.com/4x10pa.htm

You can purchase one from Bender, but it's not hard to cut one yourself from an old darkslide, as I did.
Can you draw me a sketch of the exact size of the cut ?
Thank you very much in advance.

David A. Goldfarb
11-Aug-2006, 10:17
I'm away from home, so I don't have my half darkslide handy, but it's not hard to figure out.

Put a darkslide in the filmholder and use a pencil to draw the outline of the film frame. This will show the margin you need at the handle end of the darkslide. Remove the darkslide and draw a line that divides the darkslide in half the long way with about 3 mm or so of overlap, so you will have some space between the two images.

Cut out the rectangle on the thinner half leaving the margin at the handle end that you've marked, clean up the edges with some fine sandpaper, and you're done.

Daniele Minetto
12-Aug-2006, 00:26
I'm away from home, so I don't have my half darkslide handy, but it's not hard to figure out.

Put a darkslide in the filmholder and use a pencil to draw the outline of the film frame. This will show the margin you need at the handle end of the darkslide. Remove the darkslide and draw a line that divides the darkslide in half the long way with about 3 mm or so of overlap, so you will have some space between the two images.

Cut out the rectangle on the thinner half leaving the margin at the handle end that you've marked, clean up the edges with some fine sandpaper, and you're done.
Wow! Thanks!