Panroamic camera question

[Joseph O'Neil]

Hi everyone;
We are trying to do a bit of historical research here in town on an old photograph - will try and get a copy of the photo up latger, but right now, all I have is an 80GB scan.

From the time period in question, it might of been taken using an old Panoram Kodak Camera. But those cameras go back only to 1899, and in this panorama, which is very wide ( the only way I coould duplicate it tonight from the same position on my digital SLR was to use an 8mm fisheye - so a good 180 degrees), the centre of the photo is distorted a bit - too large.

Photos taken using a Panoram Kodak Camera are usually flat across the feild, why their images look so nice. But this one has distortion in the middle, almost like a wide angle lens, or possibly how swing lens camera could come across on a flat plate.

Like I said, when I finish that 80 meg download, I'll get a smaller version up here for people to look at, but any suggestions greatly welcomed

joe

[JW Dewdney]

what sort of suggestion are you looking for?

sounds to me like the image might have been 'stitched' but in the 'old school' fashion...

[Leonard Robertson]

Try a search on Google Images for "Cirkut camera". There are examples of Cirkut photos you can compare to the one you have. The old panoramic photos that are really wide relative to the height are usually done with Cirkuts. They can actually shoot a 360 degree view - or even more if the Cirkut goes around more than once. I'd love to see you post a copy of your photo. What are the measurements of the photo?

Len

[Vaughn]

If the subject is relatively close to the camera, then the center of the image will look size-distorted; the center part is just so much closer to the lens (and thus larger on the negative) than the subject at the far ends. Difficult if not impossible to correct for that with mechanisms such as swing lenses, circuit cameras, etc.

If one is photographing a long line of people, then one could have the line of people curved around the camera to eliminate the size-distortion.

[Joseph O'Neil]

Hi everyone;
Here is the photograph sized down. I have also attached a snap I did yesterday with my D7000 and one of those 8mm fisheyes. Problem is, a major street and bridge now exists over much of hte old area, so you cannot duplicate teh shot very well, as i think the orignal hill the old photo was taken from was changed to build the bridge and road.

Upon seeing the original 80 meg version, which i did not have before, I found the scan was done in two parts and stitched together.
From what we know historically, this photograph could not have been taken after roughly 1883, because it is missing a large building that still stands tofay and was errected at the water's edge in 1883.
So any more detective work on what kind of camera pre 1883 would be a great help

One last thing - what this is all about si we are saving the old Fugitive Slave chapel built in 1848 (it is to be moved to a new location) that was the original centre in this area for refugee slaves escaping to Canada via the Underground Railroad.
joe

[BetterSense]

Definitely looks like a Cirkut. We have a handful of color landscapes in the office that must have been taken with a Cirkut-type camera, so I know the look.

[Joseph O'Neil]

Hi;
One more bit of information - the print is albumen. The distortion in the middle is where it was ripped in two then later taped together from beind - and poorly at that. I looked up Cirkut cameras, and yes, sure looks like it, but those cameras came out around 1904, and this print is between 1848 and 1883.

Still hunting...

joe

[Leonard Robertson]

You might find something here on A Timeline of Panoramic Cameras:

http://www.panoramicphoto.com/timeline.htm

Len

[Vaughn]

Hi;
One more bit of information - the print is albumen. The distortion in the middle is where it was ripped in two then later taped together from beind - and poorly at that...

Actually ripped? Or two prints joined together? Looks like it might be that one negative was exposed, then the camera panned over for the second negative. A possibility: The edges of each image would be slightly distorted by the lens. When the two images are put together, we would end up with two slightly distorted edges in the middle of the panoramic image.

[Joseph O'Neil]

Hi;
I have a bit more info - the photograph was ripped and taped together, but the scan was inn two parts and put together, thus the confusion.

We have no dated the photograph to be between the years 1880 and 1883 due to either buildings that exist or do not yet exist.

Due to reasons a little to complex to get into here, we are pretty certain it was taken by an out of town photographer, not a local one.

Some people have suggested it was the work of John Connon, a famous Canadian photographer and inventor who patented his own version of a panoramic camera but not until around 1887. however both John and his father Thomas were both photographers and inventors, and in 1881, Thomas invented a process of placing a film emulsion on a roll of ribbon instead of using glass plates - three years before George Eastman patented his roll film, but Connon's process ws apparently not as stable and.or practical as Eastman.s - depending on whom you talk too. Point is, the Connon Jr did travel a lot (apparently his work in New York city is somewhat famous - at least back here in Canada) and we know he was tinkering around before he came up with his patent around 1887.

so we are still hunting and looking, still open to suggestions
thanks
joe