Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 45

Thread: please explain panoramic formats

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Boston, MA, USA
    Posts
    1,512

    please explain panoramic formats

    I went to school with a guy who shot stuff with a panoramic camera (small format), and what he did was interesting at times because the content and concept were interesting, but i just did not understand why everything was panoramic. In his case, he was not cropping something, but actually shooting a panoramic negative with a very rectangular aspect ratio.

    Now, i simply do not understand why someone would bother setting up a large format camera, like an 8X10, only to shoot half the negative? Why not shoot the entire frame and cut the negative later if for some reason you want less on top and/or bottom?

    Sure, i understand a 4x10 camera can be marginally lighter then 8X10, and same goes for the holders, and possibly the film is cheaper (but you really only get half of it...) - so why would someone invest in such a limiting and dedicated type of camera?

    Is it something historical i am missing? Perhaps its a cultural thing?

  2. #2
    Jac@stafford.net's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Winona, Minnesota
    Posts
    5,413

    Re: please explain panoramic formats

    Panoramic is usually defined as a ratio of 1:3. It is a historical and aesthetic (subjective) thing. However it is made, by cropping is okay. Swing lenses are another story.
    .

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,908

    Re: please explain panoramic formats

    Quote Originally Posted by koh303 View Post
    I went to school with a guy who shot stuff with a panoramic camera (small format), and what he did was interesting at times because the content and concept were interesting, but i just did not understand why everything was panoramic. In his case, he was not cropping something, but actually shooting a panoramic negative with a very rectangular aspect ratio.

    Now, i simply do not understand why someone would bother setting up a large format camera, like an 8X10, only to shoot half the negative? Why not shoot the entire frame and cut the negative later if for some reason you want less on top and/or bottom?

    Sure, i understand a 4x10 camera can be marginally lighter then 8X10, and same goes for the holders, and possibly the film is cheaper (but you really only get half of it...) - so why would someone invest in such a limiting and dedicated type of camera?

    Is it something historical i am missing? Perhaps its a cultural thing?
    I own and use three different panoramic cameras - 6x17 cm, 4x10" and 7x17" in addition to my 8x10", 5x7" and 4x5".
    There is all the difference in the world in using a 4x10 and half of an 8x10. I tried it and the satisfaction is just not there. My favorite is the 7x17.There is nothing greater for me than looking at that magnificent scene on the ground glass.
    If you haven't tried it, don't knock it.

  4. #4
    jp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    5,628

    Re: please explain panoramic formats

    It's sort of analogous to why do I shoot square format when I could shoot 24x36mm and crop it square later. I think the basic idea is "this is what I've got, let's see what I can do with it."

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,490

    Re: please explain panoramic formats

    1. Framing. Shooting a scene in a panoramic format from the start can be [should be] a different experience from shooting in full frame and then cropping it.
    2. Film availability. I have a 5x7 and love the format, but at present, B&H only has 3 types of 5x7 in stock, none of them color. Color 5x7 is quite the rare bird to find. In contrast, B&H currently has 61 types of 120 roll film in stock for my 6x17 roll film back, 17 color negative and 11 color transparency. A roll of Ektar 120 is $5.00, from which I get 4 shots.

    To each his own.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    San Joaquin Valley, California
    Posts
    9,599

    Re: please explain panoramic formats

    Quote Originally Posted by koh303 View Post
    I went to school with a guy who shot stuff with a panoramic camera (small format), and what he did was interesting at times because the content and concept were interesting, but i just did not understand why everything was panoramic. In his case, he was not cropping something, but actually shooting a panoramic negative with a very rectangular aspect ratio.

    Now, i simply do not understand why someone would bother setting up a large format camera, like an 8X10, only to shoot half the negative? Why not shoot the entire frame and cut the negative later if for some reason you want less on top and/or bottom?

    Sure, i understand a 4x10 camera can be marginally lighter then 8X10, and same goes for the holders, and possibly the film is cheaper (but you really only get half of it...) - so why would someone invest in such a limiting and dedicated type of camera?

    Is it something historical i am missing? Perhaps its a cultural thing?
    Two panoramic shots on one sheet of film is really cheaper. Both my 8x10 and 5x7 have sliders so I don't have to sacrifice a dark slide.
    FWIW I enjoy looking at panoramic photographs, but I seldom take them.
    What I find is an asset is that you can capture the interesting part while leaving out the extraneous territory. One famous early panorama was a photograph of a locomotive and it's train done for a railroad----a subject much longer than it was taller. To print all the sky and foreground while including the entire train would make for a very dull photograph, IMHO
    Some of you might remember the exhibit at Disneyland where a 360 degree camera was hung from the bomb bay of a B-25 and flown over the Grand Canyon---marvelous! They had handrails for people to hang on to because viewers could fall over when the aircraft banked even though the floor of the theater didn't...couldn't move.
    "I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Boston, MA, USA
    Posts
    1,512

    Re: please explain panoramic formats

    Quote Originally Posted by John Kasaian View Post
    Two panoramic shots on one sheet of film is really cheaper. Both my 8x10 and 5x7 have sliders so I don't have to sacrifice a dark slide.
    I sometimes shoot two plates of film by sliding the back and then stitch them up to make a "panoramic" frame, but would only do so if both (or at least one) of the frames has purpose and reason to exist on its own, and only when i think it will work in making a larger image that is more interesting then just a wider angle of view.

    I mean - why not just mask the GG, or get a reducing back if you must? Its harder to shoot 8X10 on a 4X10 camera then it is the other way around.

    As for film availability, in this case i understand the merits of roll vs sheet film, but i guess i am asking about the larger idea of why make a panoramic image.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    5,308

    Re: please explain panoramic formats

    Quote Originally Posted by koh303 View Post
    I sometimes shoot two plates of film by sliding the back and then stitch them up to make a "panoramic" frame, but would only do so if both (or at least one) of the frames has purpose and reason to exist on its own, and only when i think it will work in making a larger image that is more interesting then just a wider angle of view.

    I mean - why not just mask the GG, or get a reducing back if you must? Its harder to shoot 8X10 on a 4X10 camera then it is the other way around.

    As for film availability, in this case i understand the merits of roll vs sheet film, but i guess i am asking about the larger idea of why make a panoramic image.
    A single sheet of 8x10 Velvia50 is $16 (not including processing) so that's $16/shot. (And it's about to be $19.20/sheet).

    When the only important part of the image is the 4" in the frame height, why would one waste half of the piece of film. When you can use a half slide and and get two 4x10 images for $16 total.

    That's $8/color image instead of $16.

    You're saving DOUBLE, it's not just a slight increase its double.

    Even HP5+ is $107 for an 8x10 box but $65 for a 4x10 box, which is $130 for the equivalent amount of shots (50) as a single box of 8x10 and a half slide.

    $17 is still a savings and if you shoot a LOT it makes sense.

    Some cameras like the Chamonix have a decent rise and fall, so shooting 4x10 with a half slide isn't too hard.

    I still do agree that 4x10 holders and a back are easier, but not everyone can easily and safely cut down Velvia50 into separate sheets without scratches, dust, cutting errors, etc.

    So sometimes a half slide makes more sense.

    Hope that helps.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo.
    Posts
    3,064

    Re: please explain panoramic formats

    Quote Originally Posted by koh303 View Post

    Now, i simply do not understand why someone would bother setting up a large format camera, like an 8X10, only to shoot half the negative? Why not shoot the entire frame and cut the negative later if for some reason you want less on top and/or bottom?

    Sure, i understand a 4x10 camera can be marginally lighter then 8X10, and same goes for the holders, and possibly the film is cheaper (but you really only get half of it...) - so why would someone invest in such a limiting and dedicated type of camera?
    I used to print 8x10's from 35mm. I always felt 35mm was too long because I always had to crop the long end or ends off. With a splitter or a 4x10 you see on the ground glass the right perspective. I find it best to frame my subject in camera instead of cropping later when printing.

    I don't shoot panorama's but that's the way I would look at it plus as mentioned earlier you get two images from a piece of 8x10 film.

  10. #10
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Humboldt County, CA
    Posts
    9,211

    Re: please explain panoramic formats

    I occasionally use my 8x10 as a 4x10 camera. I took a metal 8x10 dark slide and cut it down to get two 4x10s on a sheet of 8x10 film. For just the weight of a partial 8x10 darkslide, I have two LF cameras with me at all times. No saying, "Dang, I wish I had my 4x10 camera instead of the 8x10 with me!"

    I contact print using alt processes, and usually include the film rebate as part of the image. The modified darkslide allows me to do so...where just trimming an 8x10 negative would not allow me to do that.

    And getting two 4x10s on an 8x10 sheet of film cuts my developing efforts in half.

    A platinum print and a carbon print:
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Last Valley Light, Yosemite Falls.jpg   BranchesTrinidadSP.jpg  
    "Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China

Similar Threads

  1. How popular are the ULF panoramic formats
    By Craig Griffiths in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 31-Oct-2010, 06:36
  2. Someone please explain this...
    By Joshua Dunn in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 10-Mar-2010, 07:17
  3. Large Panoramic Formats
    By Chris Partti in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13-Dec-1999, 13:31

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •