please explain panoramic formats

[John Kasaian]

... but i guess i am asking about the larger idea of why make a panoramic image.

Because the photographer wants to. Probably the same sort of reason why a photographer would choose film over digital, or sheet film over 35mm, or a dark room over a scanner.
Or for that matter, a red head over a blonde.

[Deval]

Well from a human vision standpoint, the human field of vision is much wider horizontal than vertical which can explain the appeal of pano in some sense. Of interesting note the combined central visual field where most visual attention is payed can be more approximated to a rectangle... That's why different flavors for different folks

[Paul Metcalf]

Vaughn - those are really great images, well executed and printed. Question on your modified dark slide: to get a "rebate" between the two 4x10 images did you cut the dark slide a little taller than 4" in height? (Would it be possible to post a pic of your modified dark slide?)

[Vaughn]

Vaughn - those are really great images, well executed and printed. Question on your modified dark slide: to get a "rebate" between the two 4x10 images did you cut the dark slide a little taller than 4" in height? (Would it be possible to post a pic of your modified dark slide?)

Thanks. Here is a drawing of it. I have made several of them. After breaking one made out of a stiff plastic darkslide, I made one from a metal darkslide. It gets tossed in with the film holders, and if it gets a little bent, I can straighten it out.

I also included another platinum image of the upper Yosemite Valley, taken looking towards the sun. If you look at the lower right corner, you will see the typical rebate corner -- do not know what else to call it. On the previous post's image (Last Valley Light, Yosemite Valley), it also had the same rebate corner, but I scrapped off the emulsion to hide it, as it was distracting.

Edited to add two verticals (Bridalvail Falls, YNP...and Girders, Golden Gate Bridge -- both carbon prints). Most 4x10 cameras are not set up to do verticals -- this is one of the big advantages of using an 8x10 camera with a modified darkslide or splitters.

I am also thinking about modifying a darkslide to make 8x8 images on 8x10...also doing the same for the 11x14 (5.5x14 and 11x11 images)

[A_Tabor]

If the image you want to capture is far wider than tall, or more rarely far taller than wide, then why not use an ultra wide film format to capture it on? It isn't like film is free. It isn't the most expensive thing in the world, but it is expensive enough that I'm not a huge fan of the idea of wasting more than you have to to get the job done, so if a 4x10 frame works for what you need to capture, then why not plan to record on a 4x10 format to begin with?

What is the point of an 8x10 format? Why not 10x10? or 9x12? You use the format that presents the image in a way that you want it to be displayed and what works for the content. This is something that attracts me to hand coated plates, as I can easily cut and configure for non-standard image formats as I wish.

[Alan Gales]

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:

Nice images, Vaughn!

I have a very good friend who produces really nice panorama's using a Hasselblad Xpan. I really like panorama's but I just don't see that way. The 8x10 perspective or square are much easier to compose for me.

[Paul Metcalf]

Thanks Vaughn. I love that bridge detail. Now I need to find a metal dark slide.

Another thought wrt panoramic images is that when mounted they occupy (at least for me and the way I mount them retaining the panoramic proportions, both horizontally and vertically) wall space vastly different. In other words, I've placed images around the house in places that would not normally be appealing to mounted standard prints (e.g. above doorways, between a closet door and the wall next to it, etc.). I kind of like the variety as long as the content fits the shape.

[Vaughn]

Nice images, Vaughn!

I have a very good friend who produces really nice panorama's using a Hasselblad Xpan. I really like panorama's but I just don't see that way. The 8x10 perspective or square are much easier to compose for me.

I found my first LF panoramic images going thru my 4x5 proof sheets -- sort of after-the-fact seeing, although I previously had made a series of 5x14 images for a college photo project using my Rolleiflex negs. (I think it was for my second photo class.) I think one finds what one is looking for. Walking around with a card cut-out with 4x10 proportions might help one in seeing panoramically. Compostionally panoramics do work very differently than squares (which I also love). The image below is a study on trying to work with a light side and dark side of a panoramic image to see if I could get it to work -- it kinda does. (no burning/dodging...platinum print - Alabama Hills, CA)

My GG for the 8x10 has a 2" grid pattern, so it is easy to frame up 4x10 images on the GG. I use front rise to get the lens centered on the upper 4x10 portion of the GG (and shift for verticals). Might as well use the best part of the glass! For a second shot of the same horizontal image (perhaps slightly different exposure or for a back-up negative), I just remove the camera back and rotate it 180 degrees.

Paul -- slide does not need to be metal...I can just be a little rough on equipment.

[David A. Goldfarb]

For smaller formats, I agree with the original poster. If I want a panorama, and I'm carrying a 6x6 SLR, I can shoot with a plan to crop, and it's like I get rear rise/fall on my 6x6 SLR, because I can crop a pano from the top, middle, or bottom of the frame.

For 8x10"/4x10", I have a half darkslide mask. I just keep it in the bag, and with no particular extra gear to carry or special effort, I've got another format and twice as many shots, if panos present themselves. I used to have a cumbersome 4x5"--> 6x17cm expansion back for my 4x5" camera, and the 8x10" half-darkslide makes much more sense for me.

For swing-lens, I have a Noblex 150, if only because I'm too intimidated by the logistics of a Cirkut camera, keeping it in good repair, finding the film, and figuring out how to contact print those huge negs.

For 7x17", though, I'd rather deal with a camera of that size than something larger (it travels kind of like an 8x10" camera), though Art Sinsabaugh's 2 to 3 inch panos from 12x20" negs are brilliant. In his case, I suppose, the argument for schlepping such a monster camera around would be to standardize with a single camera and processing routine and neg filing size and then crop the image as desired.

[Tin Can]

Banquet cameras for large groups, which existed before Internet and selfies.

Perhaps this thread is really a survey...