Shooting 4x5 panoramic images...looking for forum wisdom

[cuypers1807]

Looks good. What focal length lens did you use?

[AdamD]

It's a Fuji 150mm f/5.6.

It's not too bad for a first try (well third, but I don't want to talk about 1 and 2 ��)

Few things I noticed. It was correctly suggested that you need a little more overlap than say with a digital camera. I think ideally 4 frames would provide enough overlap and provide a better transition. But three sheets of film for one stupid photo is hard enough to swallow!!! It better be a really amazing shot!!

Another thing I learned was to find the nearest object to be in focus and the furthest object. Then focus/tilt on those regardless if the are in the same frame. For instance, if there is an important rock up close on the left and the nearest tallest object on the right, set the focus on one, pan the camera and tilt on the other. The, search the entire middle area and find the furthest focus travel point away from the starting point. Effectively this allowed me to focus on my three-frame-wide area as if it were just one frame (or a real 4x10 camera). I found this to be quicker than checking focus on each frame and setting the camera to the average. Also, as expected, a smaller aperture is needed.

As for the stitching, that's easy, just do it like any digital photo one you have it scanned.

[otto.f]

...what do you think?

Well, it’s a tiny file here now, but it’s good, no? I thought I saw something strange in the clouds left at first sight, but I can be wrong given the small file

[Lachlan 717]

Apart from a quasi-academic pursuit, I still don’t get the point of doing this.

This is particularly red forced by the workflow of film to digital, probably scanned on a flatbed.

You’re introducing parallex and, if you’re not using shift, you’re introducing bulging horizons.

You’ll amortise the cost of buying a 6x17cm back for you camera quickly if you’re going to shoot four sheets per image, especially if your hit rate is maintained as described.

Even a 4x5 will be cheaper over time....As, too, will be a digital camera with a Tilt/Shift lens.

I’m already chalking this up to a Stone III/Cosmic Explorer short-lived pursuit.

[Tin Can]

When I wanted pano, I considered 4X10 for a long time

But settled for 6X17 roll film for overall cost consideration

[Kiwi7475]

When I wanted pano, I considered 4X10 for a long time

But settled for 6X17 roll film for overall cost consideration

Like I said earlier if you don’t already own a 6x17 or a4x10 camera, a half dark slide for your4x5 is the best practical, economical and flexible way to shoot in that form factor.

Another camera makes only sense if you make a living out of it, if this the format you shoot 90% of the time, or if you’re just trying to justify your GAS.

[Corran]

Food for thought - a "4x10" image made with a 150mm lens means on a half 4x5 sheet he would be looking at about a 75mm lens.

Using that half darkslide means the image will either be "shifted" up or down an inch from center - and "correcting" the shift by the opposite amount will be almost impossible with typical cameras (I could do it on my Toyo GII and bag bellows, but that's about it, certainly not on my Chamonix or Intrepid or Linhof).

This may or may not be an issue, but it's something to be aware of for that solution. Personally it didn't work for me due to the wide angles I tend to use. For normal-ish lenses sufficient shift to correct this would be easier. I have a half darkslide for my 8x10 and noticed this immediately when trying to use a 120mm.

[Kiwi7475]

Food for thought - a "4x10" image made with a 150mm lens means on a half 4x5 sheet he would be looking at about a 75mm lens.

Using that half darkslide means the image will either be "shifted" up or down an inch from center - and "correcting" the shift by the opposite amount will be almost impossible with typical cameras (I could do it on my Toyo GII and bag bellows, but that's about it, certainly not on my Chamonix or Intrepid or Linhof).

This may or may not be an issue, but it's something to be aware of for that solution. Personally it didn't work for me due to the wide angles I tend to use. For normal-ish lenses sufficient shift to correct this would be easier. I have a half darkslide for my 8x10 and noticed this immediately when trying to use a 120mm.

This is an interesting point. I haven’t encountered this issue, personally, but I can see how it could be. I guess I haven’t tried to shoot that wide or compositionally didn’t require centering. You do have the ability of shifting up or down by 2 inches by selecting the upper/lower side of the frame but yes between a small amount and an inch would be difficult without bag bellows with a 75mm.

That has to be almost gone by the time you go up to 90mm though, no?

[Corran]

Depends on the camera.

[AdamD]

Yeah, back to reality now.....

For me, I want a 4x10 camera because I think it's super cool and I love the look of that kind of photo. Problem is, I don't want to drop 2 grand getting all that crap put together to make it work properly (yet). So, I wanted to see if I could do it by stitching and create a poor man's version.

My findings are that it is possible, but, to get it done really well, it takes a lot of work and cost. And when done, you're left with a less than technically perfect image (as you would with a single 4x5 shot).

So....back to reality. I agree with some of you that while it's possible and doable, it's not a great solution or workflow.

The good news is that I can use my D810 with 70-300 AF-P lens, zoom to 100mm and get some rediculous high res panos that stitch really well.

I have bigger challenges with 4x5 than to worry about cracking the 4x10 poor man's solution!!

Thanks for the help!!

Here's a link to that photo. You can download it from there....I didn't spend a lot of time editing this. I just got it close and cleaned up the million dust marks.

https://fountainphoto.smugmug.com/Fi...Panoramic-4x5s