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

[h2oman]

Here's another way to think about it:

https://jkschreiber.wordpress.com/po...iew-segmented/

The same thing by someone else: https://www.eliotdudik.com/projects/broken-land

[rich caramadre]

AdamD Want focal lengths are you interested in using?

[Michael Roberts]

Why not a 4x10 splitter on an 8x10 back? Like this...



Made with a Kodak 2D 8x10 and 4x10 splitter insert in the 8x10 spring back. The camera also takes 5x8 splitters. You do not have to spend thousands for a 4x10 camera, though an 8x10 will weigh more and may not have the cool factor you want. But if it’s results you are interested in, then it is no more difficult to shoot 4x10s than 8x10. The major challenge, as Bryan indicates, is with short lenses. My shortest are 120 and 159mm and I usually cannot get any rise/fall with the bellows with the 120. I have compensated for this somewhat by mounting the lens offset (hi/lo) and I can choose the orientation I need.

[Tin Can]

and many OLD cameras came with splitters

2 was common. using both at once made 4 up 4X5, 1 of course made vertical and sideways pano

Easy to make and use IF your back has mysterious slots in front of the GG, between lens and

Some also had removeable diverter shades inside the bellows

[Michael Roberts]

Yes, and if your camera back does not have manufactured slots, I have made inserts and used adhesive backed Velcro to hold/remove them as needed.

I also like Chauncey Walden’s diy solution to the problem of centering the lens here: https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1511990

For 4x5, I second Kiwi’s solution to use a 2x5 dark slide. It is what I do.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...=1#post1586495.

[GRAYnomad]

Do you want wide images (as in a wide field of view) or just the pano aspect ratio?

If you just want the ratio then all you have to do is crop, job done (although a waste of film I admit).

If you want wide then you need a 6x17 or similar or to stitch multiple images.

I don't know why everyone says that stitching won't work, I've been doing it for years with a digital camera and just yesterday experimented with "scanning" a LF neg by taking 6 images of it and stitching them together, it worked just fine. I would not use Lightroom or Affinity Photo (does Affinity even have that feature?), get the real thing, PTgui. Of course all your negs should be the same density etc, but even then that can be fixed pre-stitch.

If panning to get multiple shots with your 5x4 then technically you should rotate around the lens' nodal point, but in practice that only matters if you have subjects very close to the camera, for the average landscape it doesn't matter.

No need to stick to a single row either, you can shoot an X-by-Y matrix, although with LF I don't think there's any point unless you need a wider FoV.

A 3x4 matrix with a 6mpx camera, huge file and about 180 degree FoV

[Corran]

I don't think anyone said it won't work, just that it is of dubious use for the most part if just wanting a wide aspect ratio. Notable exceptions would be to exaggerate the rotating fisheye-esque look or doing multi-shot collage type work, of which several notable and well-done examples were posted.

[AdamD]

Why not a 4x10 splitter on an 8x10 back? Like this...



Made with a Kodak 2D 8x10 and 4x10 splitter insert in the 8x10 spring back. The camera also takes 5x8 splitters. You do not have to spend thousands for a 4x10 camera, though an 8x10 will weigh more and may not have the cool factor you want. But if it’s results you are interested in, then it is no more difficult to shoot 4x10s than 8x10. The major challenge, as Bryan indicates, is with short lenses. My shortest are 120 and 159mm and I usually cannot get any rise/fall with the bellows with the 120. I have compensated for this somewhat by mounting the lens offset (hi/lo) and I can choose the orientation I need.

This looks great. The cool factor to me is the 4x10 results. I never thought about an 8x10 split. That's cool too!!

I like it!!

[Michael Roberts]

Awesome. Let me know if you have any questions.

Cheers,
Michael

[Luis-F-S]

Why not a 4x10 splitter on an 8x10 back? ...Made with a Kodak 2D 8x10 and 4x10 splitter insert in the 8x10 spring back. The camera also takes 5x8 splitters. You do not have to spend thousands for a 4x10 camera, though an 8x10 will weigh more and may not have the cool factor you want. But if it’s results you are interested in, then it is no more difficult to shoot 4x10s than 8x10. The major challenge, as Bryan indicates, is with short lenses. My shortest are 120 and 159mm and I usually cannot get any rise/fall with the bellows with the 120. I have compensated for this somewhat by mounting the lens offset (hi/lo) and I can choose the orientation I need.

Can also make 2x5’s using a 4x5 back with a splitter or a half darkslide as suggested earlier. But that is probably too simple a solution and it takes all the fun out of inventing and solving problems that may not exist!