The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Boke Panoramas - large format with small cameras
- Thread starter carstenw
- Start date
carstenw
Active member
Cross-posted from the Leica 180/2 vs Nikkor 200/2 VR thread. 13 shots with the Leica 180/2 stitched. I would have wished for a little more space around the tree, but there was too much junk around. The shots are very sharp, with generally very attractive boke, but in the background trees there are some donuts in the highlights, i.e. slightly over-corrected spherical aberration.
Pat Donnelly
New member
I have seen bouquet used, instead of boke h . This suggests that the origin is French as in Cartier-Bresson, but Daguerre also springs to mind. The pronunciation might then end up as bucket, hence bokeh was used by those who wished to render it into writing, in American as the English/Irish are familiar with bouquet.
I defer to the photographer as artist always, but using low light lenses for this task is making it trickier, surely? On the other hand, why not use an 85mm 1.2? Just asking.
I defer to the photographer as artist always, but using low light lenses for this task is making it trickier, surely? On the other hand, why not use an 85mm 1.2? Just asking.
carstenw
Active member
Pat, boke was brought to the English by Mike Johnston of theonlinephotographer fame, along with one of his friends. Unadorned it means simply fuzzy, for example the mind of a senior getting on in his/her years. boke aji means the quality of the unsharpness, and is used by photographers in Japan. They were much earlier to the appreciation of the out-of-focus areas than we were.
Do you mean why not use the 85/1.2 for stitching, or just straight? Most of my stitches have a much wider angle of view than an 85mm lens. Also, I am a Nikon user
Lars, beautiful shot, and you probably have a good point. I will try it on my next stitch. Awesome lens you are using, btw. One day I want to try 8x10 with this lens.
Do you mean why not use the 85/1.2 for stitching, or just straight? Most of my stitches have a much wider angle of view than an 85mm lens. Also, I am a Nikon user
Lars, beautiful shot, and you probably have a good point. I will try it on my next stitch. Awesome lens you are using, btw. One day I want to try 8x10 with this lens.
Lars
Active member
Interesting sequence to follow. My thoughts:
With a 100mm lens, if you want really shallow DOF the subject needs to be nearby, so that doesnt work so well with landscape subjects like forests. I would try a 300/4 (since I have one) and see if I can make a 4x4 stitch (I suspect that's a lot of work). That would yield a perspective of a 75mm lens, with a nice shallow DOF - just like a 300 on 4x5.
With a 100mm lens, if you want really shallow DOF the subject needs to be nearby, so that doesnt work so well with landscape subjects like forests. I would try a 300/4 (since I have one) and see if I can make a 4x4 stitch (I suspect that's a lot of work). That would yield a perspective of a 75mm lens, with a nice shallow DOF - just like a 300 on 4x5.
carstenw
Active member
Hi Lars,
I like to play with the narrow depth of field, but I am not searching for the absolute minimum. I am more looking to find this easy, relaxed look of LF, where you can have visible DoF even at larger distances, with a gently rendered background, and a tack-sharp foreground. The 100/2 at a distance of 10-15m, or my 180/2 at a distance of 25m both give this. I think this last shot should maybe have been stopped down a little, perhaps f/2.8 or f/4.
4x4 is a lot of work, unless you have CS4/5 and a fast computer with loads of RAM. My (brand-new) Mac mini with 8GB handles 4 shots easily, perhaps 8 shots still elegantly, but 16 would surely tax it quite heavily. Once the OWC or Crucial 16GB upgrade for the new Mac mini is ready, I will probably spring for it.
I like to play with the narrow depth of field, but I am not searching for the absolute minimum. I am more looking to find this easy, relaxed look of LF, where you can have visible DoF even at larger distances, with a gently rendered background, and a tack-sharp foreground. The 100/2 at a distance of 10-15m, or my 180/2 at a distance of 25m both give this. I think this last shot should maybe have been stopped down a little, perhaps f/2.8 or f/4.
4x4 is a lot of work, unless you have CS4/5 and a fast computer with loads of RAM. My (brand-new) Mac mini with 8GB handles 4 shots easily, perhaps 8 shots still elegantly, but 16 would surely tax it quite heavily. Once the OWC or Crucial 16GB upgrade for the new Mac mini is ready, I will probably spring for it.
Lars
Active member
Carsten,
Good to know - I haven't done much stitching beyond the 6x17 I make from two 6x9 shots with rear shift on my Ebony LF camera, and stitched scans of 6x17.
On a purely subjective note, I like the the water shot above, the DOF gives it a lot of threedimensional depth, more than the tree in the field. I also like the composition and simplicity, and the way it leads the observer's eye to first take in the overall image and then explore the details. But seeing these in such a small format is of course quite different than even looking at a fullscreen image, not to mention a good-sized print.
Anyways, thanks again for sharing.
Good to know - I haven't done much stitching beyond the 6x17 I make from two 6x9 shots with rear shift on my Ebony LF camera, and stitched scans of 6x17.
On a purely subjective note, I like the the water shot above, the DOF gives it a lot of threedimensional depth, more than the tree in the field. I also like the composition and simplicity, and the way it leads the observer's eye to first take in the overall image and then explore the details. But seeing these in such a small format is of course quite different than even looking at a fullscreen image, not to mention a good-sized print.
Anyways, thanks again for sharing.
carstenw
Active member
I just went back and re-read the previous page, and I had completely forgotten about trying out some vignetting. I went back and added it to that last shot. I was trying not to overdo it, but may have done too little instead. I may also have to brighten the shot a bit, although the photo was taken just minutes before it started raining fairly heavily.
Thanks for the comments about the two islands shot! I have started using 1200px on the long dimension now, and find it much better than 1024px, but still not nearly as nice as 1400-1500px on the long side. I recently started printing again, and will try to print a couple of these shots at A3 or A3+ and see how they look.
Thanks for the comments about the two islands shot! I have started using 1200px on the long dimension now, and find it much better than 1024px, but still not nearly as nice as 1400-1500px on the long side. I recently started printing again, and will try to print a couple of these shots at A3 or A3+ and see how they look.
I did this a long time ago as a test one morning. Its 32 images stitched together shot with an 85mm lens at f2.8. Had to go to f2.8 to keep enough DoF for the Compass.
Adler Planetarium Panoromic Bokeh by PeteTsai, on Flickr
Adler Planetarium Panoromic Bokeh by PeteTsai, on Flickr
carstenw
Active member
Neat shot, although the foreground somehow feels a bit over-sharpened. I was in Chicago in 2001 and recognize the building formerly known as the Sears Tower, although I can't really see where the photo was taken from, based on my memory of what islands were around. I guess my knowledge of the layout of the area is lacking.
Here is a re-taken version of the shots above, this time with 25 shots, 100MP@f/3.3:
Here is a re-taken version of the shots above, this time with 25 shots, 100MP@f/3.3:
Lars
Active member
Carsten that looks fantastic, I really like it. That's the difference between good and sloppy composition hehe. So three-dimensional, tons of depth. Also seems to have slightly warmer light?
Neat shot, although the foreground somehow feels a bit over-sharpened. I was in Chicago in 2001 and recognize the building formerly known as the Sears Tower, although I can't really see where the photo was taken from, based on my memory of what islands were around. I guess my knowledge of the layout of the area is lacking.
Here is a re-taken version of the shots above, this time with 25 shots, 100MP@f/3.3:
carstenw
Active member
Thanks, I appreciate that a lot, coming from you. The Zeiss 100 Makro-Planar really is a great lens when stopped down a little. Yes, yesterday's was close, but not there. Today's I am happy with. The funny thing is that I had less time today, with my daughter in her kinderwagen sitting behind me telling me she didn't want to stop there On the other hand, I had a much better idea what I wanted, having seen that I left too little room around the edge and had too little depth of field in yesterday's. I will print this one, and maybe buy a nice frame. It is possible that the light was a little warmer today, but it is also possible that I just white balanced it slightly differently. I actually did very little to the processing, the lens did most of it, and the stitching the rest.
On the other hand, I had a much better idea what I wanted, having seen that I left too little room around the edge and had too little depth of field in yesterday's. I will print this one, and maybe buy a nice frame. It is possible that the light was a little warmer today, but it is also possible that I just white balanced it slightly differently. I actually did very little to the processing, the lens did most of it, and the stitching the rest.