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!

Help with panorama options please

satybhat

Member
Dear forum,

I currently shoot with an IQ280. I've just landed an assignment to shoot 5 panorama images in the 1:3 format, to be printed big (the rep told me it would be to the tune of at least 2m on the long scale and the company would take care of the printing, so I just have to supply the images).
Since this would be one off trip, I would like to know whether I should consider a 617 film camera (fuji / linhof) - i would be renting or borrowing this - or whether a 6*17 crop from a IQ280 would suffice for image excellence.

This being a big company, I would really love to stand up to their expectations for future liaisons. Considering that they have 6 branches, they would probably want more of such images in the near future.

Any previous comparative experience in regards to film panoramics would be helpful here.

Thanks
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Why not simply rotate the camera and stitch? I made a 4m print from 5 40mp frames using a 50% overlap. Or if you have a technical camera, shift and stitch.

I am not sure getting new gear and new process is the best way to approach an important project.
 

GregMO

Member
+1 for Stitching with your IQ280. It is the fastest & most cost effective approach to the job.

Although a 2M+ print with a single shot from 617 is no problem. If you have never used a 617 camera/ know the various films you might be considering, I wouldn't take the risk.

Film cost, processing & drum scanning will be an added expense. The scanner operator is a key part to getting a great file.
 

tjv

Active member
What's the subject matter?
Personally, I'd rather shoot a 6x17 on film. Scanned on an Imacon / Hasselblad flextight. Any monkey can give you a great raw scan using one of those, and you can do all the editing yourself. Then again, sometimes it's better to go with the devil you know. I just hate the process of stitching!
 

satybhat

Member
The subject at hand is going to be seascapes. They want some sort of water in the picture. Therein lies my problem. Australian seas are anything but calm.

I've used PTGUI before, photoshop as well, but find myself really drawn to cropping rather than stitching. A 6x17 crop of an IQ280 image gives something like 35MP or so. I'm not sure this would hold to close inspection. Note: close inspection is not warranted here, but I know that that's what people do, I'm more likely to engage the clients if I deliver above expectation. Hence the query.
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
I've had a 6 meter wide print done from a single IQ180 shot. It held up remarkably well - way better than the Peter Lik arch sunrise shot that was of similar size and mounted on the wall opposite.

I'd definitely recommend getting a test print done with an existing file. You may be pleasantly surprised.

Kind regards,

Gerald
 

tjv

Active member
As an aside, if there is possibility of this client giving you more work and it's well enough paid, why not hire the 6x17 and shoot using both cameras? I'm not sure if Mainline in Australia rents the Technorama 6x17 with the shift adaptor, but that would be ideal for this kind of job. Scanning one of those massive negs with an Imacon / Hasselblad Flextight give an insanely good file. Also, negative film has some great advantages in terms of highlight latitude. A 35mpx crop would look pretty average at 2m...
 

Ed Hurst

Well-known member
As someone who has done a lot of pano stitching of seascapes, I can certainly sympathise with the wish to do a single capture. But it does depend on how dominant a part of the scene the water is, how close you are to the water and how many shots you can take. If the light is steady and you can take several shots at each position in the pan, chance are you would have combinations close enough for the stitch to work out.

One tip - use PTGui for the construction of the pano, but PS for the layer blending. With moving water, i find PS blends the layers better. But PTGui does the geometry part better.

I'd say give that method a try first.
 

Ken_R

New member
As someone who has done a lot of pano stitching of seascapes, I can certainly sympathise with the wish to do a single capture. But it does depend on how dominant a part of the scene the water is, how close you are to the water and how many shots you can take. If the light is steady and you can take several shots at each position in the pan, chance are you would have combinations close enough for the stitch to work out.

One tip - use PTGui for the construction of the pano, but PS for the layer blending. With moving water, i find PS blends the layers better. But PTGui does the geometry part better.

I'd say give that method a try first.
+1


Also, regarding film, is 6x17 a big enough negative for 2m prints and larger? It can be. You still need to do everything right from loading and handling film, to capture, to film processing, to scanning to file processing. I might be inclined to recommend 8x10 film given that with a view camera you will have much more control in regards to the plane of focus which IMHO is a must in larger formats when doing landscapes. But that increases the level of difficulty (and risk) a LOT if you have never used sheet film before. But 8x10 can achieve STUNNING results.

Given that you already have the best digital back ever made for landscape photography and used by great landscape photographers like Rodney Lough JR. (who makes amazing huge prints that look great even from 1 inch away) I would try to work with that setup. Fine tune the workflow and you should achieve amazing results as well.
 

Scott Tansey

New member
If you can do the image digitally it will be better than using the 6x17. I use a Leica S2, and the resolution is better with the Leica, even if I cut it in half than it is with the 6x17. I have used 6x17s for almost 40 years. Digital is better. I would stitch the images, if you can. Currently I have 3 five foot images, 1 eight foot image and 1 24 foot image on display in a gallery. They are much sharper than one can get with the 6 x 17. Also, one can work much quicker with digital than with the 6x17. With the 6x17, I had to manually focus, advance the film, set the shutter speed and aperture and advance the film. Also with digital, one can use a higher ISO.

Hope this helps.
Scott
scotttanseyphoto.com
 

GregMO

Member
Example of 617 single shot..for an office installation here in Wash, DC.

Vietnam Wall Memorial shot with Velvia 100, 90mm Super Angulon, Drum Scanned by Lenny Eiger on Aztek Premier.

Crop is of 10 foot print. The viewer can easily read every name on the wall at close inspection.
 

Duff photographer

Active member
I did a 1.8 metre wide 300 dpi print for a client (two-third sea, one-third sky).

I used a Nikon D300s, of all cameras, using a Zeiss 50mm macro. I married it with a Novoflex Panorama VR-System II (very well built), enquired to Zeiss what the nodal point of the lens was, and stitched the resulting images.

My main problem was getting the exposure right but that was easily fixed in Photoshop prior to the actual stitching. Surprisingly, the sea itself wasn't an issue after stitching - force 6 at the time although the sea was distant from an 80 metre cliff. However, if you are taken closer images of the sea then stitching will not work as they'll be way too much variation between images unless the sea is a flat calm, or you are exceptionally quick at panning.

If shooting further away and the waves are smaller then any mismatches among the waves could be sorted easily by using healing brush (the one where you select a similar piece of image and then 'heal' - sorry, I forget the exact name of the tool). There was no distortion of the horizon using the right technique. There was extra processing time involved but not enough to warrant the contract becoming economically unviable.

...and I'm sure using the IQ280 will do a better job than the D300s using the same equipment.
 

tjv

Active member
While it is obvious you know what you talk about – as evidenced by the great work on your website – I respectfully disagree. A scanned 6x17cm image exposed on say Ektar 100 is stunning and the fine grain of the film enlarges very well. I agree that the process of using a panoramic camera is a lot slower, but I think film enlarges with more grace, so to speak. Again, you are obviously very well informed and practiced in this area, I just wanted to offer a contrary opinion.

PS: I don't think this is necessarily a film vs. digital debate, rather a single shot vs. stitch debate. If the scene allows for a multi-shot stitch from a 80mpx back, that would certainly be a better option, or at least give a file with dramatically more resolution. If not, a well scanned 6x17cm negative would be my personal preferred option. And for the record, if I could afford an IQ160 or better, I'd buy one today and never expose another roll of film again...

If you can do the image digitally it will be better than using the 6x17. I use a Leica S2, and the resolution is better with the Leica, even if I cut it in half than it is with the 6x17. I have used 6x17s for almost 40 years. Digital is better. I would stitch the images, if you can. Currently I have 3 five foot images, 1 eight foot image and 1 24 foot image on display in a gallery. They are much sharper than one can get with the 6 x 17. Also, one can work much quicker with digital than with the 6x17. With the 6x17, I had to manually focus, advance the film, set the shutter speed and aperture and advance the film. Also with digital, one can use a higher ISO.

Hope this helps.
Scott
scotttanseyphoto.com
 

jlm

Workshop Member
seems like you also have to compare the lens behavior out near the fringe of the image circle when shooting a 17cm wide image
 

Shashin

Well-known member
If you crop your IQ280, then you have a built in rise/fall. Cropping just at the bottom of the frame is like raising the lens, cropping the top, like lowering the lens. If you want a 6x17 camera with rise/fall, the Horseman SW617 will have that and it also takes a ground glass.
 

satybhat

Member
Many thanks for the august replies. So, from what I gather, opinion seems to be divided. So, it boils down to 617 vs cropped IQ280 file. Of course, if stitching is possible, I would, but say, just say, I was inspired by this dude, a single shot becomes a necessity: Galerie de Photos de Phares - Plisson.com
Horseman, I haven't actually considered. there is a good 6x12 version available on ebay.

My gut feeling is to consider a single frame of IQ280 (how I wish it was a 2x3) and maximize my workflow this week. Then upsize at pixel level with LR or GF, and give a trial print at 44 inches broad. what say ? Thing is, it leaves me no time for preparation if I have to change my mind.
 

richardman

Well-known member
I think you should do what you said AND rent a 617 camera and shoot it with Provia and test both setup. This sounds like real $$$ so you want the best option! I know you can print 2 meters easily from a 617.

FWIW, here's a single shot 617, I think 1 minute exposure. Can't stitch this :)

 

tcdeveau

Well-known member
How much time will you have to shoot your subject matter? Why not plan to stitch but also take a single shot? That's what I always do when I go for panos. That way if you have weird artifacts after stitching (with moving water, etc) you have the single shot to fall back on. It also presents a safety net if something technically goes wrong with the pano sequence. For example, I have a bad habit of forgetting to set exposure to "manual", which can create problems when stitching...and that's where the single shot comes in to save my butt.

Water can present a challenge but you might be surprised how well software can handle it depending on the situation. I just did some panos of a lake where the winds were prob 20-30mph and I can't find any weirdness in the water upon closer examination when using photoshop for stich. Ended up with 4-6ft wide native files.

If it were me, I'd also prob want to take a 6x17 film camera alongside the 280 on principal (I keep looking at them on ebay), but I'm not terribly experienced with film and worry that it would actually hinder my process. Just make sure whatever route you decide to do, go with the route where you are confident in the workflow and know you'll get a good result. I don't think you can wrong with any of the options you suggest. I've made some nice single shot 1:3 crops from my 40mp back that look acceptable to me printed as large as 5m, so I think you'd be just fine with that option on a 280 hehe.

Also, if someone (Phase, Hassy, Sony, Pentax, whoever) started making MF digital 6x17s, I would not be mad
 
Top