Digital mosaics as a replacement of the large format view camera
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
I have been doing large format photography for going on 2 decades.
I have also been doing wildlife photography, first with 35mm then
digital. Thus, I often carry both digital wildlife and 4x5 gear
on a hike (up to 70 pounds). That gets real tiring and limits
my range (and, obviously, I'm getting older). I want an alternative
without giving up anything ;-). I switched to a Toho field camera
(3 pounds) from heavier cameras several years ago, but it is still
too much weight doing both digital wildlife and 4x5 (I still love
the Toho though).
Mosaicking many digital image frames as intrigued me for
some time, and I have been experimenting with the methods,
from field to computer processing. Like large format view cameras
and methods, there is much to learn. But my experience so far
is that digital mosaics can equal and surpass 4x5 drum scanned
film in many applications, including large depth of field imaging
requiring tilts on a view camera. And I can get images in the
field faster and under conditions not suitable for large format
photography (like wind).
I've written up some of my experiences in this article and compare
the digital results to drum scanned 4x5 film images:
Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large Format Film
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics
Comments welcome.
Roger Clark
my photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com
Greg Campbell
> Hi.
> I've written up some of my experiences in this article and compare
> the digital results to drum scanned 4x5 film images:
>
> Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large Format Film
> http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics
> Comments welcome.
> Roger Clark
Impressive results, Roger. Thanks for the write up!
Can you elaborate on how to deal with moving clouds and the like? I
assume you 'scan' the scene moving with the clouds. Even then, you
might have several possible positions that a given cloud wind up at.
Also, I'm unclear as to how do you reconcile those clouds, or other
moving subjects like blowing grass/flowers/etc., that cross frame
boundries. With the grass, you could wind up with dozens of subjects
blowing this way and that, many out of phase with each other. I'd think
that some would wind up blurred, sheared, or distorted in the final image.
Any plans to build an automated scanning tripod head? Something that
could quickly and accurately step the camera across the scene, stopping
just long enough to trigger the shutter before slewing to the next
location. I'd think that camera data-writing lag would be the limiting
speed factor. Write lag is a serious PITA with my P/S digicam when I
take taken large numbers of panno shots to stitch. I'm sure curent
DSLRs are much better....
-Greg
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>
>> I've written up some of my experiences in this article and compare
>> the digital results to drum scanned 4x5 film images:
>>
>> Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large Format Film
>> http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics
>
>> Comments welcome.
>> Roger Clark
>
> Impressive results, Roger. Thanks for the write up!
Thanks, Greg.
> Can you elaborate on how to deal with moving clouds and the like? I
> assume you 'scan' the scene moving with the clouds. Even then, you
> might have several possible positions that a given cloud wind up at.
Let's look at this image as an example (a 4x5 film image):
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.large_format/web/c072099_L4_01a2-600b.html
The foreground flowers are in a shadow from an overhead cloud.
I would generally do this image in a mosaic by first knowing my f/stop
and shutter speed, placing the camera on manual (except autofocus), and
starting image frames at the bottom and work up. At some point, the
cloud shadow edge will catch up to my framing. I'll try and frame
fast for that row, hoping the final merge can be done reasonably
(e.g. do not use mirror lock up).
Whether or not it works is dependent on the distance and speed of the
shadow edge. I had to break off several mosaics this summer when
doing wildflower images like these because the cloud shadow movement was
too fast. But the many times I've almost clicked the shutter with
4x5 film, and had to break off due to wind far exceeds a typical
field outing with 4x5. The gallery page above is a good
illustration: I spend 5 hours to get that image, waiting for the cloud
shadow, then waiting for a calm in the wind (and the final image
still has some flower movement in the distance).
Another factor I found difficult is that the light
intensity in the cloud shadow changes and that can cause difficulty
with the mosaic, although the software does pretty well with matching
levels. When it gets too extreme, the join region becomes noticeable.
For the distant clouds, they move slow enough that I haven't noticed
them as a problem.
> Also, I'm unclear as to how do you reconcile those clouds, or other
> moving subjects like blowing grass/flowers/etc., that cross frame
> boundries. With the grass, you could wind up with dozens of subjects
> blowing this way and that, many out of phase with each other. I'd think
> that some would wind up blurred, sheared, or distorted in the final image.
For prominent subject blowing in the wind, I'll make a point to include extra
frames to center that one (e.g. a flower), even framing it several
times to catch the scene in several positions swaying in the wind.
I've always had enough frames and overlap to match.
In the image on the web page, there were several places
where there was misalignment due to movement. But by changing the
place where one scene merges with the next I was able to always
get a good match. I also wait for a local calm in the wind, thus
a foreground flower may be still and a wind gust is coming (and
flowers further away are moving). I'll frame until the wind gets to
my framing, then pause and wait. Once things are still again,
I'll continue. It seems that everything goes back to the same position.
Maybe I've just been lucky. ;-) But I think overlap is the key.
I generally do 50% overlap, then more when wind is a factor.
>
> Any plans to build an automated scanning tripod head? Something that
> could quickly and accurately step the camera across the scene, stopping
> just long enough to trigger the shutter before slewing to the next
> location. I'd think that camera data-writing lag would be the limiting
> speed factor. Write lag is a serious PITA with my P/S digicam when I
> take taken large numbers of panno shots to stitch. I'm sure curent
> DSLRs are much better....
I don't think an automated head would be an improvement, and it
would be more weight.
If I do mirror lock-up, which takes 3 seconds, then the frame time
is about 4 or 5 seconds. My DSLR (1D mark II, which writes quite fast)
has never filled the buffer). If I don't use mirror lockup, I can
frame every second or two. I have come close to filing the buffer
when writing raw plus jpeg.
The other issue I have yet to try is working with a split density filter.
It will take careful planning for the bright/dark intensity line, then what
to do above that line? And how will the software act when it tries to
combine the scenes? Fortunately with DSLRs, the dynamic range
is huge compared to film, so it has not been an issue, yet.
Roger
Greg "_"
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net>
wrote:
> Comments welcome.
I don't like the color balance of the ground-too green-yellow, and the
clouds look artificially flat & seem to loose detail.
--
Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.
Stewart
Fascinating and very impressive. Makes me wonder whether the future of
LF is digital backs with an array of digital sensors, and the stitching
software in firmware.
Stewart
Robert Feinman
> I've written up some of my experiences in this article and compare
> the digital results to drum scanned 4x5 film images:
>
> Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large Format Film
> http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> Roger Clark
> my photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com
>
Combining multiple images can be used with film cameras too.
Once the film is scanned then all the steps are the same as
with digital.
I've been doing this for years to produce panoramas where my
objective is a larger field of view (up to 360) rather than
higher resolution. The ease of digital has made panoramas
using this technique a bit of a fad these days. Some cameras
even have built in software to assist with the overlaps.
Not to get into a big philosophical debate, but I find these
super resolution image somewhat off putting. The fact that
so much fine detail is seen in objects in the distance makes
it look unnatural and makes one focus on the detail rather than
on the overall scene.
Conventional photographers who use film-based unsharp masking
give me the same funny feeling.
I am willing to accept this look as a different type of aesthetic
effect, but it requires a mental adjustment.
--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail: robert....@gmail.com
Raphael Bustin
<robert....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Combining multiple images can be used with film cameras too.
>Once the film is scanned then all the steps are the same as
>with digital.
>I've been doing this for years to produce panoramas where my
>objective is a larger field of view (up to 360) rather than
>higher resolution. The ease of digital has made panoramas
>using this technique a bit of a fad these days. Some cameras
>even have built in software to assist with the overlaps.
Indeed, it can be done with [scanned] film, as we both know.
Although in my case I've been stitching the images
laboriously, by hand, in Photoshop -- which is slow
and never as seamless as what Scott W and Roger
routinely achieve.
>Not to get into a big philosophical debate, but I find these
>super resolution image somewhat off putting. The fact that
>so much fine detail is seen in objects in the distance makes
>it look unnatural and makes one focus on the detail rather than
>on the overall scene.
Silly. Now you're claiming the *existence* of all this
detail detracts from the image.
But again, this level of detail is comparable to what
you'd get from a well-shot and well-scanned LF frame.
The "GagaPixl" project represents the bleeding edge
of that technology:
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Greg "_"
Robert Feinman <robert....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not to get into a big philosophical debate, but I find these
> super resolution image somewhat off putting. The fact that
> so much fine detail is seen in objects in the distance makes
> it look unnatural and makes one focus on the detail rather than
> on the overall scene.
> Conventional photographers who use film-based unsharp masking
> give me the same funny feeling.
I completely agree, does anyone remember a few years back there was a
company from Japan marketing super high resolution Laser imaged scenery
in calendars, brilliant saturated colors, and very sharp images. Problem
was after a few minutes the images lost all appeal. I find much color
imagery to be this way-the photographer only concentrating on color or
technique. And composition and a sense light rather lacking.
> I am willing to accept this look as a different type of aesthetic
> effect, but it requires a mental adjustment.
Like reading blue prints.
Greg "_"
Raphael Bustin <ra...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Problem is it becomes less about
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> In article <44F05F0...@qwest.net>,
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Comments welcome.
>
>
> I don't like the color balance of the ground-too green-yellow, and the
> clouds look artificially flat & seem to loose detail.
color balance: I use a color managed work-flow on a calibrated CRT monitor.
Some RGB values:
red green blue
The white flowers in the foreground: 28656 29555 29941
distant white flowers: 27371 27628 29812
Distant snow on mountains: 31740 31354 30069
The late season snow should be reddish as it has a lot of
dust mixed in. There is some pollution in the air from certain
west cost cities, reddening the clouds on the horizon.
The white flowers are slightly bluish, due to the blue sky
contribution. The soil is quite red, so the fields will look
green + red = yellow. That is the way it really was.
>clouds look artificially flat & seem to loose detail:
Are you using a calibrated monitor? The cloud intensity values
range from ~17,000 to 32,639 in the full resolution 16-bit image.
Roger
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 08:56:09 -0400, Robert Feinman
> <robert....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Combining multiple images can be used with film cameras too.
>>Once the film is scanned then all the steps are the same as
>>with digital.
>>I've been doing this for years to produce panoramas where my
>>objective is a larger field of view (up to 360) rather than
>>higher resolution. The ease of digital has made panoramas
>>using this technique a bit of a fad these days. Some cameras
>>even have built in software to assist with the overlaps.
>
>
> Indeed, it can be done with [scanned] film, as we both know.
Yes, and it can be done with any size film. Here are two
4x5 (film) images stitched together:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.large_format/web/colorado.fall.c10.01.2003.L4.9536.a+b.c.700.html
Roger
Greg "_"
To my eyes its greenish yellow, with out having access to your monitor
who knows.
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> In article <MPG.1f5b60756...@news.acedsl.com>,
> Robert Feinman <robert....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Not to get into a big philosophical debate, but I find these
>>super resolution image somewhat off putting. The fact that
>>so much fine detail is seen in objects in the distance makes
>>it look unnatural and makes one focus on the detail rather than
>>on the overall scene.
>>Conventional photographers who use film-based unsharp masking
>>give me the same funny feeling.
>
> I completely agree, does anyone remember a few years back there was a
> company from Japan marketing super high resolution Laser imaged scenery
> in calendars, brilliant saturated colors, and very sharp images. Problem
> was after a few minutes the images lost all appeal. I find much color
> imagery to be this way-the photographer only concentrating on color or
> technique. And composition and a sense light rather lacking.
As with all art, it is in the eye of the beholder.
Many people do not like the look of digital. The high
signal-to-noise and no grain really put some people off.
And even as a film photographer for 40 years, it has
taken me some time to get used to the smooth digital look.
But the real world doesn't have grain, and once I got
used to the look, I find it closer to reality.
And I find as time has goes by, more people are accepting
the digital look.
To be even more controversial, another reason I'm learning
digital is I believe there may be an impending film crisis
coming sooner than people think. There is a rumor Kodak
will stop all film sales next year. Digital is becoming
popular much faster than predicted. Digital camera sales now
surpass film camera sales. Many camera shops that didn't
move to digital are now out of business. The number of film types
is dwindling. Large format film will rise in cost and then
could likely completely disappear, the only question is when?
When it does, digital mosaics and scanning backs may be the only
alternatives for large format photography.
Roger
j
news:MPG.1f5b60756...@news.acedsl.com...
> Not to get into a big philosophical debate, but I find these
> super resolution image somewhat off putting. The fact that
> so much fine detail is seen in objects in the distance makes
> it look unnatural and makes one focus on the detail rather than
> on the overall scene.
Philosophy is good, Robert! No problem.
I see remarkable value in things like the Gigapxl Project, namely the same
objective made by landscape documentary (recording) photographers since the
very beginning - to capture as much information as possible for possible
future comparisons.
It's a good thing, but just one of the countless purposes of photography.
Now if 'they' would only use 70mm film more for movies... :)
(I've been following multiimage digital photography since it was a military
research project in the sixties! It is good that the technology is here for
citizens to practice.)
j
> To be even more controversial, another reason I'm learning
> digital is I believe there may be an impending film crisis
> coming sooner than people think. There is a rumor Kodak
> will stop all film sales next year.
Yes, there is a lot of that kind of speculation.
What constitutes a "crisis"? When all film is gone? I won't bet on that
because there will always be film. Always. (My worry is that the quality
will be poor, that people like Kodak will destroy their TMax equipment
rather than let another use it to profit.)
Let's put up a bet. We can have the funds put into a proxy-fund and have it
legally administrated. Seriously. I think people will be less wildly
skeptical if they have to put money on their opinions and guesses.
First, let us put down the specific questions. For starters:
On what date will Koday stop producing all still films?
Points for YEAR, MONTH, DAY
Are you in for say $1,000US? $10,000US?
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
I'm putting my money into digital photo equipment (but
I did just buy a new 150 mm 4x5 lens too). So I'll
be prepared either way. ;-)
Roger
Bjorn A. Payne Diaz
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> Digital mosaics...
This is very interesting stuff. I would have thought that about 10
stitched images would have equaled or surpassed a drum scanned 4x5
(based on previous comparisons of single images vs. 4x5 in Luminous
Landscape). So 50-60 stitiched images is pretty amazing, and _seems_
like it may be more comparible to maybe 8x10. The final print must be
pretty amazing.
Have you tried stitching fewer images?
Jay Wenner
Gordon Moat
Good for you John, glad to see someone is putting a challenge up to this
nonsense.
People floating around unsubstantiated rumours seem to be doing so
because they have an agenda, and not because they have some great
insider information. Seems like every year some self-proclaimed expert
predicts the demise of film . . . probably because they really want that
to happen.
Wouldn't Fuji just be ecstatic that Kodak completely drops out of the
market? Imagine how the stock prices of shares in either company would
reacte to real information like this. Anyone who really knows this type
of thing would either be buying or selling large blocks of stock shares,
having their relatives do the same, or placing futures orders in for one
or the other company (betting up, betting down, or betting both
directions to maximize profits). If Roger is such the insider and sage
he would like us to believe, perhaps he should be investigated by the
SEC. My personal feeling is that Roger should stick to making images and
writing about technology, things he knows better than speculating about
the future of large corporations.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Scott W
You have to take into account the overlap of the images. It takes
about 100 MP to match the resolution of a really good 4 x 5 image, with
a reasonable amount of overlap between image you can get this with 20
to 30 images. But in Roger's case he was adjusting the focus between
shots so to make the focus smooth he needed more overlap and therefor
more shots. The end result is a photograph with much great DOF then
could be had with a single shot.
Scott
Bjorn A. Payne Diaz
Scott W wrote:
> You have to take into account the overlap of the images. It takes
> about 100 MP to match the resolution of a really good 4 x 5 image, with
> a reasonable amount of overlap between image you can get this with 20
> to 30 images. But in Roger's case he was adjusting the focus between
> shots so to make the focus smooth he needed more overlap and therefor
> more shots. The end result is a photograph with much great DOF then
> could be had with a single shot.
With overlap, 10 images ought to be about 35 MP. People have claimed
the 16 MP Canon almost has the resultion of a 4x5. Reichman (sp?) said
about the Phase One (39 MP) back:
"As for the P45, it too has met expectations. I won't say much more at
this point as I have a major multi-back, multi-camera comparison coming
up in the weeks ahead. But, it should be understood that the P45 offers
image quality which I regard to be at least the quality of drum scanned
4X5" film, and with much less work and lower long-terms cost."
Stitching 59 images seems like....a thesis project. Cool idea, but man
it sounds like it takes some patience.
Jay Wenner
Scott W
Bjorn A. Payne Diaz wrote:
> > You have to take into account the overlap of the images. It takes
> > about 100 MP to match the resolution of a really good 4 x 5 image, with
> > a reasonable amount of overlap between image you can get this with 20
> > to 30 images. But in Roger's case he was adjusting the focus between
> > shots so to make the focus smooth he needed more overlap and therefor
> > more shots. The end result is a photograph with much great DOF then
> > could be had with a single shot.
>
> With overlap, 10 images ought to be about 35 MP. People have claimed
> the 16 MP Canon almost has the resultion of a 4x5. Reichman (sp?) said
> about the Phase One (39 MP) back:
>
> "As for the P45, it too has met expectations. I won't say much more at
> this point as I have a major multi-back, multi-camera comparison coming
> up in the weeks ahead. But, it should be understood that the P45 offers
> image quality which I regard to be at least the quality of drum scanned
> 4X5" film, and with much less work and lower long-terms cost."
Most people would say that a 16 MP canon would have about the same
resolution as a 645 MF camera.
How many pixels you need to match 4x5 gets a bit tricky as often a very
high f/number is used and this lowers the overall resolution a lot.
But for a good sharp photo on a 4x5 that is scanned well you should be
able to get something on the order of 2000ppi of pretty clean and sharp
pixels, this works out to 80MP, if you push just a bit more you are
right in the range of 100MP.
Now note that 100MP from film will in general not look as good as 100MP
from a digital camera do to grain in the film. So in this regard an
image from a 39MP back might look as good as a drum scanned image from
4x5 film, but it will might not have the same resolution.
>
> Stitching 59 images seems like....a thesis project. Cool idea, but man
> it sounds like it takes some patience.
59 images is really not at all hard to stitch as the process is mostly
automated.
Scott
BC
all still camera optics suffer breathing to some extent (only a few
cine lenses are corrected for it) this means the magnification will
change slightly from shot to shot. During optimization do you account
for this effect, or just ignore it? I know that Panorama Tools was set
up to vary the focal length during optimization, and I assume that
PTGui is still just a GUI for Panorama Tools (hence the name).
For years I've shot most of my mosaics with a manual focus 55/2.8 micro
Nikkor, which I can stop down to f/32 if necessary. I always maintain
a constant focus setting for all shots, but it would be very
interesting to try your technique. Stitching software is completely
successful in replacing the shift/rise/fall motions of a view camera,
and it would be nice to be able to replace the tilt motions as well.
I completely agree that the image quality of stitched digital images
can easily exceed that of a single 4x5 image. I do mainly
architectural mosaics, and here the stitching technique actually has a
critical advantage over both normal single-shot photography and
scanning back photography: you can eliminate or include people in the
image by appropriate timing of the shots.
Brian
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
j
"BC" <brian...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1157245742.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> The interesting thing to me is that you refocus between shots.
It is so GOOD to know you are reading here.
For the rest, Brian Caldwell is an optics/lens designer who did digital
mosaics before the OP had a clue.
And if you want to see just another of the best of the best besides Brian's,
and way beyond the OP who is really a wannabe, then see:
http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm
Between Caldwell and the above, the OP has nothing in the world to offer.
He's just too late.
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Roger
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> The interesting thing to me is that you refocus between shots. Since
> all still camera optics suffer breathing to some extent (only a few
> cine lenses are corrected for it) this means the magnification will
> change slightly from shot to shot. During optimization do you account
> for this effect, or just ignore it? I know that Panorama Tools was set
> up to vary the focal length during optimization, and I assume that
> PTGui is still just a GUI for Panorama Tools (hence the name).
>
> For years I've shot most of my mosaics with a manual focus 55/2.8 micro
> Nikkor, which I can stop down to f/32 if necessary. I always maintain
> a constant focus setting for all shots, but it would be very
> interesting to try your technique. Stitching software is completely
> successful in replacing the shift/rise/fall motions of a view camera,
> and it would be nice to be able to replace the tilt motions as well.
>
> I completely agree that the image quality of stitched digital images
> can easily exceed that of a single 4x5 image. I do mainly
> architectural mosaics, and here the stitching technique actually has a
> critical advantage over both normal single-shot photography and
> scanning back photography: you can eliminate or include people in the
> image by appropriate timing of the shots.
>
> Brian
Brian,
The small changes in magnification are handled by the software
simply as changes in image distortion and are handled by the
registration process. As I understand it, PTGui started out
as a front end to pano tools, but then the author wrote all
his own algorithms.
Roger
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
You missed the point. The point is not to see who can make the
largest images with a big camera, it is about replacing the big
camera with a smaller more portable one while still
maintaining large format image quality.
Roger
j
>> And if you want to see just another of the best of the best besides
>> Brian's, and way beyond the OP who is really a wannabe, then see:
>>
>> http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm
>>
>> Between Caldwell and the above, the OP has nothing in the world to offer.
>> He's just too late.
>
> You missed the point. The point is not to see who can make the
> largest images with a big camera, it is about replacing the big
> camera with a smaller more portable one while still
> maintaining large format image quality.
You didn't read the article! It was made with a 6 megapixel camera.
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Again, you are missing the point. People have been doing large mosaics
for quite a while. It was articles like the one you reference
that inspired my to try it too (and I did read the article,
and I had read it a long time ago). But that image, along
with many others people have shown are only large images of a distant
scene. Large format images that I typically like to acquire include
close foreground objects, requiring tilts and shifts on 4x5 or 8x10.
My experiment was to see if I could do the same thing with
digital mosaics, a wider f/stop, and varying the focal length.
That isn't new either, as Scott W showed that varying the focal
length would work when I inquired about the possibility. I just
went a little more extreme, specifically testing if I could replace
my 4x5 with lighter equipment. I have many mosaics now and
I have demonstrated for myself that I can do what I want
and maintain at least 4x5 image quality, and that means
one doesn't need gigapixel levels. And I can image faster,
and carry less weight. That is what I said in my original
post. You can crap on it all you want, but I'm leaving
film behind am moving on.
Roger
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> Scott W wrote:
>
>>You have to take into account the overlap of the images. It takes
>>about 100 MP to match the resolution of a really good 4 x 5 image, with
>>a reasonable amount of overlap between image you can get this with 20
>>to 30 images. But in Roger's case he was adjusting the focus between
>>shots so to make the focus smooth he needed more overlap and therefor
>>more shots. The end result is a photograph with much great DOF then
>>could be had with a single shot.
>
>
> With overlap, 10 images ought to be about 35 MP. People have claimed
> the 16 MP Canon almost has the resultion of a 4x5. Reichman (sp?) said
> about the Phase One (39 MP) back:
>
> "As for the P45, it too has met expectations. I won't say much more at
> this point as I have a major multi-back, multi-camera comparison coming
> up in the weeks ahead. But, it should be understood that the P45 offers
> image quality which I regard to be at least the quality of drum scanned
> 4X5" film, and with much less work and lower long-terms cost."
You need to look carefully at what Reichman says. He also said
3 megapixel surpasses 35mm a few years ago. Some of his comparisons
are based on a print, like 13x19 inches. He pushes the digital to match
the larger format film, but keeps the print size small so it limits
the larger format, but not too large that the digital camera image
shows its warts. His statement above is demonstrably false.
>
> Stitching 59 images seems like....a thesis project. Cool idea, but man
> it sounds like it takes some patience.
That was really true a few years ago. But the software has automated
the process a whole lot. I probably spent an hour in prep time,
refining control points, then an hour or two on the final assembled
image changing the mosaic lines. I spend at least that fixing
a large format film scan. A faster computer would speed up both
my hand fixes, and the compute time for the software to do its thing.
Roger
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> j wrote:
>
>> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net> wrote
>
> Good for you John, glad to see someone is putting a challenge up to this
> nonsense.
>
> People floating around unsubstantiated rumours seem to be doing so
> because they have an agenda, and not because they have some great
> insider information. Seems like every year some self-proclaimed expert
> predicts the demise of film . . . probably because they really want that
> to happen.
Or they fear it will happen. We are already seeing some film types
and film formats disappearing. These same types of attacks were happening
to those turning to digital from 35mm film a few years ago. Look at the
activity in the 35mm newsgroups: they are almost dead. Even this group
has gotten slower.
> Wouldn't Fuji just be ecstatic that Kodak completely drops out of the
> market?
Yes, I expect Fuji will do quite well for a longer time. Kodak is struggling.
Fuji is big into digital cameras too, and so is Kodak. Both see film
sales dwindling and digital markets growing. How long do you keep
making film when it becomes no longer profitable?
> Imagine how the stock prices of shares in either company would
> reacte to real information like this. Anyone who really knows this type
> of thing would either be buying or selling large blocks of stock shares,
> having their relatives do the same, or placing futures orders in for one
> or the other company (betting up, betting down, or betting both
> directions to maximize profits). If Roger is such the insider and sage
> he would like us to believe, perhaps he should be investigated by the
> SEC. My personal feeling is that Roger should stick to making images and
> writing about technology, things he knows better than speculating about
> the future of large corporations.
I never said I was an insider. The rumor about kodak came from a
kodak engineer. I have no idea about its validity, but there is
definitely a continuing decrease in film sales.
Roger
Bart van der Wolf
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net>
wrote in message news:44FA70DA...@qwest.net...
SNIP
> The small changes in magnification are handled by the software
> simply as changes in image distortion and are handled by the
> registration process.
While that takes care of some of the differences, especially when the
focus distance varies slightly between shots, in my experience it also
helps if you finally also allow to optimize for 'focal length'
differences.
--
Bart
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat wrote:
>
>> j wrote:
>>
>>> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net> wrote
>>
>>
>> Good for you John, glad to see someone is putting a challenge up to
>> this nonsense.
>>
>> People floating around unsubstantiated rumours seem to be doing so
>> because they have an agenda, and not because they have some great
>> insider information. Seems like every year some self-proclaimed expert
>> predicts the demise of film . . . probably because they really want
>> that to happen.
>
>
> Or they fear it will happen.
So fear drove you to digital imaging? Tough to argue with that; if it
makes you feel more secure to switch, I am certainly not the person to
convince you to continue using film.
We are already seeing some film types
> and film formats disappearing. These same types of attacks were happening
> to those turning to digital from 35mm film a few years ago. Look at the
> activity in the 35mm newsgroups: they are almost dead. Even this group
> has gotten slower.
>
Usenet in general is dead, and largely for different reasons. Take a
look at some moderated on-line forums. Those are thriving in
professional, enthusiast, happy amateur, and specialized realms. Anyone
projecting Usenet activity towards industry realities would be missing
several large communities of photographers. I doubt Gartner Group places
any value on Usenet patterns when forecasting technology trends.
>> Wouldn't Fuji just be ecstatic that Kodak completely drops out of the
>> market?
>
>
> Yes, I expect Fuji will do quite well for a longer time. Kodak is
> struggling.
I look at the quarterly and last few annual reports from Kodak indicates
a long run of aquisitions, mostly in the commercial printing and graphic
design business market areas. While these were expensive, and affect
what they report as overall profits, the money is already coming in from
those aquisitions. In contrast, Fuji are actually struggling to move
into similar markets. None of this has much to do with consumer films,
which are now a small part of each company. We can think of both Fuji
and Kodak as film companies, but a glance through their financial
reports indicates otherwise. While both are still involved in film
production and sales to consumers, both continue to generate profits
from those sales of films; those profits and gross sales have declined,
and it is easy to see that over the review of many financial statements.
There has also been a re-organization and shift of divisions within both
companies, with Kodak lumping all consumer activities under one
reporting area, and Fuji lumping films into consumer products. That
shift in reporting makes it seem that film sales have dropped or that
profits have dropped more than is actually the situation. It takes some
digging to find a more accurate view. Consumer digital failed to show
profits over a long period of time, yet when combining that financial
data with still profitable consumer films the overall figures looked
more promissing. One other thing Kodak did was to place sales of imaging
chips into the business category; we could assume that generates a
profit. Kodak's other written claim is that most of their profits are
from digital products, the reality of that statement being that Creo and
their other graphic arts products are largely responsible for that.
Kodak already generate more revenues from graphic arts than any other
division, but they are not yet showing huge profits due to the charges
from aquisition costs of several companies. Interestingly enough, AGFA
(not the failed AGFA Photo) are one of their largest competitors. Fuji
is barely getting into the same market.
The only company I know of dependant upon consumer film sales for the
majority of their revenues and profits is Harmann Imaging (Ilford). They
might like either Fuji or Kodak to drop their B/W films and papers,
since it would help them increase revenues.
Anyway, I cannot hope to short form summarize several feet of paperwork
and reports into a Usenet posting. The stock market runs often on
psycology, more like "buy on the rumour, sell on the news".
Institutional investors control the market, but individual investors can
be the most vocal. Those who put money into mutual funds holding Kodak
or Fuji might wonder what the companies are up to lately; quite likely
people want to invest in forward looking companies, but those companies
need to pursue profitable realms.
When film is no longer profitable for any company, then it will indeed
be essentially gone. At whatever point something like that occurs,
someone wanting to use film might find themselves in the same situation
as someone wanting to do oil paintings. In other words, film and
chemicals would be expensive, and only available at some art stores, or
you would need to make it yourself. Judging by the fact that there are
not tons of oil painting enthusiasts in the general public, I would
suppose film users at some point in the future might also become a rare
niche.
> Fuji is big into digital cameras too, and so is Kodak. Both see film
> sales dwindling and digital markets growing. How long do you keep
> making film when it becomes no longer profitable?
>
The simple answer is that when there is no profit, you kill the
products, or sell off the product line. Currently, film still generates
profits for both companies. If the cost to produce was greater than the
sales, then neither company would be making consumer films. Neither
company is involved in producing films because they have some emotional
attachment to it.
>> Imagine how the stock prices of shares in either company would reacte
>> to real information like this. Anyone who really knows this type of
>> thing would either be buying or selling large blocks of stock shares,
>> having their relatives do the same, or placing futures orders in for
>> one or the other company (betting up, betting down, or betting both
>> directions to maximize profits). If Roger is such the insider and sage
>> he would like us to believe, perhaps he should be investigated by the
>> SEC. My personal feeling is that Roger should stick to making images
>> and writing about technology, things he knows better than speculating
>> about the future of large corporations.
>
>
> I never said I was an insider. The rumor about kodak came from a
> kodak engineer. I have no idea about its validity, but there is
> definitely a continuing decrease in film sales.
>
> Roger
Okay, so nice to see your disclosure that it was just a rumour. I also
know an engineer with Eastman Chemicals, and another recently retired
engineer, but I don't know anyone on the board of directors. In full
disclosure, I cannot confirm nor deny any other personal involvement
with Kodak, nor any of their separate divisions.
Greg "_"
Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> > Gordon Moat wrote:
> >
> >> j wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net> wrote
> >>
> >>
> >> Good for you John, glad to see someone is putting a challenge up to
> >> this nonsense.
> >>
> >> People floating around unsubstantiated rumours seem to be doing so
> >> because they have an agenda, and not because they have some great
> >> insider information. Seems like every year some self-proclaimed expert
> >> predicts the demise of film . . . probably because they really want
> >> that to happen.
> >
> >
> > Or they fear it will happen.
>
>
> So fear drove you to digital imaging? Tough to argue with that; if it
> makes you feel more secure to switch, I am certainly not the person to
> convince you to continue using film.
Fear is a powerful motivator, although sometimes very bad reason to make
qualitative judgments. Many people shooting Large format in my
experience are doing so for reasons directly opposed to the purpose of
the OP and this post. Many like the experience of hefting the camera,
loading the film and trudging somewhere with the burden. I do think the
OP has some merits to discuss. But I am not sure the post really applies
to LF photography -at all.
>
> We are already seeing some film types
> > and film formats disappearing. These same types of attacks were happening
> > to those turning to digital from 35mm film a few years ago. Look at the
> > activity in the 35mm newsgroups: they are almost dead. Even this group
> > has gotten slower.
> >
>
> Usenet in general is dead, and largely for different reasons. Take a
> look at some moderated on-line forums. Those are thriving in
> professional, enthusiast, happy amateur, and specialized realms. Anyone
> projecting Usenet activity towards industry realities would be missing
> several large communities of photographers. I doubt Gartner Group places
> any value on Usenet patterns when forecasting technology trends.
I talk to lots of photographers day in and day out -I hear a of people
say I don't want my film cameras to go away- I talk with a lot more
film photographers than are represented here,-I am doing technical
support at a photography based company. (No not a camera store :)
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> In article <SrHKg.9906$xk3.6743@dukeread07>,
> Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>So fear drove you to digital imaging? Tough to argue with that; if it
>>makes you feel more secure to switch, I am certainly not the person to
>>convince you to continue using film.
>
Fear was not my motivation. It was speed and conditions for being able
to acquire the image, and weight and bulk of the equipment I carried
in the field. I dropped 35mm film for digital several
years ago. With an 8-megapixel camera, I find I can make a better
large print from digital than 35mm fine grained slide film (like velvia
or provia 100), including prints up to 16x24 inches. From my experience
and with digital, and the mosaicking demonstrations of others, I
figured it was only a matter of time before digital mosaics could
surpass 4x5 velvia. Over the last 6 months, I have made trips to
Hawaii, Canyonlands, the Tetons, western France, and a lot in the
Colorado Rockies, all without my 4x5. I had not been to the Tetons
or Canyonlands without my 4x5 in a couple of decades. I did only
digital mosaics to see how it would work in varying conditions.
I found that I can get digital mosaic images where I would not
have even gotten the 4x5 out due to wind. But even then, I was
not certain that the mosaics would go together well, until I got
home (much like waiting for the film to be developed). I have proven
to myself that not only can the mosaics work and simulate
tilts and shifts, shutter speeds are faster, I can obtain a
mosaic in 3 to 4 times faster than with a 4x5 (including setup time),
I'm not constrained to 4x5 proportions, and I carry less
weight. Then I'm finding not only did I achieve the above,
but I'm getting more detail than drum scanned 4x5 velvia, and,
something I already knew, I have a larger dynamic range with
lower noise. And my costs go down (well, excluding the cost
of a needed faster computer which I would have gotten anyway).
It's a win win win win situation. But I'll keep my 4x5 cameras
for other situations, like fireworks.
Roger
Scott W
> Fear is a powerful motivator, although sometimes very bad reason to make
> qualitative judgments. Many people shooting Large format in my
> experience are doing so for reasons directly opposed to the purpose of
> the OP and this post. Many like the experience of hefting the camera,
> loading the film and trudging somewhere with the burden. I do think the
> OP has some merits to discuss. But I am not sure the post really applies
> to LF photography -at all.
The OP's post is perfect for this news group and Roger is a perfect
person to post it. Not because Roger is in the forefront of stitching
technology but rather because he had done a lot of LF work and in the
past been skeptical about stitched images replacing LF. And in the
past he might well have been right since the software was not in very
good shape. Brian did posts years ago talking about stitched images
that has the resolution of LF but the work to do so was pretty high.
So what value does Roger add? well for one thing he is a case study of
someone who was won over when the tools got good enough, for another he
has taken the time to document his results in a very good write up.
So does this discussion of digital technique belong on a LF news group?
I believe it has benefit for a whole group of people here, those who
care about the image more then how the image was recorded. I for one
believe that there are far too few really high resolution photographs
being taken today. I believe there will be a large number of people
who will happily stitch photos to get high resolution who would be
reluctant to haul a LF camera with them. The end result is that more
people will be taking hi-res photos and to me that is a good thing.
And stitched photography shares more with LF then you might think. In
a normal digital photo you aim the camera to frame the shot push the
button and the perspective you get is pretty much dictated by the how
the camera was pointed at the time the shot was taken. But with
stitched photos part of the process is to aim the virtual lens in
software to get the perspective you want and then you crop the part of
the image you want. This is a process that is very similar to how a LF
camera works.
In the end it is about having more ways to get to the final result that
we all want.
Scott
Greg "_"
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Greg "_" wrote:
> > Fear is a powerful motivator, although sometimes very bad reason to make
> > qualitative judgments. Many people shooting Large format in my
> > experience are doing so for reasons directly opposed to the purpose of
> > the OP and this post. Many like the experience of hefting the camera,
> > loading the film and trudging somewhere with the burden. I do think the
> > OP has some merits to discuss. But I am not sure the post really applies
> > to LF photography -at all.
>
> The OP's post is perfect for this news group
Perfect because "you" strive to turn every newsgroup into a forum that
you can post "your" views concerning digital photography. Note the
decline of such groups for very parallel reasons.
Greg "_"
> Greg "_" wrote:
> > In article <SrHKg.9906$xk3.6743@dukeread07>,
> > Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Gordon Moat wrote:
> >>So fear drove you to digital imaging? Tough to argue with that; if it
> >>makes you feel more secure to switch, I am certainly not the person to
> >>convince you to continue using film.
> >
> > Fear is a powerful motivator, ....
>
> Fear was not my motivation.
But you already stated it was,...that is that film is going away-getting
harder to find- etc.
> It was speed and conditions for being able
> to acquire the image, and weight and bulk of the equipment I carried
> in the field.
Undoubtedly
> I dropped 35mm film for digital several
> years ago. With an 8-megapixel camera, I find I can make a better
> large print from digital than 35mm fine grained slide film (like velvia
> or provia 100), including prints up to 16x24 inches.
It would have to be a very special image no doubt-for that size.
> From my experience
> and with digital, and the mosaicking demonstrations of others, I
> figured it was only a matter of time before digital mosaics could
> surpass 4x5 velvia. Over the last 6 months, I have made trips to
> Hawaii, Canyonlands, the Tetons, western France, and a lot in the
> Colorado Rockies, all without my 4x5. I had not been to the Tetons
> or Canyonlands without my 4x5 in a couple of decades. I did only
> digital mosaics to see how it would work in varying conditions.
> I found that I can get digital mosaic images where I would not
> have even gotten the 4x5 out due to wind. But even then, I was
> not certain that the mosaics would go together well, until I got
> home (much like waiting for the film to be developed). I have proven
> to myself that not only can the mosaics work and simulate
> tilts and shifts, shutter speeds are faster, I can obtain a
> mosaic in 3 to 4 times faster than with a 4x5 (including setup time),
> I'm not constrained to 4x5 proportions, and I carry less
> weight. Then I'm finding not only did I achieve the above,
> but I'm getting more detail than drum scanned 4x5 velvia, and,
> something I already knew, I have a larger dynamic range with
> lower noise. And my costs go down (well, excluding the cost
> of a needed faster computer which I would have gotten anyway).
> It's a win win win win situation. But I'll keep my 4x5 cameras
> for other situations, like fireworks.
>
> Roger
So how soon do you anticipate giving up picture taking, now that you
succeeded in doing it all and saying everything you had to say?- That's
usually the next step ; )
Gordon Moat
> In article <44FC4068...@qwest.net>,
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Greg "_" wrote:
>>
>>>In article <SrHKg.9906$xk3.6743@dukeread07>,
>>> Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Gordon Moat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>So fear drove you to digital imaging? Tough to argue with that; if it
>>>>makes you feel more secure to switch, I am certainly not the person to
>>>>convince you to continue using film.
>>>
>>>Fear is a powerful motivator, ....
>>
>>Fear was not my motivation.
>
>
> But you already stated it was,...that is that film is going away-getting
> harder to find- etc.
Hello Greg,
I think you got your answer to why the OP put this into a large format
equipment group. What he is basically proposing is that there is no (or
little) need for large format cameras. I suppose if we could discuss how
to use that gear, a discussion of getting rid of or replacing large
format gear is valid. However, I really think this would be more
appropriate in one of the digital images, or D-SLR newsgroups. At least
Roger, unlike some posters, has used a large format camera.
Howard Lester
"Gordon Moat" wrote
> Hello Greg,
>
> I think you got your answer to why the OP put this into a large format
> equipment group. What he is basically proposing is that there is no (or
> little) need for large format cameras. I suppose if we could discuss how
> to use that gear, a discussion of getting rid of or replacing large format
> gear is valid. However, I really think this would be more appropriate in
> one of the digital images, or D-SLR newsgroups. At least Roger, unlike
> some posters, has used a large format camera.
If I were a painter of landscapes, do you think I would give up my painting
because I found a tool that gives me "better images?" There is more to
photography than getting the sharpest print possible with the least amount
of equipment. However, if creating digital mosaics is what Roger wants to
do, we have no business criticizing his plans. I certainly am not
criticizing.
For me, half the joy is planning, traveling to the site, setting up, and
getting the shot. Working the tilts and swings, finding just the composition
I want.... in that process I am creating art. That brings me peace (with
some frustrations!) and joy. And as long as I've focused properly and there
are no vibrations, my 20x24's are as amazingly sharp and lifelike as they
need to be. As long as there is color transparency film, I will be shooting
with my 4x5, my pride and joy.
Howard Lester
Greg "_"
Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Greg,
>
> I think you got your answer to why the OP put this into a large format
> equipment group. What he is basically proposing is that there is no (or
> little) need for large format cameras. I suppose if we could discuss how
> to use that gear, a discussion of getting rid of or replacing large
> format gear is valid. However, I really think this would be more
> appropriate in one of the digital images, or D-SLR newsgroups. At least
> Roger, unlike some posters, has used a large format camera.
>
> Ciao!
>
> Gordon Moat
> A G Studio
> <http://www.allgstudio.com>
Let me add that I enjoy reading some of Rogers postings and judging by
the general tenor of his postings I think him to be a fine person. So my
criticism should be considered "lite".
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
This thread is typical of what happened in the heat of the
(35mm) film versus digital wars of a few years ago: don't
like the message? Attack the messenger.
I did post the article in the rec.photo.digital
newsgroup, and the thread got a lot more interesting
replies and discussion going on the method.
I expected a higher technical response from this group.
but I see here some are too insecure to get past one paradigm.
Real steps forward in technology are made by those who
see a new idea and capitalize on it and improve on it,
not in attacking those who first present it.
Digital will improve, software will improve, and
digital mosaicking will only get better.
Roger
Greg "_"
> Digital will improve, software will improve, and
> digital mosaicking will only get better.
>
> Roger
That's all well and good. Unfortunately unless one is using a LF camera
is not on topic for this newsgroup - & remains Only as provocation.
Ken Nadvornick
> Perfect because "you" strive to turn every newsgroup into a forum that
> you can post "your" views concerning digital photography. Note the
> decline of such groups for very parallel reasons.
Sound familiar, Scott...?
Ken
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> In article <44FCB317...@qwest.net>,
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Digital will improve, software will improve, and
>>digital mosaicking will only get better.
>>
>>Roger
>
> That's all well and good. Unfortunately unless one is using a LF camera
> is not on topic for this newsgroup - & remains Only as provocation.
I disagree. There are many types of large format cameras.
Digital mosaicking is about sampling a virtual large image
plane, so in the end that focal plane similar in size to
that of a large format camera.
Furthermore, in one class of camera, the view camera,
I've shown the combination of variable focus and software
achieves the same result as tilts and shifts of the view
camera. So the large digital mosaic is just another
form of large format camera, just a little more abstract
than what you've been used to.
Roger
Greg "_"
> > is not on topic for this newsgroup - & remains Only as provocation.
>
> I disagree. There are many types of large format cameras.
> Digital mosaicking is about sampling a virtual large image
> plane, so in the end that focal plane similar in size to
> that of a large format camera.
> Furthermore, in one class of camera, the view camera,
> I've shown the combination of variable focus and software
> achieves the same result as tilts and shifts of the view
> camera. So the large digital mosaic is just another
> form of large format camera, just a little more abstract
> than what you've been used to.
>
> Roger
You can certainly justify any choice you've made and no one can stop
you in that decision. I have two questions: when you compile all those
segments does it not require you to make small adjustments where the
images join? Seems to me altering the overall image on that magnitude
would constitute a non factual representation.
Secondly with all that resolution you state you have, where does that
leave one to make use of such an image? If you down sample to fit the
publication guidelines no one will ever see the difference between a
good single film based image and this massive construction of your
creative license. & How many art buyers will fervently buy such prints
when the truth be told the image is a fabrication of a photograph :)
Bart van der Wolf
"Greg "_"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote in message
news:grey_egg-FDDEBF...@news.isp.giganews.com...
SNIP
> That's all well and good. Unfortunately unless one is using a LF
> camera
> is not on topic for this newsgroup - & remains Only as provocation.
Seeing it as a provocation, rather than the sharing of experiences
relevant for LF shooters, does explain your initial knee-jerk
reaction. It's a natural reaction, but not very productive.
There are situations where LF camera's provide the better tool for a
given situation, and there are situations where other tools are
(becoming to be) more appropriate. Progress happens, and it's there to
benefit from for all who care to grow their knowledge.
As Roger explained, since relatively recent developments there are now
possibilities to shoot situations that were very hard (lugging
equipment in rough terrain), or impossible (wind motion at longer
exposure times), to do.
When the goal is to capture high(est) quality imagery, progress should
IMHO be embrased rather than flat out rejected. Besides, LF shooters
can be better at shooting stitched images, because of their better
understanding of perspective control and other technical skills.
--
Bart
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> In article <44FCF8B3...@qwest.net>,
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>That's all well and good. Unfortunately unless one is using a LF camera
>>>is not on topic for this newsgroup - & remains Only as provocation.
>>
>>I disagree. There are many types of large format cameras.
>>Digital mosaicking is about sampling a virtual large image
>>plane, so in the end that focal plane similar in size to
>>that of a large format camera.
>>Furthermore, in one class of camera, the view camera,
>>I've shown the combination of variable focus and software
>>achieves the same result as tilts and shifts of the view
>>camera. So the large digital mosaic is just another
>>form of large format camera, just a little more abstract
>>than what you've been used to.
>>
>>Roger
>
> You can certainly justify any choice you've made and no one can stop
> you in that decision. I have two questions: when you compile all those
> segments does it not require you to make small adjustments where the
> images join? Seems to me altering the overall image on that magnitude
> would constitute a non factual representation.
The scale of misalignment is quite small in my experience and
one simply moves the line where two image join to where
there is overlap agreement. I have never moved something
within the scene to make things match. If you are talking
about distortions, all lenses have distortions, so no
normally printed camera image is a "true" representation
of a scene. Then talk about reality, are those long
exposure water scenes with the water looking like cotton candy
representing reality? I could go on and on. If you think
your images are a "factual" representation of reality
you need to open your eyes and mind (and that isn't even including
contrast and color rendition).
> Secondly with all that resolution you state you have, where does that
> leave one to make use of such an image? If you down sample to fit the
> publication guidelines no one will ever see the difference between a
> good single film based image and this massive construction of your
> creative license. & How many art buyers will fervently buy such prints
> when the truth be told the image is a fabrication of a photograph :)
Go to: http://www.charliebrownphotos.com
All digital mosaics.
If you asked that question of Charlie, he would probably laugh.
He is selling images pretty fast, and does so full time.
Many of his images, by the way, are done hand held.
When I first saw his images in a gallery where some of mine
were, I thought they were 6x17 or large format (one was the
vertical slot canyon image on his home page). It was
about 5 feet tall and impressively sharp. Hand held
6-megapixel digital mosaic.
I, don't try and sell, as I'm pretty busy with other things
right now. Even so, people buy. My large prints, up to
48 x 60 inches tend to go to real estate and doctor's offices,
banks, and similar businesses. I do it mainly for fun,
and I'm building a portfolio.
Roger
deerowl
...> >>I disagree. There are many types of large format cameras.
> >>Digital mosaicking is about sampling a virtual large image
> >>plane, so in the end that focal plane similar in size to
> >>that of a large format camera.
Interesting thread Roger. It has definately opened a new avenue of
expression in large format photography. I'm sure we will see a lot more
of this type of imaging in the future as more people realize what can
be done with a small digital slr.
I usually don't sell photos so I am more concerned about how much
weight I am packing which gets less and less as my age increases as
does my budget...
Greg "_"
"deerowl" <owls...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> ...> >>I disagree. There are many types of large format cameras.
> > >>Digital mosaicking is about sampling a virtual large image
> > >>plane, so in the end that focal plane similar in size to
> > >>that of a large format camera.
> ...> >>Roger
>
> Interesting thread Roger. It has definately opened a new avenue of
> expression in large format photography.
Except that what he is doing is not LF photography. Its mimicry. (LOL)
j
so it's Large Format in the end. Who cares?
Gordon Moat
Roger, I am happy for you that you found the ideal tools to express what
you want to in your final prints.
The "expecting a higher technical response" part, did you want/expect
more people to agree with you?
As for insecurity, I take that as an insult. I have used a PhaseOne back
on a Contax 645 several times. Great tool, but I did not get this
overwhelming feeling that it was the answer to all imaging situations.
Neither did I get this insatiable urge to proclaim to anyone who might
read/listen to dump all their other tools and do whatever they could to
rent/borrow/buy/steal one of the same set-ups. Technically, I suppose I
could claim that it completely blew away everything that I have used or
seen. The funny thing is that when those clients got the CD-Rs of
images, which included scans of medium format film, in each case the
images chosen were a mix of film sourced scans and captures from that
PhaseOne back. I have also used a newer Leaf digital back once as a
rental, and the same situation occured. Perhaps even more amazing to
some might be that those particular clients asked for portions of each
location shoot to be shot with the "best digital gear I could find",
which I rented, and oddly enough more scanned film images were chosen
than PhaseOne captures. Perhaps those clients were not savy enough to
understand or appreciate the obvious technical superiority of a PhaseOne
back?
Last I checked a Canon 1D Mark II was a bit outdated as far as modern
technology. After seeing George Lepp's giant prints from stitched 1DS
Mark II at a recent exhibit, I am surprised you would not be using that.
Another funny thing is that George Lepp showed large prints from an EOS
1V using Kodak E100VS and stitching, and without reading the information
about what camera was used to create which images anyone would have
great difficulty picking out which images came from digital, and which
started on film . . . maybe that is down to his technical abilities?
Okay, so here we go with technology. Now if your goal was only website
images, then why waste time searching for ultimate resolution. The only
web viewing based technology I could think of that might benefit would
be some sort of endless zoom into type set-up. So that leaves me with
printing images being the better goal of chasing resolution.
The normal best for 4x5 films/lenses/camera set-ups seems to indicate 60
lp/mm as an upper limit, with a few exceptions. Next problem is scanning
or enlarging that. So maybe we could assume 30 to 40 lp/mm as a worse
case using high end gear. Consider then a somewhat common assumption of
many people not being able to see more detail resolution beyond 5 lp/mm,
and that would give a 6x to 8x larger print than the size of the film,
or at the very best maybe 12x. That would be from slightly less than 24"
by 30" to 32" by 40" or at the very best near 48" by 60". Obviousy 4x5
film is slightly smaller than 4" by 5", so just a bit less than this
would be closer to actual printed sizes.
Your conclusion was that you could make "superior" images with your new
methods. What it seems is that your definition of superior is solely
based upon technical limitations. If this helps you sell prints, or sell
workshops, or even books or articles in magazines, then I guess it is
superior. Have your sales or revenues increased as a result of these new
techniques? Do you get more comments about how much better your images
are today because of your new methods?
In a professional creative career, if that was a goal of yours, those
who market themselves based upon what they own can often find themselves
out of work in a short time. Maybe your interest is scientific imaging,
though I doubt you would be doing landscape photos if that was the
situation. That guy with the GigaPXL Project already has you beat on
technology, and you are just getting started with stitching . . . though
I suppose there is plenty of room for someone who wants to approach that
level of resolution; don't forget to place a magnifying glass next to
your gallery images so people can admire the resolution.
So how should others read all this. Sure, I am very critical, everyone
who has read what I type would think that. What photographers might want
to keep in mind is that technology will continue to change. At some
point there will be many making beautiful high resolution landscape
images without even going to a location, they can just create the ideal
landscape images in software on a computer, and then render those to
giant prints . . . why leave the house at all. However, the tools of
photography are things that enable people to express what they see in
front of them, even when the details are more than the human eye could
see when standing in the same spot at a particular location. If a camera
and associated gear are too bulky, too slow, or too heavy, then people
are not going to use that gear as often, resulting in that many
potentially interesting images might be missed. So now Roger can hike
further, photograph more, and even shoot in conditions in which he would
not have even unloaded his view camera. Just remember that not everyone
has the same needs as Roger.
Gordon Moat
One could include a 35mm camera in that too. It would be just as simple
to use 35mm films, scan the resulting frames of the mosaic, and stitch
those together. In fact a super high resolution technique could involve
ImageLink HQ in SPUR developer, then combine a lower resolution colour
overall image to provide colour information. That colour information
could be blended into the stitched B/W mosaic of film scans. Maybe we
should discuss which 35mm cameras would be good choices for this, and
perhaps which lenses could best exploit the resolution of ImageLink HQ film?
Gordon Moat
The previously mentioned George Lepp use to do motor driven hand held
panning shots, of which the film would then be scanned and re-assembled.
In fact he was not the first doing these, and all this pre-dated the
current huge interest in stitched mosaic images. Lots of people are
doing these, but that does not make them "large format".
There are also adapters to place a 35mm or D-SLR onto the back of a view
camera. One I saw recently had a sliding and moving plate to align image
sections for stitching later. You could mount such a device on many view
cameras.
I am thinking that getting one of those low cost camera phone deals from
one of the service providers might prove interesting images. Samsung now
offer up to 7 MP, though the 3 to 4 MP are now more common. Take a rack
of six to ten of them all mounted on a board, with a trigger mechanism
to fire off all at the same moment, then make sure they are all pointed
slightly differently for just a little overlap, and bang a huge MP image
in one go.
:-)
Digital imaging . . . it is the answer to everything, even if you never
asked the question. . . . . . :-P
Scott W
> One could include a 35mm camera in that too. It would be just as
simple
> to use 35mm films, scan the resulting frames of the mosaic, and stitch
> those together. In fact a super high resolution technique could involve
> ImageLink HQ in SPUR developer, then combine a lower resolution colour
> overall image to provide colour information. That colour information
> could be blended into the stitched B/W mosaic of film scans. Maybe we
> should discuss which 35mm cameras would be good choices for this, and
> perhaps which lenses could best exploit the resolution of ImageLink HQ film?
It is not a bad idea at all. At one time I was thinking about mixing
LF B/W negatives with 35mm color in much the same way you are talking
about.
I have also thought about three color filters with B/W film and a LF
camera.
One could also do a hybrid of LF B/W and color from digital, this would
work for some scenes by not others.
I am not inclined to experiment with any of this since I got rid of all
my darkroom gear when I moved to Hawaii. In the past I did a lot of
4x5 film and found it pretty easy (I just did B/W). I would not only
have to set up some kind of darkroom but also I would need a new
scanner. But it would be neat if someone where to do something
innovative with film.
I would not tend to go the route of stitching 35mm film shots has you
might as well use digital with a lot less work.
Scott
Scott W
>
> The previously mentioned George Lepp use to do motor driven hand held
> panning shots, of which the film would then be scanned and re-assembled.
> In fact he was not the first doing these, and all this pre-dated the
> current huge interest in stitched mosaic images. Lots of people are
> doing these, but that does not make them "large format".
>
> There are also adapters to place a 35mm or D-SLR onto the back of a view
> camera. One I saw recently had a sliding and moving plate to align image
> sections for stitching later. You could mount such a device on many view
> cameras.
Stitching goes back to almost the beginning of photography but it was
first used to get a wider angle of view, many still use it for this. I
believe it was NASA many years ago that first started using software to
stitch larger number of photos to get composites with much higher
resolution.
Max Lyons was the person who first caught my eye as pushing the
technology new areas and had a Gigi pixel image years ago (very nice
one at that).
Brian Caldwell was talking about this method 4 years ago.
Roger adds to the body of knowledge by comparing his experience with a
LF camera compared to stitching.
Like many things the body of knowledge it build over time with the help
of many people.
This is an area that is of interest to a number of people who are
currently shooting LF since the goals of what Roger is doing are the
same, hi-res, control of perspective and both foreground and background
in focus.
Scott
Bandicoot
news:muGLg.10983$xk3.8628@dukeread07...
[SNIP]
>
> Digital imaging . . . it is the answer to everything, even if you never
> asked the question. . . . . . :-P
>
Suddenly you sound just like Anni...
;-)
Peter
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> Roger, I am happy for you that you found the ideal tools to express what
> you want to in your final prints.
Thanks, but I would not call them ideal tools at all, just
another compromise that does some things better but fails
at others.
> The "expecting a higher technical response" part, did you want/expect
> more people to agree with you?
No. I was hoping for other ideas for improving the
workflow and/or results.
For example: Bart van der Wolf suggested allowing the
software to optimize for 'focal length' differences.
Questions and discussions about methods can often
lead to new insights and improvements into those methods.
> As for insecurity, I take that as an insult. I have used a PhaseOne back
> on a Contax 645 several times. Great tool, but I did not get this
> overwhelming feeling that it was the answer to all imaging situations.
> Neither did I get this insatiable urge to proclaim to anyone who might
> read/listen to dump all their other tools and do whatever they could to
> rent/borrow/buy/steal one of the same set-ups.
I made no such claims either. I simply presented my experience
and future plans.
> Technically, I suppose I
> could claim that it completely blew away everything that I have used or
> seen. The funny thing is that when those clients got the CD-Rs of
> images, which included scans of medium format film, in each case the
> images chosen were a mix of film sourced scans and captures from that
> PhaseOne back. I have also used a newer Leaf digital back once as a
> rental, and the same situation occured. Perhaps even more amazing to
> some might be that those particular clients asked for portions of each
> location shoot to be shot with the "best digital gear I could find",
> which I rented, and oddly enough more scanned film images were chosen
> than PhaseOne captures. Perhaps those clients were not savy enough to
> understand or appreciate the obvious technical superiority of a PhaseOne
> back?
I can see why you got the results you did. Film has a very
different look: the characteristic curve of film has a toe. Digital
does not. Adding a toe to digital images gives a more
film-like look. I bet if you did that to your digital images,
your clients could not tell which was film versus digital,
especially from proofs of medium or large format images.
> Last I checked a Canon 1D Mark II was a bit outdated as far as modern
> technology. After seeing George Lepp's giant prints from stitched 1DS
> Mark II at a recent exhibit, I am surprised you would not be using that.
> Another funny thing is that George Lepp showed large prints from an EOS
> 1V using Kodak E100VS and stitching, and without reading the information
> about what camera was used to create which images anyone would have
> great difficulty picking out which images came from digital, and which
> started on film . . . maybe that is down to his technical abilities?
Perhaps. I have stitched film in the past too; even 4x5s.
> Okay, so here we go with technology. Now if your goal was only website
> images, then why waste time searching for ultimate resolution. The only
> web viewing based technology I could think of that might benefit would
> be some sort of endless zoom into type set-up. So that leaves me with
> printing images being the better goal of chasing resolution.
I wouldn't be doing large format in the first place for web images.
> The normal best for 4x5 films/lenses/camera set-ups seems to indicate 60
> lp/mm as an upper limit, with a few exceptions. Next problem is scanning
> or enlarging that. So maybe we could assume 30 to 40 lp/mm as a worse
> case using high end gear. Consider then a somewhat common assumption of
> many people not being able to see more detail resolution beyond 5 lp/mm,
> and that would give a 6x to 8x larger print than the size of the film,
> or at the very best maybe 12x. That would be from slightly less than 24"
> by 30" to 32" by 40" or at the very best near 48" by 60". Obviousy 4x5
> film is slightly smaller than 4" by 5", so just a bit less than this
> would be closer to actual printed sizes.
In my opinion, even very good 12x enlargements are becoming soft.
> Your conclusion was that you could make "superior" images with your new
> methods. What it seems is that your definition of superior is solely
> based upon technical limitations. If this helps you sell prints, or sell
> workshops, or even books or articles in magazines, then I guess it is
> superior. Have your sales or revenues increased as a result of these new
> techniques? Do you get more comments about how much better your images
> are today because of your new methods?
Time will tell. I haven't even tried selling digital a mosaic yet.
But I know others who are selling (smaller) digital mosaics and doing
quite well.
> In a professional creative career, if that was a goal of yours, those
> who market themselves based upon what they own can often find themselves
> out of work in a short time. Maybe your interest is scientific imaging,
> though I doubt you would be doing landscape photos if that was the
> situation. That guy with the GigaPXL Project already has you beat on
> technology, and you are just getting started with stitching . . . though
> I suppose there is plenty of room for someone who wants to approach that
> level of resolution; don't forget to place a magnifying glass next to
> your gallery images so people can admire the resolution.
You seems to have missed the point. I wanted a lighter backpack
with equipment allowing me 4x5 quality, and the ability to
get images in conditions (like wind) where I could not get a
4x5 image. Have you taken large format equipment on an
airplane lately? Had problems with those film boxes and
airline security? I have. It is a very free feeling
not having to deal with the weight, bulk, airport security
with film, and to not only maintain the flexibility, but to
increase what I did with 4x5.
> So how should others read all this. Sure, I am very critical, everyone
> who has read what I type would think that. What photographers might want
> to keep in mind is that technology will continue to change. At some
> point there will be many making beautiful high resolution landscape
> images without even going to a location, they can just create the ideal
> landscape images in software on a computer, and then render those to
> giant prints . . . why leave the house at all.
Sure, if you want a fantasy world.
> However, the tools of
> photography are things that enable people to express what they see in
> front of them, even when the details are more than the human eye could
> see when standing in the same spot at a particular location. If a camera
> and associated gear are too bulky, too slow, or too heavy, then people
> are not going to use that gear as often, resulting in that many
> potentially interesting images might be missed. So now Roger can hike
> further, photograph more, and even shoot in conditions in which he would
> not have even unloaded his view camera. Just remember that not everyone
> has the same needs as Roger.
I agree!
Roger
j
message news:4504D560...@qwest.net...
> For example: Bart van der Wolf suggested allowing the
> software to optimize for 'focal length' differences.
> Questions and discussions about methods can often
> lead to new insights and improvements into those methods.
Roger, somewhere I once found a PhD dissertation done in the late eighties
on "infinite depth of field" software that actually worked. It merged
photographs in which the subject had different planes of focus (foreground,
middle, background), and the point is that it also scaled the subjects to
accommodate the changing focal length for each photo.
Got to find it again. If I do, I'll post the info.
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> Roger, somewhere I once found a PhD dissertation done in the late eighties
> on "infinite depth of field" software that actually worked. It merged
> photographs in which the subject had different planes of focus (foreground,
> middle, background), and the point is that it also scaled the subjects to
> accommodate the changing focal length for each photo.
>
> Got to find it again. If I do, I'll post the info.
It's pretty cool software.
Roger
Scott W
It really is, this is a test shot I did with
it.http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/65838415/original
Scott
Bjorn A. Payne Diaz
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> airplane lately? Had problems with those film boxes and
> airline security?
This spring I had about 6 rolls of 35 and 120 film "hand checked," and
they opened each of the factory sealed packages, and wiped the film to
check with their sniffer. All I could think was "come on guys, is it
really necessary to tear open every roll of film." In the future I'll
either send it UPS, or let it go through the x-rays. Man I was glad I
didn't have sheet film.
Jay
j
> j wrote:
>> Got to find it again. If I do, I'll post the info.
>
> http://www.heliconfocus.com
>
> It's pretty cool software.
Indeed it appears to be! I do admire the early efforts back when computers
were so slow. Today we have the equivalent of mini supercomputers on our
desktops.
--
j who had a VAX 11/730 in his living room...
Scott W
j wrote:
> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> > j wrote:
>
> >> Got to find it again. If I do, I'll post the info.
> >
> > http://www.heliconfocus.com
> >
> > It's pretty cool software.
>
> Indeed it appears to be! I do admire the early efforts back when computers
> were so slow. Today we have the equivalent of mini supercomputers on our
> desktops.
Go back far enough and we have the power of a fair number of
supercomputer on our desktops. In 1976 the Cray 1 topped out at 250
MFLOPS.
Scott
Greg "_"
I did sheet film last year - I bought near the destination and then
shipped back to myself 3 day with labeling stating there was film and
insured the results for my trip cost. I also shipped in two separate
boxes.
Everything looked fine :)
Gordon Moat
Oh, and I have travelled recently with a large kit and big film. Never
an easy experience, but not terrible, though I suppose it might depend
upon what airports one travels through. Probably experiences best left
for another thread.
Matt Clara
news:1157383212....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Greg "_" wrote:
>> Fear is a powerful motivator, although sometimes very bad reason to make
>> qualitative judgments. Many people shooting Large format in my
>> experience are doing so for reasons directly opposed to the purpose of
>> the OP and this post. Many like the experience of hefting the camera,
>> loading the film and trudging somewhere with the burden. I do think the
>> OP has some merits to discuss. But I am not sure the post really applies
>> to LF photography -at all.
>
> The OP's post is perfect for this news group and Roger is a perfect
> person to post it.
The whole thing smacks of zealots travelling to foreign lands to convert
heathens. As I recall the heathens seldom cared for it, either.
Greg "_"
"Matt Clara" <hey.w...@buzz.off> wrote:
Zealot on many occasion has ended up in the stew pot or on the spit.
Scott W
>
> The whole thing smacks of zealots travelling to foreign lands to convert
> heathens. As I recall the heathens seldom cared for it, either.
new group.
But instead of a dialog relating the pros and cons of his approach
there are a very few people who feel the need to attach.
A few of you have turned you form of Photography into a religion and
see anyone trying to point out other ways as an attack on your believes
and values.
There should be a real interest in what Roger has done among LF
photographs since it gives them another tools to achieve their
objectives, to capture high resolution images and to do so with good
DOF. I am not saying that this is the only kind of photograph worth
taking but it is what many (but not all) people strive for when
shooting LF. And you know what there is a real interest in what Roger
has done, and it would not surprise me in the least if a few people who
have read Roger's write up give it a try.
Roger did his point in two news groups, one digital and one LF, in both
these groups he gives people a change to consisted a technique that
they otherwise might not. In the digital group he opens up the idea to
people that they don't have to be limited to their cameras resolution
and get obtain much higher resolution photos. In the LF group he
opens up the idea that you can get the same photos using a new method.
It is safe to say that a number of people who shoot LF would not make a
habit of reading the digital news groups, since they perceive that the
objectives of digital photography are so much different that what they
are after there would be no point.
Scott
Matt Clara
>
> You can crap on it all you want, but I'm leaving
> film behind am moving on.
>
So, we won't see you here again, in what is definitively a film group?
j
It ain't no longer. That's clear.
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
j
> j wrote:
>>
>> It ain't no longer. That's clear.
>>
>>
> Never was. You ever heard of a scanning back?
Now Roger, don't preach to the choir. I was supporting your stand. Yes, of
course I know of scanning backs, but you must admit that they represent a
current primitive version of LF. It's real hard to light subjects in the
studio with electronic flash and outdoors, well they produce some
interesting outcomes.
I'd leap upon a true 4x5 digital back in a heartbeat, but I don't think one
is forthcoming in my lifetime.
Raphael Bustin
>Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>> j wrote:
>>>
>>> It ain't no longer. That's clear.
>>>
>>>
>> Never was. You ever heard of a scanning back?
>
>Now Roger, don't preach to the choir. I was supporting your stand.
Sure could have fooled me, j.
> Yes, of
>course I know of scanning backs, but you must admit that they represent a
>current primitive version of LF. It's real hard to light subjects in the
>studio with electronic flash and outdoors, well they produce some
>interesting outcomes.
>
>I'd leap upon a true 4x5 digital back in a heartbeat, but I don't think one
>is forthcoming in my lifetime.
Over in the Epson printers lists that I hang out on, many
of the listees derive serious income from art reproduction.
One of the prime tools for that seems to be LF cameras
with scanning backs. Better Light seems to be the
preferred brand.
There's usually intense discussion of lighting techniques.
Cross-polarized light sources and what not. Way beyond me.
LF+scan back for outdoor landscape work is a lot more
problematic. Dykinga has a brief section about it in his
book. If I get the gist of it, he likes the results but
thinks it's too way much schlepping.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
j
> LF+scan back for outdoor landscape work is a lot more
> problematic. Dykinga has a brief section about it in his
> book. If I get the gist of it, he likes the results but
> thinks it's too way much schlepping.
I wonder of J. Dykinga doesn't suffer the same angst I do with digital
outdoors. Even though I've been computer-friendly for thirty years, all that
electronics outdoors just doesn't seem right to me.
rafe b
"j" <2...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:12hl0fj...@news.supernews.com...
It's problematic, I'll grant you -- with current technology.
Doesn't seem to me that a laptop would be needed... it
seems that a controller/storage unit could be made much
more compact -- and could even include a decent, hi-res
display.
In general I don't bring a lot of electronics into the back-
country. I bring a cell phone and a small P&S digicam.
That's about the extent of it. The cell is for contact with
the spousal unit, mostly.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
VinDevo
this group - I take my phaseone out into the field all the time - took
it to France for its summer holidays - by plane and gave all the
security people a good laugh - of course it was before the latest round
of flying paranoia. If you are used to humping around a large format kit
there's not a lot more to carrying round a digital kit.
and it's not about if digital is better than film - it's about using one
type of technology to produce a specific type of image - to paraphrase
William Crawford - the technology, the film, the paper are the syntax
but the image is the language - the communication
and come to think of it - was this not the group that was discussing
bringing their guns with them when you go out to take photos - now that
j
> You're a bunch of girls
Clearly VinDevo doesn't have a clue as to whom he is writing.
David Nebenzahl
> VinDevo wrote:
>
>>You're a bunch of girls
>
> Clearly VinDevo doesn't have a clue as to whom he is writing.
Sheesh. John, did you forget to take your Geritol again? I told you to
watch that irony deficiency.
--
Save the Planet
Kill Yourself
- motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/)
Alan Browne
> So, we won't see you here again, in what is definitively a film group?
This is no more a film group than rpe35mm.
Cheers,
Alan
Mike
art of composition.
have fun with that. i'll stick to composing the entire image on the
ground glass and making a single exposure.
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 08:47:40 -0600, Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark) wrote:
> Hi.
> I have been doing large format photography for going on 2 decades.
> I have also been doing wildlife photography, first with 35mm then
> digital. Thus, I often carry both digital wildlife and 4x5 gear
> on a hike (up to 70 pounds). That gets real tiring and limits
> my range (and, obviously, I'm getting older). I want an alternative
> without giving up anything ;-). I switched to a Toho field camera
> (3 pounds) from heavier cameras several years ago, but it is still
> too much weight doing both digital wildlife and 4x5 (I still love
> the Toho though).
>
> Mosaicking many digital image frames as intrigued me for
> some time, and I have been experimenting with the methods,
> from field to computer processing. Like large format view cameras
> and methods, there is much to learn. But my experience so far
> is that digital mosaics can equal and surpass 4x5 drum scanned
> film in many applications, including large depth of field imaging
> requiring tilts on a view camera. And I can get images in the
> field faster and under conditions not suitable for large format
> photography (like wind).
>
> I've written up some of my experiences in this article and compare
> the digital results to drum scanned 4x5 film images:
>
> Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large Format Film
> http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> Roger Clark
> my photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com
Matt Clara
news:C_yTg.66276$qK2.1...@wagner.videotron.net...
> Matt Clara wrote:
>> So, we won't see you here again, in what is definitively a film group?
>
> This is no more a film group than rpe35mm.
>
I disagree completely. There is a huge difference between this and Annika's
group.