Which lens is best suited for stitching?

[kers]

If we look at photography as an artistic process, stitching can impact it negatively, but it's entirely up to the photographer's mindset.

Well, stitching is just a technical process to achieve a certain image...like any other technical process.
In itself it has nothing to do with aesthetics.
There is nothing more 'artistic' about one uncropped shot… for me it is just an other technical process.
Be free to choose your ways for achieving your (aesthetic/artistic) goals

[torger]

Well, stitching is just a technical process to achieve a certain image...like any other technical process.
In itself it has nothing to do with aesthetics.
There is nothing more 'artistic' about one uncropped shot… for me it is just an other technical process.
Be free to choose your ways for achieving your (aesthetic/artistic) goals

I certainly agree that you can do it many ways. My comment was related to Tim's comment that stitching should not be done for resolution gain, and the way I interpreted that was for his personal artistic goals.

Parallel to that many photographers shoot their artistic work on film and professional work on digital the process matters to some of us when it comes to artistic work, not only the end result. For products only the end result counts and I would use any technique that is the most effective and makes the customer happy.

This is not saying that elaborate technical processes would be worse from an artistic meaning, it wholly depends on what your art is about and how you yourself experience the process. To me stitching, which I have done some, is a mechanical process which I find disconnecting and as such not in line with how I want to create images. That it feels disconnecting to me does not mean that it would feel disconnecting to everyone though.

[kers]

I certainly agree that you can do it many ways. My comment was related to Tim's comment that stitching should not be done for resolution gain, and the way I interpreted that was for his personal artistic goals.

Parallel to that many photographers shoot their artistic work on film and professional work on digital the process matters to some of us when it comes to artistic work, not only the end result. For products only the end result counts and I would use any technique that is the most effective and makes the customer happy.

This is not saying that elaborate technical processes would be worse from an artistic meaning, it wholly depends on what your art is about and how you yourself experience the process. To me stitching, which I have done some, is a mechanical process which I find disconnecting and as such not in line with how I want to create images. That it feels disconnecting to me does not mean that it would feel disconnecting to everyone though.

I agree of course with all you are saying...
Personally, after spending many hours/weeks/years in darkrooms, i find digital a relief...(+ more healthy)  and i feel more connected because of its directness and control.
I also stitch more and more and find it very satisfying for some purposes ; also it makes me do things otherwise optically impossible, like the image above.

[narikin]

It is 20 m to the object. The photo shows the building environment. It is not important how much the environment will be in the picture, are important dimensions of the output file. ( File dimension: 3m x 20 m in photographic quality (300 dpi)

Just to point out a.f.a.i.k. there is no way to print this is a single piece - no printer can do 3mx20m at high photographic quality.

You will have to print it in panels, with seams between them, which then makes you wonder why go to all this bother of making a giant seamless stitch if you have to chop it up anyways when printed?

[Joe Towner]

Just to point out a.f.a.i.k. there is no way to print this is a single piece - no printer can do 3mx20m at high photographic quality.

You will have to print it in panels, with seams between them, which then makes you wonder why go to all this bother of making a giant seamless stitch if you have to chop it up anyways when printed?

There are print options, they just aren't something you'd have at home.   5m at 600dpi or 3m at 1200dpi

http://www.efi.com/products/inkjet-printing-and-proofing/vutek-superwide-printers/
http://www.efi.com/products/inkjet-printing-and-proofing/vutek-superwide-printers/high-volume/dedicated-roll-to-roll/efi-vutek-gs5500lxr-pro/overview/

Here's a shop in Los Angeles (right next to the DT office there) that has one - http://www.jcbackings.com
Roughly, it's ~$13 per square foot, and there's like a $3,000 minimum order

They prints are actually used as backdrops for filming, especially pilots where you've got no money for location shoots.  This is also how billboards are done - printed and installed (though at a much lower resolution).

[Richard Osbourne]

A lot of my work has been produced at full wall height - 2.5m x 10m kind of size. You can see some of it here: http://www.bluepearlphoto.com/projects. I've taken many images up to 10:1 aspect ratio - see here: http://www.richardosbourne.com/panoramics.

For full wall use, 300dpi is probably overkill - the scale means that most people simply won't look that close to be able to see the difference between 150 and 300dpi. I'm using an IQ260 - around 9,000 pixels vertically and that's pretty good but could definitely do with a few more on some images. I would think that the IQ100 will be a good choice, as long as you use meticulous technique - really solid, heavy tripod, mirror up etc. The low noise will also really help when images are scaled up. I'm often surprised that images I thought were pretty low res (5600pixels vertically) can look really good once printed very large - the print process can mask a range of problems.

Regarding lenses, the new LS Schneiders from Phase are excellent. I'm using the 55 and 80LS and I'm finding they give outstanding results: sharp edge to edge, minimal distortion, good depth of field at F16, reasonable flare resistance. I've started experimenting with the Schneider 60XL on my Cambo. This is about as sharp as the LS lenses, and is a devil to focus properly as it has less depth of field than the LS lenses for a given aperture but it gives the possibility of stitching 2 rows of images easily with it's massive image circle. Single row panoramics are tricky enough: double row is pure masochism but the 60XL seems to have few problems (for a tech cam lens) - huge image circle, v.little LCC correction required. Double row spherical panoramas are also very problematic - flare problems, things moving in the frame, stitching problems can all screw up the shot. Only one frame in a panoramic needs to be wrong for the whole thing to be wrong.

Re. printing. My work is often printed on roll-to-roll Vutek UV printers on textured or plain wallpaper type material. This is available in 3m x 50m rolls so that's the maximum size print you can produce on it. Of course, whether you could physically lift 3m x 50m to install in a single piece is the main issue - generally it would be limited to 10m runs unless you make special arrangements for a forklift or something! The quality is good - 1200dpi - though the colours aren't quite what you would get from my Canon 12 colour IPF9000 for example.

These 3 links are recent comparisons I did for a client who was proposing using Shutterstock images. The print is at 1.76m high so you can look at these at 150% or so in Photoshop to get an idea of the quality at 3m high. Not perfect, but if you step back 1m, it's not too bad:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10489236/Comparison1.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10489236/Comparison2.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10489236/Comparison3.jpg

[Richard Osbourne]

Should have pointed out that I'm stitching using the DF+ and LS lenses on a Manfrotto click-stop panorama head. I'm trying to do the same with the Cambo and 60XL but the unreliability of shooting many images quickly using a tech cam is frustrating. Roll on the new electronic shutters!