Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: dreed on September 08, 2014, 09:36:29 am
-
Or perhaps "Why not"? Unaffordable.
When I can get a complete MF digital solution for the same price as a D800 digital solution, then it will be of interest to myself (and I suspect many others.)
-
"medium format will never meet the expectations of those who are looking for 35mm-like autofocus performance. It won’t happen. "
Have you tried a Pentax 645z... ;)
-
Interesting article and very logical. But, is it really 'necessary' to have such high resolution - even for huge prints for interior design. One is not going to stand up against a 40 inch print and view it. Well I suppose you would if you could......
We each have our own desires and justifications for the gear we use and so perhaps it is just interesting to see what drives others. For myself I am moving evermore towards smaller cameras - even for my professional work. But then I'm not producing 40 inch prints!
Not knocking Andy though - if I could I probably would have a MF camera knocking around to play with.... :)
Jim
-
Different people have different thresholds of what is "good enough". For me I was happy with the D300's 12mp files at 20x30. Even 30x45 was possible but it required a lot of care, starting from capture all the way to print. I'll bet Andy would have seen my prints and cringed on the spot though. :P
-
Hi,
I guess that high end digital makes a lot of sense, if you can afford it. Lower end digital makes also a lot of sense if used by leaf shutters (for high shutter speeds using flash outside) or on technical cameras.
But whatever the camera, you still need to make best use of it.
Best regards
Erik
-
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/
Big Sony camera announcement 3-4 months AFTER Photokina. New high resolution sensor cameras coming!
This may add to the discussion.
-
You are right when you say no one is going to stand up next to a forty foot print. (Except maybe some of us here). In any case, big outdoor posters are lo res, sometimes only 3 or 4 meg.
It's mostly not about the megapixels for me.... As far as I know, no other portrait photographer in my town, can be bothered with Medium format, it's too hard/expensive. But...as a professional, I believe I have to have superior gear. The best available.
I use MF for the following reasons in our portrait studio....and this includes corporate portrait headshots for web images... often displayed at only 100pxls on web pages, and 40" prints.
1. I can see the subjects subtle expression changes of the person through the view finder. It's big and clear on the H5D. It's practically 3D compared to a full frame dslr, let alone a 2/3 size sensor.
2. Because of the big and bright viewfinder, I can focus manually when I want. It's quicker than auto focus in the studio. I don't miss the shot because the autofocus is searching.
3. It's been said many times... It slows me down and I get the shot in 3 rather 10 images.
4. Even though 90% of my work is Black and White, when I do colour, it's more accurate. It looks 'more right' from the start.
5. I can start work in 16bit 270meg files with gorgeous skin tones and smooth gradations. The images are more real and less electronic/artifacty. There's real detail to be seen.
6. The Bokeh is beautiful...even on mid range focal length lens. 80 - 120
6. Cropping into an image doesn't compromise quality much.
7. I will never be shooting someone who has a better camera than me:) It's damned impressive which means less reluctance with the credit card.
I used to shoot MF film for portrait. I recall printing some 8x10 negs and being amazed at the silky skin tones they reproduced compared to my 'small' Blad negs.
That's my slant on it.
-
Hi,
Sort of a good point. We don't actually know about the great news in January (?), said to be 46 MP sensor.
With new lenses from Sigma (Art) and Zeiss (Otus and Loxia) next generation of DSLRs will be competitive with low end MFD.
Best regards
Erik
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/
Big Sony camera announcement 3-4 months AFTER Photokina. New high resolution sensor cameras coming!
This may add to the discussion.
-
You are right when you say no one is going to stand up next to a forty foot print. (Except maybe some of us here). In any case, big outdoor posters are lo res, sometimes only 3 or 4 meg.
It's mostly not about the megapixels for me.... As far as I know, no other portrait photographer in my town, can be bothered with Medium format, it's too hard/expensive. But...as a professional, I believe I have to have superior gear. The best available.
I use MF for the following reasons in our portrait studio....and this includes corporate portrait headshots for web images... often displayed at only 100pxls on web pages, and 40" prints.
1. I can see the subjects subtle expression changes of the person through the view finder. It's big and clear on the H5D. It's practically 3D compared to a full frame dslr, let alone a 2/3 size sensor.
2. Because of the big and bright viewfinder, I can focus manually when I want. It's quicker than auto focus in the studio. I don't miss the shot because the autofocus is searching.
3. It's been said many times... It slows me down and I get the shot in 3 rather 10 images.
4. Even though 90% of my work is Black and White, when I do colour, it's more accurate. It looks 'more right' from the start.
5. I can start work in 16bit 270meg files with gorgeous skin tones and smooth gradations. The images are more real and less electronic/artifacty. There's real detail to be seen.
6. The Bokeh is beautiful...even on mid range focal length lens. 80 - 120
6. Cropping into an image doesn't compromise quality much.
7. I will never be shooting someone who has a better camera than me:) It's damned impressive which means less reluctance with the credit card.
I used to shoot MF film for portrait. I recall printing some 8x10 negs and being amazed at the silky skin tones they reproduced compared to my 'small' Blad negs.
That's my slant on it.
All very valid points - though it has to be said most of this appeals to you/us as a photographer rather than what the client needs/wants. I agree a camera needs to be enjoyable to use - I remember fondly film medium format.
I personally don't worry about point 7 though - I get a perverse pleasure from producing good pictures from a small camera! I've never felt customers pay me based on my gear - only on my skill. How lucky we are to have such an amazing choice of gear now.
Jim
-
But, is it really 'necessary' to have such high resolution - even for huge prints for interior design. One is not going to stand up against a 40 inch print and view it.
Do yourself a favour and go to an art gallery or a museum exhibiting large prints. A large photographic print that is sharp viewed up close is a stunning experience.
Let us take this picture from the article as an example:
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/Biggs_Medium_Format/AndyBiggs_052213__Grumeti_043.jpg)
Even in web size, it is a very nice picture. Now, imagine it wall size and imagine yourself being able to make out individual grass stems and details in the girafes' hair.
-
I hope Andy will answer this question and modify his post. I would like to know the f-stop used for all the images in the article. This is important to me because I would like to consider MF, but the narrower DOF concerns me for landscape photography. And yes, I have perused many other photographers images, but the ones I like are shot with a technical camera body. But any article extolling virtues of something without the f-stop used are worthless to me.
-
Do yourself a favour and go to an art gallery or a museum exhibiting large prints. A large photographic print that is sharp viewed up close is a stunning experience.
Let us take this picture from the article as an example:
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/Biggs_Medium_Format/AndyBiggs_052213__Grumeti_043.jpg)
Even in web size, it is a very nice picture. Now, imagine it wall size and imagine yourself being able to make out individual grass stems and details in the girafes' hair.
I have seen big prints and in my first post I did admit it might actually be worth MF to get up close. We are of course talking about a very small number of photographers who would get the most out of such a system.
Jim
-
With new lenses from Sigma (Art) and Zeiss (Otus and Loxia) next generation of DSLRs will be competitive with low end MFD.
In my view, the current generation already is Erik. Moving from 36mp to 46mp (+28%) would make very little practical difference. Even less than a move from 22mp with AA filter to 36mp without AA filter (+64%) for instance.
In my view a D810 + Otus is equal or superior to the 39-40MP backs mounted on SLR cameras with most MF lenses along most key metrics. It is less obvious if you mount those backs on technical cameras. That's if you don't consider stitching. If you stitch the D810 is far superior across the board for obvious reasons well described in the past.
The giraffe picture is very nice and very high resolution must help make it special, no doubt.
Would stitching have been applicable? Not having been there it is difficult to figure out whether it could have been achieved by stitching, but it would for sure have been a more stressful shooting experience in terms of timing of the giraffe position/neck direction. On the other hand stitching would have enabled to decouple the giraffes movement which might have made it easier to get nice and well matched positions faster in fact. That would have required a planned approach to image capture that is often difficult to execute in the heat of the moment.
The following image of a pretty crowded street in Kanazawa Japan, shows a good example of how stitching can help build images by optimizing the timing of each sub-frame (here by chosing moments where there is nobody in each part of the street).
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8040/8001274520_6c2505fe93_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The following image of a pretty crowded street in Kanazawa Japan, shows a good example of how stitching can help build images by optimizing the timing of each sub-frame (here by chosing moments where there is nobody in each part of the street).
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8040/8001274520_6c2505fe93_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
I really like this one. How many images did you capture to make it.
Alan
-
I really like this one. How many images did you capture to make it.
Alan,
From the top of my head, probably 5 handheld. This is D800 + 85mm f1.4 G (probably around f6.3/7.1, possibly with adjusted focus point from frame to frame).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If you stitch the D810 is far superior across the board for obvious reasons well described in the past.
There certainly are other solutions than MF cameras to produce high resolution pictures. Stitching is one, sheet film would be another.
The giraffe picture is very nice and very high resolution must help make it special, no doubt.
Would stitching have been applicable? Not having been there it is difficult to figure out whether it could have been achieved by stitching, but it would for sure have been a more stressful shooting experience in terms of timing of the giraffe position/neck direction. On the other hand stitching would have enabled to decouple the giraffes movement which might have made it easier to get nice and well matched positions faster in fact. That would have required a planned approach to image capture that is often difficult to execute in the heat of the moment.
With that particular picture, I would venture that stitching would be impossible. If there is a bit of wind, the grass will move and it will be impossible to join the halves together.
-
With that particular picture, I would venture that stitching would be impossible. If there is a bit of wind, the grass will move and it will be impossible to join the halves together.
Yes, that may be, but I don't think that would be a big problem. One reason being that the close ones where issues would be most visible doesn't seem to be in the plane of focus.
It is nearly always possible to deal with this, most often fully automatically, worst case through manual masking. Most small stitching issues are in fact invisible.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There are valid reasons for some to use and require medium format or even larger formats.
However larger formats were, and remain a relatively niche area and are largely irrelevant to the needs of most users.
Nice to have a choice, I honestly don't see any kind of larger format (than 35mm FF) dominating the market in the future.
Doesn't diminish the needs of others, just not mainstream.
-
Because I like it.
Because I can.
Because it makes me happy.
Because it makes beautiful pictures.
- N.
-
When I shot 4x5" film it wasn't 'cuz I wanted to make big prints. In fact I rarely printed larger than 8x10". It was the procedures & discipline needed to use the camera & lens that I wanted to master. It was fun. I use the Pentax (645D) now, not 'cuz there's much to "master" relative to other current gear, but because my other gear is small & light & handheld & I take a freewheeling approach with it while the Pentax is bigger & heavier & tripod mounted & I take a careful approach. I also rarely print big with it…9x12" or so. No point. I don't have the wall space for big prints, and most folks I know would rather have a 2048x1536 JPEG they can display on various screens than even a 9x12. Most of the time, frankly, so would I.
-Dave-
-
Interesting comments folks. I moved to Medium Format from Nikon because I preferred the format factor of the camera. Call me strange, but I didn't like the size of the Nikon and it didn't feel right using it on the tripod - all the controls seemed fiddly and I just didn't enjoy it. Moving to the larger camera was a breath of fresh air and I really love using this big, heavy camera - admit this is the Pentax, so more DSLR-like than others.
Yes I love the IQ I am getting, love the fact that I can print big - but the number of large prints I do are limited, I miss the DOF of 35mm format and ultra wide angles - but use of the camera is an emotional thing for me.
All I know is, it gets me out there more and my images have improved since I am more in-tune with the camera (Yes better technical images, but also just better images).
So it isn't just about the technical differences.
-
Thanks for all of the comments and feedback on the article, folks. I am scratching my head why stitching with 35mm became part of the discussion about wildlife photography, which is what the article was about. I switched because of what Nick posted a few comments before mine. I switched mostly because it makes me happy and I don't really care if what I use is always the most appropriate format for my craft.
-
Andy, you should know better that to quarrel with the format police. ;)
M
-
Hi,
Nothing wrong with that…
Best regards
Erik
Thanks for all of the comments and feedback on the article, folks. I am scratching my head why stitching with 35mm became part of the discussion about wildlife photography, which is what the article was about. I switched because of what Nick posted a few comments before mine. I switched mostly because it makes me happy and I don't really care if what I use is always the most appropriate format for my craft.
-
... I would like to know the f-stop used for all the images in the article. This is important to me because I would like to consider MF, but the narrower DOF concerns me for landscape photography.
DOF is not much of a problem for a larger format with slow moving subjects: you can get the same DOF in MF as with 35mm by simply using about one f-stop higher and either doubling the exposure time or doubling the exposure index (so-called "ISO"). If shutter speed is limited, the latter option used to be dodgy with CCD MF gear, but is far more viable with the new 44x33mm Sony exmor CMOS sensors.
-
So here is the deal. I have been on safari here in Africa for the past 3 weeks, and have used the new IQ250 back quite a bit. Take a look at a few images to see if you think this is working and if 35mm stitching would cut the mustard. Remember that the discussion is about the article and wildlife photography, not about anything else like landscapes, fashion or interiors.
-
and some more
-
In summary it seems to be working for me, because I am happy with it.
;D ;D ;D
-
Hello Andy.
QED. Cool photographs and glad to see how much fun you are having with the Phase One.
David
-
And then there's the old joke.... "The best camera is the one you have with you". If a talented photographer goes out into the world with a smartphone, he or she will come back home with some amazing images. If he or she steps up to a Nikon D800 or D810, he or she will come back with some amazing pictures. If he or she steps up to medium format digital... you guessed it, some amazing images will be achieved.
Are there technical distinctions between these imaging options that lead to different aesthetic results? For sure. Is one better suited in some circumstances over another? For sure. But much of the format justification I see published in the literature is not based on any of these factors. There is a subtle undertone that means it is based on individuality and exclusivity, ie. "I own a rare camera system, and that makes my images different than what other photographers can achieve". Rarity might come because of the high cost of the particular camera, but rarity might also come, albeit fleetingly, because the camera is very new on the market.
In my own day-to-day existence, I've never run into another photographer shooting with a medium format digital camera system. I see Youtube videos and Phase One promo videos about these folks, but I've never run into one in real life. Come to think of it, I've never run into another photographer shooting with a Nikon D800 or a Sony A7r. By the time you fork out a few grand for a camera, you are in a rarified atmosphere indeed. Enough said.
-
In my own day-to-day existence, I've never run into another photographer shooting with a medium format digital camera system. I see Youtube videos and Phase One promo videos about these folks, but I've never run into one in real life. Come to think of it, I've never run into another photographer shooting with a Nikon D800 or a Sony A7r.
Maybe you need to move to another place... ::)
I have seen photographers with MF cameras, albeit rarely. I see people using D800 or Sony A7 (did not check the r) regularly.
-
So here is the deal. I have been on safari here in Africa for the past 3 weeks, and have used the new IQ250 back quite a bit. Take a look at a few images to see if you think this is working and if 35mm stitching would cut the mustard. Remember that the discussion is about the article and wildlife photography, not about anything else like landscapes, fashion or interiors.
These are 8 very nice pictures you posted. I would expect them to be absolutely stunning when printed wall-size.
I really think that the people arguing that only so many pixels are necessary to print big should take the time to go to a decent museum or gallery and see really large fine art prints.
-
Here is another image from today.
-
That last one may be nicer in colour. In B&W, one does not immediately understand that the part behind the elephants is not the sky, but a cloud. Mount Kilimandjaro looks as if it comes out of nowhere.
Still: please stop posting pictures or you will make me so jealous that I will have to come to one of your workshops to see if that place is real... ::) ::) ::)
-
Take a look at a few images to see if you think this is working and if 35mm stitching would cut the mustard.
Good shots, Andy. However I do feel that a D810 9-shot stitch will definitely give you the additional resolution and tonality you're missing in some of the wildlife frames. Rather than run 'n gun with the IQ250, perhaps one of your party could simply persuade them to hold it and ' say cheese for the camera ... '
Just sayin' jesting ...
-
The image with the two giraffes looks like a landscape to me ;) and yes, with the animals separated as you show, you could've stitched it. Obviously an animal close-up cannot be stitched. You like your DMF and are happy with it so end of story.
-
You guys are killing me. :-)
Maybe I should buy a cheap 2004 era Canon 6mp EOS 10D and stitch about 12 images to equal the pixel count....
-
Why trouble yourself? Buy a 36 MP D810 and stitch! It'll be as good, as long as you get the alignment right, and the animal doesn't move, and you don't move, and...
-
Why trouble yourself? Buy a 36 MP D810 and stitch! It'll be as good, as long as you get the alignment right, and the animal doesn't move, and you don't move, and...
If you can afford the Phase One camera and the Schneider lenses and need to print really big and the business supports it, then why bother with stitching? Stitching is in my opinion not practical as a general approach. Stitching is fine for the occasion where you need it, but stitching every picture? Not really ;)
-
*makes a whistling sound and waves a hand over head*
-
I agree with Hans. I do often stitch, but higher resolution is better.
I am not sure low end MF makes a lot of sense, though, and high end MF is very expensive.
Best regards
Erik
If you can afford the Phase One camera and the Schneider lenses and need to print really big and the business supports it, then why bother with stitching? Stitching is in my opinion not practical as a general approach. Stitching is fine for the occasion where you need it, but stitching every picture? Not really ;)
-
You guys are killing me. :-)
Maybe I should buy a cheap 2004 era Canon 6mp EOS 10D and stitch about 12 images to equal the pixel count....
Andy,
You are of course right.
Stitching is IMHO a generic technique that can be used for a majority of landscape images (in fact I am not sure why anyone concerned by image quality would not want to stitch those) but only a small sub-set of environmental wildlife images.
I only commented about stitching because of the nature of the images you had originally shown. They gave me the impression that you were using your MF gear less for pure wildlfe and more for images showing the animal in its wider environment. Stitching makes sense for a sub-set of those shots IMHO.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Even the images that are wide and are as much about landscapes as wildlife just don't work as stitched panoramas. Wildlife moves. Setting up a camera to shoot on a tripod is a luxury. Post processing / merging images with wildlife isn't simple, due to all of the movement. I shoot from a bean bag, not from a tripod on a gimbal mount from some remote location. I am in the mix in a vehicle, moving around with agility to anticipate the best shooting position.
Stitching for wildlife just doesn't work. It's much much easier to take 1 photograph with equipment that is suited for that. It frees up more time to drink beer at the end of the day. :-)
-
Stitching for wildlife just doesn't work. It's much much easier to take 1 photograph with equipment that is suited for that. It frees up more time to drink beer at the end of the day. :-)
I really wish I had the opportunity to challenge that statement in the coming months (because I am confident it can be done with the right focus), but that will unfortunately probably not happen so I'll have to agree with you about the importance of beer drinking time. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Stitching is a godsend for constructing bigger files when needed. Only problem is, it kind of destroys that unique moment of joy of knowing you just achieved a small masterpiece after hearing the subtle click of your camera.
On the opposite, the stitching process is a mechanical sequence that will retribute after the computer work.
Stitching is like having to drink the whole liquid of a very cold beer to exhale long and loud with pleasure. Single frame pictures is like being able to to do it after each ingestion.
So, in short, shooting stitches have one satisfaction. Shooting single frames have two moments of satisfaction.
That along, is reason enough to go the medium format way. If only I could afford it.
Eduardo
-
I am eager to hear how stitching works for all of the wildlife I ages I have posted in this thread. Please illuminate. If you have not been on safari before take some time to consider the environment, shooting conditions and shooting platform as part of your process.
-
I am eager to hear how stitching works for all of the wildlife I ages I have posted in this thread. Please illuminate. If you have not been on safari before take some time to consider the environment, shooting conditions and shooting platform as part of your process.
Not all of them would be manageable obviously.
My safari experience is very limited (elephants in Ski Lanka many years ago) and photography was not part of the experience. So I do fully acknowledge that I am not speaking from first hand experience, just looking at the final images in terms of the elements they contain.
IMHO, but again I wasn't there so this is just theoretical, the 2 giraffe images would be manageable with stitching, probably 5 vertical frames for the first one, basically as many frames as you want for the second one with the giraffes in the distance. This could probably be done handheld or with a monopod depending on the lens being used, how good the VR/IS is,...
The last one with the 2 elephants groups also. It is a good candidate for a 2x2 stitch with images in landscape orientation.
The lions ones I would probably not risk if getting the shot is critical, although it may be manageable depending on how much they move.
But I am not discussing the fact that a one shot capture is a lot more relaxing in terms of shooting experience nor that the only way to know for sure is to try it out in the field, which, as mentioned above, I will not have the opportunity to do in the foreseeable future. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The challenge is that you never know what is around the next bend, and stitching opportunities doesn't happen very often. So it is easier to bring the right tool for the job and have peace of mind.
-
The challenge is that you never know what is around the next bend, and stitching opportunities doesn't happen very often. So it is easier to bring the right tool for the job and have peace of mind.
Agreed Andy.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Why is it necessary to wait for the end of the day to drink beer ? :D
-
thumbs up
-
Only if you stitch. :D
Why is it necessary to wait for the end of the day to drink beer ? :D
-
I get it. You shoot differently with different tools. Most wildlife photographers don't like, can't afford, and/or can't carry the MF arsenal in addition to the 135-format arsenal. Those that do their wildlife photography largely based from a Range Rover, instead of using their own two feet to hike miles into a wildlife venue with cameras, food, camping gear, etc, can take lots of weight. If you have the luxury of being able to use MF and you find MF causes you to compose differently, etc, your images look different from the run of the mill wildlife photography images, hence, more saleable. MF satisfies desire to see the animal in detail and satisfies desire to seen animal in the context of the landscape.
-
Ironically my camera bag actually weighs less now than when I shot with 35mm gear.
-
Fewer possible lens choices, so you don't have to take the whole CPS inventory ;D (cue amazing closet photo: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=225362 )
Makes sense to me. One of these days I will get it together to really get comfortable with my genuinely portable 4 x 5" aluminum monorail, which weighs 3# with one lens (admittedly the tiniest lens I have seen, 150 f/6.3 Seiko 0, at 135 grams including its shutter - my Canon wide-normal prime 40 mm f/2.8 weighs the same, and it is plastic and doesn't have a shutter). A pro-grade gripped DSLR and the new Zeiss Otus 55 would weigh more than that tiny LF camera plus tiny lens plus several film holders, loupe, black cloth, and spot meter or compact digital camera used as meter.
Speaking as an amateur, sometimes it is a lot of fun to just shoot with a single prime as I did back in the 1960s as a teenager.
-
Ironically my camera bag actually weighs less now than when I shot with 35mm gear.
Andy, as I age (reluctantly!) I'm much more appreciative of lighter gear.
-
Hi,
I sort of go in the other direction. 5 MF lenses (40, 50, 80, 120 and 180) + 2-3 135 lenses (10 mm fisheye, 24-70 and 70-400) and a DSLR. For long walks, MFD is left behind. I love shooting MFD, but 135 gets those shots…
Best regards
Erik
Andy, as I age (reluctantly!) I'm much more appreciative of lighter gear.
-
This discussion of stitching / not stitching strikes a chord with me. I know that some people don't feel tied to the camera's framing and are happy to stitch, or crop, post-capture, but it doesn't work like that for me. I compose through the viewfinder, and I'm pretty precise in getting what I want. Post-capture composition usually doezn't work for - i'd probably forget what struck me in the first place. As for stitching, well, been there, done that. I was stitching with the first version of QuicktimeVR back in the early 90s, for professional reasons, and it was frustration with the process that pushed me in tbe direction of the then new XPan. Now, i'm seriously considering what is probably an absurd acquisition, a Linhof 612PC, because the 6x12 frame is my absolute favourite. I do wish camera manufacturers would let us define our own frames - with EVFs would that be so hard? I'd gladly give up "art filters" and "selfie mode" to be able to have such a feature. On a Pentax 645z maybe...
-
This discussion of stitching / not stitching strikes a chord with me. I know that some people don't feel tied to the camera's framing and are happy to stitch, or crop, post-capture, but it doesn't work like that for me. I compose through the viewfinder, and I'm pretty precise in getting what I want. Post-capture composition usually doezn't work for - i'd probably forget what struck me in the first place. As for stitching, well, been there, done that. I was stitching with the first version of QuicktimeVR back in the early 90s, for professional reasons, and it was frustration with the process that pushed me in tbe direction of the then new XPan. Now, i'm seriously considering what is probably an absurd acquisition, a Linhof 612PC, because the 6x12 frame is my absolute favourite.
6x12 is nice but there are much cheaper ways, such as using a Horseman 6x12 roll film back on a cheap 4x5 camera.
As far as stitching goes, I only started more than 11-12 years ago, am aware of the limitations and I am not trying to convince anyone, but will still mention that both hardware (pano heads) and software are much better today.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yeah, but i'd look a bit daft with a 4x5 hanging from my neck :-)
Agree about the tools being being better, but still, the satisfaction is missing, for me. Doesn't make sense, I know.
-
Yeah, but i'd look a bit daft with a 4x5 hanging from my neck :-)
:)
Agree about the tools being being better, but still, the satisfaction is missing, for me. Doesn't make sense, I know.
It does make complete sense, the shooting experience is of course essential.
For me stitching is a fun technical challenge as part of a quest for technical excellence. I see it as the modern equivalent of 8x10 but I don't expect many people to share my addiction! ;)
And it is also easy for me because I don't have any real obligation to succeed. This being said I can't remember the last time I couldn't manage to stitch an image in ways that I find indistinguishable from a single capture of the same scene. But I know what can and cannot be done. ;)
Cheers,
Bernars
-
Hi,
What I find a bit is that I am doing a lot more stitching and stacking with MFD than I did with 135. A couple of reasons:
1) With 135 I used zooms, so I could frame my subjects optimally, but with MFD I use primes
2) I shoot on a Hasselblad using viewfinder mask. The viewfinder mask shows different alternate views, so sometimes I feel that a different crop is better. The DSLR viewfinder shows only a single view. So, I would say that the viewfinder mask offers a different view.
3) I feel that MFD is more challenged regarding DoF, also I really bought into MFD to get better sharpness. So, to handle DoF I do a lot of stacking.
The last couple of days, the majority of my pictures on MFD were either stacked or stitched.
Best regards
Erik
For me stitching is a fun technical challenge as part of a quest for technical excellence. I see it as the modern equivalent of 8x10 but I don't expect many people to share my addiction! ;)
And it is also easy for me because I don't have any real obligation to succeed. This being said I can't remember the last time I couldn't manage to stitch an image in ways that I find indistinguishable from a single capture of the same scene. But I know what can and cannot be done. ;)
Cheers,
Bernars
-
:)
For me stitching is a fun technical challenge as part of a quest for technical excellence. I see it as the modern equivalent of 8x10 but I don't expect many people to share my addiction! ;)
And it is also easy for me because I don't have any real obligation to succeed. This being said I can't remember the last time I couldn't manage to stitch an image in ways that I find indistinguishable from a single capture of the same scene. But I know what can and cannot be done. ;)
Cheers,
Bernars
And to add belatedly to this discussion, my use of the Fotodiox Rhinocam provides a high MP medium format output utilizing stitching at a fraction of the cost of a dedicated medium format camera, yet using medium format lenses. (I use old Hasselblad lenses, which have larger image circles.) In addition, with this setup I have greater flexibility in output through assemblage of different individual "takes."
-
You wouldn't look daft at all with that 4 x 5 dangling off your neck - you'd look "vintage".
https://graflex.org/speed-graphic/
;D
-
You wouldn't look daft at all with that 4 x 5 dangling off your neck - you'd look "vintage".
https://graflex.org/speed-graphic/
;D
I already look quite vintage enough, thanks very much! :D Anyway, Bernard has now converted me to stitching so I can avoid the whole issue!
-
Speaking only for myself, stitching is antithetical to the way I approach photography and to the enjoyment I get out of doing it. Mind you, I have stitched—as exploration—but the process left me cold. What floats my boat is observing the found moment and capturing something of it in a single click. The photos themselves aren't that important to me…being there and observing is. If idealized artifacts were my thing the story would be different. Again, just my take on it.
-Dave-
-
What floats my boat is seeing my vision achieved through stitching. I tried the free downloads of the two programs Bernard uses but failed to see any advantage over PS. Perhaps I should just buy the more advanced versions?
But I have to admit to being tempted by MFD. If it would just get a little less expensive...
-
What floats my boat is seeing my vision achieved through stitching. I tried the free downloads of the two programs Bernard uses but failed to see any advantage over PS. Perhaps I should just buy the more advanced versions?
But I have to admit to being tempted by MFD. If it would just get a little less expensive...
Hi John,
If PS works for you I would definitely stick to that.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
I also use PS for simple stitches as it is well integrated in Lightroom and works reasonably well. For more advanced stuff I use Autopano Pro. Same with stacking, Q&D I use PS, for more complex work Zerene Stacker.
Best regards
Erik
Hi John,
If PS works for you I would definitely stick to that.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You guys are killing me. :-)
Maybe I should buy a cheap 2004 era Canon 6mp EOS 10D and stitch about 12 images to equal the pixel count....
Or get a 1-pixel camera and stitch 100 million image (to overlap by 1pixel, stick with a 9-pixel camera). With the currrent state of the art, a 9-pixel camera with have a dynamic range of 23,000 stops, Iso sensitivity of 1340 googleplex, and a depth of field that extends from infinity to 3 meters behind the sensor.
Now I get it... (I just filed a patent for the camera above, too late for all of you serial entrepreneurs...)
-
About 75% of my work is done through collaging (stitching) at this time, and 100% of my collages are done in Photoshop using photomerge. The results are superb and I fail to see how other programs can improve on what I get from photoshop besides increasing the processing time and making the process unecessarily complicated. Below is one of my most recent collages. This is one out of 45 collages created during my most recent expedition. It consists of two handheld medium format captures combined in Photomerge in Photoshop CC 2014 using the Reposition setting and later optimized in photoshop using adjustement layers:
(http://www.beautiful-landscape.com/New%20Site.data/2014%20Images/Collage-19-800.jpg)
I have created collages with as many as 15 medium format captures using the same approach.
-
About 75% of my work is done through collaging (stitching) at this time, and 100% of my collages are done in Photoshop using photomerge. The results are superb [..] two handheld medium format captures combined in Photomerge in Photoshop CC 2014 using the Reposition setting and later optimized in photoshop using adjustement layers:
This is surprising.
According to reports on both this site and the Adobe forums, Photomerge is broken in the latest CC2014 release. Haven't followed the issue closely, but apparently Adobe have acknowledged this and are working on a fix.
-
It's not broken in my version. They must have forgot to send me the memo!
-
About 75% of my work is done through collaging (stitching) at this time, and 100% of my collages are done in Photoshop using photomerge. The results are superb and I fail to see how other programs can improve on what I get from photoshop besides increasing the processing time and making the process unecessarily complicated. Below is one of my most recent collages. This is one out of 45 collages created during my most recent expedition. It consists of two handheld medium format captures combined in Photomerge in Photoshop CC 2014 using the Reposition setting and later optimized in photoshop using adjustement layers.
Hello Alain,
Glad to see that you have embarked on the stitching wagon! ;)
No doubt, PS does work very well for small stitches made up of a few frames and on easy subjects with lots of features like the image you are showing here. The American South West is really ideally suited for stitching.
Per my experience, the value of dedicated application becomes more clear when you increase the number of images and have to deal with less contrasty subjects.
But again, great if PS works for you.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have been creating collages for years Bernard. As far back as the mid 2000s.
And photomerge works great regardless of the number of images I have collaged together.
I've had this discussion before and invariably users of dedicated applications claim that they get better results. However, in my experience this has not proven to be accurate.
-
It's not broken in my version. They must have forgot to send me the memo!
Dunno .. link. (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=92843.msg755494#msg755494)
-
I have been creating collages for years Bernard. As far back as the mid 2000s.
And photomerge works great regardless of the number of images I have collaged together.
I've had this discussion before and invariably users of dedicated applications claim that they get better results. However, in my experience this has not proven to be accurate.
The very fact that PS has to load all the images simultaneously in memory to stitch them is a huge scalability/performance bottleneck Alain. The functional aspects is also much superior in the dedicated applications, but it may not impact the images you stitch.
But I am open to the challenge and will do some comparisons if I can find time this weekend with a pano containing a few dozen images.
I personally don't mind, I own licenses of all of them including all recent versions of PS. Very few of the many stitchers I know work with PS though. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Alain,
I just did a quick test on this smallish pano made up of 13 D800 images + Leica 180mm f2.8 APO (around 200 very sharp megapixels).
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7362/14151226385_cfdde24b40_o.jpg)
1. PS CS6 photomerge/collage mode:
- End to End pano creation from Bridge, 240 sec,
- save to fast TB2 Raid 6 array: 230 sec for 4.2 GB multi-layer file
-> total time: 470 sec
one obvious stitching error, horizon not automatically aligned correctly.
Photoshop used one core at 100% to perform the stitch and used 30 GB RAM.
2. PTGui Pro 10.06
- images aligment: 40 sec
- stitch including save to disk of a 4.2 GB multi-layer PS file: 25 sec
-> total time: 65 sec
No obvious stitching error, horizon correctly aligned.
PTgui used 4 cores at 100% (total 400%) but only 3 GB of RAM.
I was also able to use PS to do other productive work while PTgui was computing.
These results seem to validate my claims.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard:
For me the test is in my work. I make a living selling fine art prints and I offer full money back guarantees for quality and none has ever been returned because of stitching issues even though I have demanding customers and high prices.
-
Manoli:
I just completed 45 collages with Photoshop CC 2014 and did not have any of the issues described in the link you posted.
-
I just completed 45 collages with Photoshop CC 2014 and did not have any of the issues described in the link you posted.
Alain,
Good news , thanks for the feedback.
-
Bernard:
For me the test is in my work. I make a living selling fine art prints and I offer full money back guarantees for quality and none has ever been returned because of stitching issues even though I have demanding customers and high prices.
Alain,
Your welcome. Glad to have helped you make more in less time... for free. ;)
I just hope you are not implying that my quality standards are lower than yours.
I am not the least bit questioning the quality of your outcome. I use PS and I know from first hand experience that PS does work very well on feature rich stitching friendly subjects like those of the South West landscape.
I also know from very extended first hand experience, shared by thousands of advanced stitchers worldwide, that PTgui/Autopano also and they provide this extremely high level of quality faster, with more control and while consuming less ressources.
I have provided my evidence and will gladly review yours if you decide that discussing the performance of software makes sense instead of pushing your, remarkable, credentials as a fine art photographer.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
AutoPanoGiga is like magic. Magic. I can't believe how fast it renders on a relatively slow-poke computer. Faster than Hugin, though I understand that underneath the hood the two programs are related. Next stop: starry sky pano with Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - once I find a good truly dark sky (plans camping trip to middle of Mark Twain Natl Forest, which has some tiny patches of Bortle Blue - I haven't been able to use the Sigma at f/1.4 despite its low coma, due to Too Much Light Pollution closer to town).
As an amateur with more money than time: Not only do I have G.A.S., but I have S.A.S. software acquisition syndrome. AutoPanoGiga is complicated and I am sure that there are many things it can do that I haven't discovered it. However, it is easy-peasy to throw a few photos at it and get remarkably good results for a beginner at the software.
-
Next stop: starry sky pano with Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - once I find a good truly dark sky (plans camping trip to middle of Mark Twain Natl Forest, which has some tiny patches of Bortle Blue - I haven't been able to use the Sigma at f/1.4 despite its low coma, due to Too Much Light Pollution closer to town).
Have you ever visited the highish country of southern Arizona, like around Patagonia? The combination of some altitude, lack of urbanization, and dry air give by far the best night sky scenes I have found in North America.
-
Another fine dark sky site: near Alturas, CA, on the edge of the Modoc forest. Assuming there are no fires in the area during your visit, of course. My folks & I camped there when I was a teenager, and in the late 1990s I returned with a friend. The seeing was excellent both times. Given CA's current state of severe drought I'd check on water availability before making the trip.
-Dave-
-
Hi Bernard,
No, no implications that your quality standards are any lower than mines. Just two different approaches based on different goals and needs.
Best regards,
Alain
-
I also know from very extended first hand experience, shared by thousands of advanced stitchers worldwide, that PTgui/Autopano also and they provide this extremely high level of quality faster, with more control and while consuming less ressources.
If by 'Collages' the meaning is to stitch together two images then by all means PS will usually be OK.....but certainly not all of the time. PTGui however will always work, and work faster. I won't even consider PS as every time I have attempted photo merge it has resulted in unsatisfactory results.
Victor