Panoramic street photography - what format?

Panoramic street photography-what format?

Panoramic street photography-what format?

I don't do as much as I used to and don't have any on the web but I used a Horizon 202 and then a Noblex 135U. Their is a learning curve with any of the swing lens cameras but they work great....

Try this site lots of photographers and different styles.....
Remember it's what ever floats your boat.....

http://www.panorama-gallery.com/start.htm
 
squid said:
Could we start over by reparamatizing the question: could we qualify just what sort of magnification the negative is being enlarged into? i.e., " What were your cameras AND your typical enlargment factors?" I don't think the question was adequately posed and, therefore, answered. In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that given the excellent emulsions (Ektar as 120 film is a superb emulsion recently come available) and the cost of a decent scanner that even if we don't talk about stiching a format less than 6x12 will give that gorgeus 6x17 pano we (well I) drool over.

I have been waiting overlong for someone to chime in on the cropping issue. For the amount of disadvantages (6:17 requires excessive film changing, a 5x7 enlarger, ...). Really, at the end of the day if you had to carry one camera around, don't users of 6:12 format or less feel that a cropped < 6x12 negative serves just as well as a dedicated 6x17 Xpan, Noblex, LF ...? My point is, shouldn't your recommendations be also augmented by the type of enlargement you typically require. I'm talking out loud here because "street photographers" are looking for that flexibility (with the point and shoot digital they all keep in their pockets as backup). I feel cropping gives it to them without serious image degradation/graininess on their 'average' (whatever that is) page.
Am I off base on this tangent? Is it worthy of a new thread? What were your cameras and your typical enlargment factors?
Click to expand...

I have a Horseman SW612 and a 35mm Widelux. Cropping 6x12 to a 3:1 aspect ratio is giving you a larger film area by far over any 35mm panoramic format. I think you would be very pleased with the result. If you use the lens DoF scales, I would be a little conservative using those. Certainly the film area is larger with 6x17, but 4x12 is not exactly tiny.

As far a print size, I can't see the cropped 6x12 being a disadvantage. Pano pictures tend not to print that large because of their width--most people don't crop them to fit the paper aspect ratio. So with a 24" wide paper, my 6x12 image is only 12" tall--hardly a challenge for medium-format film. That is also the same if I cropped a 4x5 neg to 12x24. The magnification on 24" paper is the same for a 6x12 as a 4x5 (or any other aspect ratio given the film size).
 
squid said:
Just to be clear. First, look at the next to the last chrome at http://www.rtsphoto.com/html/noblex.html from a Noblex 150 (a30 degrees). If the camera was loaded with any good emulsion, not even Ektar, how many of you feel that cropping the second to the last 6x12 chrome into that last 6x17 chrome of the same scene but using a Noblex 175 would have produced a print indistinguishable from each other?
Click to expand...

Wrong question. Is it giving you what you want?
 
Finder is approaching what I think is important: the stored wisdom of how the final print influences the tool one chooses to capture it with. It's cart before the horse but I feel cropping 6x12 is the way I might go. I don't expect to do monster enlarging but still want the detail of a large negative.
 
Truly like your website....

Truly like your website....

Simple, fast, and prominent images.

The thing I like most about the site is the neutral aspect of everything except the images. No distraction whatsoever. So easy to stay focused (STS) on the images.
Very nice site.
 
For what it is worth...I used to use a G617 and loved the output, the look and the responses one gets from the images. The drawback was scanning the images. I can't envision using any panoramic camera for street scenes other than the xPan - a more traditional panoramic camera just attracts too much attention. I still have a Horizon 202 and it make excellent images, but it too has drawbacks - mostly the setup time and absolute need for a tripod. Now that I recently dusted off all my Olympus rangefinders and rediscovered b&w FILM, I think the xPan is the choice.
 
jamesdfloyd said:
I still have a Horizon 202 and it make excellent images, but it too has drawbacks - mostly the setup time and absolute need for a tripod.
Click to expand...
I find that interesting and would welcome some further details, as it differs from my (limited) experience. I have a 202 and have only ever hand-held it. I bought it before I could afford an X-Pan and occasionally use it for its wider field of view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom