DavidX
Established
Hi All
Just wondering; is the in-camera pano common? I have been using it a bit, and get some results I’m very happy with. Don’t know if many people use it though
Just wondering; is the in-camera pano common? I have been using it a bit, and get some results I’m very happy with. Don’t know if many people use it though
Arbitrarium
Well-known
That's extremely cool and I will be trying this! I guess minimising vignette would be beneficial for this technique?
retinax
Well-known
Beautiful! I, too, shall try this!
wwfloyd
Well-known
This is an intriguing idea. A few thoughts have come to mind, as I consider the possibilities of doing it, myself.
In your other thread, you noted a need to see index numbers through the ruby window. I can guess how this would work, though you may clarify. For the first frame, advance to where the number barely remains visible in the window. For the second frame, advance to where the number barely comes into view. This should eliminate the space between frames, and create a slight overlap. But, for a third frame... I don't see that working.
How about this: Use a test roll with camera back open. Put some kind of index marks on the wind knob and camera, to determine approximately how many degrees of rotation are required to get the desired amount of overlap. Use new marks as you shoot, to wind the desired amount. As you wind on, the spacing will change slightly, due to fatness of the take-up, but, that would not be very significant on consecutive frames.
The number of overlapped frames will be limited by one's scanner gear. My Epson v550's medium format negative carrier is about 21.6 cm long. In 6x9, I could only fit 2 frames, with minimal overlap, or 3 frames with more overlap. So, maybe 5 frames would be optimal in 6x6...?
Managing overlaps -- starts to hurt my head, because you'll have framing/composition overlap, as well as negative overlap.
Will have to try this with my Perkeo III. Right now, I'm shooting with Medalist, which has automatic frame stops.
In your other thread, you noted a need to see index numbers through the ruby window. I can guess how this would work, though you may clarify. For the first frame, advance to where the number barely remains visible in the window. For the second frame, advance to where the number barely comes into view. This should eliminate the space between frames, and create a slight overlap. But, for a third frame... I don't see that working.
How about this: Use a test roll with camera back open. Put some kind of index marks on the wind knob and camera, to determine approximately how many degrees of rotation are required to get the desired amount of overlap. Use new marks as you shoot, to wind the desired amount. As you wind on, the spacing will change slightly, due to fatness of the take-up, but, that would not be very significant on consecutive frames.
The number of overlapped frames will be limited by one's scanner gear. My Epson v550's medium format negative carrier is about 21.6 cm long. In 6x9, I could only fit 2 frames, with minimal overlap, or 3 frames with more overlap. So, maybe 5 frames would be optimal in 6x6...?
Managing overlaps -- starts to hurt my head, because you'll have framing/composition overlap, as well as negative overlap.
Will have to try this with my Perkeo III. Right now, I'm shooting with Medalist, which has automatic frame stops.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
how do you do it? in-camera as opposed to?
do you still stitch them online?
or you make the frames overlap on the roll? if yes, how can you so accurately match the objects? or you don't and it's a mishmash of a landscape?(i seem to see a hard edge of the mountain side in the middle)
do you still stitch them online?
or you make the frames overlap on the roll? if yes, how can you so accurately match the objects? or you don't and it's a mishmash of a landscape?(i seem to see a hard edge of the mountain side in the middle)
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
I was admiring this image earlier in the gallery, especially its overlapped seams that hinge the individual sections together (which strikes me as an esthetic decision and is distinct from the seamlessness provided by pano mode in modern digital gear).
Like Pherdinand, I’d like to hear your description of the gear, film, process. I’d appreciate hearing about and seeing others’ choices and methods, but also tell us about yours.
Like Pherdinand, I’d like to hear your description of the gear, film, process. I’d appreciate hearing about and seeing others’ choices and methods, but also tell us about yours.
mothertrucker
Well-known
I tried it accidentally! This is from my 120-converted ICA polyskop (a 6x13 panorama camera already)
DavidX
Established
I think this is one of those things that you’ll either look at it and think it’s cool, or look at it and think “but the frames don’t match!”
And it will be obvious what you need to do, or if it’s not, a written how-to won’t help either.
I think what has become clearer to me by writing this is that there will be as many different approaches as there are people trying it.
I can hear the gears in Floyd’s head turning,which is what happened to me when I saw it.
It’s really hard to find any info online because all reference to panos seems to be about stitching, or else just making one long exposure, not multiple in-camera.
I like to show the edge of the frame to show that it was all done on one piece of film and not stitched.
I’ll go and have a look to see if I have one I can post here...
(Hey - just saw mothertruckers! - Cool!)
And it will be obvious what you need to do, or if it’s not, a written how-to won’t help either.
I think what has become clearer to me by writing this is that there will be as many different approaches as there are people trying it.
I can hear the gears in Floyd’s head turning,which is what happened to me when I saw it.
It’s really hard to find any info online because all reference to panos seems to be about stitching, or else just making one long exposure, not multiple in-camera.
I like to show the edge of the frame to show that it was all done on one piece of film and not stitched.
I’ll go and have a look to see if I have one I can post here...
(Hey - just saw mothertruckers! - Cool!)
mothertrucker
Well-known
I like this technique very much - I think this is a great example David. A lot of these "imperfections" which may be viewed as imperfections to an older generation of film photographers, can be viewed as unique traits now which film as a medium offers.
Of course you could duplicate anything digitally, and people might in the same way tintypes or palladium prints are faked digitally.
I have found in the art community in my local town that using film photography goes over very well with methods like this where you are not just doing straight one-frame photos. It feels like this is a line where photography and abstract art can cross paths.
It's good to have cameras around which allow for multiple exposures and have shutters decoupled from frame advances. Keep it interesting!
Last edited:
DavidX
Established
Yes - I was talking to a bunch of guys just yesterday who were looking at some stuff I was exhibiting and the conversation was running along just those lines.
I think that before digital we all tried to keep our film stuff clean, whereas now we can celebrate film’s idiosyncrasies and imperfections.
I think that before digital we all tried to keep our film stuff clean, whereas now we can celebrate film’s idiosyncrasies and imperfections.
dfranklin
Established
Just a thought: it seems to me that someone good at math (not me) ought to be able to generate a simple chart indicating the number of rotations of the winding knob necessary for just-overlapping frames based on the diameter of the take-up spool at various points in the roll.
But actually I really like the aesthetic effect of the variation in overlap. Making it too regular would spoil the effect, for me. I love the shot you posted at the start of the thread, DavidX. Beautiful!
But actually I really like the aesthetic effect of the variation in overlap. Making it too regular would spoil the effect, for me. I love the shot you posted at the start of the thread, DavidX. Beautiful!
wwfloyd
Well-known
Ah, now that you mention it... that would be possible. More important for me, now that you mention it, the degrees of rotation should be the same between cameras, for any particular negative frame size. I had it in my mind that it would differ between cameras. But, since the knobs are direct drive (no gearing), there should be consistency.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
The overexposed bands would be too distracting for me. I'd rather shoot a series of adjacent panels and mount them either butted together Cinerama style, or perhaps with a very narrow space between adjacent panels. I think the eye does a fair job of ignoring the spaces.
DavidX
Established
Cool to read all the responses guys; it clarifies a few things for me.
Firstly - it’s not for everyone!
Secondly - how you approach it is very personal. Some would make marks on the camera knob and use a tripod with degrees marked on it. (I actually thought of doing this)
Personally - for me I was not planning to do it; I had worked out roughly what I’d need to do but not done it. Then one day I was looking at a big sky and thought “wow - that needs a pano!” And did it hand-held by guessing.
This has helped me clarify that for me, part of the process is not knowing if it will work until you get the film back!
Firstly - it’s not for everyone!
Secondly - how you approach it is very personal. Some would make marks on the camera knob and use a tripod with degrees marked on it. (I actually thought of doing this)
Personally - for me I was not planning to do it; I had worked out roughly what I’d need to do but not done it. Then one day I was looking at a big sky and thought “wow - that needs a pano!” And did it hand-held by guessing.
This has helped me clarify that for me, part of the process is not knowing if it will work until you get the film back!
Arbitrarium
Well-known
Am I right in thinking that if your camera winds left to right, you pan right for each shot? Had to draw some diagrams to work it out =P
DavidX
Established
Hey, I was wondering the same thing because my two cameras wind different ways and started to draw the diagrams in my head until I got a headache… And then I thought who cares it’s symmetric!
mothertrucker
Well-known
Yeah that's right. Like making panoramas with an Olympus Pen-D half frame. Film goes left to right on that camera.
I'm thinking about cameras which wind film in the opposite direction. I guess you would go right to left.