Texsport
Well-known
Thanks Texsport. I had a look and thought they were 'good' and no more, but as always, these things are personal. Some strong photos, but in many I felt the format did not contribute to a successful image and held them back as often as it made them special. I tend to look at cameras as 'things to make documentary images with' and so my perspectives are skewed.
FWIW, I think 3:1 or even 2.7:1 is a wee bit long. 2.5:1 is about the longest before it looks awkward for me, with 2.25:1 looking most relaxed. Oddlly, 2:1 can look a little short at times, but I do like this 'short pano' format because it functions quite differently and works well with foreground interest, unlike the longer ones.
I'm going to have a real crack with my 30mm and if that does not work out, I will sell it all. I suspect it will work very well, however, because I have been 'feeling the frames' when shooting with the 45mm, only what I have wanted to get in tends to lie somewhere outside the frame lines!
Hmmm! I think several of the images would be impossible in any format other than panoramic, so the contribution is the ability to compose the image at all.
Of course, if the subject matter isn't personally interesting, there is little reason to capture it.
As to formats, I use XPan, 6x9, 6x12, 6x17, Widelux, and Noblex. I use the camera that is most pleasing or required to frame what I'm trying to depict.
Sticking to a single, ideal panoramic format limits possibilities enormously, so if you are very discriminating about exactly matching an image to a single format, you might never find or record the perfect image.
I know I'm not good enough to fit everything into a single format, and use the multiple approach as a bit of a crutch I reckon.
Texsport