View Full Version : 8x20... Using Two Sheets of 8x10 Per Holder
09-18-2009, 09:38 AM
Yes, I know this is sacrilege...
Has anyone tried this? I know there will be a seam that needs retouching but I'll be scanning into PS anyway... yes, an even bigger sin. What can I say? I'm a digital addict... but my roots are analog.
Any warping or sliding out of place could be controlled with a "tiny" piece of tape tying the two films together. Yes, a bit more retouching.
I ask this only because I want to shoot color ULF panos and I think this process would be easier than the shift-and-stitch method plus there is no longer an issue of light changes and subject movement that will likely occur with multiple exposures at different times.
No worries... I'll run to confession the moment I hit the "Submit New Thread" button.
09-18-2009, 10:43 AM
I used 2 8x10 sheets of film just to test my 8x20 camera after it was complete (light leaks and such).
If you tray develop you will get some additional edge density at the seam that wouldn't be there on an 8x20 single sheet. I'm assuming you will process the two sheets like normal 8x10's.
It's the same additional edge density you normally get on 8x10. I suppose it depends on how picky you are.
09-18-2009, 11:01 AM
Thanks for the reply, John.
I was hoping the retouching would be very minimal... just erasing a miniscule line and maybe a tiny taped area. How wide is the edge density increase? If it's 1/8 total (both edges) that's not terrible but 1/2 inch is more of a pain than it's worth... more so than taking two separate exposures to stitch especially with non-moving subjects and consistent lighting.
I saw someone, maybe on this forum, who shot two color 8x10 transparencies in one 8x20 holder. It was a cool image.
09-18-2009, 01:14 PM
Mark, was there any visible density difference along the central edges?
Not that I could see. He slid one in and another butted up against it. I am trying to figure out why there would be density differences? The emulsion goes edge to edge.
09-18-2009, 02:03 PM
I don't know... I'm guessing it has to do with light bouncing of the edges or maybe something with development??
EDIT: He did say "if you tray develop"... I missed that. For color I'll be using commercial machine development so this shouldn't be an issue.
I'm also curious as to whether or not this will work using two sheets of 5x7 in a 5x14 film holder... probably more likely what I'll try because I really don't want to carry a monster camera into the field. I don't even have the pano-cam yet. I'd really like to try 5x14 but there's no color film larger than 8x10 except the ariel films... 5" and 9.5" rolls.
BTW, I started a new thread inquiring about Kodak 5" Ariel films and their use in pictorial photography... for scanning.
Sounds like he needs to get a bigger tray if his edges are developing a greater density.
Jim Galli uses ariel film alot.
09-18-2009, 10:42 PM
I knew a well known panoramic photographer that could not carry his 8x20 as many places as he would like. He carefully leveled his tripod and head and figured out a way to shoot two side by side 8x10 images and had THOSE stitched together to make the final image 8x20. The logistics are very manageable. He got to the point where he could get the images adjacent to each other to 1/16th of an inch. Competent assistants at the digital photo company did a great job of honing the results and the images were killer.
Another reason that he did it. He simply could not afford the ever increasing costs of color 8x20 sheet film and wanted to make color 8x20 images.
Necessity is the mother of invention as they say. If I could bear to say the word digital and not feel ill I would give this a go. It would be a heck of a lot cheaper and easier than "real" 8x20.
Just my $0.02.
09-18-2009, 10:53 PM
Who says you need to retouch or make the merge seamless! See Kelly Eckel's work in the latest issue of View Camera magazine.
09-19-2009, 09:33 AM
Mark... you're probably right. The extra agitation caused by edge sloshing seems like the likely culprit.
Michael... thank you. Yes, I've considered this method and may still do this. If I shoot two 5x7's side-by-side allowing for 1.25" overlap (more overlap makes the process easier) the final stitched image will be 12.5" wide (2:5 ratio). The Canham wooded 5x7 has more than enough rear shift to do this.
Keith... I'll seek out that article on Eckel's work.
09-19-2009, 09:40 AM
You can buy rolls of paper 8 inches wide and cut them to 20' in length.
09-19-2009, 10:16 AM
Tiberius... you mean to shoot a paper neg?
09-19-2009, 10:44 AM
Tiberius... you mean to shoot a paper neg?
You gotta print it on something. Whatta contact print!:)
09-19-2009, 11:34 AM
I want to shoot color negs and and scan them into PS. Yes, I'm a horrible sinner and will probably burn for all eternity for my sacrilege. :)
09-19-2009, 11:37 AM
You must say twenty Hail Ansels.
09-19-2009, 11:42 AM
Hail Ansel (love digi-log) Hail Ansel (love digi-log) Hail Ansel (love digi-log) Hail Ansel (love digi-log) Hail Ansel (love digi-log) Hail Ansel (love digi-log) Hail Ansel (love digi-log) Hail Ansel (love digi-log) Hail Ansel (love digi-log) Hail Ansel (love digi-log) Hail Ansel (love digi-log) Hail Ansel (love digi-log) Hail Ansel (love digi-log) Hail Ansel (love digi-log) Hail Ansel (love digi-log) Hail Ansel (love digi-log) Hail Ansel (love digi-log) Hail Ansel (love digi-log) Hail Ansel (love digi-log) Hail Ansel (love digi-log)...
and one to grow on... Hail Ansel (love digi-log)
09-19-2009, 11:48 AM
No that's not how it goes. The correct Hail Ansel is:
"Hail Ansel, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among photographers, and blessed is the analogue fruit of thy large format camera. Holy Ansel, pray for us at this hour of our digital weakness. Amen."
09-19-2009, 12:23 PM
I took the short-cut method... hot soup... hot fix... quick rinse.
Now, go forth and digitize no more... until the urge is so overwhelimg that you can no longer bear withholding it... then confess and all is forgiven. :)