The Ultimate Aspect Ratio For Panoramic Images

[panoramic]

Making rules to describe a panoramic image as being 1 to 2.5 needs to be changed.

For example, if a 180 degree fisheye lens made a 360 degree sweep, the aspect ratio would be 1:2. If a 180 degree anamorphic lens were used, then it might be possible to have a 1:1 ratio that certainly would be panoramic. (don't ask me where to find a anamorphic fisheye lens)

On the other hand, you could use a telephoto lens and make a 1:20 image that would not be panoramic at all.

Over the years I have seem many disagreements about the definition of a panorama and nothing made sense when rules were created, only arguments insued.

Let's just welcome the words "panorama" and "panoramic" and go about the business of making "long skinny pictures". Trust me, my 24 inch by 60 inch Lawrence camera will not finish out to a 1:2.5 ratio, and I guarentee it is PANORAMIC.

Ron in Alaska

[jamie young]

Hi Ron
I can't wait to see the photos from the Lawrence camera shoot.It looks really interesting! George Lawrence did a few photos around here in Madison, WI, which presently reside at the Wi State Historical society, and are really impressive. The ones I've seen were probably printed on a pop paper and are quite beautiful. How do you plan on printing them?
On pan aspect ratios, I tend to think of the "rules" as guidelines that often fit but not always.
Best, Jamie Young
Madison, WI

[panoramic]

Not to scare you, but Lawrence had some of the San Francisco images printed in platinum. I'd settle for POP. If we can really pull of the "San Francisco in Ruins" reshoot, it will probably be printed on conventional silver paper for the most part. Lawrence got $150 for each print a hundred years ago. If it is a good neg, and popular, maybe the same price can work today. Let's see, if I can sell 10,000 prints.....

Ron

[claytume]

Ron

I think a 1:6 ratio is about right so you're going to have to lose 14" off the top of your neg.........or the bottom.

Clayton

[claytume]

Not to scare you, but Lawrence had some of the San Francisco images printed in platinum. I'd settle for POP. If we can really pull of the "San Francisco in Ruins" reshoot, it will probably be printed on conventional silver paper for the most part. Lawrence got $150 for each print a hundred years ago. If it is a good neg, and popular, maybe the same price can work today. Let's see, if I can sell 10,000 prints.....

Ron

Ron

was there anyone else doing large panoramic platinum prints back then? All the Vaniman prints of NZ I've seen are platinum and I'm sure this was the only paper he used. These are 16 x 48" so quite small by comparison to Lawrence.

Clayton

[Early Riser]

I think 2:1 or greater should be the cut off in this forum for panoramic but I doubt is anyone shooting 6x12 cm will be excluded here.

[Ted Harris]

Some distinctions also need to be made between images from traditional 'wide format' cameras (e.g. Fuji GX617, XPan, Horseman SW, etc.) and those from swing lens or swing body cameras (e.g. Noblex, Seitz, Widelux, Cirkut, etc.) the difference being that the swing gives a very different image and allows an angle of view that more closely approximates what the human eye sees, at least it does with the Noblex 150 and other similar cameras that give you ~ 145 degrees. The two approaches are very different.

[panoramic]

Lawrence and Vaniman both had the advantage of being able to buy commercially made platinum paper.

Where is my wayback machine when I really need it? Did I leave it running the last time I went for a ride?

Clayton, when we get out to SF, I'll try to look up the site of Vaniman's studio. From what I gathered, it was in an area that survived the fire.

Ron

[claytume]

Some distinctions also need to be made between images from traditional 'wide format' cameras (e.g. Fuji GX617, XPan, Horseman SW, etc.) and those from swing lens or swing body cameras (e.g. Noblex, Seitz, Widelux, Cirkut, etc.) the difference being that the swing gives a very different image and allows an angle of view that more closely approximates what the human eye sees, at least it does with the Noblex 150 and other similar cameras that give you ~ 145 degrees. The two approaches are very different.

Yes Ted.........ultimately this forum could split to static and swing/rotation cameras. Would need to be alot more activity to warrant it.

Clayton

[claytume]

Lawrence and Vaniman both had the advantage of being able to buy commercially made platinum paper.
Ron

Ron

I read somewhere that at the turn of the previous century commercially made platinum paper was no more expensive than silver paper. The price skyrocketed around the first world war when platinum was used in detonating devices. All of a sudden it had a use much more valuable than photo paper.

Clayton