Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,002   Posts: 1,524,459   Online: 1040
      
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 45
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    42

    The Ultimate Aspect Ratio For Panoramic Images

    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

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Syracuse, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    360
    Images
    5
    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

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    42
    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

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    279
    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

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by 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
    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

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,599
    Images
    116
    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.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    299
    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.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    42
    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

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    Yes Ted.........ultimately this forum could split to static and swing/rotation cameras. Would need to be alot more activity to warrant it.

    Clayton

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by panoramic
    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

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin