...how about you take two pics in one negative, you develop it and then cut along the dark line and place them side by side? since the aspect ratio will be so "big" it should give a feeling of true panoramic.
True, but would that be a "true panoramic"? Wouldn't the shortened film diagonal cause the lens choice to be effectively altered to a more telephoto length? I wonder if this would be beneficial to the depiction of a true panoramic. Furthermore if the tripod head was rotated in order to not simply duplicate information which had already been exposed on film, wouldn't the differing heights of the film cause a misalingment from a true panoramic? At least it would seem to me.
OTOH there is no reason why you cannot make one dark slide with the rectangle on the far left, one with the rectangle in the mdidle and one with the rectangle in the far right leaving just a thin edge on each of the extremes as supposrt. so lets see the image would be 3 shots one right next to the other of measurements 6 7/8x3 1/2 in. Or you can do only two slides....the combinations are endless.
That seems to be what I said in my earlier post. Then it occurred to me, Why???? What is being accomplished by doing this?
I seem to recall a guy who did a series or "tryptich" one on top of the other, but I dont remember where.
There is/was a platinum printer that worked with enlarged negatives (studied under Sal Lopes) and he did print presentations by actually overlaying segments on each other. Is that who you were thinking of? If so I may be able to come up with a name for you for future reference.
Certainly I have not found a photograph where I can use the 12x20 vertical, but I do carry a smaller tripod presicely for those occasions so I can support the camera with two tripods.
Interesting, have you had your camera modified to incorporate a tripod socket on the front standard or on the side rail? If you have I may need to consider that for mine. What movements would you have if you were using the camera in that manner?
Some times we need to think out of the box, just because it has not been done does not mean it should not be done...no?
That may very well be true...if I could see anything accomplished by masking a negative in this fashion over simply making an exposure, printing the negative and then cutting the print to the desired number of segments...I would be interested in learning the benefit of doing the masking if you would be kind enough to tell me. I am always ready to have my knowledge broadened.
The other consideration that the original poster raised was mixing color and black and white. What would be wrong with making two exposures, one color the other black and white. Printing the respective negatives and then cutting the respective prints to the orientation and division desired. Is there something that I am missing here about this being the simplest and most straightforward way to accomplish the task desired?
Or am I not thinking far enough outside the box for this matter?