Digital Mosaics: Surpassing Large Format Film Images

Hi.
I have been doing large format photography for going on 2 decades.
I have also been doing wildlife photography, first with 35mm then
digital. Thus, I often carry both digital wildlife and 4x5 gear
on a hike (up to 70 pounds). That gets real tiring and limits
my range (and, obviously, I'm getting older). I want an alternative
without giving up anything ;-). I switched to a Toho 4x5 field camera
(3 pounds) from heavier cameras several years ago, but it is still
too much weight doing both wildlife with digital and scenics with
4x5.

Mosaicking many digital image frames has intrigued me for
some time, and I have been experimenting with the methods,
from field to computer processing. Like large format view cameras
and methods, there is much to learn. But my experience so far
is that digital mosaics can equal and surpass 4x5 drum scanned
film in many applications, including large depth of field imaging
requiring tilts on a view camera. And I can get images in the
field faster and under conditions not suitable for large format
photography (like wind).

I've written up some of my experiences in this article and compare
the digital results to drum scanned 4x5 film images:

Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large Format Film
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics

Comments welcome.

Roger Clark
my photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 08:55:05 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" wrote:

Hi.
I have been doing large format photography for going on 2 decades.
I have also been doing wildlife photography, first with 35mm then
digital. Thus, I often carry both digital wildlife and 4x5 gear
on a hike (up to 70 pounds). That gets real tiring and limits
my range (and, obviously, I'm getting older). I want an alternative
without giving up anything ;-). I switched to a Toho 4x5 field camera
(3 pounds) from heavier cameras several years ago, but it is still
too much weight doing both wildlife with digital and scenics with
4x5.

Mosaicking many digital image frames has intrigued me for
some time, and I have been experimenting with the methods,
from field to computer processing. Like large format view cameras
and methods, there is much to learn. But my experience so far
is that digital mosaics can equal and surpass 4x5 drum scanned
film in many applications, including large depth of field imaging
requiring tilts on a view camera. And I can get images in the
field faster and under conditions not suitable for large format
photography (like wind).

I've written up some of my experiences in this article and compare
the digital results to drum scanned 4x5 film images:

Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large Format Film
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics

Comments welcome.

Spectacular.

You mention problems with focus from frame to frame.

Do you manually focus and lock exposure from frame to frame?



Roger Clark
my photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com

--

Scott in Florida

'The Land of the Free Thanks to the Brave'

Scott in Florida wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 08:55:05 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" wrote:


Hi.
I have been doing large format photography for going on 2 decades.
I have also been doing wildlife photography, first with 35mm then
digital. Thus, I often carry both digital wildlife and 4x5 gear
on a hike (up to 70 pounds). That gets real tiring and limits
my range (and, obviously, I'm getting older). I want an alternative
without giving up anything ;-). I switched to a Toho 4x5 field camera
(3 pounds) from heavier cameras several years ago, but it is still
too much weight doing both wildlife with digital and scenics with
4x5.

Mosaicking many digital image frames has intrigued me for
some time, and I have been experimenting with the methods,

from field to computer processing. Like large format view cameras

and methods, there is much to learn. But my experience so far
is that digital mosaics can equal and surpass 4x5 drum scanned
film in many applications, including large depth of field imaging
requiring tilts on a view camera. And I can get images in the
field faster and under conditions not suitable for large format
photography (like wind).

I've written up some of my experiences in this article and compare
the digital results to drum scanned 4x5 film images:

Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large Format Film
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics

Comments welcome.


Spectacular.

You mention problems with focus from frame to frame.

Do you manually focus and lock exposure from frame to frame?

Thanks Scott.

I determine the best overall exposure then go to manual and keep
f/stop and exposure constant for the entire sequence.

I autofocus separately for each frame, usually using 1 focus
point. In general I have no problems focusing.
The issue is: have I set a small enough aperture
to give enough depth of field so that when focus changes from
frame to frame, there is not an area in poor focus in the final
mosaic.

Roger

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 11:26:29 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" wrote:

Scott in Florida wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 08:55:05 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" wrote:


Hi.
I have been doing large format photography for going on 2 decades.
I have also been doing wildlife photography, first with 35mm then
digital. Thus, I often carry both digital wildlife and 4x5 gear
on a hike (up to 70 pounds). That gets real tiring and limits
my range (and, obviously, I'm getting older). I want an alternative
without giving up anything ;-). I switched to a Toho 4x5 field camera
(3 pounds) from heavier cameras several years ago, but it is still
too much weight doing both wildlife with digital and scenics with
4x5.

Mosaicking many digital image frames has intrigued me for
some time, and I have been experimenting with the methods,

from field to computer processing. Like large format view cameras

and methods, there is much to learn. But my experience so far
is that digital mosaics can equal and surpass 4x5 drum scanned
film in many applications, including large depth of field imaging
requiring tilts on a view camera. And I can get images in the
field faster and under conditions not suitable for large format
photography (like wind).

I've written up some of my experiences in this article and compare
the digital results to drum scanned 4x5 film images:

Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large Format Film
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics

Comments welcome.


Spectacular.

You mention problems with focus from frame to frame.

Do you manually focus and lock exposure from frame to frame?

Thanks Scott.

I determine the best overall exposure then go to manual and keep
f/stop and exposure constant for the entire sequence.

I autofocus separately for each frame, usually using 1 focus
point. In general I have no problems focusing.
The issue is: have I set a small enough aperture
to give enough depth of field so that when focus changes from
frame to frame, there is not an area in poor focus in the final
mosaic.

Roger

So your focus point can change frame to frame?

Would it be worthwhile to pick a focus point and go back to manual
focus?

Can you notice much change in the images with different focus points?

The reason I ask, is I am going to do one on a Light House in southern
Maine (Nubble) my next trip up.


--

Scott in Florida

'The Land of the Free Thanks to the Brave'

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 11:26:29 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" wrote:

Scott in Florida wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 08:55:05 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" wrote:


Hi.
I have been doing large format photography for going on 2 decades.
I have also been doing wildlife photography, first with 35mm then
digital. Thus, I often carry both digital wildlife and 4x5 gear
on a hike (up to 70 pounds). That gets real tiring and limits
my range (and, obviously, I'm getting older). I want an alternative
without giving up anything ;-). I switched to a Toho 4x5 field camera
(3 pounds) from heavier cameras several years ago, but it is still
too much weight doing both wildlife with digital and scenics with
4x5.

Mosaicking many digital image frames has intrigued me for
some time, and I have been experimenting with the methods,

from field to computer processing. Like large format view cameras

and methods, there is much to learn. But my experience so far
is that digital mosaics can equal and surpass 4x5 drum scanned
film in many applications, including large depth of field imaging
requiring tilts on a view camera. And I can get images in the
field faster and under conditions not suitable for large format
photography (like wind).

I've written up some of my experiences in this article and compare
the digital results to drum scanned 4x5 film images:

Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large Format Film
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics

Comments welcome.


Spectacular.

You mention problems with focus from frame to frame.

Do you manually focus and lock exposure from frame to frame?

Thanks Scott.

I determine the best overall exposure then go to manual and keep
f/stop and exposure constant for the entire sequence.

I autofocus separately for each frame, usually using 1 focus
point. In general I have no problems focusing.
The issue is: have I set a small enough aperture
to give enough depth of field so that when focus changes from
frame to frame, there is not an area in poor focus in the final
mosaic.

Roger

I just did a presentation on panos/mosaics for a digital photo SIG
this week, and I used Autostitch.
I covered setting the aperture for a wide depth of field (if that's
what's wanted), which seems like a good thing! :-)
I also covered the need to be careful about lens selection. When I
used my EF 17-40mm lens, since it's rectilinear, Autostitch was able
to make the resulting pano look good by rotating the different
individual images to get a non-keystoned final image.
http://pippina.us/images/glendale%201.jpg
But, using my Panny FX01, which doesn't have a rectilinear lens, there
are problems with the pincushioning at wide angles; the obvious
solution is to use a longer focal length, and take more shots to feed
to Autostitch.
http://pippina.us/images/glendale%201.jpg
:-)
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
[]
I've written up some of my experiences in this article and compare
the digital results to drum scanned 4x5 film images:

Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large Format Film
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics

Comments welcome.

Roger Clark
my photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com

Many thanks for writing that up, Roger. A fascinating read. You will
doubtless be looking for ways to speed the post-processing.

And I thought it was just me who was fussy about weight!

Cheers,
David

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 19:48:54 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large Format Film
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics

Comments welcome.

Roger Clark
my photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com

Many thanks for writing that up, Roger. A fascinating read. You will
doubtless be looking for ways to speed the post-processing.

And I thought it was just me who was fussy about weight!

Anxiously awaiting

"Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large DSLRs".

ASAAR wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 19:48:54 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large Format Film
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics

Comments welcome.

Roger Clark
my photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com

Many thanks for writing that up, Roger. A fascinating read. You
will doubtless be looking for ways to speed the post-processing.

And I thought it was just me who was fussy about weight!

Anxiously awaiting

"Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large DSLRs".



I'm waiting to hear how you can do even better it with an array of Fuji
F30s!

David

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote in message ...
SNIP
I've written up some of my experiences in this article and compare
the digital results to drum scanned 4x5 film images:

Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large Format Film
http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics

Comments welcome.

Congratulations on a successful, and beautiful, stitched image.
It inspires to experiment more with variable focus distances. The
potential magnification differences (esp. at shorter distances) can be
addressed in the stitching optimizer with the additional per image
optimization of the focal length parameter.

To address some of the points you mentioned in your write-up:

- As for the Pros, I agree with the points mentioned, in particular
about the lower restrictions for DOF, because the full image doesn't
have to be in acceptable focus, but 'only' the partial frame inside
the final overlap does. The resulting faster shutterspeed helps in
reducing subject (wind)motion.

- As for the Cons, I think the depth of field matching could
(depending on subject) be significantly helped by using a Tilt and
Shift lens. I often use the T/S-E 45mm f/2.8 for stitched images. It
would also allow to reduce the number of images, which benefits the
amount of post-processing and reduces the risk of changing light
conditions. Alternatively one could consider an additional program
like Helicon Focus
http://www.heliconfocus.com/pages/focus_overview.html.

- The Photoshop layers can potentially be skipped for the most part,
when you use SmartBlend. It'll adjust for small brightness
differences, and it does a remarkable job of blending between images
with movement (ghosting), all on full automatic. The downside is that
it takes its time doing it, but that's not too much of an issue if you
let it run in otherwise idle time.

--
Bart

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:02:08 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

"Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large DSLRs".



I'm waiting to hear how you can do even better it with an array of Fuji
F30s!

That's kinda sleazy, coming as it does from he who finds even more
ways to push and plug Panasonics than the most rabid Canonistas do
their precious Canons. FWIW, I've said that those F10/F11/F30
Fujis, even though they're excellent low light cameras, aren't my
choice for a number of reasons. Not only that, I've chided kinga
several times for his stupidly hyperbolic F30 posts. Are you trying
to sound like a little boy?