Hi Thierry,
Well, a certain photographer on the Isle of Wight took superb shots with lf cameras, afaik. They may well use digital these days, stitched or otherwise, but it was possible (I don't think the yachts were slower, or bigger, and the water was probably just as wet.)
Ray, I just don't get the point here: aerial photography is possible with both digital and film. If you can shoot this yacht with film, then you can do it with digital, provided you have the right lens with you It is obvious that stitching would not be the method of choice here.
I'm only finding things against one or the other, because there are things to be found. Both have benefits, neither are best at everything, in some situations, digital can not be used, in other situations film will give an inferior result. No, I did not go to the site, I expect I've seen it before. But, if the subject has parts that move, then I think stitching has disadvantages.
Agrre!
So, I looked. At the web size, the images could have been taken with anything, unless I have to do something else the images were about 2 by 3 inches. However, most are devoid of people, of any movement that I can discern. They have obviously been selected for that type of work. That is not a bad thing, but it confirms my initial thoughts, that stitching is not usable with movement in the subject. I have built manual panoramic systems, I am considering building servo driven systems, I think it may be possible to get it down to a second or less between shots, but a car moving at 30mph, will move 44 feet in that time, or a human walker will move 5 feet..... (two feet really ;-)
Sure, the images could have been take with anything, film or digital, technically speaking. And there are no moving objects in it, sure too. The images you are seeing have been printed for an exhibition in a size of 2.50 meters width and they look perfect. Stitching has been used here to get a panoramic view, and all I was trying to explain is that stitching is easy to do, fast and very precise.
This being said, I have in my had what Rainer Viertlböck told me during his 1-year shooting of the Bangkok airport: this work could never have been done on film, not only technically but also quality-wise! And for having been with him, I can understand why.
For you, very little, for others it matters more. In digital photography, for many people coming from a film background, maybe using a print lab, they now have to be concerned with a number of unfamiliar issues, just so they can see what they have captured.
Agree
provided your batteries are charged. What is the digital equivalent of the ground glass screen in digital stitching? Is it the situation that you have to shoot wider and crop in post?
Sure, provided also that you have loaded your filmholders.
Digital equivalent of groundglass while stitching? Simply a format-mask, your hands/fingers, or for some like Rainer V., simply having the picture in his mind.
So, if you are taking a 3*3, nine images, with say a tilt/swing lens, you do not adjust the lens? You must be using a lf lens, are you not, and merely scanning the digital camera across its image plane. I missed that, somewhere.
In this particular shooting of the BKK airport, R.V. was using Sinaron digital HR lenses, from 28mm up to 135mm: those lenses are built for the use on a view camera, thus allowing movements. He did not need to tilt/swing for sharpness distribution, but I was saying that it is possible when stitching, provided your tilt/swing is not set on the standard you are shifting on, thus keeping the sharpness plane and focus the same for each tile.
I think what I was also trying to enquire after, is more related with video, where a lot of effort was expended in trying to get the digital video cameras, with 1/3 inch sensors to give the same look as 35mm film. It is possible to get the speed, scratches, etc., but not the selected focus possible with the larger format. I expected the same thing to be with still images, digital 35mm stitching cf 10*8 film - I guess its depth of field. Again using the lf lens will solve that.
Yes
So, you are using the camera on a lf lens, instead of a scanning back on a lf lens. That is easier? than using a standard 35mm lens, in some respects.
I am neither a film nor digital lover, or hater, and I respect opinions, ideas, concepts. But, I will press for explanations if I in my opinion it is needed.
So, for your photography, digital works fine. For others, it has to be lf film.
That's exactly what I was telling, and it works for a vast majority of photographers who have to live and earn money with their images, and with the same or better outstanding quality than before on film.
I do not consider that I was attacking you, I was merely asking questions more directly, since you ignored my previous post (although it was not addressed just to you). So, you are in a very good position to help explain the differences between the application of film or digital in creating an image. But it will need a bit of thought to sort out the framework.
Sure, I was not meaning "you" in particular, and I was not meaning to take the word "attacking" in its negative meaning. I just noticed that I have touched a very sensitive subject on which many disagree or have different views as per opposition to mine. As said, I respect and even admire those still shooting on film, no question about that. As long as you dont' have to make a living with your images, it is hard to see and understand all the advantages digital has brought.
So, I would say, in answer to Dean's original question. It depends. 1) what you are happy with at the moment 2) if you can change 3) how much you can spend (time and money) 4) what type of photography you are needing to do 5) how much gear you have at the moment 6) tons of other stuff.
Sure
But, if Dean wants the 4 by 5 film look for portraits/candid, then I think he has to get a 4 by 5 film camera. A digital solution can give similar, but not identical results.
(have to keep an eye on these Aussies, they stir up trouble, ;-)
I have many Aussie photographers as friends. I don't see them as trouble makers,
Thierry
Best wishes,
Ray[/QUOTE]