You're perhaps right. And, if we were into forensics photography, probably all the technical accuracy would matter a lot, but here it was just about some arteestec shot, what really counts is that the image is pleasing to our eyes and not how many planes of focus were actually stitched there. That's the photographer's darkroom and I don't need to know about it.
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
How about a SINGLE exposure? (Decisive Moment) How about selective DOF? How about lower distortion? How about camera movements? How about accurate composition on the ground glass. How about a true Plane of focus at ANY distance? There's probably a whole lot more too....
Those reasons above are huge and make the stitching technique seriously limited compared to normal LF photography. I think the DSLR solution is a better digital camera with a bigger and higher resolution sensor, not stitching. But even then you arent going to get the movements with all your lenses like you do with LF. JCO
-----Original Message-----
From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 9:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
Larry is selling all his large format equipment because stitching is better for him than LF. if you want to define the small area where a 4x5 camera is still superior as the only thing that matters to you, go right ahead. the examples shown and discussed are none of those.
Herb...
----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 8:59 PM
Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching
NO , I do understand. Of course you can do SOME things this way but to say it is a suitable replacement for LF in general is really absurd.
