I would only pan and stitch if my lenses werent wide enough AND the subject permitted it. But I have some killer very wide LF lenses so I don't need to unless I wanted to do something radically wide like a 180 deg. panorama.
But that is not what people are suggesting here. They are suggesting that small format pan and stitch can replace general purpose LF photography and I say it cant, simply for the very slow image capture the technique requires if nothing else. That is a huge hinderance. Exposure times that long date back to the 19th century... JCO -----Original Message----- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 7:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching > You cannot see the final composition before shooting with the pan and > stitch technique. You CAN with a conventional camera technique. That > is unequivably better feature. PERIOD. Why use an SLR if you do care > about Composition is about deciding what you want in the picture, and then making sure that it is in the picture. You can do it in one shot or many, it really makes no difference. The photographer is in full control of composing the image, no matter how many exposures it takes to get what he wants. Your "feature" has more to do with technique and philosophy than with taking pictures. Her's a hypothetical question for you: You are shooting with a view camera, and have every intention of scanning the film for printing (I know you do this routinely). Your vision of what you want cannot be done with the equipment available. What do you do? Do you walk away, satisfied that the picture you wanted to take is not possible? Or do you take a couple or more pictures, overlapping them enough to stitch them in Photoshop? Or, do you think about doing that, but decide that you can't compose a picture that way, and walk away, again, satisfied that the picture cannot be taken? William Robb
