On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:11:16 +1200, David Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Panoramas have been the subject of some discussion lately so here's one > that I took a few years ago. > > http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=25-Sep-2004 > > I didn't use large format, and I didn't stitch anything. I guess you > could say I cropped, but not in the usual sense. > > This one came from the RB67 I used to have. I was able to make up an > adaptor system that held a 35mm film vertically centred in the 120 > back, along with a modified takeup spool on the other side. A > cardboard mask prevented exposure of the sprocket holes and doubled as > a film flattener. A bit of clear acetate with lines drawn on it went > in the viewfinder to aid composition. > > The system worked well but it did need a changing bag to remove and > rewind the film. Plus, I never did get the film sitting 100% straight > so the guides in the viewfinder were not perfectly accurate. In the > end, the only benefit over cropping a 6x7 frame is that my medium > format scanner is only 1200ppi where my HP S20 can scan true panoramas > at 2400ppi. > > I ended up selling the RB because it was monstrously heavy and I wasn't > totally satisfied with the lenses. I bought a Pentax 6x7 and never > looked back. Now if only I could afford that Minolta Multi Pro > scanner... >
Quite lovely. At first, I thought that (or maybe more accurately, wondered if) the mountains were underexposed, but the more I look at it, the more I realize that they are better a bit dark, to juxtapose the lovely bright sky and clouds. You caught that one about perfectly, Dave, and I think that the frame proportions are about perfect, too. Beautiful! cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
