Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
Yes, it depends. But in general, I much prefer the trade-offs in digital versus those on film. It's OK if you have a different opinion, I just don't believe that you're "right". You believe that "...the stitching approach looks good until you try it...", and that's OK; but I've tried it and love it, so we definitely disagree. Point by point on what you mentioned plus a few others:
1. The fewer shutter clicks that turn into "keepers", the greater the advantage in digital. Whether I take 5 shots or 5,000... each click has real costs for film and development in the view camera, zero costs in digital.
2. The "too much technical stuff" is a personal matter and also offset by the "too much physical stuff" issue. I consider hauling a view camera around everywhere to be a huge hassle... but a digital camera I can take anywhere. Even taking pro bodies and top lenses, then adding a ballhead and a couple of rails to the backpack, is not a big deal. As for the effort involved in setting up a tripod and pano gear for a truly high-quality shot... that's not work, that's part of the love that goes into my image!
3. Digital allows me to frame, compose, and stitch in any ratio, not just 2x3 or 4x5 or 6x17. Not all panos are 180-degree landscapes, you know. How about a 5-shot macro pano (60MP total) for the exquisite detail to be found in each petal of a rose? Can a 6x17 camera do that?
4. Surprises are a fact of life. But don't tell me that we can't visualize, compose, and set up for a desired image just because it requires multiple exposures. Studio, portrait, stop-action, strobe, HDR, stitched pano, and a ton of other uses require multiple exposures and don't seem to have given anyone any grief until now. When trying to create a pano, I know exactly what I'm trying to create before the image gets taken, and there are rarely surprises. But even when there are some surprises, those are part of the fun of taking pictures! Sometimes I fail for lack of talent, but I wouldn't blame the stitching process... like any process, it needs to be employed properly in order to work well.
5. Moving water or wind do not constitute a major obstacle. That's, bluntly put, an urban legend. Yes, they are a factor for some images and compositions. So are bright lights in the background, subject placement in portraits, lighting ratios, and all sorts of other things we factor into our images. So what?
6. I routinely shoot panos from 24mm to 400mm. I see no problem with DOF or anything else. Use the lens appropriate for the image you're trying to create, that's all. And I can have a whole lot more lenses for my Nikons than I could buy for a view camera that would essentially do only one thing.
7. Distortion is again under the control of the shooter. Single lenses have distortion too, you know. But if you're good at what you do, you'll know the distortion characteristics of the gear you've chosen to use, and like any craftsman who knows his tools you will be able to manage their downsides properly so the end result is worthwhile.
This forum is about images, so here's one:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/59/293159.jpg
This capture is a 31.5MP (11700x2700) four-shot pano from a Nikon D200 at 70mm. I've printed it on canvas (150 dpi) as an 18x78 pano at native resolution. I've sold four copies already at $400 each. There are zero stitching artifacts, zero distortion issues, and zero problems that I (or the customers) can see. Maybe it could have been better on film, but I don't think so. Yes, there's a place for every tool. But it is simply absurd, and demonstrably false, to claim that digital panos are unusable and that the quality of stitched images is terrible.
|
