Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching

[Paul Stenquist]

i was in a Detroit studio the other day where a lot of cars are shot 
for magazine ads and brochurs. They were shooting with a Cambo 4x5 
camera and a back that was fitted with four digital sensors. Each was 
around 7 megapixels I would guess, because the final image was  60 
megapixels raw. The digital back was tied into a Mac that stitched the 
images together according to preset parameters. The results were very 
good. The studio photographer claimed they were at least as good as 4x5 
film, and of course the instant feedback was invaluable. "Auto 
stitching" is alive and well in large format photography.
Paul
On Sep 22, 2004, at 9:12 PM, Herb Chong wrote:

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.