How is an out of focus image "pleasing to the eye"? That is what will happen if the circlar "plane" of focus doesn't have enough depth of field on a flat object. As far as technical accuracy goes, why stitch if the goal isnt a higer resolution image and if you're out of focus you wont achieve it now will you? You cant even "Get" a fleeting moment with stitching so how does that please your eye? How do you make a perfect composition when you cant even see your final image on the ground glass? This stuff isnt the stuff of forensics, this is BASICS of photography so your way off base here with that comment. I really think it is a very POOR substitute for LF if you ask me based on all the things I mentioned below. JCO
-----Original Message----- From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 9:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching JCO, 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. > > > >
