What you describe is totally different and much better solution. In that case they don't have to pan which is much better. But being tied down in a studio is not very useful for nature photography. Still not a substitute for a lightweight field LF film camera for nature.... JCO
-----Original Message----- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 9:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Large Format vs. Digital/Stitching 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. > >
