"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Really a huge additional expense for what I do. However, there are a
few panorama stock imaging companies that are only taking medium
format panoramas submissions currently. Most do the scanning for you.

Interesting - any of them take X-Pan I wonder?

A couple did in the past, but I guess they had too many submissions on 35
mm
film. Those two now only want medium format roll film submissions, though
that
might change in the future.

Pity, though maybe not surprising.


Though that at least I can
scan myself (Minolta DiMage Scan Multi-Pro). Would be very interesting
if I
do fix up some sort of 6x12 for myself.

I guess the reason there is still a market for these medium format
panoramas, is
that they are not the majority of images. It also is one of the realms
without many
vertical images. The 6x12 format is not a bad way to go, and there are
many 4"
by 5" lenses that would work well for that.

I quite like the odd vertical panorama, but they are harder to 'see', harder
to look at (not the way the eyes scan naturally) and also have many fewer
commercial uses - definitely a specialised niche play.




[SNIP]
An X = P6 adapter would be what I'd like. That'd let me put my
120mm Zeiss and 150mm Schneider glass on it. I agree focusing the
180mm Sonnar might be a bit of a stretch!

The 120 mm might work okay, though you still have an issue of proper
framing and parallax correction.

Yes, a finder that worked for distance shots wouldn't be too hard to
make,
but parallax correction would need some thought.


Still, another adapter possibility is something with an X body mount
and a ground glass at the right registration distance: focus,
remount
the lens without moving the focusing ring, and away you go. I can't
see anyone making one commercially, but if I had an adapter to use
the lenses, it would be tempting - and fairly easy - to make such a
focusing tool.


Ground glass focus restricts you to tripod shots, and only on one roll
of
film, until you remove the lens. I like the accessory rangefinder idea
and
focus distance scales better. You would be surprised how accurate you
can be with something like that . . . I almost never have a focus
error
with my folder cameras, even at very close distances near minimum
focus distance.

I wasn't thinking of putting a ground glass on the camera, but putting
it on
the lens. ie., taking the lens off the body to focus it, and then
re-attaching it. Sure it's clunky, but it's precise, gives DoF preview,
and
for 90% of the shots I'd want to use it for, the camera is on a tripod
anyway and the extra time wouldn't be a big issue.

Still sounds slow, and better for tripod mounted cameras. ALPA had a short
video clip (German only) of one Swiss photographer using a ALPA 12 with
ground glass and a long lens. It looked slow, and too much like large
format
work, so IMHO the advantage of having a compact ALPA was somewhat lost.
I would hate to drop one or the other while changing around . . . still
think an
accessory rangefinder is the best answer.

But you see why I say I
can't see anyone doing it commercially.

An accessory rangefinder would work pretty well though, as you say, and
these things can be very accurate. If I ever made an adapter to put
other
lenses on the X-Pan I expect I'd ideally want both options. Come to
that,
having the GG 'lens-adapter' would be useful (to me) for previewing DoF
even
with the current X-Pan lenses.

Maybe a small box attachment to mount the lens and ground glass. Of
course,
you know that you would be viewing the scene upside down.

That's the sort of thing I was thinking of. I suppose one could get fancy
and include an inverting lens - indeed the whole thing could be not entirely
unlike those add ons that you can get to use a long lens as a sort of
spotting scope, though they focus on the aerial image, not a GG. (Not sure
that that wouldn't work too though, now I think about it.)




[SNIP]
For the Pentax shift lens, the rear element diameter is ~ 20.1mm,
Inset ~ 5.8mm. These measurements may be off by several
hundredths as I was trying to work out how to take the measurements
without having steel tipped instruments touch the glass...

No adventure in that . . . anyway, I should have something in EPS for
you by this weekend. Then you can play around a bit, and see how
things fit together. Besides, the measurements only need to be close
to
test the concept.

Thanks - will be very interesting.

I forgot to ask, is this e-mail valid for you? If not, send me a regular
e-mail so I
have your proper address.

Well, it works if you un-munge it, but it goes to an account I check only
seldom. I'll send an email from my 'regular' account. Thanks again.

[SNIP]

Not seen taht one, though Silvestri is not known for being cheap either.
Sadly machine shop rates are higher here, largely because few people
seem
interested in doing small or one-off runs. Agree about the focus
mount -
but _basically_ it's just a piece of aluminium with pair of brass or
bronze lined screw threads, shouldn't be hard to have that machined
either,
then you can calibrate it with a ground glass.

I think I need to know more about focus mounts, and calibration to lenses.
It
seems to me that each lens focal length needs a different focus mount
travel, but
I just do not know if that is true.

Well, given that a lens needing a focus mount probably mounts near its
optical centre rather than at a standardised registraton distance - ie. is
an LF lens - the mount has to 'start' from a different position for infinity
for a different lens. But from then on, it doesn't really matter how
_much_ focus travel there is, it's just that moving a long lens an inch
further away from the film than its infinity position might still only give
you focus at 10', whereas moving a wide lens the same amount may bring the
focus to less than 1' - or even to 'inside' the front element. So you could
make a one mount fits all system, but it'd need to be adjustable for
different infinity positions. What you can't do is have distances inscribed
on the mount and have them hold good for more than a single focal length -
though you could easily enough put on a couple of different scales, if you
were only ever using two or three different lenses on it.

That's probably totally unintelligible...


Your comment about the napkin reminds me of an anecdote about Picasso.
Fairly late in his life he wanted some furniture made and sketched a
rough
design which he took to a local cabinet-maker, who said that yes, he
could
make it. "How much?" asked Picasso - "Oh, no charge... if you'll just
sign
the drawing."

I heard one about Picasso when he was approached by a woman at a café. She
asked him to do a little drawing, which he promptly produced on a napkin.
When the woman asked if he could have that, he replied something to the
effect
like, "sure . . . that will be $5000", a reply which shocked and surprised
the
woman.

Yet photographers all know that their friends 'expect' free pictures, and
free time!

[SNIP]
I like very shallow DoF for some things - witness another thread
where I was talking about the f1.2 lens. But I think you are right,
many people have got so used to massive DoF that they are puzzled
when it isn't there - all the same, look how popular shallow DoF,
often manipulated with movements (or badly faked with PS) has
become in, particularly, food photography.

The short DoF was one reason I did some food photography. The look
was very unique, compared to anything else the client had seen.

Ahh, so you're to blame...

I doubt it . . . but I had been doing ultra short DoF with all my other
shots, so it
seemed like a good idea at the time. Of course, the best food photographer
I
have ever seen is Noel Barnhurst:

http://www.noelbarnhurst.com/ Great stuff, just found this site about a
month
ago. Lots of ideas.

Hmmm, I need to spend some time there, some impressive work.

You also still see it in movies and TV sometimes - maybe as a
director's badge of honour: "hey, look at me, I can get shallow DoF
so I must be shooting on 35mm, not mini DV, right? ;-)" (CSI is a
classic example.)

In the movies, and television, it is possible with Super 16, but
really
tough with 1/2" DV gear. Honestly, those shots can be done cheaper
and easier with Super 16 film cameras, and often are done that way.
Many television shows are still done on film, since the hope of
syndication means future transfer to HD (or the next greater
standard);
basically films future proofs formats in television . . . strange, but
true.

Interesting, I can see how that would be so. And even Kodak seems to be
supporting Super 16 quite well over here, with some new emulsions in the
past year or so. One of my cousins is married to a film cameraman, I
must
talk to him about this stuff sometime.

Check out the Aaton Minima. It is very small, and can even mount Nikon 35
mm film lenses. Cost is a little high, though I have heard of some owners
renting
them to recoup the expense.

Don't know what Phil uses most - I'll have to ask him. I know he uses both
film and DV, depending on what his client wants.


One of my SI shots was an example of this: a tray of quails' eggs
shot
just with the light from a cloudy sky (example of shallow DoF too.)
The vast majority of all my flower work - outside or in the studio -
is
lit with natural light.

I missed the eggs, but maybe I did not have any coffee that day. ;-)

It was this one:

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/23332478/medium

Lovely soft light, shot by an East facing window in the afternoon, 35mm,
with a 100mm lens.

Nice. The crop is the only thing I wonder about, though the shot does work
as it
sits.

Thanks. I like this tight crop, but if I'd done this one for a client I'd
have left a lot more space, either to let them decide a crop, or for text
overlay. For me though the crop has the same effect as the shallow DoF: you
can't see all of the subject, and what you can see isn't all in focus, but
neither matters, because you can see everything you need in order to know
all you want to about it.


This one is another natural light shot that I happen to have had in the
SI,
with slightly harder light:

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/24309630/medium

This one is on 6x7, using an RFB in my 4x5 stand camera. If you know
wine,
you can have fun drooling over the names on some of those corks!

Interesting shot. It almost seems like a square crop could have worked
too,
though I like the current one.


Thanks again. Yes, circles in squares are always powerful, and that remains
an option to trim this one down. I like the rectangular crop partly because
it has a nice balance, with the open space at the bottom, but also because
it makes the subject just a tiny bit less static. Maybe I'd feel it was a
bit dead if it was a square. Both certainly work, but this is my own
preference (today)...



Peter