Tricky shot of an old church

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:37:10 -0600, "Lorem Ipsum"
wrote:

In article . com,
"Scott W" wrote:

I would hope that many who are shooting LF are doing so for the end
result and not just so they can look cool with a bellows camera.

I hate being conspicuous. I feel like a clown using LF. But I tough it out
to do the job.


I have yet to work up the nerve to use LF in very public places.
Folks might see me at work but hopefully from a distance that
discourages their coming too close.

I just don't want to be gawked at, nor do I want to explain
myself as I go about doing what I do...


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

rafe b wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:37:10 -0600, "Lorem Ipsum"
wrote:

In article . com,
"Scott W" wrote:

I would hope that many who are shooting LF are doing so for the end
result and not just so they can look cool with a bellows camera.

I hate being conspicuous. I feel like a clown using LF. But I tough it out
to do the job.


I have yet to work up the nerve to use LF in very public places.
Folks might see me at work but hopefully from a distance that
discourages their coming too close.

I just don't want to be gawked at, nor do I want to explain
myself as I go about doing what I do...


Well my friends all know be pretty well and have benefited greatly from
my photography so I don't worry too much about them. You have to see
my tripod head to understand just how conspicuous I look with it, the
thing is a monster. I did take it too the canoe race that our club
sponsors, pretty much all the paddlers on the Island know me so the
fact that I showed up with a huge tripod thingy did not seem too odd to
them. I am sure if I came in with a 8 x 10 view camera none with think
it too odd, but they would ask if it was digital.

Where I worry more is shooting around the cruise ships when they come
in, people are so worried that anything that seems odd gets a close
look at.

BTW I got a lot of odd looks when I was doing the church shot.

Scott

In article ,
rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:

I have yet to work up the nerve to use LF in very public places.
Folks might see me at work but hopefully from a distance that
discourages their coming too close.

I just don't want to be gawked at, nor do I want to explain
myself as I go about doing what I do...

So your a chicken, seriously though sometimes it can be annoy-some
because people always ask. And quite frankly can be rude, like the yokels
that pulled right up behind me when I had my dark cloth over the head
and blasted the horn on there car. I was on the side walk btw. And there
are the many times people stand right in front of the camera in a
looking directly at it, even when I was there first and they wondered
in,...makes me sometimes want a gun or at least a large sledge hammer
:-) I guess it just human nature-to be stupid.
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

www.gregblankphoto(dot)com

Scott W wrote:

As a practical matter when shooting with a LF camera are you not
normally shooting a fairly large field of view? A large FOV has much
less problem with DOF then a narrow FOV shot does.

For my style, no. The shortest lens I have for my 4x5 is 90mm,
the longest, 900, so a range of about 23 to 225 mm in 35mm
equivalent (let's not quibble about the scale factor, I used 4).
You get the idea.

Roger

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...

Lorem Ipsum wrote:
"Alan Meyer" wrote in message
oups.com...
Lorem Ipsum wrote:
"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
We have a wonderful old church in town, but it is situated in a
spot
that make getting a good photo hard.

Learn how to use a view camera.

Well Lorem, we'll have to bring you up-to-date.

Now that we have digital images, we don't need the moving
lens boards of view cameras. We can run processing
algorithms on the digital image that do the same thing that the
slide and tilt of the lens board did on the old view cameras.

You are unfortunately misinformed. You cannot replicate the
complete functions of a view camera with postprocessing.

Focus is the only one you can not, for some this will be an issue for
others it will not.


Well, yes and no. Using PS to substitute for shifts inevitably degrades the
image, so increasing the original reolution that you need in order to get a
decent end print at a given size.

You also get control over near-far size relationships when you use back
tilt - not something that can be altered in 'post-processing'.

Basically, 'in post' you can somewhat replicate shifts, but only at a cost
in terms of quality, but you cannot replicate any of the effects of tilts.


Peter

"rafe b" rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:37:10 -0600, "Lorem Ipsum"
wrote:

In article . com,
"Scott W" wrote:

I would hope that many who are shooting LF are doing so for
the end result and not just so they can look cool with a bellows
camera.

I hate being conspicuous. I feel like a clown using LF. But I tough
it out to do the job.


I have yet to work up the nerve to use LF in very public places.
Folks might see me at work but hopefully from a distance that
discourages their coming too close.

I just don't want to be gawked at, nor do I want to explain
myself as I go about doing what I do...


Absolutely - but when I am working (and for me it is work) there is often no
choice. Not one for conspicuousness if I can avoid it and his one of the
things I like least about working in public places.

Of course, having an assistant who can occupy the onlookers' attention can
help...



Peter

Bandicoot wrote:

You also get control over near-far size relationships when you use back
tilt - not something that can be altered in 'post-processing'.
Why would you assume that you can't adjust near far size?

Basically, 'in post' you can somewhat replicate shifts, but only at a cost
in terms of quality, but you cannot replicate any of the effects of tilts.

What you do think I can somewhat replicate shifts, I replicate them
exactly.
As for lost of quality, this is not a problem, as you will be able to
see in this image.
http://www.sewcon.com/church/

If the zoomify version does not load look at it here.
http://www.sewcon.com/temp/pan2c%2011-15-05.jpg
That image is 10064 x 7474 and is very sharp.

BTW no one who is doing this seriously is using PS. I am using PTGui.



Scott

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...

Absolutely - but when I am working (and for me it is work) there is often
no
choice. Not one for conspicuousness if I can avoid it and his one of the
things I like least about working in public places.

Of course, having an assistant who can occupy the onlookers' attention can
help...

True, but up here in the Winterlands, the assistant is really reluctant to
wear her bikini in the Winter. Help nowadays, I tell ya.

"Bandicoot" wrote

Of course, having an assistant who can occupy the onlookers' attention can
help...

Hmmm, hire a drunk to panhandle any onlookers. Cheaper
than an assistant. And you don't have to put up with
the assistant's questions.

Can you say 'drunk' anymore?

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm

"Leonard Evens" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote:

I disagree. It is in landscape and architectural work that adjusting the
plane of focus has more of an impact on overall image quality, because
the
DOF is incapable of being made large enough to cover both near and
distant
objects.

You mean like in this shot?

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/21864044/original


There is no question that for the same size final image, viewed the same
way, and same angle of view, medium format will have more depth of field
than large format.

Oops: I completely missed that this is being crossposted, and thought it was
a medium format discussion.

You would normally have to stop down two additional stops for the same
depth of field with 4 x 5 than you would with 6 x 7. That means that
tilting the plane of exact focus is not as important in the smaller
format. But most medium format cameras are not view cameras, and there
are other advantages to using a view camera,

Exactly. Minor advantages like image quality.

Interestingly, stopping down for DOF in a larger format basically throws
away the detail capturing advantage of the larger format: if you keep DOF
constant, then diffraction imposes the same limitations on detail in both
formats _if you measure resolution in lines per height_.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan