Early morning adventures with my digital (GF)XPan...

[AudiiDudii]

For the fun of it, I've been experimenting with photographing for the XPan format using my GFX 100S / FrankenKamera VIII / P645 33-55 combo.

A digital (GF)XPan, if you will. Except I'm using a zoom lens and rear rise / fall movements, of course! ;-)

To my surprise, I find many of my early results encouraging, including these from my last two, early morning outings:









It has definitely proved to be a challenge for me to wrap my mind around the panoramic format, but I believe it works well for some compositions, especially those of the "empty streets" variety, where the streets recede into the distance.

Best of all, it's FREE! And if worse turns worst, the raw files are captured with the full 4:3 format, so you'll have a second chance at making a photo work.

Try it!

 

[Rob de Loe]

These results are superb, and well worth the effort to figure out how to compose in that aspect ratio.

You're demonstrating an interesting benefit of the 100/100S, which is that it provides more than enough pixels to allow for the heavy cropping on the short edge that is needed to create the format, while leaving you with plenty of pixels for even large prints.

Strictly speaking I could do the same on my 50R; even cropping to that aspect ratio leaves plenty of pixels for the largest size I'd likely print. But I've become so allergic to keeping all the pixels that I went the other direction of flat stitching to make longer, narrower aspect ratios. What you're doing is a lot simpler!

 

[bobby350z]

I like the first shot. It would be nice to know if any tilt in these or just rise/fall. And if rise/fall how much. I only ask as it is pretty complicated setup so want to know what benefits over a simpler TSE lens. I can see maybe a lot more movements available with the setup.

 

[AudiiDudii]

I like the first shot. It would be nice to know if any tilt in these or just rise/fall. And if rise/fall how much. I only ask as it is pretty complicated setup so want to know what benefits over a simpler TSE lens. I can see maybe a lot more movements available with the setup.

For that photo, I know I used a small amount of rear fall (likely just 1-2mm, but I don't know the exact amount because I have no reason to keep track of it) and no tilt. Tilt is usually not necessary for the type of photography I do, although it (along with swing) can be useful in some situations.

As for my setup being complicated, it really isn't ... well, at least not in use, as making it was another matter! There's a locking knob on the rise / fall movement and also a big knob for raising and lowering the camera, and that's it!

T/S lenses and adapters definitely have their place, but I find them to be more fiddly to work with than my setup, especially if they're not used with a collar that will effectively apply the movement at the rear of the camera instead of the front.

In my experience, if something is fiddly to use, then using it requires more time than using something that isn't. Not to mention that, as a rule, fiddly things are inherently less fun to use!

YMMV, of course!

 

[bobby350z]

Unless I was stitching, why would it matter if rise/fall was on the lens or the camera.

 

[spilla]

Haven't seen this one before. One of my favorites. There's a trio of trees -- the one in the foreground, it's shadow, and the one lit with purple light in the background, and they're interacting in interesting ways.

 

[AudiiDudii]

Unless I was stitching, why would it matter if rise/fall was on the lens or the camera.

For the same reason it matters when you're stitching files, except when using rise or fall movements, the parallax problem becomes a vertical one instead of a horizontal one, which is the case when you're applying a left or right shift movement.

Because when you apply a front rise or fall movement, you move the lens. This causes the relationship between the objects in the frame to change, so you will often need to recompose the photo after you apply a front rise or fall movement to achieve a similar composition.

While you can usually come close to framing the same composition you had initially, it's impossible to frame it identically. Depending on the composition, as well as the amount of rise / fall movement you applied -- not to mention how picky you are re: such things, which is quite a lot in my case! -- this can range from an inconsequential issue to a huge, photo-wrecking one.*

Of course, once you've recomposed the photo, you may find that you need to tweak the amount of rise / fall movement you applied a second time and on a bad day, potentially several times, because this becomes an iterative process, where changing one variable simultaneously changes other variables and you have to find a compromise solution.

When you move the camera instead of the lens, the relationship between the objects in the frame doesn't change (i.e., the composition), only the portion of the image circle the camera captures. One and done, as the saying goes!

* A real-world example that I often encounter when framing a composition is hiding an exposed light bulb behind another object to prevent it from appearing as an ugly white blob in the final photo.

If I apply a front rise / fall movement, because the relationship between the objects in the frame changes, this will often cause the light bulb to become exposed again, leaving me with no choice but to change the composition to hide it and the revised composition I'm forced to use may be quite different than the one I initially intended. Worse, there are times when I can't come close to framing the composition I originally intended after applying a rise or fall movement, thus have to abandon the photo!

But if I apply a rear rise / fall movement, the hidden light bulb remains hidden, and I'm able to take my photo using my original composition, without any modifications, and everybody lives happily ever after.

 

[AudiiDudii]

Haven't seen this one before. One of my favorites. There's a trio of trees -- the one in the foreground, it's shadow, and the one lit with purple light in the background, and they're interacting in interesting ways.

Thanks for the kind thoughts and analysis! This scene is four houses down from mine and one of these days, I'll have to look over the fence and see why the present owner (whom I don't know) is using the blurple lighting in some parts of their backyard ... lol.

 

[AudiiDudii]

These results are superb, and well worth the effort to figure out how to compose in that aspect ratio.

As always, thanks for your kind words and encouragement!

You're demonstrating an interesting benefit of the 100/100S, which is that it provides more than enough pixels to allow for the heavy cropping on the short edge that is needed to create the format, while leaving you with plenty of pixels for even large prints.

Indeed. Because I bought my 100S for reasons other than the fact that it comes with a 102 MP sensor, having all those extra pixels turned out to be a welcome lagniappe!

Strictly speaking I could do the same on my 50R; even cropping to that aspect ratio leaves plenty of pixels for the largest size I'd likely print. But I've become so allergic to keeping all the pixels that I went the other direction of flat stitching to make longer, narrower aspect ratios. What you're doing is a lot simpler!

To paraphrase Monty Python, every pixel is sacred! :-D

 

[bobby350z]

Good to know thanks.