Digital BW, The Print

Mark,

No, I did all of the stitching manually using layers, masks, etc.  If I 
were going to do a lot of this I would definitely try the XPoints and 
the  PTMac tools that Roger mentioned in his post.  Also, file sizes 
get ridculously large (>2 gb) when doing this in 16 bit RGB with 
several layers active at once.  The computer I used had only 768 mb of 
ram so I had to do this in 3 sections and then stitch the sections 
together.

Carl

On Dec 10, 2004, at 1:25 PM, Mark Savoia wrote:

>
>
> Great work Carl. I vote for the digital. Did you stitch with Photoshop
> automation?
> Mark
>
> On Dec 10, 2004, at 12:57 PM, Carl Schofield wrote:
>
>> Just to follow up on my previous post about stitching, I took some
>>  comparison shots yesterday at a local waterfall with a 4x5 and a 
>> Canon
>>  10D.  Here is a side by side comparison of a stitched composite image
>>  (18 frames (landscape orientation) in a 3 column by 6 row matrix) 
>> made
>>  with the Canon 10D and 135mm f/2 L lens and a scanned (Epson 3200 set
>>  to produce a 16x2016 bit grayscale at 360 ppi) image from a Polaroid
>>  type 55 4x5 negative, shot with a Tachihara 4x5 field camera and
>>  Fujinon A 240mm f/9 lens.  Exposure for the 4x5 was 2 seconds at f/32
>>  (EI 25) and for the 10D images 1/6 sec f/16 (EI 100).  The comparison
>>  images are side by side screen grabs in Photoshop at 8, 25, 50 and
>> 100%
>>  of image size.  The 4x5 image is 83.6 MB and the stitched 10D image 
>> is
>>  80.1 MB and both are 16 bit gray. The 25% image is approximately the
>>  appearance when the images are printed at 16x20 inches.  The stitched
>>  10D image compares quite favorably to the 4x5, although the stitching
>>  is very tedious and time consuming.  You would need a 40 MP digital
>>  camera to get single shot images comparable to the size and quality 
>> of
>>  either the 4x5 or stitched 10D images.
>>
>> http://homepage.mac.com/scho/forweb/index.htm