gerard_smulevich

<p>Sorry that I am an amateur even though I am published by Taschen and am a collaborator of Julius Shulman's and have solo gallery shows in the US and Europe. I'm learning. The point is I'm not sure what the beenfits are of an FX sensor in terms of image resampling . I have done print tests on my D200 files but because this camera was stolen from me yesterday on the streets of Buenos Aires, I am contemplating replacing it with a D700 ESPECIALLY if it will allow me to uprez with less damage to the image's pixels than a dx sensor image would. I currently have a professional show of my work up at a university gallery in Rhode Island and those were D70 and D200 images that were sampeld up to 20 inches wide for viewing at 2-3 feet away or so in some cases. Printing is on a noritsu lightjet on kodak endura paper.<br>

If you look at my work you would maybe see why I'm concerned about size/image quality<br>

pbase.com/gerards<br>

I had thought about digital stitching to create larger images, and that seemed to work well but my Nodal ninja was stolen along with my d200. So teh question again is: does an FX senseor offer more data in such a manner that the files "uprez" better than a dx generated image? Is that question REALLY so stupid? If so, my apologies.<br>

g<br>

 </p>

<p>Question: Is it logical/true that a full frame 12.1 MP file from a D700 will enlarge (up-rez) significantly better than a 1

.5 sensor (such as a D200)? If so, by how much is FF better than dx? My goal is super sharp 30" wide prints on a

lightjet + Kodak endura high gloss. Will I see a significant change in "enlargability" with the D700 over the D200? i g

uess that's my question.</p>

<

p>thank you</p>

<

p>gerrry</p>�

I use the GORMAN action in CS3 (free); so far it's the best BW conversion tool I have found for the type of BW I like.

I have an exhibit up right now of 25 of my photographs out in Bristol, Rhode Island (I'm based in LA). During the

opening 2 weeks ago most people, all artists and architects, could not immediately tell that my pieces were actually

digital BW. My work: pbase.com/gerards

Most of my pre 2007 work (done on a D70) was converted into BW using the Yosemite action ($5 to purchase). It's

fantastic for landscapes with clouds and big skys, creating an amazingly convincing burn of the sky a-la Ansel

Adams. I used Yosemite in a candid portrait of famed photographer Julius Shulman, who actually bought the portrait

from me and has been published in Taschen's 3-volume book on Shulman:

http://www.pbase.com/gerards/image/56089929

Some layer masking was done to increase DR and shadow detail around the Sinar camera on the left.

I like my BW with a slight warm tone and lots of DR. For a while I had switched to film because I liked it better

printed but then I realized that most pro printing involves scans nowadays, unless you pay an arm-and-a-leg for

hand/chemical printing. The cost factor is over 300% difference! You can get digital fiber prints now that are

STUNNING and indistinguishable from chemical printing. Julius himself was persuaded by the Getty Research

Institute to produce his last e big xhibit (LA Library exhibit in 2007)

on archival pigment prints made on fiber paper, all scanned negatives printed digitally. Shulman himself was blown

away by the quality and fidelity of the prints.

I'm always looking for a better or more sophisticated BW conversion app, so let's keep the experiences and

references commin' :)

I use the GORMAN action in CS3 (free); so far it's the best BW conversion tool I have found for the type of BW I like. I have an exhibit up right now of 25 of my photographs out in Bristol, Rhode Island (I'm based in LA). During the opening 2 weeks ago most people, all artists and architects, could not immediately tell that my pieces were actually digital BW. My work: pbase.com/gerards

Most of my pre 2007 work (done on a D70) was converted into BW using the Yosemite action ($5 to purchase). It's fantastic for landscapes with clouds and big skys, creating an amazingly convincing burn of the sky a-la Ansel Adams. I used Yosemite in a candid portrait of famed photographer Julius Shulman, who actually bought the portrait from me and has been published in Taschen's 3-volume book on Shulman: http://www.pbase.com/gerards/image/56089929

Some layer masking was done to increase DR and shadow detail around the Sinar camera on the left.

I like my BW with a slight warm tone and lots of DR. For a while I had switched to film because I liked it better printed but then I realized that most pro printing involves scans nowadays, unless you pay an arm-and-a-leg for hand/chemical printing. The cost factor is over 300% difference! You can get digital fiber prints now that are STUNNING and indistinguishable from chemical printing. Julius himself was persuaded by the Getty Research Institute to produce his last e big xhibit (LA Library exhibit in 2007)

on archival pigment prints made on fiber paper, all scanned negatives printed digitally. Shulman himself was blown away by the quality and fidelity of the prints.

I'm always looking for a better or more sophisticated BW conversion app, so let's keep the experiences and references commin' :)

Thank you, all fo you. It seems clear that I should first experiment with my newly arrived Nodal Ninja 5 before I invest in a PC lens. I recieved the NN5 today and it's built like a rock. I did a first 4-image test pano in my living room with available light and it was flawless except for some barrel distortion at 70mm on my 35-70D (great older AF lens,,,better optics than my 35 2.0 prime). I still have to learn how to use PTGUI in its entirety, incl. lens distortion correction.

4 shots stitched from my D200 RAW files yeilded a 24"x10" image @300 . that's in a single row. In the morning I will test extensively (it's my day off from teaching...yay). I will report results.

Thank you all once again. I think you saved me about $500 in an unneeded pc lens. Now I must find ANOTHER lens to invest in :)

Jakob:

That's very clear, thank you. So: you don't see any "degradation" of your image quality by having PTGUI do the

parallax correction? for example, how does PT GUI's perspective correction affect IQ compared to CS3's

interpolation "transform" tool, which creates new pixels to compensate for the perspective correction?

I suppose that if the pc lens interferes with the stitching, then it's out of the question. Interesting. So do you use your

pc lenses at all? Also: do you see a big advantage between the older pc lens and the pc-e?

thank you again

g

I'm sure this question may have been addressed before but I could not find a clear conclusive answere in the forums:

I'm looking to create large hi-rez photographs from stitched tiled panos in order to print from large files without having

to "up-rez" a 10 mp file (d200). For this I have bought a Nodal Ninja 5 pano head.

My question: Since most of my shooting involves architectural/urban subjects, I've been considering getting a pc lens

for my d200. Does a PC lens work well with a pano head setup? Say I were shooting 2 rows, 7-10 images across

(camera mounted in portrait position): would a PC lens (like the Nikon PC 28mm 3.5?) offer me the advantage of

added parallax correction, making the stitched panos "cleaner"? or would the pc lens create weird distortions, edge

fall-off or vignetting that would ruin/compromise the end result when stitching (I use PT-GUI 8.0)??

If anyone has had any experience with the use of PC lenses combined with panorama-stitched photography, what

are your thoughts /suggestions on this? Also, with a D200 (1.5 crop) would a 28mm be advisable or a slight longer

35mm? ...or should I really be looking at the 24mm pc-e to get the max wide angle possible?

This is what I'm shooting: www.pbase.com/gerards

Again, my goal is to generate very large printable files for gallery shows, max IQ, minimum up-sampling.

My current lenses are 70-200 2.8, 35-70 2.8, 50 1.8, 35 2.0 (all nikkors) and a Tokina 12-24 dx. Should I add a PC

28mm to my collection?

thank you

g

There is an option 03. Gigapixel tiled images.

You shoot a multi-image "tiled" pano and "flat-stitch" it into one large hi rez image; then crop to frame it as desired. All you need is a pano head with a vertical bracket to shoot with the camera in portrait orientation and a pano-stitching app. like PTGUI. Simply shooting 5-7 shots with 30% overlap to create a composite landscape-oriented picture made up of 5-7 portrait-oriented frames will give you a hi-megapixel TIFF that can be slightly uprez'd if needed. It REALLY works and is flawless if done with a minimum amount of care.

On up-rez'ing: The trick there is to use Bipolar Smoother but in 10% increments (steps). CS3 likes 10% increments. I asked the technicians at A&I Colorlabs in Hollywood how they uprez for pro enlargements and that's how they do it; no third-party software or plug-ins needed.

BTW: I did 3 test prints , 12x16 on a Noritzu lightjet of the same image uprez'ed using 3 different methods: the CS3 10% BP Smoother method, then one using Genuine Fractals and one using another 3rdparty app that I cant recall. There was ZERO difference on a 100% up-sampled output. Conclusion: no need to buy extra software. Just use CS3; but also consider trying the flat-stitch pano process described above.

g

g

Does it make any sense to use a PC lens to correct converging verticals while using a panorama head to create a giga stitched pano? I'm looking to create hi-rez architectural photographs that can be printed 24" and larger with only minimal up-rezing. I'm not shooting 360's nor landscape panos.

So....PC lens + pano head for giga-stitching?

Wow. Lots to learn from all the postings here!

I'm interested in creating high-resolution images by stiching together 4 to 6 D200 shots into one larger file. My goal is to be able to print large gallery prints (24"x and larger) with my D200 without having to up-rez my files. Wouldn't this require a "panorama"-like setup? What would I need? I currently have a Gitzo Traveller tripod with a Foba arcaswiss-style ball head. My lenses are a 12-24, a 35-70 and a 70-200 2.8 (all Nikkor). I don't shoot "panoramas" per-se; mostly architecture/urban spaces:

pbase.com/gerards

All I want is to create BIG files so as to make large prints.

Any advice will be welcome :)

gerard

I've had 4 gallery shows, two more coming up. Does that make me an artist?

Photography is a medium just like collage, paint, sculpture. Of course photography CAN be art. I frequently go on shoots with Julius Shulman. He is a commercial architectural photographer who is paid to shoot buildings for a daily fee. He never really just took his own "art" photographs. Nonetheless, his work is exhibited at the Getty here in LA and he is a world-wide celebrated photographer, his signed, un-serialized prints selling for $5,000 and up. Can anyone argue that THAT'S not "art"?

g

Steve's Camera in Culver City (on Sepulveda Blvd, in Los Angeles) repairs and does top-notch CLA's on film

cameras. Ask for Bill; the guy is a true master craftsman. I have a number of cameras that have all been

repaired/maintained there. Bill has brought some back from the dead. My Rolleiflex 2.8 Planar, Hassy lenses and my

Fuji GS645 have all been in his hands. Great repair shop.

gerry smulevich

Do both cameras use the exact same lenses? or do the 7 and 7II use a different spec, particularly the 80mm F4?

g