Agree with the first statement - and would love to see the process of @JonesLongshot as well!
If you have some stitched landscapes you'd want to share here, I'd be very curious about those as well. Do you have some go-to lenses for your Cambo Actus? I use a bellows system as well but never for shifting... I'd love to try that in the future though!
Thank you.
I would love to get my hands on a Cambo Actus. I've been imagining a setup where I have an Actus and a stitching back and how that would work. I currently have a Rhinocam (Fotodiox) stitching back for my Canon EOS M6. I mounted it onto a Polaroid 110A. Very cumbersome to work with and the Ennit lens is just so-so. I shot exclusively 4x5 for more than 35 years and really miss that format. So I'm constantly experimenting and trying to recreate that look and feeling. But mostly I shoot with a spherical panohead because it's just easier.
There is really nothing special about how the portraits are stitched. They were almost all done with a spherical panohead. Of course the scenes themselves are all pretty static. Moving leaves, or anything moving, would kill the illusion. One of the benefits of stitching is the shallower depth of focus. Longer lenses at a particualar aperture on a larger (though simulated) sensor will have qualities of a larger aperture on shorter focal lengths with a smaller sensor. No real news there. But, I think the more important aspect of stitching is the simulation of a larger sensor. Lenses that might be considered lesser on a FF or APSC camera can shine on a 9 frame stitch. I tend to think of it as I'm improving the lens by a factor of 3. I know that's not completely accurate but if you shoot a 3 row by 3 column stitch with a 20% overlap you are increasing the sensor size by a factor of 7.8 (ish). And if you think about it, you are using the best part of a lens at that focal length. Consider stitching on a full frame camera with a 200mm lens. A 3x3 matrix gives you a roughly 3in x 4in sensor. If you had to find a 200mm f/4 lens to cover that format you would probably be spending a lot more and/or getting a lot less. I see this as I have a 200mm f/4 lens where the optical performance is at its best over the full area of the sensor. I'm sure it's not exaclty true but that is how I look at it.
So these portraits are almost all shot as 9 frame stitched images. Because the scenes are static and only the subject is really in focus I don't have the same issues as you have with landscapes. I honestly don't know how I would handle landscapes and the issues of moving foliage. What I would love is a 4x5 sensor on my old Sinar P2. But doesn't seem like it will ever be a reality at any price I could afford.
Spherical stitching has the advantage of always using the full IQ of the lens. Flat stitching has the advantage of utilizing the full character of the lens. I think about getting something like a Sigma FP and putting it onto an Actus and flat stitching. I don't think I've found a suitable back that would allow it though. And I'd have to repurchase all the large format lenses I sold off when switching to digital.
I don't know if I answered your questions so feel free to ask again.
Jones
Did I say that he's a master of B&W tones too.😎
I have the go-to Actus bag with four lenses Apo-Sironar Digital 135mm, Apo-Digitar L 80mm, Distagon CF FLE 50mm for landscapes and added for close-ups Apo-Digitar M 120mm. All those in the same insert with Actus. I can put it in different bags/packbags or carry only the insert if trying to avoid weight.
If I think I'm going to need longer lens or something else I'll take another insert with 180 mm Sironar-S and maybe Apo-Rodagon 90mm.
!80 mm is now my longest lens in that system, but mounting 210 mm Apo-Sironar-N and 240 mm G-Claron is still in progress.😜
Sigma sdQH with 50mm f/2 Nikkor. I think the lens dates from around 1969.![SDIN6306_p1_picc.jpg]
(/a/thumb/NKaueUc7m6N1ZSlCeH0gunltmhmwPtgAM7WxuaFxSq2VMw9OCiYgEm8k2Zsw8V6o/12060/?shva=1)[
Thanks a lot - that's very kind! As mentioned before, I don't have a lot of special methods... I do most of my macro photography on a very small table, so I don't work with any big lights (no softboxes etc.), I work with continuous light (for several reasons, but mainly because I often only have 10-15 minutes of time to create a scene and take a shot, before ony of my kids needs me 😅), I do a lot of stacking, but do everything manually on a small macro rail. I don't use many lights, often only one and try to do the rest with reflectors (which in my case are just pieces of paper or cardboard etc. So I tend to work very smallscale, which can make things significantly easier (but also harder sometimes).
I usually don't document my setups, but I have created a couple of shots of the setup for this image once, because I was asked by some people:
Better knot ask by simple.joy, on Flickr
As you can see, despite using a T/S bellows, my setup is still hand-holdable, which is very important to me, because I also use this outside. Many of the mounting parts are from industrial applications (as are many of my favorite lenses), but I also have a couple of custom-made adapters and lens-boards, which helps a lot.
Your description was excellent - thank you very much! Again - love your approach to portrait photography and the results speak for themselves!
Love the colors - great arrangement and well captured!
Thanks.
Don
Thanks for sharing your setup.
With the bellows setup you have three things that can be moved for focusing; the camera, the lens and the entire setup. When you are focus stacking, which do you generally use to adjust the focus? I feel like moving the lens would alter the perspective as would moving the entire setup. Moving the camera would adjust the focus withou altering perspective. But, I have heard that moving the entire setup is the easiest.
Also, are you adjusting focus by hand as you are stacking? I've heard that it's near impossible to make stacking adjustments manually when using a bellows. But your images look effortless.
Jones
When stacking I move the whole setup almost exclusively. Moving the lens might make sense for some close-up work (product shots or things like that) but at the macro scale you need very small steps and for me moving the whole setup is preferable for that. I also have a motorized macro-rail but I almost never use it. For most of what I do my clumsy hands still work okay, but when I attempt anything around and above 10:1, the limits of my current setup start to show.
I feel like it still works fine for what I'm trying to do in terms of ideas, but it won't satisfy the image quality criteria of most demanding macro experts...
Scale the wall to freedom? by simple.joy, on Flickr
(the side of a coin)
A big drop is just around the corner... by simple.joy, on Flickr
(a fork tine)
A maze thing? by simple.joy, on Flickr
(leaf structure with a mm scale beneath it)
SALZ / A-salt on your eyes? by simple.joy, on Flickr
(that's table salt - the very small kind)
Macro eggsplosion by simple.joy, on Flickr
(shows the thickness of an egg shell)
Thank you for sharing that info.
I can see where it might let you down in some cases but the proof is in the pudding and I don't see how anyone can argue with your results. Gear can get in our way sometimes, and sometimes technique and vision are what matters. I think you have proven that the photographer is most important piece.
Jones
Post no new photos, please; the July 2023 thread has just started. (But please fell free to carry on the conversation started above.) Thanks.