John,
All good points and for professional quality, I tend to agree with you. In
my case, I'm an amateur, so I don't need the quality. I have everything I
need to do what you described and print out a 13x44 inch print. Might just
have to try it <g>.
Tom
>
> It would depend on what you plan for the images. I got into helping a
> local pro set up the double-exposure mirror trick because I knew how it's
> done when making the photo in-camera.
>
> If the results are for web use, no problem with stitching. If it's for
> smaller prints and personal use, and you have a good film scanner and
> printer, still no problem with stitching. If it's for things like
> professional 8x10's and larger, the cost of drum scanning and work to
> stitch them together by a pro imaging house for a single print exceeds the
> cost of doing it on-film in-camera, including buying the Cokin stuff to do
> it with. It's a matter of how much resolution is required.
>
> My thought: if I can get it on film right, then simply printing it as any
> other frame is much simpler. The Cokin stuff for doing it isn't that
> expensive. It works very well once you've shot a few to get some
> experience with exactly how to do it (and what the pitfalls are). In the
> case of the local pro I helped set up to shoot them, we shot a half-dozen
> experimental shots with it to find the optimal setup. He does it now as
> customers request it, and doesn't have to pay for custom work to get large
> prints that have the same quality level as his normal studio portraiture.
>
> -- John
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|