panorama defined

["M. Denis Hill" <thehillgroup@xxxxxxxx>]

Andy Buck wrote:
> 
--snip--
> Webster's (on the Web) defines panoramic as a view of all directions
> from a central location and a panoramic camera as one in which both
> the lens and film move. I shoot almost exclusively longer thin
> negatives, but prefer do not consider them panoramic. Does merely
> cropping off the top and bottom of the frame make it panoramic? Why?

Let's see: a Noblex does not view in all directions, and film does not
move, so it's not panoramic. Ditto for Horizon, Widelux, and a variety
of similar old cameras. Also, by Webster's definition, a 360 degree
stitched image is not panoramic, since neither film nor lens moves in
the standard camera in which the composited images are captured.

With a Fuji or Linhof, one does not "crop off" the top and bottom, ergo
it IS panoramic by your definition?

As Mehan says in PANORAMIC PHOTOGRAPHY, "Finally, you must understand
how panoramic cameras affect the way images appear on film. Notice that
I mentioned technology last, after visual orientation." And, "For me,
the panoramic viewpoint is an awareness that enables me to see vistas in
which elements are bound toegether along a continuum." I agree with him
that panoramic image is defined by a certain kind of vision, combined
with a 2:1 or greater aspect ratio.

Back to Webster's: Keep in mind that dictionaries reflect, rather than
determine, definitions. For one thing, language is dynamic. People
invent words and definitions. Dictionaries only codify them. Meehan
includes fixed lens and short rotation cameras in his book. I accept his
authority on this subject over any dictionary editor's.

Denis

-- 
M. Denis Hill	mailto:denis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Hill Group	http://www.thehillgroup.com
Marketing communications: writing, editing, photography
949-366-1641 San Clemente, California, USA