Re: XPan, etc.

[Clayton Bennett <cjbennett@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Joel Seaman --

> Thanks for a well written thoughtful response to this thread.

And thank you for letting me know someone appreciated it.

> For me it is not the amount of pan but how a particular format is used that is
the value.

That's what I meant by the Brahms quotation. Fanatics can argue all they
want about objective factors in camera specifications, but artists are more
concerned with the effects they can generate with creative tools.

>From the description you gave of your three cameras, it sounds as if you put
technology to work for art, however broadly you want to define it, rather
than confine art to categories limited by technology. Good for you.

> In terms of Pano stuff I rarely find 180 or 360 degree pans to be
appealing...rather, in my opinion they are often awkward images. I am not
against 180-360 degree pans, they have their place, and the good ones are
fantastic, but I would find their coverage to be a burden to contend with
for most of my shots.

That's the key. The fellow in France seems to understand that very well. Not
all of his shots use the same coverage, probably because he chose what
seemed best for each shot. Again, it's a matter of matching the tool to the
job, not the other way around.

> I love my Noblex.  Additionally, I have a Horseman 6X12 for times when the
swing lens or the 136 degree Noblex is too much for the situation, and then
a Fuji SW690 for even less coverage.  I think of this approach as being akin
to normal cameras with various focal lengths, only I select differing angles
of coverage, and differing aspect ratios according to the situation....of
course, with the ridiculous cost of carrying three cameras.

At any angle of coverage, I'd say, you keep a realistic perspective.

Thanks again for your note.

-- Clayton Bennett
cjbennett@xxxxxxxxxx