Re: Panorama debate

[Alan Zinn <azinn@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 07:29 PM 12/24/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>It sounds like we're having the old discussion as to purity of image between 
>the "I always print full frame crowd" and the "I crop group." What the heck's 
>the difference if I use my old Deardorff with a 165 and crop down to 4x10 or 
>one of Mr. Wisner's 4x10 cameras and print the whole thing. Main difference 
>is I'm not out about $3500 and can use my camera for other than "full frame" 
>panorama. Granted I could crop a 4x10 down to 4x5. Anyway, I think this must 
>be a purist issue rather than format or equipment discussion. John Kendig
>

guys,
Suppose you were an archivists or cataloger and picked 3:1 as the panorama
size. Anything under that is standard. Any cropped picture would fit but
might not be a panorama. The "Advantix" format is the perfect example of the
shortcomings of that criteria. It is not so much dogmatism as it is seeing
the need for distinctions among certain types of image making. I spent a lot
of time looking for panoramas at the Library of Congress. I found most
everything by pure, dumb luck and persistence. At the time (middle 80's),
they didn't make a distinction among formats. They could see no advantage to
identifying images by width to height ratio or technique. 

Any claim for a picture's mode is fine with me as long as additional
information is included. The conventional panorama divisions are based on
technique: wide angle, fish-eye, swing lens, etc.  

AZ
Have a Safe Holliday Season.
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/8874/

Lookaround Panoramic Cameras and Gallery:
http://www.keva.com/lookaround