Re: Panorama debate

["simonwide:\"First simonwide:Last\"" <simonwide@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

i read with amazement these made up rules what is and what
isn't panoramic.is it the negative size or the final print size or the
application in publication (call this final crop)? i went to panoramic
color transparencies i made in egypt (1965)  on the movie "khartoum."
see true magazine cover, 7-66. it was made with 10fps hulcher-simon/wide.
film was 70mm. format was 6x12 on 70mm perf  2 at 10fps.color cover
was a vertical, had to be unless they made it a double, foldout cover.now,
tell me this was taken panoramic, used less than full frame. lens used
may have been 360mm or 500 mm telexenar. this is/is not panoramic photograph?
at the same movie another hulcher- made 6x12in. frame was across two pages
in 5-27-66 life magazine. epoca, italian magazine had two pager, color.l970,
from 500mm schneider telexenar from the film "waterloo." none of the so-called
rules apply. b&w ford dealer advt tri states dealers used nyc skyline
from 360degree  shot on 70mm. neg would have 52" long had i turned
full 360. photo was stripped in as background. wendy's ann report had 210
degrees pan shot with 35mm fl. lens, hulcherama. simon nathan

Alan Zinn wrote:

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