Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
Thread started 02 Aug 2012 (Thursday) 15:38
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Techniques for photographing wall that will be blown up to lifesize

 
littlednoah
Hatchling
8 posts
Joined Mar 2007
     
Aug 02, 2012 15:38 |  #1

Hi Friends,

I need technique advice.

I am shooting a wall display that is 10 feet by 24 feet that the final image will be blown up to actual size and shared. It needs to be fully in focus with a large aperture.

When I originally agreed to the project, it was not quite so “grand”. Do you have any tips/techniques of how to photograph this wall? I already know that I will be doing stitching in order to not lose size. But should I use a tripod and do a traditional panoramic or instead do the “brenzier method”?

Any guidance is helpful.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Kirill
Senior Member
728 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Chicago Burbs, IL
     
Aug 02, 2012 15:52 |  #2

Tilt-Shift lens + stitching ?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
"spouting off stupid things"
Avatar
56,148 posts
Likes: 2857
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Aug 02, 2012 15:59 |  #3

I'm assuming that this image will be viewed from some distance away and not examined from inches away. If so, you can get away with far fewer ppi than a small print. I would think an image that size could go as low as 20ppi and still look sharp.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
littlednoah
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
8 posts
Joined Mar 2007
     
Aug 02, 2012 16:07 |  #4

Do you think I could photograph using a basic panoramic technique then? I am getting overwhelmed by the thought of it being printed 24 feet wide.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlexB_Photo
Member
Avatar
147 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Newport RI
     
Aug 02, 2012 17:32 |  #5

I'm sure if you could just put your tripod on a dolly and shoot vertical images one at a time and move your tripod along the sidewalk that would help. If you were REALLY worried about pixel peepers shoot it in sections like you mentioned but split it in half horizontally too.
---------------
| | | | | | |
---------------
| | | | | | |
---------------

Hope you get the idea...


Active Lifestyle Photography & Video (external link)
Facebook Page (external link)
6D w/ grip | 70D | 24-105mm f/4L IS, 70-200mm f/4L
For Sale:
20D * 2, 450D w/ grip, Tenba Medium Shootout Backpack

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
olstudios
Member
Avatar
115 posts
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Houston, Tx
     
Aug 02, 2012 18:55 |  #6

Shoot raw



Equipment:
Canon 60d | Canon 17-40mm F/4L | Canon Speedlite 430exII
Website (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
51,009 posts
Likes: 368
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Aug 02, 2012 19:21 |  #7

Pano with a tripod, move the tripod so the sensor is parallel with the wall at all times. Shoot RAW, M mode. Be careful not to get bright hot spots from a flash or window.

Why do you need to use a large aperture? I think you should be using F8 for sharpness.

Talk to your printer about how to give them a file that big. 20ppi as suggested above will be far too low if anyone wants to see any detail. You might get away with 100ppi.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
habro
Member
58 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Perth, WA
     
Aug 02, 2012 23:13 |  #8

Personally I would definitely use the Brenzier method. A 24-ft wall seems a bit big (if you're close to it of course which I assume you will be) to use a panning method and be able to avoid warp


Wedding Photographer (external link) shooting Canon

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nightstalker
Goldmember
1,666 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Feb 2007
Location: North West UK
     
Aug 03, 2012 02:50 |  #9

The size of the print is irrespective so don't let that worry you unduly - the key thing to understand is the image size that the printers need from you to be able to deliver the final product.

As has been said before a print to be viewed from a distance can be printed at a resolution as low as 20 dpi.

If this were the case then I would be able to provide this from a single 5DMk2 image.

If a higher resolution was needed I would probably utilise a tilt-shift lens.


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
john5189
Senior Member
598 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2008
     
Aug 03, 2012 03:32 |  #10

Shoot each brick individually and arrange them like on the wall.
Childish answer-true

I hope you have a lot of ram to hold that image in memory. If scaling up and smoothing with increased pixel count fromsay TrueFractal enlarging tool then we are talking to of the range SSD RAM.

Good distortion free lens, shoot each patch of the wall true perpendicular and have 25% overlap between images, photostitch software does a good job, but blending might be best.

Scan the wall
another chilish one!


Wedding Photography in Herefordshire.  (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kirill
Senior Member
728 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Chicago Burbs, IL
     
Aug 03, 2012 14:22 |  #11

Scan it :)
http://www.amazon.com …-16&keywords=hand+scann​er (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
barkingspud
Senior Member
Avatar
511 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Chi-Town Burbs
     
Aug 03, 2012 14:25 |  #12

abouthillier wrote in post #14806228 (external link)
I'm sure if you could just put your tripod on a dolly and shoot vertical images one at a time and move your tripod along the sidewalk that would help. If you were REALLY worried about pixel peepers shoot it in sections like you mentioned but split it in half horizontally too.
---------------
| | | | | | |
---------------
| | | | | | |
---------------

Hope you get the idea...

That's the way!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
13,622 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 875
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Aug 03, 2012 14:31 |  #13

gjl711 wrote in post #14805877 (external link)
I'm assuming that this image will be viewed from some distance away and not examined from inches away. If so, you can get away with far fewer ppi than a small print. I would think an image that size could go as low as 20ppi and still look sharp.

Only if they physically restrain the viewers to a sufficient distance. If the viewers are not physically restrained, they will mozy closer.

The brenzier method will definitely cause [apparent] perspective distortion with something like a wall because of the continuous parallel lines extending completely across the frame. You will need to use a tripod to move along the wall to some extent, depending on how much overlapping you're willing to do. That will entail some careful measurement to maintain a consistent distance from the wall. The more images you take, the less issue maintaining parallelism of the camera back to the wall will be.


TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tomj
Senior Member
656 posts
Likes: 39
Joined May 2010
     
Aug 03, 2012 14:43 |  #14

"I'm assuming that this image will be viewed from some distance away and not examined from inches away. If so, you can get away with far fewer ppi than a small print. I would think an image that size could go as low as 20ppi and still look sharp."

"Only if they physically restrain the viewers to a sufficient distance. If the viewers are not physically restrained, they will mozy closer"

If you haven't already, it would be a good idea to find out from your client exactly what their expectations are.


Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,682 views & 0 likes for this thread
Techniques for photographing wall that will be blown up to lifesize
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Eila
929 guests, 196 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.