this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
7 points (100.0% liked)

Photography

0 readers
49 users here now

All things photography. Share your own original photos, your questions, your inspiration.

Rules

Share your own original photography. No NSFW images. Be Nice.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
7
House of the Temple,. Washington, DC, 2023. (fedia.io)
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

House of the Temple,. Washington, DC, 2023.

All the secret pixels at https://www.flickr.com/photos/mattblaze/53288608886

#photography

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Captured with the Rodenstock 32mm/4.0 HR Digaron-W (@ f/6.3 lens, Phase One IQ4-150 back, and Phase One XT camera. Composite of two shifted images (+/- 12mm from center horizontally, -12mm vertically).

Officially, "House of the Temple, Headquarters of the Supreme Council, 33°, Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, Southern Jurisdiction, Washington DC". The local Masonic temple, museum, library, and, I'm told, a gift shop. I was assured that no human sacrifices are performed there.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

This is a stitched composite of two captures made from the same position, using horizontal shift movements to get a wider field of view on either side. This was really the only way to capture this building from in front of a tree that would otherwise have obstructed the facade, while also keeping its geometry undistorted. The final result is roughly the angle of view of a 14mm lens (in 35mm full frame terms), with a total of about 190 megapixels in the combined frame.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

I used the 32mm Rodenstock here. I could have just barely squeezed this into a single frame with the wider-angle 23mm, except that the 23 doesn't have a large enough image circle to accommodate the vertical shift needed to keep the vertical lines from converging. The 32 has a much larger image circle, and so stitching with it yields a wider angle of view than I could obtain with the 23 (which allows only much more limited movements). More pixels this way, too.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

@[email protected] you're really not helping the temptation to buy an XC

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

@[email protected] I frankly don't understand the point of the XC. It's only slightly smaller than the XT with the 23, but you can't interchange the lenses and you get no movements (granted, not much movement is possible with the 23 anyway).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

@[email protected] it's smaller enough that it could fit in my normal day bag, and wideness solves the need for any shift

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

@[email protected] Yeah, but if you just get an XT and a 23mm, you get the ability to interchange lenses and use movements without much extra size. I guess someone is buying XCs, I just can't figure out who it's for.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

@[email protected] yeah, the portability is really the only justification. It's a modern Hasselblad SWC, there is a market, but very small. I do expect I'll end up buying one once I own an IQ4

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

@[email protected] annoyingly, they don’t seem to (currently) sell it without a back. If they did, and I didn’t already have a 23, I’d consider buying an XC sans back instead of a 23 in the XT/cambo mount.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

@[email protected] they do, but only started doing so a few months after launch