Hasselblad tilt shift adapter with 300mm lens

[Zerui]

I am embarking on a landscape project that will involve stitching vertically shifted images of a distant subject. I shall be using a Hasselblad H3D50II.
Calculations suggest the combination of 300 mm lens with the tilt-shift adapter provides the required coverage.
However the 300mm lens is not on Hasselblad's approved list for the T/S adapter.
Is that because there is a risk of damage?  Or because some of the information flow is not available?
If the former, I shall not proceed. If the latter I shall have a go.
Does any reader have experience of this combination?
And would our friendly Hasselblad monitor care to comment?
Advice from all quarters appreciated
Goff

[Kirk Gittings]

A little more info on the subject might help. On a distant subject with that lens (with nothing important close up), I doubt you would need the tilt/shift adapter. There is not all that much shift with that adapter and if you had in mind flat stitching with the shift you won't need it IME. For example though I own 4 t/s lenses (24-90mm) that I routinely flat stitch with, for longer subjects I often stitch handheld panoramas with a 200mm lens on a FF DSLR quite easily with no problem.

[gerald.d]

Whilst I haven't any experience of stitching on the Hasselblad platform, I have done a lot of panos with 200 and 300mm lenses on Canon DSLR's (up to 60 gigapixels, comprising of over 4,000 individual photos).

I would definitely concur with Kirk - there is no benefit to be gained in shifting a lens of this focal length for panorama stitching purposes.

[Dustbak]

Head to the Hasselblad Digital Forum. One of the members (Derek) has used this combination, even with the converter attached to it as well. Example have been posted over there too.

[Zerui]

Thank you Kirk.  You asked for more information.

The subject is a colourful row of houses on the Riviera waterfront, on the opposite side of the harbour.
Also their reflections in the water.
The camera wil be on a tripod on the harbour wall, which runs parallel to the row of waterfront houses, some 30m from them.

Over the years I have produced several single-photo prints of this scene using a 90mm or 120mm lens.
Now I want to squeeze some more detail for much larger prints in an exhibition. 
Hence going to 300mm in portrait format, plus stitching.
However, that does not quite provide the vertical coverage I need.
I have calculated that using the T/S adapter with the 300mm lens should be about right.
Hence my question.

I plan to stitch vertically and horizontally, repositioning the camera sideways along the wall between shots (each comprising a set with vertical shift).
That will achieve the same effect as David Hockney got with his row of trees in Yorkshire (now at the Royal Academy)
Moving the camera achieves a "roll past" effect, rather than a "panorama" from a fixed position with different camera angles.
I have done many stitched panoramas over the years.
For this project I want to avoid the distortion produced by the changing camera angle (which has sometimes confused photo competition judges!).

Thank you Dustbak for directing me to the Hasselblad Digital Forum, where I'm now headed.

Goff

[gerald.d]

Goff -

I assume you are aware that if you move the camera position, then you will introduce severe parallax errors that will be almost impossible to fix in post?

Is this an "effect" you are deliberately aiming for? (I'm not familiar with the Hockney work you refer to.)

Regards,

Gerald.

[Zerui]

Thank you Gerald

David Hockney is, of course, Britain's greatest living painter.
He is also a brilliant landscape photographer who uses imaginative stitching inspired in part by cubism.
He has recently moved into stitched multicamera video as well.
The results are wonderful - worth a trip to the Royal Academy.

You can see some of his work by Googling Hockney photography.
http://www.google.it/search?q=david+hockney+photography&hl=it&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=imvnso&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=6z5wT4mbJefT4QSOsLTAAg&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1920&bih=1160

But the best way to understand his sophisticated art is to read the recent book "A Bigger Message: Conversations with David Hockney" by Martin Gayford.
In it, Hockney deals with the issue you raise ("severe parallax errors").  He explains why the mind appreciates a run through better than a panorama.
Psychology can trump geometry.

Hence my interest in adopting this technique to capture the unique tromp l"oeil decoration of buildings on the Ligurian waterfront.

Good that you raised this important point.

Goff
 

[gerald.d]

Hmm.

Interesting.

Without reading the interview you mention, a brief look at Hockney's photographic collage work (and it is interesting to note that it is referred to as collage, and not panorama) shows that there's clearly a strong influence here as to the technology available to (a) create the panorama or collage; (b) present it;  and (c) how it is meant to be viewed.

Looking at the dates of the works on hockneypictures.com, it's evident that when they were created, the technology simply didn't exist to "properly" align, stitch, and blend multiple photographs into a single image.

When people talk about "stitching" these days, the desire generally is to stitch seamlessly, because the technology now exists to enable them to do so, and people go to great expense and great lengths to create huge photographic panoramas that a stitched and blended perfectly.

I can see how shooting a panorama from multiple horizontal locations, and presenting it in such a way that the viewer actually walks past it, could work very well.