Panoramic edits (colour added)

smelltheglove · 28-12-2009 6:00pm #1

I don't often get out for scenery shots but today I took a very very short mystery tour and ended up on the Rocky road drive near Powerscourt. I took a set of around 14 images to make this panoramic. Idont like it at all in colour but I would be interested to see which version of the black and white you guys here would prefer. C&c welcome also, only my second ever panoramic so I'm sure it could be better.

magicbastarder · 28-12-2009 6:19pm

first one. second is too contrasty.
even the first might not suffer from a drop in contrast.

smelltheglove · 28-12-2009 6:23pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

first one. second is too contrasty.
even the first might not suffer from a drop in contrast.

Thanks magic, I was thinking there wasn't enough contrast thats why I upped it, will try with less again and see what I think.

peter1892 · 28-12-2009 6:44pm

I'd go with the second one - the sky is much more interesting with a bit of detail in the clouds & the contrast in the forground is better, it makes the field look really frosty.

14 images - good stitching then, I can't see any joins!

broad_sword · 28-12-2009 7:06pm

I actually like both images. Well stitched together BTW, considering there were 14 of them! Nice one!

pixbyjohn · 28-12-2009 7:06pm

Rachel, today wasn't a good day for landscape photos. I don't think that photo works in b&w anyway. Pity, cos Co. Wicklow has the most beautiful scenery in Ireland

magicbastarder · 28-12-2009 7:14pm

smelltheglove wrote: »

Thanks magic, I was thinking there wasn't enough contrast

i think the haziness adds to the effect.

DotOrg · 28-12-2009 8:45pm

i think it looks great and i prefer the second by far though i do love a nice contrasty black and white landscape

magicbastarder · 28-12-2009 9:04pm

it looks unreal to me.

Fajitas! · 28-12-2009 9:15pm

Would definitely say the second one and less contrast.

Is the lack of clarity in the first line of trees from a long exposure, the mist or the image being resized?

smelltheglove · 28-12-2009 10:09pm

You're right fajitas the focus seems to be further back from the trees. It wasn't a long exposure though I literally got out of the car took a few pics and got back in 2 minutes later. I might reduce the contrast tomorrow.

BanzaiBk · 28-12-2009 10:15pm

I know I'm totally out of the photog forum loop but smelltheglove you are my favourite boardsie photographer

smelltheglove · 28-12-2009 10:45pm

BanzaiBk wrote: »

I know I'm totally out of the photog forum loop but smelltheglove you are my favourite boardsie photographer

Seriously, thanks. There's loads of amazing photogs here, have a look around and welcome to the forum.

padocon · 28-12-2009 11:13pm

They are great, I really like the 2nd one! Great detail!

WedPhoto · 29-12-2009 1:10am

i think the first one lacks contrast and the second one has too much contrast. and the b&w doesn't really work for this pano.

smelltheglove · 29-12-2009 12:18pm

Thanks for all the comments. I'll go back and see it in colour again today although I dont think I saved the crop in colour so may have to re-crop it, it may look slightly different. I wasnt mad on the colour at all but then I had a very black and white day yesterday. Everything was black and white.

djd80 · 29-12-2009 2:01pm

I think the second one is much better, prefer the way the mist/fog stands out a bit more.

smelltheglove · 29-12-2009 4:34pm

Ok since some have mentioned they dont like the b&w here is both in the colour, slightly less clarity on the colour second one as there is on the black and white though.

padocon · 29-12-2009 5:02pm

I think I prefer 2

pixbyjohn · 29-12-2009 5:07pm

I now see why you went for B & W. Did you shoot these at f4 or f8 ,where as I would have tried f16 or even f22 to get a blue sky but that would have meant taking more time and using your tripod.. As I said previously it wasn't a great day to shoot landscapes.

WedPhoto · 29-12-2009 5:07pm

i prefer the first one. color is much better than the b&w. (in the b&w version it looked as if the bottom of the image was a lake - i can now see it is actually grass). they both look quite soft. how did you shoot this panoramic? tripod? manual focus?

smelltheglove · 29-12-2009 5:53pm

I had no tripod, I had actually been scouting a venue for an upcoming wedding and we took a little drive, I just saw this spot and we pulled over to take some shots. Spur of the moment, a run of about 14 images, when checking this crop uses around 11 of those images. All images were 6.3 iso 100 and 1/100, if I had known we were taking a trip I would have been more prepared with tripod and filters, maybe next time though.... I really dont like the colour versions, I dont think they do it any justice but then that could be just me.

Morrisseeee · 29-12-2009 7:31pm

11 shots seems a bit much, the file must be huge and there's the possibility of one of them phuking up, focus or something, unless you're in full manual. I would usually do 4 to 5 images in a pana, then again I'm no pro !!!

:D On the pic itself, I suppose the foreground is a bit meh (ie. I've been there, done that, worn the t-shirt !).

GavinZac · 29-12-2009 7:57pm

I much prefer the colour ones. And #2 especially so.

smelltheglove · 29-12-2009 8:56pm

Thanks guys. Morisee I was manual as always, I was actually going for a wider image but I preferred the crop. The file itself is humongous. It was easy to do though with photomerge.

Borderfox · 30-12-2009 12:26am

Quick run through photoshop

smelltheglove · 30-12-2009 10:48am

Thanks border I like the extra detail in the clouds I lost that while processing.

WedPhoto · 30-12-2009 2:48pm

Morrisseeee wrote: »

11 shots seems a bit much, the file must be huge and there's the possibility of one of them phuking up, focus or something, unless you're in full manual. I would usually do 4 to 5 images in a pana, then again I'm no pro !!! :D On the pic itself, I suppose the foreground is a bit meh (ie. I've been there, done that, worn the t-shirt !).

11 shots is not much. i did a panoramic for a client (total area 550sq ft) and i used about 250-300 images. the final file was 2.6GB...

Morrisseeee · 30-12-2009 3:39pm

i used about 250-300 images. the final file was 2.6GB..

yikes, thats a fair size alright, it must have been processing all night :eek: and that file size is probably the JPEG file !!
In my defence of using less shots in a pana, it was aimed at newbies, as she said herself she just parked by the side of the road to give it a try. My advice to people trying it out for the 1st time would be to use fewer files, maybe try portrait mode, and see how you get on, then when you have nailed a few, you can start to be more adventurous & then step up to your standard

smelltheglove · 30-12-2009 4:21pm

Which is good advice morisee although I think my pp skills can handle it now it's just I don't often get the opportunity of a nice pano which is why this is only my second.

Morrisseeee · 30-12-2009 4:45pm

Which is good advice morisee

Cheers, no problem.

although I think my pp skills can handle it now

Sorry, forgot you are quite experienced.

I don't often get the opportunity of a nice pano which is why this is only my second

Which is why I was giving my (non-professional) advice, ie. my limited advice after tackling a few panas.

Just to clarify, what lens were you using, how did you take the shots, ie. landscape mode, 14 shots left to right, or portrait mode, or maybe 7 shots top & 7 on the bottom, KWIM ???

smelltheglove · 30-12-2009 5:29pm

I was fully manual and took the shots landscape would have been 2 rows although considering what I cropped out I could gave done it in one row. Because it was fully manual there were no changes in exposure or colour temp or anything.

I used an 18-55 2.8 lens

WedPhoto · 30-12-2009 5:30pm

Morrisseeee wrote: »

yikes, thats a fair size alright, it must have been processing all night :eek: and that file size is probably the JPEG file !!
In my defence of using less shots in a pana, it was aimed at newbies, as she said herself she just parked by the side of the road to give it a try. My advice to people trying it out for the 1st time would be to use fewer files, maybe try portrait mode, and see how you get on, then when you have nailed a few, you can start to be more adventurous & then step up to your standard

is wasn't a JPEG due to file size restrictions fo jpegs(there's a maximum file size and a max pixel size-can't remember now). and couldn't do it as a tiff either because most applications cannot work with a tiff over 2GB... it had to be a PSB file (Photoshop Large Document).

i used autopano pro to stitch it. it took about 18 hours to render it i remember correctly. just opening the file in photoshop took about 2-3 minutes and saving even longer.

Morrisseeee · 30-12-2009 6:38pm

2 rows although considering what I cropped out I could gave done it in one row

......so, you're down to say 7 shots, see..........I was right-ish (only kiddin)

I suppose, depending on your vantage point, ie. how far your subject is away, then zoom in (or better still use a prime lens set to infinity focus) and only take a few shots.
The more shots you use (in a row) will mean you will have something like 30,000pixels * 3000pixels and it looks very elongated/stretched. The only advantage I see in a large number of shots is for a super-duper file & hense a super-duper print.
(....just my humble opinion)

Panoramic edits (colour added)

Comments