Hello,
I've been playing around with this photo recently. I used lightroom to merge this into a panorama. It's composed of 17 vertically shot images (probably too many) and I'll be honest I took the photos kind of hastily. There were more people there than I expected and I was trying to hurry while no one was in my way. I didn't really focus on keeping the horizon straight in any of the photos. The photos were shot at 16mm. I realize the horizon is curved a little but I actually think it works with this photo? It kind of has a fish eye effect to it, to me at least. I'm just curious what others think? Does it work for you or is it too weird?
Also, any advice on these types of photos on keeping the horizon straight besides doing it in camera? I don't even know if it would've worked with every photo being level since it was shot at 16mm? Also, how do you deal with the water when doing panoramas like this? I wanted a slightly slower shutter speed to get some streaks but not too slow that all the detail is gone. Some of the individual shots look great but I will say to the trained eye the water in the foreground looks a little funky. I'm kind of new to experimenting with panorama's and they are trickier than I expected. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
is this a multi-row multi column pano?
Yes
My tuppence worth, Kyle - an interesting image, including the curvilinear distortion. The superimposition of different exposures in the foreground water does mar it slightly for me, but like processing-induced haloes, it's unlikely to trouble non-photographers as you imply. Can't help with advice about panos as I've never done one yet!
it seems to me that with multi row multi column pano what is usually trying to be accomplished is a higher resolution picture. I would think that if that is what is trying to be accomplished then a subject that doesn't have so much motion would be a better candidate. I like the picture except the foreground which which is a little confusing.
I was really just trying to get more of the scene in the frame with the added bonus of the extra resolution. I was trying to get a little more out of the typical under the pier shot. Trying to get more of the bottom of the pier and the water in frame. This photo has actually been pretty well received on social media but I agree the water in the foreground looks a little funny. I still like the image though. May have to try again with a faster shutter speed or different subject.
Can you not just selectively edit the frames you use for the foreground so they blend better, Kyle?
Looking closer, the breaking waves don't make sense either - the brightly lit nearest wave does not extend into the gap between the first & second pylons at left. I realise this was a quick attempt at something new, but with a moving subject like this, selective blending of compatible adjacent images would seem to be highly desirable if you want to maintain some plausibility. The views of experienced pano shooters would be interesting to hear on this.
Personally, I find that many composites of all kinds contain some unsettling (and to me unappealing) attributes of one kind or another. Maybe I'm just tame & conservative, but just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea.
I'm in no way criticising you for trying a newish technique here, Kyle. We're all here to learn (I hope!). I'm just interested in broader opinions about when composites are worthwhile per se. I can well understand getting a wider view than the widest lens you have with you. How big are people printing who aim for high res? I can't tell the difference between my sharpest & least sharp lens printing at A2, or even longer (cropped FF) panoramas.
Hi Chris. I think I know what you mean by selectively editing the frames for the foreground. I think I could take the individual frames and do some masking in photoshop with the pano to get some more realistic water. Is that what you mean? I'll probably give it a try and see what I can come up with.
I feel like when I do these photos I do get some more detail but you can only notice it if you zoom in on the picture. Like in this image when you zoom in you can read the signs on the pier which is pretty crazy to me. Probably wouldn't notice anything at all on a print unless you printed really big. And the sad thing is I'll probably never print anything big enough to take advantage of the resolution. I'd like to but I don't know what I would do with it.
Re para 1: Yes, that is what I meant about blending.
Re para 2: That's my point about the res, Kyle. Why bother? That's assuming art or aesthetics are your aim. No harm in playing around and learning, of course, and I admire your openness to the new.
I suspect that the lettering on the blue sign at right would be quite legible if I made this image carefully with a single frame using my 55mm Nikon macro, bought new recently but a 1979 design.
I held off going digital for a long time, having a suite of Nikon lenses, but unhappy with their DSLR offerings. I worked out that an ideal camera for me would be 36MP or a bit more. I'd printed film at A3 size, and figured that this would enable me to print at A2, where at 300 dpi, each pixel corresponded to a "dot". Eventually I bought a 12MP D700 when the price came down enough, and it is a little soft at A2 compared with subsequent D800E images. I upgraded to D850 for reasons unrelated to resolution.
I buy new tools when I can't do what I want without them, but for now can't see any reason to opt for more res, placing more demands on the computer in processing and in storage. I've already got nearly 2TB since 2011.