Montaged Panorama from images 3 days apart.

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Douglas, Dec 9, 2007.

  1. Douglas

    Douglas Guest

    The idea of a panorama seems to have no "standard" aspect ratio. 16:9 is the
    aspect ratio adopted by many Japanese camera makers as a panorama but this
    is by no means definitive. I use this 16:9 ratio to keep my panoramas a
    constant, manageable ratio if nothing else. Like many others, I often
    increase this when the need arrises.

    I few years ago I shot a photo of a creek. I liked the picture but it left
    me wondering what I'd missed so... A couple of days later when the lighting
    looked similar, I went back and shot the "missing" component I needed for
    the image.

    This is the result: http://www.douglasjames.com.au/Pano.htm.

    the second image was "blended" into the first with the erase tool LOL!

    Douglas
     
    Douglas, Dec 9, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. A pleasant enough snapshot.

    And, at that size, he *seems* to have done a good job of the blend.
    Note the words *at that size*...

    Pity about:
    - the tiny size making it impossible to judge quality
    (it may as well have come from a $10 disposable)
    - the trademark burnt highlights (admittedly not horrible..)
    (why would he not shoot this in RAW? Why would he not carefully
    post-process?
    .. and will he bring out the old "JPG compression causes lost
    highlights" excuse?)
    - the stair-stepped mast-line at left
    (use Lanczos, in small steps if necessary - how many times does it
    need repeating?)
    - the poor choice of white balance
    (looks horribly like *auto*-wb - it doesn't look at all 'dusk' -
    ish to me. Just overcast..)
    - poor cropping at right
    (to be precise, it looks much better if cropped 24 pixels in from
    the right - try it..)

    Oh, and I happily declare my bias - I think Doug is a talentless,
    deluded old windbag (search for other posts by him to see why).

    But *technical* discussion of the above issues is welcomed. If others
    disagree and give reasons, then I'll happily admit to being wrong.

    And here's a 'slightly' bigger panorama (5000 x 917 pixels, 1.4Mb
    JPG)..
    http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/pano2_small.jpg
    Mine is rather substandard too - as described elsewhere, it was
    stupidly (grin) underexposed, has a few noise and sharpness and
    stitching issues... but it's not too bad imnsho, and is just intended
    as a quick demo of how good/bad a point and shoot can be - it was
    taken with a view to showing the problems that a small sensor camera
    has with high contrast scenes. It's less than half the size of the
    original, which is over 12,500 pixels wide, and I'll be back later
    with a better version - always trying to improve, that's me..!

    At least it is a decent size so you can actually criticise it... And
    feel free to play with the levels, you'll note the superbly controlled
    highlights (O:, and plenty of detail (albeit noisy!) down in the
    shadows.
     
    mark.thomas.7, Dec 9, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. A pleasant enough snapshot.

    And, at that size, he *seems* to have done a good job of the blend.
    Note the words *at that size*...

    Pity about:
    - the tiny size making it impossible to judge quality
    (it may as well have come from a $10 disposable)
    - the trademark burnt highlights (admittedly not horrible..)
    (why would he not shoot this in RAW? Why would he not carefully
    post-process? .. and will he bring out the old "JPG compression
    causes lost highlights" excuse?)
    - the stair-stepped mast-line at left
    (use Lanczos, in small steps if necessary - how many times does it
    need repeating?)
    - the poor choice of white balance
    (looks horribly like *auto*-wb - it doesn't look at all 'dusk' -
    ish to me. Just overcast..)
    - poor cropping at right
    (to be precise, it looks much better if cropped 24 pixels in from
    the right - try it..)

    Oh, and I happily declare my bias - I think Doug is a talentless,
    deluded old windbag (search for other posts by him to see why).

    But *technical* discussion of the above issues is welcomed. If others
    disagree and give reasons, then I'll happily admit to being wrong.

    And here's a 'slightly' bigger panorama (5000 x 917 pixels, 1.4Mb
    JPG)..
    http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/pano2_small.jpg
    Mine is rather substandard too - as described elsewhere, it was
    stupidly (grin) underexposed, has a few noise and sharpness and
    stitching issues... but it's not too bad imnsho, and is just intended
    as a quick demo of how good/bad a point and shoot can be - it was
    taken with a view to showing the problems that a small sensor camera
    has with high contrast scenes. It's less than half the size of the
    original, which is over 12,500 pixels wide, and I'll be back later
    with a better version - always trying to improve, that's me..!

    At least it is a decent size so you can actually criticise it... And
    feel free to play with the levels, you'll note the superbly controlled
    highlights (O:, and plenty of detail (albeit noisy!) down in the
    shadows.

    PS - the OP is a great demonstration of Doug's knowledge of follow-
    ups... (O:
     
    mark.thomas.7, Dec 9, 2007
    #3
  4. Douglas

    Doug Jewell Guest

    For what you are trying to demonstrate (panorama made with
    images taken at substantially different times), then I guess
    it's not a bad effort, although to be certain of how good
    the merge is, it would be necessary to view it closer than a
    low resolution internet image.

    Personally though I think it is overexposed substantially.
    If "_DUSK_ at wynnum creek" is the subject, then IMO the
    image should portray the look of dusk, which is normally
    done by underexposing slightly. As a dusk shot, the main
    "subject" becomes the sky & water colours, not the boats and
    trees in the background. The boats would become a supporting
    subject to add interest. As your shot stands, it is a photo
    of some boats, oh and hey, there is a bit of odd colour in
    the sky so maybe it is dusk. A little less exposure would
    add some "pop" to the water and sky colours and bring them
    out as the main subject. If this means the trees go to
    sillhouette, then so be it - they are a minor part of the
    image. A little more cropping on the right wouldn't go
    astray either.

    When I first saw the shot, I wondered what was wrong with
    the colour balance - it wasn't until I saw the description
    "dusk at wynnum creek" that I realised it was a dusk shot. I
    found by turning down my monitor brightness to the point
    where I lost everything darker than 70 on your strip on your
    home-page, that the image then had the pop that a dusk shot
    should have (except for the big blob of bright white on the
    left hand side). Note that at my normal monitor brightness I
    can see every step on your test strip, so my monitor at
    normal brightness should be similar to yours.

    With less exposure, the shot wouldn't be too bad at all.
     
    Doug Jewell, Dec 9, 2007
    #4
  5. Douglas

    Douglas Guest

    Do you use an apple Mac, Doug?

    Douglas
     
    Douglas, Dec 9, 2007
    #5
  6. Douglas

    Douglas Guest

    Taking your suggestion Doug, I've posted a revised image with your
    suggestion regarding gamma at the same address:
    http://www.douglasjames.com.au/Pano.htm (might need to hit the refresh
    button) I also put in a line where the image had been joined. There is an
    area near the motor of the yacht that needs work but the purpose of posting
    the image was to obtain "photographer's" critical opinions. Not that
    photographer's are my target aduence, mind you.

    Whenever I have doubts about the pre-sale acceptance of one of my images, I
    post it to newsgroups and take account of what people who use cameras have
    to say. In many, many instances critics of my work have been totally off
    target. The most glaring example of this is my pelicans at dusk shot on Nth
    Stradbroke Island where critics were quite vocal about my "inapropriete" use
    of flash... The print was a raging success sales wise.

    I made a prelimnary print of this scene (not the exact one I've posted) for
    opinion at the Gallery over the weekend. As a print, the requirements of
    gamma (lightness/darkness) are dependent on many issues not directly related
    to exposure of the scene which is why the one I posted looked "light" on a
    monitor. Delicate is the word.

    People "see" detail in shadow areas of a scene like this which cannot be
    captured with a camera. They also see detail in highlights past what a
    camera can capture. In this case it "looked" pale but when finished with an
    antique ivory frame and slightly darker matt to produce a "lightness" in the
    whole picture, it looks entirely correct... Very watercolourish, you might
    say. Certainly one that a lot of viewers though to be "very nice"... For a
    free cup of coffee!!

    I've always contended that dark decorations on a wall - such as you
    suggested this picture needed and which I must say make a screen image look
    "nicer", simply have too narrow a market for today's Interiour decoration
    needs.

    Anyway... Thanks for your civil input.

    Douglas
    -------------------------------
    Doug Jewel wrote:

    For what you are trying to demonstrate (panorama made with
    images taken at substantially different times), then I guess
    it's not a bad effort, although to be certain of how good
    the merge is, it would be necessary to view it closer than a
    low resolution internet image.

    Personally though I think it is overexposed substantially.
    If "_DUSK_ at wynnum creek" is the subject, then IMO the
    image should portray the look of dusk, which is normally
    done by underexposing slightly. As a dusk shot, the main
    "subject" becomes the sky & water colours, not the boats and
    trees in the background. The boats would become a supporting
    subject to add interest. As your shot stands, it is a photo
    of some boats, oh and hey, there is a bit of odd colour in
    the sky so maybe it is dusk. A little less exposure would
    add some "pop" to the water and sky colours and bring them
    out as the main subject. If this means the trees go to
    sillhouette, then so be it - they are a minor part of the
    image. A little more cropping on the right wouldn't go
    astray either.

    When I first saw the shot, I wondered what was wrong with
    the colour balance - it wasn't until I saw the description
    "dusk at wynnum creek" that I realised it was a dusk shot. I
    found by turning down my monitor brightness to the point
    where I lost everything darker than 70 on your strip on your
    home-page, that the image then had the pop that a dusk shot
    should have (except for the big blob of bright white on the
    left hand side). Note that at my normal monitor brightness I
    can see every step on your test strip, so my monitor at
    normal brightness should be similar to yours.

    With less exposure, the shot wouldn't be too bad at all.
     
    Douglas, Dec 9, 2007
    #6
  7. Douglas

    Annika1980 Guest

    A "raging success?" What is that ... two?
     
    Annika1980, Dec 10, 2007
    #7
  8. Douglas

    Annika1980 Guest

    OK, so you cleaned up the sky a bit (one wonders why you didn't do
    that the first time). So what's with the line? Is that another anti-
    theft mechanism? Damn, that is almost as annoying as plastering
    "DOUGLAS ST. JAMES" right across the pic.
    And you still haven't posted the pic at a size that would allow
    serious critique. But then you don't want that, do you?
     
    Annika1980, Dec 10, 2007
    #8
  9. Douglas

    Doug Jewell Guest

    Darn, can't see the original to compare!! But this does look
    a bit better than how I remember last night's image.
    Personally, I'd go a bit darker yet, but that's just
    personal preference.
     
    Doug Jewell, Dec 10, 2007
    #9
  10. Douglas

    Doug Jewell Guest

    Nope - PC. One a laptop with Linux, the other a Desktop with
    Windows.
    I've followed all the threads about calibration of monitors
    etc - have bitten my tongue a few times :p. Before I posted
    my thoughts about the brightness of the image, I made sure I
    had a look at your test strip first.
     
    Doug Jewell, Dec 10, 2007
    #10
  11. Douglas

    Douglas Guest

    The original: http://www.douglasjames.com.au/pano-creek.jpg

    send me you email and I'll keep you up to speed on the "real" image- as in
    the one I am printing for sale. 600mm high. It is intended to blend in with
    water colour prints, framed pale, matted pale and well... basically pale.
    Unless of course it all pales into insignificance!

    Douglas
     
    Douglas, Dec 10, 2007
    #11
  12. Douglas

    Pete D Guest

    Condused say, why you want everyones email maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate???
     
    Pete D, Dec 10, 2007
    #12
  13. Douglas

    Douglas Guest

    No Pete. I have yours. I was replying to Doug Jewel who requires people to
    ask for his addy.
    Yours must be a very busy mail server mate! It keeps telling me 'no' is a
    reserved name. It's great to be that important, isn't it? It must be to do
    with the "Peter Dee" thing you deny being. Maybe your name is really Peter
    no?

    Douglas
     
    Douglas, Dec 10, 2007
    #13
  14. Douglas

    Draco Guest

    I have to agree with Doug Jewell. The image would promote a better
    "feeling" of dusk if printed a bit darker. Also the white of the boats
    to the left(the yellow hulled sail and the small cabin crusier) could
    be brought down a stop, so it wouldn't be an eye attraction. Competing
    with the colors of the sky and reflections in the water is a
    distraction to me.

    I hope you will remove that line from the image. I know you left it
    to show where the splice was done. But half the fun of Panoramics is
    doing them so you can't see the splicing.

    Draco
     
    Draco, Dec 10, 2007
    #14
  15. Douglas

    Pete D Guest

    Yes Douglas my name is Peter, no tricking you hey? So send me an email
    Einstien!
     
    Pete D, Dec 10, 2007
    #15
  16. Douglas

    Douglas Guest

    Please tell me Draco, what is it that attracts you to the image? Is it the
    colours of the sky or the scene itself?

    A Photographer who often sells his work has a similar scene but from a
    different angle shot in bright light. It has blown highlights and a yellow
    cast to it but it sells regularly.
    http://www.craigtaylorphotography.com/files/2014644/uploaded/CTP-015 .jpg

    I'm very curious what it is people see in a photograph. At this point all I
    know for sure is that about half the people who look at my work like it and
    the other half walk away from it. I hoped the offer of a free cappuccino at
    the gallery for an opinion would help but all it did was get a bunch of old
    farts in for free coffee and although some were heard to make negative
    remarks, all said they were lovely pictures! LOL. A fun day just the same.

    Douglas
     
    Douglas, Dec 10, 2007
    #16
  17. Douglas

    Draco Guest

    It is more than just the colors of the sky playing across the waters
    or the angle the land is diaginal to the upright masts of the sail
    boats or the placement of the right foward sail boat. It is the
    feeling of rest at the end of a long day sailing. The peace of
    enjoying a quiet moment over still waters. Being able to capture that
    moment on an image is what makes a difference between a snap shooter
    and an photographer.


    Compared to the image you produced, this needs help. I do not like the
    feel of it nor the washed out colors. The horizon is dead center in
    this one. Even with the bit of a headland coming into view in the
    upper left doesn't really help any. And people but this??


    I only offer my opinion on images I see. You made a claim that I was
    an..what did you call me? An old man who spends his money on PC's and
    nothing on photography. Well, every one is entitled to thier opinion.
    You have your and I have mine. There it is and there it lays.

    Oh yeah, I am cross posting because that is what I want.

    Draco
     
    Draco, Dec 10, 2007
    #17
  18. Douglas

    Douglas Guest

    You remind me of a old codger ( WW1 vet) in the nursing home my Grandfather
    was in. He used to sit with his legs in such a way it would trip people with
    sight problems. When I asked him why he did it he told me he was old enough
    to do as he dammed well pleased and anyway... He chose to because nobody
    could take away his thoughts. Sort of premature senility, I thought.

    Remember your childhood Draco.... "Sticks and stones may break my bones but
    names will never harm me". Just as you have a right to an opinion, so do I.
    If they conflict, let's see which of us can afford the first missile and see
    if we can find someone with enough brains to launch and guide it, shall we?

    Have a happy Christmas Jim, lets hope next year is more civil than this one.

    Douglas
     
    Douglas, Dec 10, 2007
    #18
  19. Douglas

    Doug Jewell Guest

    For me, it would be the whole combination of scene/colours
    etc. A straight "sunset over water" shot is usually a bit
    boring, and needs a bit of a subject to liven it up, but at
    the same time if that subject becomes overwhelming, you lose
    the sunset appeal, and it just becomes a photo of the
    subject. No offense intended, but just a bunch of boats
    sitting in a creek is also a bit boring. It is my opinion
    (and take note of that O word), that this photo would work
    better if it was darkened a bit more, to give the "dusk"
    aspect of it a bit greater impact, and lessen the impact of
    the boats a little.
    Does he really sell this image? I look at that, and think
    "yuck". It doesn't attract me at all, but then I'm not a fan
    of "boats in a creek". Not that I would buy either, but if
    I had to buy one, I'd buy your image over that one.
    Different strokes for different folks. And a bunch of
    photographers are probably the worst to critique a shot. I
    don't actively sell my photos - I take them for my enjoyment
    only, but I have on occasion sold photos - A couple of times
    I've been getting prints done, and other customers in the
    photo lab have offered to purchase photos there on the spot.
    Also I've had cases where friends and family have told their
    friends about a particular shot I have, and so they have
    purchased a copy.

    But the funny thing is, the images which I have sold, are
    ones that have been pulled to pieces when posted on a forum.
    What's good to my eye, and what's good to some stranger in a
    photolab's eye, is complete crap in the eye of someone else.

    Anyway, here's a few of my pics - some recent, some not so
    recent. Some are snapshots, some were trying to get a
    specific look which I didn't quite pull off, and some I did
    achieve what I was aiming for. Some I have sold, most I
    haven't.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdaj/
    Comments, positve and negative, welcome. (See if you can
    work out which ones I sold).
     
    Doug Jewell, Dec 10, 2007
    #19
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.