Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

Do my panoramas not look like panoramas? · 12:42 AM

I find it intriguing that my panoramas rarely look like the real deal. In this instance, for example, the image just looks like a cropped wide-angle. Am I doing something wrong?

The image covers about a 220 degree field of view.

Damn Brit · 09-03-2009, 01:33 AM

How many exposures for this one Dan? In this instance, I see what you mean, I think it may have something to do with the fact that the foreground and middleground blend together. Looking at the large version, it still looks like a panorama to me, it would be hard to get that much detail in a crop.

Nass · 09-03-2009, 01:43 AM

Agree with Dam Brit - also the crop could be tighter. Which lens are you using?

I fiddled with it, see what you think of this crop

(saved it as low jpg just to preserve bandwidth)

James S · 09-03-2009, 02:56 AM

Either way it's a nice photograph!

ftpaddict · 09-03-2009, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by Damn Brit

How many exposures for this one Dan? In this instance, I see what you mean, I think it may have something to do with the fact that the foreground and middleground blend together. Looking at the large version, it still looks like a panorama to me, it would be hard to get that much detail in a crop.

I forgot, honestly. About 4 or 5.

Originally posted by Nass

Agree with Dam Brit - also the crop could be tighter. Which lens are you using?

I fiddled with it [...]

Used the 16-45 @ 16mm. The crop looks nicer, but it still doesn't "feel" like a panorama.

Originally posted by James S

Either way it's a nice photograph!

Many thanks. Feel free to visit.

Nass · 09-03-2009, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by ftpaddict

Used the 16-45 @ 16mm.

Fwiw: the limited success I've seen with these has been with >=28mm, and using vertical exposures put together

ftpaddict · 09-03-2009, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by Nass

Fwiw: the limited success I've seen with these has been with >=28mm, and using vertical exposures put together

Vertical exposures is what I've done as well; but @ 16mm, with quite a bit of overlap. I used hugin to stitch the photos together. I'm very happy with the way this piece of free software works.

**dcmsox2004** · 09-03-2009, 05:03 AM

fwiw, it's a beautiful composition...

**Ash** · 09-03-2009, 05:22 AM

Yep, it's a nice landscape well suited to a pano capture.
Well done.

ftpaddict · 09-03-2009, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by dcmsox2004

fwiw, it's a beautiful composition...

Thank you, though I prefer Nass' composition to my own.

Originally posted by Ash

Yep, it's a nice landscape well suited to a pano capture.
Well done.

Is it? Thank you.

graphicgr8s · 09-03-2009, 06:05 AM

First: It is a nice shot.

That being said I just think that the valley just draws your eye right to the center. And that's why it doesn't look all that "wide".

ftpaddict · 09-03-2009, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by graphicgr8s

First: It is a nice shot.

That being said I just think that the valley just draws your eye right to the center. And that's why it doesn't look all that "wide".

Ah, but! You see, this is a problem I face with all my panoramas. Here is another example:

Damn Brit · 09-04-2009, 12:14 AM

Now on this one, if you had captured more of the building to the right, you would have had more foreground to take you into the picture. It looks like a pano to me but the brightness in the sky does tend to mesmerise the viewer into the centre.

ftpaddict · 09-07-2009, 12:45 PM

It was either blow highlights, or live in a really dark city.

Is this more like it? The dirt road in the foreground was more or less straight in real life.

Damn Brit · 09-07-2009, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by ftpaddict

It was either blow highlights, or live in a really dark city.

The brightest element is right in the centre of what you produced. You could have just metred for every exposure by panning round the scene and then set an average for the actual shooting.

Is this more like it? The dirt road in the foreground was more or less straight in real life.

Could have done with a bit more width on this one.

ftpaddict
	View full profile
	Contact via private message
	Find other posts by ftpaddict
	Find threads started by ftpaddict
	Find threads in which ftpaddict has posted

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-x and Panoramas How-To	D_Ivy	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	8	11-21-2011 09:11 AM
K20D and panoramas	Naturenut	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	14	05-01-2010 07:15 AM
Night Panoramas	interested_observer	Photographic Technique	8	12-22-2009 11:08 PM
Polar panoramas	edward jenner	Post Your Photos!	11	02-20-2009 02:27 PM
Architectural Panoramas	artifax1	Post Your Photos!	1	06-17-2007 03:10 PM

09-03-2009, 01:33 AM	#2
Damn Brit Guest	How many exposures for this one Dan? In this instance, I see what you mean, I think it may have something to do with the fact that the foreground and middleground blend together. Looking at the large version, it still looks like a panorama to me, it would be hard to get that much detail in a crop.

09-03-2009, 01:43 AM	#3
Nass Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The British Isles Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,402	Agree with Dam Brit - also the crop could be tighter. Which lens are you using? I fiddled with it, see what you think of this crop (saved it as low jpg just to preserve bandwidth)

09-03-2009, 02:56 AM	#4
James S Guest	Either way it's a nice photograph!

09-03-2009, 04:08 AM	#5
ftpaddict Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Yurp Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,666 Original Poster	Originally posted by Damn Brit How many exposures for this one Dan? In this instance, I see what you mean, I think it may have something to do with the fact that the foreground and middleground blend together. Looking at the large version, it still looks like a panorama to me, it would be hard to get that much detail in a crop. I forgot, honestly. About 4 or 5. Originally posted by Nass Agree with Dam Brit - also the crop could be tighter. Which lens are you using? I fiddled with it [...] Used the 16-45 @ 16mm. The crop looks nicer, but it still doesn't "feel" like a panorama. Originally posted by James S Either way it's a nice photograph! Many thanks. Feel free to visit.

09-03-2009, 04:28 AM	#6
Nass Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The British Isles Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,402	Originally posted by ftpaddict Used the 16-45 @ 16mm. Fwiw: the limited success I've seen with these has been with >=28mm, and using vertical exposures put together

09-03-2009, 04:30 AM	#7
ftpaddict Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Yurp Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,666 Original Poster	Originally posted by Nass Fwiw: the limited success I've seen with these has been with >=28mm, and using vertical exposures put together Vertical exposures is what I've done as well; but @ 16mm, with quite a bit of overlap. I used hugin to stitch the photos together. I'm very happy with the way this piece of free software works.

09-03-2009, 05:03 AM	#8
dcmsox2004 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: rhode island Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,522	fwiw, it's a beautiful composition...

09-03-2009, 05:22 AM	#9
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Yep, it's a nice landscape well suited to a pano capture. Well done.

09-03-2009, 05:37 AM	#10
ftpaddict Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Yurp Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,666 Original Poster	Originally posted by dcmsox2004 fwiw, it's a beautiful composition... Thank you, though I prefer Nass' composition to my own. Originally posted by Ash Yep, it's a nice landscape well suited to a pano capture. Well done. Is it? Thank you.

09-03-2009, 06:05 AM	#11
graphicgr8s Guest	First: It is a nice shot. That being said I just think that the valley just draws your eye right to the center. And that's why it doesn't look all that "wide".

09-03-2009, 01:39 PM	#12
ftpaddict Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Yurp Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,666 Original Poster	Originally posted by graphicgr8s First: It is a nice shot. That being said I just think that the valley just draws your eye right to the center. And that's why it doesn't look all that "wide". Ah, but! You see, this is a problem I face with all my panoramas. Here is another example:

09-04-2009, 12:14 AM	#13
Damn Brit Guest	Now on this one, if you had captured more of the building to the right, you would have had more foreground to take you into the picture. It looks like a pano to me but the brightness in the sky does tend to mesmerise the viewer into the centre.

09-07-2009, 12:45 PM	#14
ftpaddict Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Yurp Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,666 Original Poster	It was either blow highlights, or live in a really dark city. Is this more like it? The dirt road in the foreground was more or less straight in real life.

09-07-2009, 01:20 PM	#15
Damn Brit Guest	Originally posted by ftpaddict It was either blow highlights, or live in a really dark city. The brightest element is right in the centre of what you produced. You could have just metred for every exposure by panning round the scene and then set an average for the actual shooting. Is this more like it? The dirt road in the foreground was more or less straight in real life. Could have done with a bit more width on this one.

Do my panoramas not look like panoramas?

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!