[chrispwill]

I took a series of 4 photos of that I believe is called Oneonta Falls. It was on a trail starting from Horsetail Falls.

I sometimes like to use Photoshop to stitch together photos taken deliberately with the intention of creating a Panorama. This time I tried the series of shots vertically rather than horizontally. This is the result.
I did not do much more than some auto level correction and auto sharpness to the final cropped image. The rocks overhead are a bit distracting but were part of the scene from which this was taken.

First time posting for critique. I am interested in how people think this experiment turned out. The lens was set to 18mm, as wide as it would go thus creating the need to try this panorama approach to capture the falls.

Be kind.

I see that the EXIF information is different that what I pulled from one of the 4 source images. So I am not sure which image that data came from.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by chrispwill; 07-11-2013 at 10:27 PM. Reason: EXIF data different than my assumptions.

[carrrlangas]

looks good but the picture isn´t very intersting. Composition is boring. But the water looks good to be a stitched pano

[Na Horuk]

Well, considering its a panorama made with 18mm photos, of a moving object (waterfall no less), its definitely good technique. I would only suggest you post process it a little more, maybe try a creative crop where the waterfall is slightly to the side. But its a good proof of concept
Edit: Also, it had to have been a pretty big waterfall, which I think might get lost in the photo because there is no object there for the viewer to understand the scale. The viewer might appreciate it more if there were a person in there, just to say "ooh its that big, cool"

[chrispwill]

Agreed on the composition needing help. When you are under that outcropping of rocks seeing this in person, it is pretty cool. Even the view through the trees of the Columbia River adds something. It was just hard to capture it all.

Interestingly enough, there were two men working to the right of this composition with tripods on the outside shooting into the falls that day. They were just out of this image group. If they were in there the scale would be more appreciated.

I also notice that scaled down like this, there is lost detail. I am always trying to limit the size of posted images here, not wanting to exceed posting limits. There is also a sort of "pinching" distortion from the stitching process. Could not be avoided doing this pretty much automatically in Photoshop. Plus mine is only the Photoshop 8 Elements app.

I must say that I am so impressed by much of the photographic talent I see here on this forum.

[nomadkng]

is that lens flare that's causing the red spot in the water?

also, if you plan on shooting more waterfalls, I'd suggest investing ND filters so you can get shutter speeds down to 1/2 sec or longer.
this will give you the silky blurred water effect that is "expected" of professional waterfall images.

part of the lack of composition is the exact centering of the water in the image and no drama. maybe in this case you couldn't move to the left or right a bit.
I actually think the bright opening in the background (the river?) distracts from the intended subject. Often you want to contrast the silky water with the craggy rocks or even the trees. The water should also be the "brightest" subject, here it's almost in shadow with a bright background, again taking away from the impact of the flowing water itself.

Next note - I don't mind the rock "framing" at the top, its minimal and you can get away with it.

Finally in terms of scale, part of the issue would be the use of 18mm focal length. Wider angle lenses distort scale of objects beyond minimum focusing points. i.e, using 18mm caused your waterfall to LOSE its cool factor (size/scale) in relation to surrounding objects because its farther from the lens the framing rocks, etc. the pool suffers even more because it is yet again farther from the closest point.

a 6 or 7 shot panorama at 35mm may maintain the impressive scale factor better. its very important to decide if you are going to do a one-shot or panorama beforehand. panoramas should almost always be shoot between 30-70mm on aps-c to maintain the near-far ratio and perspective the human eye sees. using too wide a lens diminishes scale, too long a lens compresses scale. also often shooting vertical for a panorama reduces edge distortion creating seams across your image and makes stitching in PS easier for the software. one can see the distortion very clearly in the trees is the background. notice how they appear angularly stretched across the frame?

my summary suggestion would be a reshoot from either 2 or 3 steps to the left or right, with more even lighting and a composite of 6-8? vertical images shot at 30-35mm and stitched together

[chrispwill]

Wow! Lots of good information here.

I have to cry inexperience when it comes to understanding the real effects of chosen focal lengths. It makes sense when I read it here, but remembering to put it into practice when in the field is the hard part. I guess I sometimes want to reduce the number of shots needed to make a panorama composite, but what you said here makes sense after the fact.

I know better than to keep subjects in the center of my shots. Of course I don't always follow that rule or failed to apply it in this composition while cropping the panorama.

I need to look at the source images to see just where that red flare came from. I definitely noticed it after making this image. It was getting late last night and I wanted to post it then look into the "whys" later. It may be some artifact created by Photoshop during the stitching.

Details can be brought out in this and I tried a few things but felt the colors became over saturated with automatic adjustments. It was a dark area where I shot these with a heavy tree canopy overhead. Not much light to make the water stand out, at least not without boosting it artificially.

I think God made our eyes to be the best instrument to view the world around us. Photos can only attempt to capture what we perceive with our vision.

[bdery]

I for one like the waterfall in the center. I would have liked a sky that isn't blown. What's more, a waterfall always looks better with the flowing effect (obtained by exposing longer).