Panoramic Galore!

[watson]

I've been enjoying the photo merge option in CS3 so i dug through my archives and found a bunch to put together. I just posted them all up to my blog. Check them out!

http://www.andrewdavidwatson.com/v2/blog/

[Jeremy Ordan]

Some excellent shots, good job.

[Andrew Brinkhaus]

Cool. Heres my first attempt at using Auto-Align and Auto-Blend in CS3. Pretty powerful tools!

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f348/InvisionProductions/1stPanorama.jpg

[watson]

cool shot andrew. photo-merge is definitely a badass tool.

[ilauzirika]

Cool. Heres my first attempt at using Auto-Align and Auto-Blend in CS3. Pretty powerful tools!

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f348/InvisionProductions/1stPanorama.jpg

liked it, great photo. I love panoramic photos, but I find a problem in them, the lack of space in the computer screen to see them bigger.....

[LuckyStudio 13]

The european shots are all mesmerizing !! awesome job

[DivotDan]

Watson, you are one well traveled dude. I really like the Creator Lake shots. One of my fav places I've visited. I'm going to Ireland at the end of the month, so I'll have to remember to take some shots like this for panoramic merging. Most of the places I visited were in the era of film and not digital, so not sure if I would be able to have thought of this anyway.

I'm impressed you had the forethought to take shots in all these places to use for different panoramic images. I wish I had done the same.

[triplej96]

Very nice shots!! So for panoramic images would I use tripod and take some shots, pan the tripod take more then photomerge them together? That is the correct way right?

[alwayslearning]

So for panoramic images would I use tripod and take some shots, pan the tripod take more then photomerge them together?

Yes. Overlap the shots about 20-25 percent and let the program put them together. It's interesting in Photoshop CS3 after the merge to turn off each layer, one at a time and see the path that the algorithm chose. It's not a straight line.

Larry

[alwayslearning]

BTW, you can do the same vertically. I've done some shots with both. Zoom way in on something and just take your shots across, come back and move down and go across again. Overlapping should be 20-25 percent on the vertical as well. Once they are merged AND blended (exposures are adjusted to be very close to the same on all the images), crop to your heart's delight.

Larry

[watson]

triplej96 - using a tripod is ideal, but i didnt use a tripod on a single one of thoses because I always try to travel light. But sounds like you have the idea, get out there and try some!!!

[triplej96]

Yes. Overlap the shots about 20-25 percent and let the program put them together. It's interesting in Photoshop CS3 after the merge to turn off each layer, one at a time and see the path that the algorithm chose. It's not a straight line.

Larry

thanks :)

Wow Watson you didn't use a tripod ver nice very very nice!

[Yello Balolia]

Try doing some panoramics with a fisheye lens! You get some very interesting results from the distorition.

The trouble is that the right hand side of your 1st image doesn't match up with the left hand side of the 2nd image (as the fisheye lens makes the verticals bend completely the opposite way!), so Photoshop's cannot Auto-Align them at all. You've got to do it fully-manual yourself, using a bit of creative blending!

[alwayslearning]

Pretty interesting Yello Balolia. It's like real photos of a world that doesn't exist. (I mean that in a good way. :) ) I did one (not fisheye) of my living room ... stood in the middle and went 360. Interesting world that doesn't exist but yet, is familiar.

Larry

[watson]

personally i like "180" or maybe "420" panoramic photos but not full 360 degree ones or else a fisheye would be great. Like if you are shooting a famous building for example, sometimes there is no need to get the tourist shops behind it. Just my personal taste.

[Ken K]

I've been enjoying the photo merge option in CS3 so i dug through my archives and found a bunch to put together. I just posted them all up to my blog. Check them out!

http://www.andrewdavidwatson.com/v2/blog/

Those are awesome pics! Thank you for sharing! :thumbsup:

Now I want to drive down to Crater Lake and grab some shots.

[Larry Rutledge]

I posted this in the Canon thread (since I shot it on a Canon), but didn't realize there was a thread for panorama's ... so here it is again :) (And, yes, I know the sky is messed up ... this was my first attempt, and I tried to do both HDR and panorama in the same project .. .almost worked)

http://www.day7studios.com/personal/photos/SunflowerPanorama1024.jpg (http://www.day7studios.com/personal/photos/panorama_border.jpg)
(Click image to see full size version - 17MB)

[alwayslearning]

This is from 4 shots overlooking the Maumee River in Toledo, Ohio.

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/1216/1213198665.jpg

Larry

[alwayslearning]

A sunset this 15th day of June 2008 in NW Ohio. The best was about 5-10 minutes before I got home to my camera.
I used 5 handheld shots. Each were at 1/10 sec, ISO 250, f 5.6 @ 70mm.

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/1216/1213588080.jpg

Larry

[alveraz]

Hey Larry, Question, I'm going to take some evening shots like this soon so I'm learning here. Wouldn't it make more sense to jack that ISO to say 800 allowing you to have a faster shutter speed, giving you more control/sharpness? And, why 5.6? Why not 8,11,22?

Thanks for the help.

[alwayslearning]

Unfortunately the sunset was going away fast and I was on the road with no easy-while-driving access to my camera. I got home, ran to a open spot with my camera and shot it. Because it was already getting pretty dark, I had to use a slow shutter ... too slow for handheld. The lens only goes down to f5.6. I didn't want too much graininess in the dark areas so I chose a lower iso. A higher iso number (smaller aperture) would have forced me to use an even slower shutter. 10 minutes sooner, I would have used a tripod and had some time to think. Oh well ... not too bad for spur of the moment.

Too, I'm hoping to take a drive away from town, with some planning and get some late day, night time shots. In NW Ohio we have lots and lots of horizon as it is flat as far as the eye can see (The joke is, it's not totally flat; we do have highway overpasses. :) )

Larry

[alwayslearning]

I said:


A higher iso number (smaller aperture) would have forced me to use an even slower shutter.

Obviously wrong. I meant to say a higher aperture number, not iso number.

Larry

[alveraz]

Aha! Thanks, I get it now :)

[alwayslearning]

Good info if anyone is interested:

http://reallyrightstuff.com/pano/index.html

Larry