Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Home | Photography Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Photo Analysis
Panorama
(?)
If you would like to post a reply, then please login (if you already have an account) or register (if you don't).
Page: 1 2 next>>
Oct 1, 2016 21:24:34   #
wayne-03
 
When I shot this panorama I leveled my tripod and camera and this is what I got. I was using a 35 mm lens. I wanted to get the top of the trees, but I could not move back as I was against the building next door. Would using a 28 mm lens help? Any suggestions?


(Download)
 
Oct 1, 2016 21:29:11   #
DGStinner
 
You could shoot a second row to cover the top of the trees.
Oct 1, 2016 21:39:09   #
melismus
 
Yes, a wider lens would take in more height. But there is a cheaper way: just rotate the camera 90 degrees to the portrait position, so the long dimension will take in the height. You will have to shoot more frames to fill the desired width, but the price is right.
Oct 1, 2016 21:54:16   #
wayne-03
 
melismus wrote:
Yes, a wider lens would take in more height. But there is a cheaper way: just rotate the camera 90 degrees to the portrait position, so the long dimension will take in the height. You will have to shoot more frames to fill the desired width, but the price is right.


With the camera in the horizontal position the center of the lens is in line with the point of rotation. If you put the camera in a vertical position the center of the lens will be a couple of inches to the left of the point of rotation. Would you not need a special tripod head or adapter to kept the center of the lens in line with the point of rotation?
Oct 1, 2016 21:56:41   #
DGStinner
 
If you use an L bracket, everything stays in line.
Oct 1, 2016 22:01:12   #
Rongnongno (a regular here)
 
2 solutions (already offered):
1) L bracket note that if you are using the nodal point (you should) you must reset it properly.
2) multiple rows (usually uneven numbers). Multiple rows means you need to really pay attention to your camera orientation/position.
 
Oct 1, 2016 23:04:19   #
melismus
 
Good point. But unless there are close foreground objects, the error might be negligible.

wayne-03 wrote:
With the camera in the horizontal position the center of the lens is in line with the point of rotation. If you put the camera in a vertical position the center of the lens will be a couple of inches to the left of the point of rotation. Would you not need a special tripod head or adapter to kept the center of the lens in line with the point of rotation?
Oct 1, 2016 23:14:45   #
Rongnongno (a regular here)
 
melismus wrote:
Good point. But unless there are close foreground objects, the error might be negligible.

Note that anyone taking the time to use a tripod is not about to play 'odds' over GES when very little additional effort is needed.
Oct 2, 2016 04:50:58   #
JPL
 
wayne-03 wrote:
When I shot this panorama I leveled my tripod and camera and this is what I got. I was using a 35 mm lens. I wanted to get the top of the trees, but I could not move back as I was against the building next door. Would using a 28 mm lens help? Any suggestions?


Yes, a wider lens could help, so could multiple rows. But it all depends. If the wide lens has much distortion it can be a problem to stitch the pics properly. Multiple rows can also be difficult to stitch. Ultrawide lens could be the easiest solution if you had one with little distortion.
Oct 2, 2016 05:26:48   #
Leicaflex (a regular here)
 
With your camera mounted on the tripod, shoot in portrait mode with more overlaps.
Oct 2, 2016 06:58:06   #
RGreenway
 
Aim a bit higher? The split of 50/50 sky and parking lot is not optimum unless you really needed to highlight the parking lot. Aiming higher might have been better. And did you shoot it on full manual? Doing that gives an image without auto exposure differences in different areas of the pano.
 
Oct 2, 2016 08:24:07   #
trc
 
wayne-03 wrote:
When I shot this panorama I leveled my tripod and camera and this is what I got. I was using a 35 mm lens. I wanted to get the top of the trees, but I could not move back as I was against the building next door. Would using a 28 mm lens help? Any suggestions?


Hi Don,

My immediate thought has already been mentioned to you by several photographers. I found out the hard way about just rotating the camera to portrait format. Once again as already covered, it will just take a few more progressive shots, but well worth the effort. In fact, I now try to remember to take all my panoramas that way - you get so much more for your buck, so to speak! And if you don't like it showing so much vertically, you can always crop it afterwards. To me, that is a win-win situation.

And yes, a wider lens would have captured more. I would have used my 14-24 mm f/2.8, but would have to watch out for distortion and might involve a little work in Post Processing. Hope all this helps along with what others have said. Thanks for uploading the image.

Best Regards,
Tom
Oct 2, 2016 09:17:28   #
tusketwedge
 
were you shooting in landscape or portrait. If landscape try portrait next time. I always shoot panos in portrait as it gives you more height. Also some are shooting two layers, one of the top and one for the bottom' Seen picture but never tried.
Oct 2, 2016 10:32:10   #
erickter
 
wayne-03 wrote:
When I shot this panorama I leveled my tripod and camera and this is what I got. I was using a 35 mm lens. I wanted to get the top of the trees, but I could not move back as I was against the building next door. Would using a 28 mm lens help? Any suggestions?


Use verticle format, then stitch.
Oct 2, 2016 11:06:18   #
rmalarz (a regular here)
 
By using an appropriate camera mount, you could rotate the camera "portrait mode, if you will" and shoot the series that way. Those mounts are usually a bit of an investment, but worth the money if you plan on doing a lot of pano photos.
--Bob


wayne-03 wrote:
When I shot this panorama I leveled my tripod and camera and this is what I got. I was using a 35 mm lens. I wanted to get the top of the trees, but I could not move back as I was against the building next door. Would using a 28 mm lens help? Any suggestions?
Page: 1 2 next>>
Photo Analysis
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2016 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.