Another handheld pano: I was parked in some shade eating a couple of DQ hot dogs (quite tasty) and noticed the bottom of the shade tree. I took a three image pano of it. It looks like...

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I was parked in some shade eating a couple of DQ hot dogs (quite tasty) and noticed the bottom of the shade tree. I took a three image pano of it. It looks like it's in the middle of nowhere but just out of site is a major street that carries lots of traffic.

(Download)

cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX

jackm1943 wrote:

I was parked in some shade eating a couple of DQ hot dogs (quite tasty) and noticed the bottom of the shade tree. I took a three image pano of it. It looks like it's in the middle of nowhere but just out of site is a major street that carries lots of traffic.

Nice, but not really a panorama.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

cahale wrote:

Nice, but not really a panorama.

Thanks cahale. What should it be called then? I stitched three pics together to make this one. Is there another name for that type of image? I just assumed stitched photos were called panoramas.

kufengler Loc: Meridian, Idaho 83646

jackm1943 wrote:

Thanks cahale. What should it be called then? I stitched three pics together to make this one. Is there another name for that type of image? I just assumed stitched photos were called panoramas.

Generally I would think a Panorama is an image like this one.

"Image stitching, also called photo stitching, is the process of merging multiple photographs together to create a single high resolution or panoramic image. Image stitching is most often done via computer using specific software designed to sense areas of overlap and combine them."

cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX

jackm1943 wrote:

Thanks cahale. What should it be called then? I stitched three pics together to make this one. Is there another name for that type of image? I just assumed stitched photos were called panoramas.

You "stitched" three together? They must have been very narrow shots. Or did you "stack" or "merge" three together? In stitching, you take 2 or more shots which display sections of a constant or near constant view and abut them to produce a wider picture which looks continuous. It stacking or merging, you take 2 or more shots of the same or nearly same subject and place one atop the other to produce a higher dynamic range single photo. I think that's what you did. Still good shot, however you did it.

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

Regardless of what it is called, Jack, a beautiful result!

Lucian Loc: From Wales, living in Ohio

Panos are usually a collection of images that could not be taken with a single lens. The tree photo looks like it could be taken with a 50mm without and stitching. Or a telephoto lens, again without any stitching. Panos are usually wide or possible long images, not what looks to be like a standard lens image of a scene. I think that is what has others here slightly confused. Maybe show us the three images you stitched together, so we have an idea of what you actually did here.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

cahale wrote:

Nice, but not really a panorama.

I would question why you stitched shots together in that situation. It seems to offer no benefit.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

cahale wrote:

You "stitched" three together? They mus... (show quote)

Thanks cahale. I took a center shot first, then one to the left and one to the right, overlapping about 1/2 on each, camera in the vertical position. It's so darn easy to do in ACR (and I suppose LR) there's no reason not to. I have all the hardware to do it "correctly" (pano head, nodal slider, etc) but unless there is something close between the main subject and the camera, it can usually be done handheld.
JackM

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

UTMike wrote:

Regardless of what it is called, Jack, a beautiful result!

Thanks Mike.
JackM

cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX

jackm1943 wrote:

Thanks cahale. I took a center shot first, then one to the left and one to the right, overlapping about 1/2 on each, camera in the vertical position. It's so darn easy to do in ACR (and I suppose LR) there's no reason not to. I have all the hardware to do it "correctly" (pano head, nodal slider, etc) but unless there is something close between the main subject and the camera, it can usually be done handheld.
JackM

Thanks. I understand the action but fail to see the point. The shot could have been one only without losing any clarity or spread.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

SuperflyTNT wrote:

I would question why you stitched shots together in that situation. It seems to offer no benefit.

Possibly not for just displaying on the internet. I'm still sort of experimenting with it after finding out how easy it is to do. There is definitely more detail and the file is much larger than with a single shot. A simple three shot "stitch" from my little M6 (ACR sensor) will result in a file 20+ inches in size at 300 ppi. I stitched a couple of five shot images of a grain elevator and got 932 mega pixel files that were over 30 x 50 inches at 300 ppi, and just about choked my computer but I eventually got them processed.
JackM

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

jackm1943 wrote:

I was parked in some shade eating a couple of DQ hot dogs (quite tasty) and noticed the bottom of the shade tree. I took a three image pano of it. It looks like it's in the middle of nowhere but just out of site is a major street that carries lots of traffic.

A very nice image
But the colors look a little flat/dull to me and there is a little fringing around the tree probably due to the stitching and over sharping.

joehel2 Loc: Cherry Hill, NJ

Very nicely done pano, Jack. Great detail in the download view of the trunk.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

Manglesphoto wrote:

A very nice image
But the colors look a little flat/dull to me and there is a little fringing around the tree probably due to the stitching and over sharping.

Thanks Frank. I selected the tree in Photoshop and brightened it a bit. I'm thinking the selection may have caused the fringing because it's never perfect. I sharpen very, very little.
JackM