Panorama photos: I have a lot to learn. I have been shooting panorama shots holding the camera in the landscape position and shooting several shots to cover the area I want in the...

alberio Loc: Casa Grande AZ

I have a lot to learn. I have been shooting panorama shots holding the camera in the landscape position and shooting several shots to cover the area I want in the final image. My son told me he shoots with the camera in the portrait position, which requires more shots. Is there a right or wrong way to shoot for a panoramic image?

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

There is a section of UHH dedicated to panoramas. Lots of folks with experience and advice to assist, and photos to share. Click this link:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-128-1.html

.

scubadoc Loc: Sarasota, FL

Your son is correct. The portrait orientation covers more of the landscape. You just need to take a few more images to cover the same horizontal points of interest. The portrait orientation will cover more of the foreground and background in the same image.

melismus Loc: Chesapeake Bay Country

Shooting in portrait gives the effect of a wider lens, and gives greater resolution. Depends on what you want.

alberio Loc: Casa Grande AZ

Thank you Linda, scubadoc and melismus, I really appreciate your quick responses. I'll never stop learning this craft.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

scubadoc wrote:

Your son is correct. The portrait orientation covers more of the landscape. You just need to take a few more images to cover the same horizontal points of interest. The portrait orientation will cover more of the foreground and background in the same image.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

scubadoc wrote:

Your son is correct. The portrait orientation covers more of the landscape. You just need to take a few more images to cover the same horizontal points of interest. The portrait orientation will cover more of the foreground and background in the same image.

I agree but here is the advantage to portrait. You can always crop away the unwanted foreground or background. You cannot do that if it is not there in the first place because you shot landscape. Also, film is cheap these days so what does it cost you to take a few extra pictures. The only limitation would be your computer. If you are on an old machine with less power and old software, then they may be unable to handle the bigger files to your liking.

Good luck and welcome to panoramas. A great way of seeing things.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I almost always use portrait orientation, Especially with a cell phone pano, otherwise you wind up with a long skinny pano.

alberio Loc: Casa Grande AZ

This all is starting to make sense to me, now to put it into action.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

With today's software, there is no correct answer. You can shoot a box pattern and it will get stitched together.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

alberio wrote:

I have a lot to learn. I have been shooting panorama shots holding the camera in the landscape position and shooting several shots to cover the area I want in the final image. My son told me he shoots with the camera in the portrait position, which requires more shots. Is there a right or wrong way to shoot for a panoramic image?

Personally, I only shoot panos in portrait orientation. With Landscape, you get narrow and L-O-N-G images that look distorted. For a natural image, shoot portrait with 5 - 8 exposures, depending on your lens. And don't get stuck in wide-angle. I do most of mine at 70 -105 mil

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

You can stitch a huge variety of images together in portrait or in landscape.
On holiday there was a lovely house opposite the cafe I was drinking coffee. Because the street was so narrow even the 50mm would not capture the whole building. I took 3 by 3 by 3 in portrait. PSE stitched all 9 images....a little bit of straightening 'job done'. In this way you can also 'increase' the size of the final image as it has more pixels.
Have fun

alberio Loc: Casa Grande AZ

rgrenaderphoto wrote:

Personally, I only shoot panos in portrait orientation. With Landscape, you get narrow and L-O-N-G images that look distorted. For a natural image, shoot portrait with 5 - 8 exposures, depending on your lens. And don't get stuck in wide-angle. I do most of mine at 70 -105 mil

I've noticed that in my landscape shots, so if you have any curvature from the lens in portrait orientation, you wouldn't notice it in the sky or foreground as much. Makes sense.

alberio Loc: Casa Grande AZ

G Brown wrote:

You can stitch a huge variety of images together in portrait or in landscape.
On holiday there was a lovely house opposite the cafe I was drinking coffee. Because the street was so narrow even the 50mm would not capture the whole building. I took 3 by 3 by 3 in portrait. PSE stitched all 9 images....a little bit of straightening 'job done'. In this way you can also 'increase' the size of the final image as it has more pixels.
Have fun

That sounds more like mosaic, which is still stitching together. I might try that also.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

alberio wrote:

I have a lot to learn. I have been shooting panorama shots holding the camera in the landscape position and shooting several shots to cover the area I want in the final image. My son told me he shoots with the camera in the portrait position, which requires more shots. Is there a right or wrong way to shoot for a panoramic image?

I prefer portrait orientation. It results in taller panos. I don't care for the wide and short panos that landscape orientation produces. It's not wrong - just not my taste.