Beautifully done Jim. Well worth the effort
cameraf4 wrote:
Not trying to start an argument here, and I do appreciate and admire the work involved in doing this, but I just compared the 2 shots side-by-side and there is virtually no difference. My question: why go through all that extra work?
The two versions are similar, but there are indeed differences. The easy answer to your question is that I wanted more 'real estate' left and right, and the only to get it without substantially altering the perspective and the placement of the elements was to do the pano. The attached should show what I mean.
I don't see your question as being argumentative in the slightest. Quite the opposite, and thanks for asking it. Apart from the extra work/time it took to make 11 exposures @ 1/80th -vs- one exposure @ 1/80th, and the minute or two of extra work it took Lr to stitch the pano, I didn't spend any more time or effort on the pano than I did the single exposure shot. And between the two, the pano satisfies me more.
Cany143 wrote:
This may appear to be the same image I posted two days ago, but appearances can be deceiving. Where that previous image had been the result of a single exposure, the one shown here is an amalgamation of eleven separate vertically shot raw image files, merged in Lr and finished in Ps (yes, the current and dreaded 'subscription' CC versions). Tech irrelevancies include: hand-held D7200; AF Nikkor 10-20mm DX; 10mm setting at f/7.1 @ 1/80, ISO 100.
It takes time to make the image you actually want.
This may appear to be the same image I posted two ... (
show quote)
It is beautiful Cany...Thx for your effort!
Lastcastmike wrote:
Great stuff here as usual. My question is did you know you were going to get when you started or were you hopeful? Did you plan this exact comp and the number of multiple images or did you realize you could get it after you took all the photos.
I knew what the result would be before making any of the exposures. Others might do this sort of thing differently, but my normal method is to 'see' the whole then shoot however many overlapping shots as it may take to capture what I ultimately want. Its really pretty simple.
cameraf4 wrote:
Not trying to start an argument here, and I do appreciate and admire the work involved in doing this, but I just compared the 2 shots side-by-side and there is virtually no difference. My question: why go through all that extra work?
I sometimes question this also. Glad you did the background work to ask the question. But since I've never been truly successful at doing this, I do question the action.
AzPicLady wrote:
I sometimes question this also. Glad you did the background work to ask the question. But since I've never been truly successful at doing this, I do question the action.
I think its good to question things sometimes. Doing so often leads to answers, and sometimes those answers answer questions that weren't necessarily asked. Asking often enough, and arriving at enough answers can streamline the process and make it quicker, pretty immediate in fact (or fancy), maybe to the point that some questions need less asking because the answers are already at hand.
I think it works with photography, too. Maybe its like adopting a Zen approach without having to be Zenny or woo-woo about much, questions or answers alike.
Thanks for the insight. I still don't do much in the way of post processing but learning slowly. I do know enough to know that the possibilities are almost endless. I guess it depends on #1 vision and #2 how much time you are willing to spend on the computer.
In this case, the time spent was obviously worth it and I, for one appreciate it.
Cany143 wrote:
This may appear to be the same image I posted two days ago, but appearances can be deceiving. Where that previous image had been the result of a single exposure, the one shown here is an amalgamation of eleven separate vertically shot raw image files, merged in Lr and finished in Ps (yes, the current and dreaded 'subscription' CC versions). Tech irrelevancies include: hand-held D7200; AF Nikkor 10-20mm DX; 10mm setting at f/7.1 @ 1/80, ISO 100.
It takes time to make the image you actually want.
This may appear to be the same image I posted two ... (
show quote)
Lovely image Cany......I like it.
Another outstanding image Jim ... that is truly a piece of art IMHO ... one worthy of hanging on any wall. Thanks for sharing.
Gorgeous result, well worth the effort. A true Wall-hanger!
Cany143 wrote:
The two versions are similar, but there are indeed differences. The easy answer to your question is that I wanted more 'real estate' left and right, and the only to get it without substantially altering the perspective and the placement of the elements was to do the pano. The attached should show what I mean.
I don't see your question as being argumentative in the slightest. Quite the opposite, and thanks for asking it. Apart from the extra work/time it took to make 11 exposures @ 1/80th -vs- one exposure @ 1/80th, and the minute or two of extra work it took Lr to stitch the pano, I didn't spend any more time or effort on the pano than I did the single exposure shot. And between the two, the pano satisfies me more.
The two versions are similar, but there are indeed... (
show quote)
Thanx for explaining, Jim. Figured you would have a good reason that I just didn't see. Again, I admire the effort and the results very much. I'm just too lazy to put forth the effort now.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.