Tried a pano (Page 2): Thanks for looking and encouraging us to try them. I actually shot these with my standard lens, all handheld. I simply turned my body around to make the sweep.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

cjc2 wrote:

In today's world, using Lr Classic (subscription) a pano is very easy o do. I no longer bother to even use my pano head unless I want absolute perfection. My 70-200/2.8 seems to be my go to lens for this. Best of luck.

Thanks for looking and encouraging us to try them. I actually shot these with my standard lens, all handheld. I simply turned my body around to make the sweep.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

10MPlayer wrote:

For those who have never tried give it a whirl on your iPhone if you have one. Every iPhone has a pano option and it's super easy to use. I don't know for sure but I would guess every smart phone camera has a pano option.

Mine does not. I checked. Obviously I can chop any image to a pano format. But a true combined image pano requires my "real" camera and some program. Maybe because my phone is a refurbished one. Is it true of newer ones?

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

AzPicLady wrote:

Thanks for looking and encouraging us to try them. I actually shot these with my standard lens, all handheld. I simply turned my body around to make the sweep.

Panos are so easy to do nowadays, I sometimes use them as opposed to bringing and switching to a wide angle. If you want print them, I use an Epson P800 and some Red River Paper in 8.5 x 25. Best of luck.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

UTMike wrote:

Very good work, Kathy. You have to be certain that you have your camera on a single group of settings (manual, not automatic) or light changes, etc. will cause some of the photos you merge will not blend in.

Thanks, Mike. I didn't change anything, but I did have it on auto focus which might have changed things. Frankly, I didn't bother to check if the settings were all the same. Maybe I got lucky?

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

weberwest wrote:

Interesting Kathy and a good result. I have just started to shoot panos, but most of them are still stuck in my "to do" pile. I was inspired by some of our colleagues here using them quite frequently, now I will just have to find the time to work on them.

Thanks, Joe. If you have LR, it's a one click process. All I did was make sure they were all level before merging them and applied any processing to the final image. I look forward to seeing yours

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

cjc2 wrote:

Panos are so easy to do nowadays, I sometimes use them as opposed to bringing and switching to a wide angle. If you want print them, I use an Epson P800 and some Red River Paper in 8.5 x 25. Best of luck.

It was easy. What usually happens is a rather wonky combination. This one matched up nicely

weberwest Loc: Ferndale WA

AzPicLady wrote:

Thanks, Joe. If you have LR, it's a one click process. All I did was make sure they were all level before merging them and applied any processing to the final image. I look forward to seeing yours

Thanks Kathy, I do user Lr and will keep that in mind when getting to these pictures - thanks for the tip!

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

For those who want to try a pano make sure you have at least 30% overlap between frames. Sometimes you can get away with less but 30% seems to always work for me.

The only real limitation is handling dynamic scenes.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

DirtFarmer wrote:

For those who want to try a pano make sure you have at least 30% overlap between frames. Sometimes you can get away with less but 30% seems to always work for me.

The only real limitation is handling dynamic scenes.

Just shoot it and see what happens! Best of luck.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

DirtFarmer wrote:

For those who want to try a pano make sure you have at least 30% overlap between frames. Sometimes you can get away with less but 30% seems to always work for me.

The only real limitation is handling dynamic scenes.

I know that's the correct way. But when I was shooting, I just moved a bit around and didn't even think about the overlap. Just so happened that it worked!

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

cjc2 wrote:

Just shoot it and see what happens! Best of luck.

That's sort of how I did it. But maybe that's why they frequently don't work???

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

AzPicLady wrote:

That's sort of how I did it. But maybe that's why they frequently don't work???

It will become easier with time and experience. No pressure, ez-pz. Best of luck.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

cjc2 wrote:

It will become easier with time and experience. No pressure, ez-pz. Best of luck.

Thanks, Chris. Now I want to go back to some I tried before and see what maybe I could do with them!

Rob48 Loc: Portland, ME

AzPicLady wrote:

I've never been successful at creating a merged photo of any sort. But when I was at the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi, I deliberately took several images with the thought of merging them. So, here's the merge. I didn't know if this section allowed more than one image or not, so I didn't post the original images used in the merge. I can do that, if desired. I did do a bit of basic PP work on the final image in LR. Let me know what you think. THANKS!

I agree with RG, but I think it is just the water, because the darker strip, if you will, does not continue into the clouds, IMHO.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Rob48 wrote:

I agree with RG, but I think it is just the water, because the darker strip, if you will, does not continue into the clouds, IMHO.

I think that strip had more to do with the changes in the depth of the water. I found that same anomaly elsewhere along the way, and that was the explanation at those points.