AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

I was at Horseshoe Bend. My widest angle wasn't wide enough. I ended up taking a shot of each side of the horseshoe, planning to combine them. My first merge, I allowed LR to take care of the excess space. It didn't work too well. So I did it again, then pulled it into PS and used the cloning tool to fill in around the edges. Here is my finished piece. My question is, is it good enough? When I print it, will it be obvious that it's fake? What should I have done differently?

(Download)

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Certainly looks good to me! Even though you told me to look for flaws, I didn't see any.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

That's so encouraging! Thank you.

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

It looks good to me, Kathy! Were your LR problems because you did not overlap enough? If you have bends or warps, that is easily repaired in PS.

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

In reverse order.....

"What should ('could' would've been the better choice of words here but let's not quibble) I have done differently?" Potentially, you could've done a number of things differently, but whether or not any of those would've been beneficial or not isn't knowable without having access to the two(?) shots you initially shot. Consequently, since all I can base either any suggestions toward or any assessment of the final result on would be based entirely on the image you've posted rather than an image you might otherwise have made. If anything, next time you want to make a similar multi-image software generated pano, you might want to think and shoot (and possibly crop after the fact) more 'compositionally'. In this instance for example, you could've included a bit more of the immediate foreground and dis-included (or cropped off) some of the sky. That could've been done in camera while shooting (camera down-angled slightly or additional exposures that produce an 'over-shoot' of sorts with the pre-expectation that some of that information would ultimately be cropped away), or it could've been done by other --either in shooting or in post-processing-- techniques altogether, none of which are difficult, but are best considered in advance. Clearly, one should recognize that one's best results are only realized after trial, error, experience and eventual realization.

Lots of software packages can make and merge pano-ed together images, and no one of those is essentially better than any other. But since you used Lr, and since virtually 99% of the many panos I've shot for, merged in, and were ultimately 'made' were likewise made in Lr, so/and discussing the uses of Lr in a shared and common language simplifies things considerably. In effect, had you 'over-shot' somewhat (four exposures? more? different camera angle? etc.) you'd have had no need or reason 'open in' Ps to clone in the 'missing' portions of your initial merge. Nothing against Ps, of course, but what(ever) you did in Ps could've been done in Lr, though if not to your satisfaction, than simply cloning in the missing parts --which WILL occur in many panos, and which is WHY you want to over-shoot-- in Ps could probably have been done more elegantly through various means (content aware fill comes to mind, though there are other techniques as well). As mentioned above: trial, error, experience......... realization.

Food for thought, Kathy?

joehel2 Loc: Cherry Hill, NJ

Kathy, I studied the download and I see no obvious flaws. I think it is beautifully done.

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

Looks good to me - nicely done!

Wilderness Images Loc: Apache Junction, AZ.

That looks like a good shot, but don't be alarmed Kathy, I visited Horseshoe bend with high hopes of coming away with a "wallhanger" but I left with a lesson in "researching your subject". How difficult can it be to take a photo of a distinct bend in the Colorado River? Like your problem with a not-wide-enough lens, I too, was wishing for a wider lens. My other problem was the time of day. I hit the Bend too early in the day and had dark shadows that couldn't be corrected. Next time, I'll be better prepared.

Jack

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Very nice work, Kathy.

The only critical suggestion I'd have is the foreground/sky ratio. There wasn't much happening in the sky. Therefore, I'd have included just a touch more of the foreground. That would have provided a nice complete curve of the river at the bottom of the photograph.
--Bob

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Having been there, it looks good to me!

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Probably. I think I should have taken one in the center instead of just the two sides. At the bottom center I ran out of real estate. But when you shoot a straight picture, you sort of also run out of real estate because it's so straight down. At least I got more of the surroundings, which is what I wanted. I was concerned that my cloning work in PS wasn't perfect and would look too obvious.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Thanks, Cany, for that thoughtful and detailed response. The first problem is that I didn't shoot enough images. You're so right there. I should probably have done four instead of 2. The second problem is that to see the bend, one is pretty much looking straight down. There is no "foreground" as such. I was actually standing on a ledge that hangs out a bit over the bend. So short of creating some I wouldn't know what to do there. I've never been too pleased with LR's cloning capabilities for large areas. Small ones are done very well, and I like how it chooses where to get the material for the clone. I've actually done another pano on this trip that turned out quite well and I didn't have to do anything to it.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Thanks, Joe. That's very encouraging.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Thank you, Bill.

randave2001 Loc: Richmond

Looked at it closely in DDL and could not see anything that indicated to me you had stitched multiple images together. Nice job.