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.
An outstanding result, Jim!
cany. I have the same equipment you mention..I don't seem to get the same results. lol really great photo.
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)
Damm Dude, that is simply gorgeous. What was your exposure overlap?
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
Damm Dude, that is simply gorgeous. What was your exposure overlap?
Thanks, rg. Overlap wasn't 'calculated' per se; none of the exposures were made on a tripod that would've shown degrees or percentages. Eyeballing the separate shots, though, they range from roughly 35 to 50% overlap.
jimcrna wrote:
cany. I have the same equipment you mention..I don't seem to get the same results. lol really great photo.
I suspect that whatever differences there may between your 'same equipment' shots and mine is due to the fact that there are fewer manatees and/or alligators in Utah than there are in Florida. Either that, or the possibility (?) that there's less cheat grass in Indiana than there is out here. Now, had you used your gear here below the Books, Jim, you'd have gotten pretty much the same result. The only difference would be that your shot would've been from a few feet over that-a-way.
This is a pretty amazing shot! Good work!
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)
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?
One of the nicest images I’ve seen on UHH,well done,
Well done, love the back roads.
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.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.