First Panorama I have done: I have never done a panorama before and I am sure there are some/many mistakes. Mt. Shasta is roughly 35 miles away from my ridge where I took this photo. I...

hawkman Loc: Montgomery Creek, California

I have never done a panorama before and I am sure there are some/many mistakes.

Mt. Shasta is roughly 35 miles away from my ridge where I took this photo. I used a D7000 with Nikkor 55-200, F8, shutter 1/50, ISO varied 200-280.
I used DXO photolab to process all 5 images with the same correction settings then send to Image Composite Editor to stitch.

For some reason after it gets stitched they seem to get really noisy so did one final edit before posting it here. It also seems to lose sharpness for some reason.

So I need to know whats wrong with the image. Any feed back is welcome good or bad.

(Download)

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

My opinion...
way too much sky and too dark.
That aside, nice picture.

Manny Jay Loc: Colorado

Downloaded it looks great! Fine detail front to back. Excellent!

hawkman Loc: Montgomery Creek, California

rmorrison1116 wrote:

My opinion...
way too much sky and too dark.
That aside, nice picture.

By too much sky does it need more land/higher horizon? Maybe the bottom of the top 1/3
I did up the micro contrast to give the clouds some life and bring out the little bit of sun setting. In RL the storm clouds look cool at sunset but I seem to have a hard time making them look like I see them in camera. It just shoots boring flat grey lines with no kind of texture.

Is the image to dark as a whole or something else?

Thank you for the help.

hawkman Loc: Montgomery Creek, California

Manny Jay wrote:

Downloaded it looks great! Fine detail front to back. Excellent!

Thank you I really do appreciate it. Good to know I am heading in the right direction.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

hawkman wrote:

.....In RL the storm clouds look cool at sunset but I seem to have a hard time making them look like I see them in camera......

Lowering highlights usually helps to bring out detail from flattish, cloudy skies. If doing that in the main edit adversely affects the picture as a whole, it can be done via a selection. I usually select the sky for targeted adjustments as a matter of course. Clarity and contrast will both help to bring out shape and texture. Clarity will be particularly effective at bringing out the clouds' whispiness if that's what you're after. My personal preference is to avoid sharpening skies because I think they suit a softer look.

Darkening blue in the HSL section will also help to give definition to clouds, but that can result in blues that are too solid and heavy. Desaturating a bit will reduce that problem. If your editor has some form of dehaze, that usually has a positive effect on skies (may have to be applied globally, though).

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

hawkman wrote:

By too much sky does it need more land/higher horizon? Maybe the bottom of the top 1/3
I did up the micro contrast to give the clouds some life and bring out the little bit of sun setting. In RL the storm clouds look cool at sunset but I seem to have a hard time making them look like I see them in camera. It just shoots boring flat grey lines with no kind of texture.

Is the image to dark as a whole or something else?

Thank you for the help.

It's a panorama of the distant mountains and that is nice but it's unbalanced. Over 50% of the photo is sky; pretty much just clouds. If it were a picture of clouds with mountains in the background then different story but the picture is not about the clouds, it's about the mountains.

hawkman Loc: Montgomery Creek, California

R.G. wrote:

Lowering highlights usually helps to bring out det... (show quote)

I will give all this a try. DXO is a little more limited than Light Room IMO. When I had both they worked very well together. Anyway I think I can do most of what you said. DXO has clear view/dehaze and also a gradient tool which helps to isolate the sky. Clear view, exposure and WB is usually where I start. I will try this out shortly and see what happens.
Thank you very much

hawkman Loc: Montgomery Creek, California

rmorrison1116 wrote:

It's a panorama of the distant mountains and that is nice but it's unbalanced. Over 50% of the photo is sky; pretty much just clouds. If it were a picture of clouds with mountains in the background then different story but the picture is not about the clouds, it's about the mountains.

I see exactly what you are saying. I was looking at some zoomed in ones and same thing. I didn't even realize it till now. This helped a whole bunch

Thank you very much

tcthome Loc: NJ

I like it but , I like clouds in my pics. Nice for the 1rst time (pano).

SalvageDiver Loc: Huntington Beach CA

hawkman wrote:

I have never done a panorama before and I am sure ... (show quote)

Hi Hawkman, After seeing this image in download, I like it a lot especially when I finally locked onto Mt Shasta. Been up in that area many times. It's a very good first pano.

If I were editing this image, here are the edits I would make. 1) Too much sky and the horizon splitting the image down the middle. I would crop some of the sky out. 2) I would lighten the overall image, just slightly. 3) I would reduce the blue in the clouds and possible some of the crispness. Softer clouds may improve the perceived sharpness of the mountains. There's a lack of contrast between the sky and the mountains 4) I would add a little exposure to Mt Shasta to further highlight it, which is your subject in the image. Currently, it's subdued in the background. 5) I would selectively lighten (dodge) the foreground to bring out some detail in the trees and add some lighting complexity to improve interest.

Still, I think this pano is quite good, I feel it would be exceptional with just a bit of polishing.

Mike

hawkman Loc: Montgomery Creek, California

I have been trying all the suggestions above and I just don't like it. Something about the blue is just not working for me. I did 5 sets this was the second set my 4th set I did at 110mm, 12 photo's and was better placement but I just can't get rid of the blue tint with out it being way to grainy. ISO got bumped to 400-450 as well.

So I'm gonna re-shoot it and see if I can get a better overall exposure and better placement of Mt. Shasta. We have some storm clouds moving in this week and freeze warnings so maybe the weather will help a little, hoping for just enough snow to make it all white.

I'll try sunrise/morning but this is tricky to since there is a shadow until the sun gets over the mountains behind me but Mount Shasta is very lit up and stands out. Plus I can go to the back of the property with less trees in the way and 1000ft closer.

I do like this photo and after everyone's feed back I do agree it could be way better. I see this everyday when I open my blinds so it's just a matter of me finding the right balance. You all also gave me some ideas I want to try with the foreground. The posted photo is from the top of the hill behind the house with a very steep decline.The ridge you see in the foreground is basically the edge of my property about 1 frame to the right.

Eventually I'll work on getting rid of those power lines and houses but baby steps.

Anyway
Thank you all for the input. It is very very much appreciated and I am very grateful you took the time to give feed back.

Have a wonderful Blessed day
Ronnie

hawkman Loc: Montgomery Creek, California

One final attempt to see what I see and applying your input.

(Download)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

There's definitely more to draw the eye in, and the softer sky is an improvement.