Looking for opinions

This is a 18 shot pano and something seems to be missing to me. It isn't cropped yet, only rough cropped after stitching. I thought of reshooting and adding a 3rd row to show more sky. Your thoughts are most appreciated.

http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z...orama2-1-1.jpg

To me, it looks like the gap between the trees, on the right side of the image, is the subject, especially since the stream and rocks create a leading line to it.

The expanse above the stream diffuses the ability to focus on a particular subject.

How about this as a proposed crop:

http://thumbs.imagekind.com/member/4...0ccc912c61.jpg

This is a standard panorama aspect ratio of 17 to 6, 2.833:1, which brings the stream as the subject. This photo becomes interactive with the viewer being lead from the lower left foreground to the upper right background by the leading line that the stream creates. This 17 to 6 aspect ratio provides a nice wide pano view.

Steve

I am no expert on landscapes but to me this sort of scene needs a positive focal point. It is composed such that the trees lead you into the image (which is good) but they dont actually lead your eye to anything. Your crop is correct in terms of thirds and that is why it works better than the second (sorry Steaphany). We have a stream like this near home and it is a nice place to be, but it is a sausage to photograph because of the lack of focal points.

Steve

To me, the greatest weakness is the sky. It needs a nice blue colour with a few white fluffy clouds. But we can't change that, at least not easily.

So working with what is left: let's get rid of as much of the uninteresting bit of sky as possible; then, virtually everything to the right of the river vanishing point doesn't do much for me so let's try to zap that.

We are then left with just the main subject; the river flowing from left to right. I've tried a standard 3 x 2 ratio crop although other ratios would be considering.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...achmentid=4762

Just a suggestion, but I'm sure everybody will see this scene differently.

Hi Steve,

My first thought at reading "This is a 18 shot pano" was; why?

My only conclusion is that you intend to print it mega-sized and wallpaper your home with it :) because unless you view it at 36,000 x 6,000 on screen and scroll around and count the leaves, I really cannot see the benefit if you down size to normal proportions (e.g. 1024 x 583 px).

Most panos have some recognisable details in, e.g. cityscapes, but leaves are leaves and a green blur often suffices, no one really needs to be able to count blades of grass, whereas they might want to look at distant people, cars and features in traditional panos. Or have I missed something?

I can imagine that the stitching software had some fun matching moving leaves between shots ;) perhaps it was an exercise for the software.

I tend to agree with the other's on crop and subject too, I like Geoff's crop, as that tends to concentrate on the river.

To include the sky would really need HDR I think, there's just too much "bright" up there.

Hope that helps (and isn't too blunt),

Hi, Steve;

I agree with the common thread that there's some competition for focal point, so I tried a crop that pulls more toward the opening, bringing up the stream as an element to lead into it. I also did a mask of the sky to darken it a bit, because I think you'll need to do that if you want the focus on the gap.

Cheers,
Rick

http://i29.tinypic.com/34hdwg2.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Humphries

Hi Steve,

My first thought at reading "This is a 18 shot pano" was; why?

My only conclusion is that you intend to print it mega-sized and wallpaper your home with it :) because unless you view it at 36,000 x 6,000 on screen and scroll around and count the leaves, I really cannot see the benefit if you down size to normal proportions (e.g. 1024 x 583 px).

Most panos have some recognisable details in, e.g. cityscapes, but leaves are leaves and a green blur often suffices, no one really needs to be able to count blades of grass, whereas they might want to look at distant people, cars and features in traditional panos. Or have I missed something?

I can imagine that the stitching software had some fun matching moving leaves between shots ;) perhaps it was an exercise for the software.

I tend to agree with the other's on crop and subject too, I like Geoff's crop, as that tends to concentrate on the river.

To include the sky would really need HDR I think, there's just too much "bright" up there.

Hope that helps (and isn't too blunt),

---

Thanks dave , i don't care about blunt, i know it's not personal. I appreciate everyone's opinion.

The reason i shot an 18 shot pano is because the same shot in a super wide will push everything FAR away. I like the normal perspective of the 35mm lens i used.

This was a first shoot and it didn't turn out the way i pictured it. I plan to regroup my thoughts and reshoot. Just trying to get some ideas for next time. I was told by someone else that more elevation would help and i think he is right. I also think something in the foreground will help alot, like a deer or some geese in the water.



Keep the ideas coming, i appreciate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve S

The reason i shot an 18 shot pano is because the same shot in a super wide will push everything FAR away. I like the normal perspective of the 35mm lens i used.

---

Ah, you see I DID miss something :o

... and I should have known because everytime I catch myself drooling over say, the 12-24mm, I tell myself; "No, you can do it with a panorama if need be"

In my defence, the viewpoint doesn't make the wide angle of view so apparent. Also (here's a thought) when recreating wide angles of view this way, I guess one just gets the 35mm DoF (for a given aperture), whereas with a lens that wide would give increased DoF. This might be something to be wary of with a near foreground object, but what you suggest seems to have already considered this if you want animals in the river.

We all learn from these questions and answers, so keep asking (everyone),