La Graciosa Quiz

[FrankMi]

Hi Mike,

I think that for me while processing these images I am looking at specific parts of the image before it had to be reduced significantly in size each of the source images that go into the panorama is 6 to 7 times the size you see in the finished product. In a way, that alone make me a pixel peeping papa even at normal viewing sizes. By the time you shrink it down to the size needed for the web, most of the detail is lost, but I know it isn't as sharp as it could be.

[FrankMi]

I was a wee bit surprised that I preferred the more vibrant image when choosing between the two images, and I'm very surprised to learn that it is an HDR image. Beautiful! And a great learning example. Thank you for sharing.

Hi Christina, I am glad you enjoyed the image.

I usually don't make a big deal about the techniques used to process an image. If, however, it were obvious that any particular technique was employed, then to me, that technique was not used appropriately. The rare exception is the image where it would obviously been impossible to get the result without using a particular technique and the result has front and center attention, not the technique.

[IzzieK]

Frank ... what is the actual longest side of this images you posted here to be able to fit it in CiC? Just asking...it looks good and not compressed for what I see...

[FrankMi]

Frank ... what is the actual longest side of this images you posted here to be able to fit it in CiC? Just asking...it looks good and not compressed for what I see...

Hi Izzie, I usually limit my images to 1600px wide and 1000px tall as I was told that to go larger meant that the image would be reduced in size without being re-sharpened. I've seen some that have been much bigger posted and you can see it full size in the lightbox if you do post larger.

Perhaps a little experiment just to see how it goes, if at all. Here is a panorama of the shoreline at Izmir, Turkey. Let's see if I can even post it at 12,000px wide and 1,000px high. If it will even load, see if you can open it in lightbox.



Ah. It will load but in Lightbox, Expand to Actual Size, doesn't. I've seen some bigger than this so there are likely other variables that I am not aware of.

[Otavio]

Hello, Frank! Just to record another vote for A. Contrasts, exposure and saturation are the reasons I prefer it. A very nice work, by the way! Very well done...

[IzzieK]

Thanks for the info and the experiment, Frank. 'Appreciate it very much.

[FrankMi]

I would like to thank every one that replied and say how much I appreciate the feedback.

At some point I may very well go back and try again to see if I can improve that image given all the fine comments and suggestions posted to this thread.

Yes, I will correct the horizon level. It was hard to be exact as the horizon is curved at this width panorama and the horizon line on the left was quite difficult to discern.

I want to work on the sky some more. It looks better to me on the left side of "A" but better on the right side of "B". I also need to get a bit more sky in the final image, more like what is available with the "B" version.

I am still concerned about the lack of sharpness in the tonemapped image "A", particularly in specific locations, so I will likely not tonemap the final image but rather bring up the richness of colour and a touch more contrast that folks seem to appreciate so much in the "A" version. Most likely I'll see if applying some Local Contrast Enhancement would be effective without being excessive.

Again, thank you all for the feedback. I will take it to heart!