NikonGear'23
Images => Critique => Topic started by: simato73 on November 10, 2015, 10:44:34
-
Hi,
I have this pano I took a few yars ago that I keep going back to.
It was shot in the Canadian Rockies in the Mt Assiniboine area (Assiniboine is pictured, albeit in clouds).
I actually shot a few versions of the pano and then started cropping less elongated versions, to focus the pano a bit more and also to make it more printable.
The longest I deem printable is about 3:1.
Here are two versions shot from the same place.
I would like feedback on the framing (which works better for you and why).
Also please note there are a few minutes difference between panos so the lighting has slightly changed, so I would like your opinion on what works better from a point of view of the lighting.
-
They look pretty similar to me. Impossible to choose from, as you already know...
Perhaps stitching them together would be best :)
Either of them is good!
-
I like them both, but to my eyes the first is more interesting because of the greater amount of green on the left of the frame. This creates a sense of the water moving from the mountains to the lower ground.
-
I would prefer the first one, because it offers a wider view and more elements to appreciate (lakes, mountains and vegetation). However, the white triangular zone (snowy slope in the foreground?) at the bottom left corner could be a bit dtracting (to my taste).
The intriguing shapes of the mountains are well rendered in the second image, but I would want to see more of the foreground in terms of the framing.
I don't see any decisive difference of lighting. Both feel pleasant.
-
They look pretty similar to me. Impossible to choose from, as you already know...
Perhaps stitching them together would be best :)
Either of them is good!
Thanks Jakov, obviously they are quite similar. But the devil is in the detail.
I should have made clearer that these are already the result of stitching several photos. So stitching them together does not make much sense... :-)
Both panos are probably made of 5-7 vertical shots and the views shown have been cropped from a much wider view.
The perspective is very similar because they were shot from very similar positions, althoug IIRC the focal length used was different (too lazy to check the original files).
Therefore, the choice is about slightly different compositions and lighting of a nearly identical subject.
-
The first one for me. The second one seems a little more cramped and doesn't quite give the same impression of the vastness of the mountain range.
-
I would prefer the first one, because it offers a wider view and more elements to appreciate (lakes, mountains and vegetation). However, the white triangular zone (snowy slope in the foreground?) at the bottom left corner could be a bit dtracting (to my taste).
The intriguing shapes of the mountains are well rendered in the second image, but I would want to see more of the foreground in terms of the framing.
I don't see any decisive difference of lighting. Both feel pleasant.
Thanks Akira (and Anthony, who also has a similar opinion).
The second version has a tighter vertical FOV, although there is plenty to be seen on the left in the original version - I cropped it out to get a 3:1 ratio.
The original of the first pano is wider than the crop above both vertically and horizontally.
The original uncropped version is now attached; while there are a lot of things to look at in the original, I think it needs cropping horizontally.
There are subtle differences in lighting and for me the second pano (tighter vertical FOV) has an advantage that the lighting on the rocky buttress on the right makes it pop out better than in the other pano , which was shot a few minutes apart.
-
The first one for me. The second one seems a little more cramped and doesn't quite give the same impression of the vastness of the mountain range.
That's a valid point, I can relate to that, thank you.
-
First one is as good as it gets, but of course should be processed with a little more contrast sharpening if or when it is printed large.
-
First one is as good as it gets, but of course should be processed with a little more contrast sharpening if or when it is printed large.
Bjørn,
Thanks for weighing in. I am reassured that everyone backs the same version, this is therefore the one I will be working on from now on.
Your other comment is also much to the point.
The idea is indeed to print at a reasonable size, it could be up to 30x90 cm.
So far I have worked only on stitching and defining the crop, the shots have not been fully processed yet.
-
You should be able to print much bigger than that and still keep good image quality. Why not try 1 x 3 m? That'll make for a mural decoration.
-
You should be able to print much bigger than that and still keep good image quality. Why not try 1 x 3 m? That'll make for a mural decoration.
My printer can get to 13" max on the short side.
Plus my house does not have a wall that could comfortably take a 3m long image.
-
The original uncropped version is now attached; while there are a lot of things to look at in the original, I think it needs cropping horizontally.
There are subtle differences in lighting and for me the second pano (tighter vertical FOV) has an advantage that the lighting on the rocky buttress on the right makes it pop out better than in the other pano , which was shot a few minutes apart.
Simone, I like the original one the best! :D If I really need to make a 1:3 frame from it, I would cut the far left and far right parts of the original frame without trimming vertically. The lighting on the rocky buttress is indeed more interestingly lighted in the second image, but the left and central parts look a bit flatter and hazier than in the first image. To me, the overall lighting looks better in the first image.
And I would strongly suggest to start with the third, uncropped pano with the vertical side intact. The elongated crescent shape of the snowy slope and the white round spot are too good to cut out!
-
For special occasions or extraordinary sizes, one should always consider using a printing house.
-
Framing : I prefer the first one : more vegetation/green and more ''panoramic feeling''.
Lighting : the second one with more visible details on the foreground rocks (right side). The main summit is also more visible.
And we can state how fast the clouds change on high mountains landscapes !
-
For special occasions or extraordinary sizes, one should always consider using a printing house.
Agreed in principle, however a really big print needs a room to match.
I bought the biggest home I could afford but no room is big enough.
-
Framing : I prefer the first one : more vegetation/green and more ''panoramic feeling''.
Lighting : the second one with more visible details on the foreground rocks (right side). The main summit is also more visible.
And we can state how fast the clouds change on high mountains landscapes !
Thanks Rosko, I agree on everything you said.
That late afternoon I got rained and hailed on twice, once on the way up and another time on the way down...
-
Simone, I like the original one the best! :D If I really need to make a 1:3 frame from it, I would cut the far left and far right parts of the original frame without trimming vertically. The lighting on the rocky buttress is indeed more interestingly lighted in the second image, but the left and central parts look a bit flatter and hazier than in the first image. To me, the overall lighting looks better in the first image.
And I would strongly suggest to start with the third, uncropped pano with the vertical side intact. The elongated crescent shape of the snowy slope and the white round spot are too good to cut out!
The snow in the foreground was a deliberate choice and for that I moved a little from the initial position (so the first two images posted are not in chronological order).
However I soon realised that the aspect ratio was too elongated and the eye would roam too much along the picture without a dominant point of interest.
So I thought a less wide crop should be adopted.
3:1 is the most panoramic format I can work on for printing and framing reasons.
I am interested to see what others would make of the original pano, so everybody please feel free to download that image, crop to your taste and re-post here.
I are not concerned about other adjustments at the moment (i.e. micro contrast, etc etc).
-
First one for me, reason: nice green...
-
Here's my take based on the original uncropped image. As I said, I only trimmed the far left and the far right part.
-
I would prefer the second one. The first is very good, but the snow patch on the lower left really bugs me. If it were absent (higher vantage point), it would be near perfect. But because of the patch, I would personally choose the tighter crop that is number two.
One could include a little more sky in number two, or just crop number one to get rid of the snow patch. But the current crop in number two is very good and conveys the majestic nature of the mountains.
-
Here's my take based on the original uncropped image. As I said, I only trimmed the far left and the far right part.
After your comment I developed an alternative version, identical to yours.
I like the snow, but the foreground is a bit drab (maybe could be improved with post-processing) and the wide view dilutes the lakes and peaks at the right.
-
fist one and last one posted nicest in my opinion. Well done!
-
fist one and last one posted nicest in my opinion. Well done!
Thanks Elsa, but I am still none the wiser about which version to choose!
Still, I enjoyed the conversation and the input given by everyone.
-
I prefer the second one, but for issues of framing. The overall lighting of both is too similar to choose on that basis. I would try adding more sky if it was available form the pan elements.
-
I prefer the second one, but for issues of framing. The overall lighting of both is too similar to choose on that basis. I would try adding more sky if it was available form the pan elements.
What is in the framing of the second image that works better for you?
Is is that the lakes and foreground have been cropped, giving more prominence to the cliffs on the rhs?
There is more sky available in the uncropped version. I just cropped like this to give more impression of height in Assiniboine (the big cloud-capped peak in the background on the right). The top was not visible anyway...
-
The light in the second version is better due to the sunlight on the right side foreground mountains and the snow field behind them, also the clouds opened up to reveal more of Mt Assiniboine(?). Though I prefer the framing of the first because it reveals the lake on the lower right side but the lower left side snow is distracting. Perhaps combine the best elements of each?
-
I find the first version more balanced, mostly because of the lakes, not cropped, well positioned.
The snow looks like a cut in the picture though. I would just replace it!
-
The light in the second version is better due to the sunlight on the right side foreground mountains and the snow field behind them, also the clouds opened up to reveal more of Mt Assiniboine(?). Though I prefer the framing of the first because it reveals the lake on the lower right side but the lower left side snow is distracting. Perhaps combine the best elements of each?
Following your suggestion I tried to use the frame with the better sunlit mountains (from photo #2) and add it to the stack for the other pano (#1) but it has not worked.
Taking out the "disturbing" snow cannot be done without massive digital manipulations and that is not my style.
I appreciate the point of view, others feel the same - and I do too, but I have to choose between two things, neither of which is perfect.
The upshot of all this is that re-working the pano I have discovered and corrected a serious issue.
There was an area of blur due to an unsharp image. I was surprised of this unsharpness, since it was shot at 1/250s on a tripod. But on the other hand there were strong gusts of wind, or maybe I inadvertently stumbled on the tripod legs.
Who knows, fortunately that frame could be removed because the two adjacent ones were still overlapping a little.
-
I find the first version more balanced, mostly because of the lakes, not cropped, well positioned.
The snow looks like a cut in the picture though. I would just replace it!
Yes, now that you mention it does look like a cut.
Removing it (cloning) is not something I want to do.
The only practical alternative I see is to crop differently so there is much more snow, better recognisable as such, and such that it contributes in a positive way to the composition.
-
Two further versions that attempt to take in feedback from various comments (thank you all for commenting!).
Both based on the pano that gave the first image posted; different crops.
-
Taking out the "disturbing" snow cannot be done without massive digital manipulations and that is not my style.
While I am not against photo manipulation, I would argue that stitching together several photos to make one image is just as massive of a manipulation as removing an unwanted element from an image. ;)
That said, I like your new framing (first image above) the most. The snow in the corner now looks like snow and not a distraction and I like the added sky and foreground.
-
While I am not against photo manipulation, I would argue that stitching together several photos to make one image is just as massive of a manipulation as removing an unwanted element from an image. ;)
That said, I like your new framing (first image above) the most. The snow in the corner now looks like snow and not a distraction and I like the added sky and foreground.
Valid point.
I would argue that stitching photos overcomes a lack of capability of the equipment, which is different from removing features from the image taken; however something that seems logic to me is not necessarily to someone else.
Personally, I try as much as possible to avoid cloning things out (or in!). If I want something to appear or not in an image I try to compose accordingly and when I fail I accept to stick to my self-inflicted rule and live with the consequences :)
Thanks for your opinion.
-
I still think your initial posted first image is the best one. These last ones get unfocused due to the large amount of detail.
-
Yes, I agree too.
-
Øivind and John,
It seems that it is impossible to bring everyone to agree on something :)
That is good, I like to think that there will always be a range of opinions.
I think I am settling for the second to last version posted.
My mind is made about the crop but if anyone wants to further discuss the photo I'll be happy to keep this thread going.
-
After your comment I developed an alternative version, identical to yours.
I like the snow, but the foreground is a bit drab (maybe could be improved with post-processing) and the wide view dilutes the lakes and peaks at the right.
Simone, one good thing about the pano is that the viewer can zoom in and out on the larger print. Even though you are not going to make a huge 1x3m print, the print containing different elements could entertain the viewers.
Of course, I'm not going to insist on my idea and lengthen the discussion meaninglessly. Hope you come up with the print you can be satisfied with.
-
Simone, one good thing about the pano is that the viewer can zoom in and out on the larger print. Even though you are not going to make a huge 1x3m print, the print containing different elements could entertain the viewers.
Of course, I'm not going to insist on my idea and lengthen the discussion meaninglessly. Hope you come up with the print you can be satisfied with.
Yes, I have decided for the tighter crop, but as you say also the wider view would work.
It is mainly a matter of personal taste - and I suspect even personal preference could vary with time and mood.