Two versions of a pano - your thoughts?

[simato73]

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.

[Jakov Minić]

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!

[Anthony]

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.

[Akira]

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.

[simato73]

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.

[Jyda]

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.

[simato73]

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.

[simato73]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[simato73]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[simato73]

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.

[Akira]

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!    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!

[Bjørn Rørslett]

For special occasions or extraordinary sizes, one should always consider using a printing house.

[rosko]

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 !