First attempt at stitching

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http/www.conservatory.com/photos/oregon2005/multnomah_reduced.jpg

Canon 20D, EF-S 18-55, ISO 1600, f/3.5 1/500

(I didn't intend to use ISO 1600, oh well.) Starting to get a feel for
the limitations of my lenses. Even so, far better than I ever got with
my 35mm.
Oh, the stitch is below the bridge, above the lower falls.

This waterfall is nearly 200 meters high. The reason I love this
picture so much, is the fact that I managed to get the shot without
people on the bridge, on the trail at the top of the falls, or crowding
around the viewing area at the bottom, and I managed to do that on
Memorial Day Weekend.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Interesting. I've never stitched vertically."

I knew I was going to do this before I even set off for the falls.
Five minutes before, and ever after, the place was crawling with
people.

"One thing of interest to those
of us here is what software you used to stitch."

Photoshop Elements 2, photomerge, with some perspective correction.

"Then I'd trim off the black
that is around the picture."

I worked hard to get that border there, and it's not black The
reason it's there is to fit it properly for a 20x30 paper print (from a
higher res jpeg). I didn't start with the raw images.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"We shouldn't have to scroll
to the right to see the picture."

Sorry, I didn't see it was doing that.
Replaced with a much reduced image, for web-friendliness.


ttp/www.conservatory.com/photos/oregon2005/multnomah_reduced.jpg


It honestly surprised me that anyone was interested enough to look at
my photo. Thanks!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 1 Jun 2005, James Of Tucson <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote:

>http/www.conservatory.com/photos/oregon2005/multnomah_reduced.jpg
>
>Canon 20D, EF-S 18-55, ISO 1600, f/3.5 1/500

Interesting. I've never stitched vertically. One thing of interest to those
of us here is what software you used to stitch. Then I'd trim off the black
that is around the picture. For lossless cropping I use jpegcrop. It is
freeware. I recommend it.

Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 1 Jun 2005, "James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote:

>"Then I'd trim off the black
>that is around the picture."
>
>I worked hard to get that border there, and it's not black The
>reason it's there is to fit it properly for a 20x30 paper print (from a
>higher res jpeg). I didn't start with the raw images.

But we web viewers don't care about printing. We shouldn't have to scroll
to the right to see the picture. Maybe a different version on the web from
what you have for printing?

Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Here are my panoramas:
> http/donwiss.com/pictures/panos/

Some of those look really great. What kind of cameras are you using?
Also, are you taking a "leave well enough alone" approach to
retouching?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 1 Jun 2005, "James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote:

>"We shouldn't have to scroll to the right to see the picture."
>
>Sorry, I didn't see it was doing that.
>Replaced with a much reduced image, for web-friendliness.
>
>http/www.conservatory.com/photos/oregon2005/multnomah_reduced.jpg

I put in the missing h in the above. The picture could be bigger. I don't
mind the scrolling. Here are my panoramas:

http/donwiss.com/pictures/panos/

All horizontal. I once was at some tall waterfalls in Guadeloupe, but it
never dawned on my to do one vertical. You have the same problem I have
when trying to stitch ones of beaches. The waves between pictures don't
line up. Some of mine need more work. Like mastering Enblend, which works
with PTGui.

>It honestly surprised me that anyone was interested enough to look at
>my photo. Thanks!

I looked as I have a watch filter on subjects with stitching, panorama,
etc. I certainly don't read most of the hundreds of articles posted here
everyday!

Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at album bottoms).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hello James; Glad to peruse your photo. Last couple times I've stoped
there they had allowed the trees to grow so that you could NOT get that
shot. Roe

James Of Tucson wrote:

> http/www.conservatory.com/photos/oregon2005/multnomah_reduced.jpg
>
> Canon 20D, EF-S 18-55, ISO 1600, f/3.5 1/500
>
> (I didn't intend to use ISO 1600, oh well.) Starting to get a feel for
> the limitations of my lenses. Even so, far better than I ever got with
> my 35mm.
> Oh, the stitch is below the bridge, above the lower falls.
>
> This waterfall is nearly 200 meters high. The reason I love this
> picture so much, is the fact that I managed to get the shot without
> people on the bridge, on the trail at the top of the falls, or crowding
> around the viewing area at the bottom, and I managed to do that on
> Memorial Day Weekend.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>a naked girl swimming in the pool below
>would have been a nice touch.

I don't have anything like the social skills or the kind of money that
would be needed to persuade that situation, even if the water was not
5°C. ...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Very cool. I don't think many people think about stitching vertically. Now
as for nobody being in the photo, a naked girl swimming in the pool below
would have been a nice touch. <BG>

Did you try some slower shutter speeds on a tripod to see what kind of
effect you might get?


"James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117670316.993077.267280@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> http/www.conservatory.com/photos/oregon2005/multnomah_reduced.jpg
>
> Canon 20D, EF-S 18-55, ISO 1600, f/3.5 1/500
>
> (I didn't intend to use ISO 1600, oh well.) Starting to get a feel for
> the limitations of my lenses. Even so, far better than I ever got with
> my 35mm.
> Oh, the stitch is below the bridge, above the lower falls.
>
> This waterfall is nearly 200 meters high. The reason I love this
> picture so much, is the fact that I managed to get the shot without
> people on the bridge, on the trail at the top of the falls, or crowding
> around the viewing area at the bottom, and I managed to do that on
> Memorial Day Weekend.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 23:08:20 -0400, Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com>
wrote:

>On 1 Jun 2005, "James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"We shouldn't have to scroll to the right to see the picture."
>>
>>Sorry, I didn't see it was doing that.
>>Replaced with a much reduced image, for web-friendliness.
>>
>>http/www.conservatory.com/photos/oregon2005/multnomah_reduced.jpg
>
>I put in the missing h in the above. The picture could be bigger. I don't
>mind the scrolling. Here are my panoramas:
>
>http/donwiss.com/pictures/panos/
>
>All horizontal. I once was at some tall waterfalls in Guadeloupe, but it
>never dawned on my to do one vertical. You have the same problem I have
>when trying to stitch ones of beaches. The waves between pictures don't
>line up. Some of mine need more work. Like mastering Enblend, which works
>with PTGui.
>
>>It honestly surprised me that anyone was interested enough to look at
>>my photo. Thanks!
>
>I looked as I have a watch filter on subjects with stitching, panorama,
>etc. I certainly don't read most of the hundreds of articles posted here
>everyday!
>
>Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at album bottoms).

Don,
now you did it, I feel like a lazy bum. You have some fine
panos & after looking a several I realize just how lazy I have been
for not even trying to do a single pano yet.

Did notice a couple things I don't fully understand & am
hoping you can clarify for me. I understand how changes in the
brightness of the screen while taking the individual pictures can
result in darkened areas appearing as steps across the picture but how
do they also end up as diagonals between the frames?

Sorry if it's a obvious question but the answer does not seem
to present itself to me.

Also I have not been much into photo editing until lately
because I strive to do the least editing possible because it forces me
to squeeze the most out of any camera/lens combination. However I now
have & use Adobe PS Elements-3 & Neat Image noise reduction software &
use them as needed sparingly. A new & powerful tool in PS-Elements 3
is the healing tool which works wonders after you learn how to use it.
It does wonders to removed skinned knees or acne on kids or age spots
on older individuals.

All that being said, I noticed a few of your panos had a
repeating dark spot across the pano which I suspect was caused by
something on the lens. In most cases, a single application of the
healing tool over that spot will correct it completely. May be worth
a try.

Outstanding pictures & I especially like #86 & 98 of Curacao
2005. Both have a human element in the lower corner which adds a lot
to the view because the cameras view now looks & feels just like you
to are there with them looking out at the vast beauty. Great work, I
guess I will now have to try my hand at it but I will start small with
just 2 or 3 pictures to stitch together.

Thanks for sharing your work to inspire others to try it.

Respectfully, DHB


..
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 1 Jun 2005, James Of Tucson <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Here are my panoramas:
>> http/donwiss.com/pictures/panos/
>
>Some of those look really great. What kind of cameras are you using?

Up until October 2004 it was a Nikon 950. After that it is a Nikon 8400.
The 8400 does have a panorama mode that automatically sets exposure lock,
and gives you a ghost image of the prior picture to help you line up the
next. But before you rush out and get an 8400, beware of its lameness in
low light, and its lack of image stabilization.

>Also, are you taking a "leave well enough alone" approach to
>retouching?

I never edit my pictures. I losslessly rotate and losslessly crop. I should
spend some time in blending the panoramas better. Someday I will get
Enblend to work and go back and fix some.

I never print my pictures. So I have been taking them in web resolution.
Makes things easier. But I am planning to start taking them in 1280x960
size. I don't know what this will do for my stitching. For my regular
pictures I have figured out a way to reduce an entire album to web size in
one step. Then when you click on the picture in the html page it will
display the bigger one. Now if you click on a picture it shows you the same
picture, just without the html around it.

Back to yours. My suggestion is to make it about 784 pixels wide. Then it
will fit on an 600x800 monitor. And for those of us with large monitors, we
generally have our browsers in a window, and not full screen. I think the
width of my browser window is about that size. Then people can scroll up
and down. I really dislike having to scroll a picture in both dimensions.

Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 14:45:48 GMT, DHB <yoda2k@verizon.net> wrote:

> now you did it, I feel like a lazy bum. You have some fine
>panos & after looking a several I realize just how lazy I have been
>for not even trying to do a single pano yet.

Beware of a real steep learning curve if you use PTGui. If you ask here
what software people recommend, the most mentioned is Panorama Factory. I
tried it on one. The horizon was wavy. I could find no way to set
horizontal control points.

There is a Yahoo group "PanoTools" that I sometimes ask questions in. Very
technical bunch. Only ask about software at the PTGui level or higher.

> Did notice a couple things I don't fully understand & am
>hoping you can clarify for me. I understand how changes in the
>brightness of the screen while taking the individual pictures can
>result in darkened areas appearing as steps across the picture but how
>do they also end up as diagonals between the frames?

Not sure where you mean this. The stitches are not necessarily vertical.
Some of the older pictures are because I did not bother to set exposure
lock. Then on some of the newer ones the sun came out from behind the
clouds briefly and changed a couple of the images.

> Also I have not been much into photo editing until lately
>because I strive to do the least editing possible because it forces me
>to squeeze the most out of any camera/lens combination. However I now
>have & use Adobe PS Elements-3 & Neat Image noise reduction software &
>use them as needed sparingly. A new & powerful tool in PS-Elements 3
>is the healing tool which works wonders after you learn how to use it.
>It does wonders to removed skinned knees or acne on kids or age spots
>on older individuals.

I do NO photo editing. I just lesslessly rotate and losslessly crop.

> All that being said, I noticed a few of your panos had a
>repeating dark spot across the pano which I suspect was caused by
>something on the lens. In most cases, a single application of the
>healing tool over that spot will correct it completely. May be worth
>a try.

Yes. I remember those spots. And there is the poor fellow that got
duplicated. Maybe someday I'll get into photo editing. I've never used a
healing tool. I still haven't found a red eye tool to use. And one album is
waiting for that. (A big 950 problem, and even with an external flash if
you forgot to turn off the internal one you got red eye.)

> Thanks for sharing your work to inspire others to try it.

You are welcome!

Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

James Of Tucson wrote:
>
> > Here are my panoramas:
> > http/donwiss.com/pictures/panos/
>
> Some of those look really great. What kind of cameras are you using?
> Also, are you taking a "leave well enough alone" approach to
> retouching?

I've taken a few panaramas with my Canon 10D. I use a solid tripod and
spend a bit of time making sure that the head pans horizontally and that
the camera is level. I've yet to use any "stitching" software; the
software that I tried was not as good as my manual efforts:

http/pixseal.com/newengland2004/washington.htm
http/pixseal.com/tahoe2004/panarama.htm
http/pixseal.com/conservatory2005/pan_3170-3174.htm
http/pixseal.com/mounthamilton2005/pan_4571-4586.htm

-Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

James Of Tucson wrote:
> http/www.conservatory.com/photos/oregon2005/multnomah_reduced.jpg
>
> Canon 20D, EF-S 18-55, ISO 1600, f/3.5 1/500
>
> (I didn't intend to use ISO 1600, oh well.) Starting to get a feel for
> the limitations of my lenses. Even so, far better than I ever got with
> my 35mm.
> Oh, the stitch is below the bridge, above the lower falls.
>
> This waterfall is nearly 200 meters high. The reason I love this
> picture so much, is the fact that I managed to get the shot without
> people on the bridge, on the trail at the top of the falls, or crowding
> around the viewing area at the bottom, and I managed to do that on
> Memorial Day Weekend.
>
I also have some nice shots of the falls, along with others along that
road, but I never thought of stitching them.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net