Having spent ages re-editing this one, I am left with the thought of why do panaoramas anyway?

This was originally done for my daughter for the Deben Rowing club. At the time I banged the frames together but rather gave up on maintaining normal photographic standards. However it was seized and used as their banner image, so at least has served a useful purpose.

Trawling for 'orphan' landscapes, and encouraged by Duncan's dales shot + discussion, I had another look and took a bit more trouble, from which I realise it is a good excercise in PP. These frames were taken with FL 24mm and take in almost 180 degrees of the river from the tide mill at the left to the downstream reach where they row out, hopefully with tide helping or at least neutral. So 1st stage is correcting convergences and adjusting for exposure. 2nd stage doing the basic cut and paste choosing least worst joint positions; quite difficult on a scene as busy as this. Actually pre 1st stage would have been working off a levelled tripod rather than rested on the top of the flood wall. Final stages merging exposures using gradients and then a bit of stamping to correct for the clouds having moved and residual irregularities in jetty angles etc.

So how does this compare with using ultra wide angle? To my mind the latter remove the primary subject too far behind foreground which needs to be of less interest, though hopefully leading - and diminish the apparent height of the main subject rather than getting it back as the eye+brain adjust it.

Interested in other thoughts.

Bigger version (1.6MB, use + & shift/scroll wheel) at http://www.evendine.eclipse.co.uk/images/_dsc04689f.jpg