Why Panoramas, if at all?

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

[jamieZ740]

i suppose if you used a wide angle, you would have to crop most of it away to get a panaramic shape and you would need to get very close. but the stitching technique can be done with a kit lens, making a bigger image and without need to buy a wide angle lens?!

decent job on t' image anyway.
j

[gordon g]

Interesting question Chris. Why? I think there's several points here. First is fashion - the format looks interesting just in it's dimensions, and is different to the usual 4:5 or 2:3 ratios that make up much of photography. Second, digital has made it relatively accessible - all you need is a P&S compact and the bundled software to have a go. Third, it gives a feel for the whole view, when done well.
It is certainly different from very wide angle images cropped to the appropriate dimensions - the altered perspective you mention always identifies these. This can be an interesting compositional device in the right circumstances, but often looks a bit forced to me. In theory, a panorama done with a 50-80mm lens (35mm format here) should give a 'normal' perspective, but when stitched together, give a much greater field of view - hence the novelty.

'Why, if at all?' I think I understand what you're getting at - badly applied technique for the sake of making a panorama without thought of composition, merit etc. I think panoramas are very hard to do well - compositionally there is so much width that it is very easy to let the eye wander around a bit aimlessly. I havent done very many panoramas - attached are a few. The mountain views were handheld on a compact and stitched together. The intention was to give a feeling of being on the summit with all the peaks around, a feel of space really. The people shot, taking on my sister-in-law's wedding, is a cropped down wide-angle shot. Slightly different as it is portrait orientation, but that was chosen partly to remove a lot of useess clutter, and partly to emphasise the verticals in the scene and the depth.

[yelvertoft]

As you mention, the perceived distance to subjects, especially in the foreground, is very different with a panorama than it is with an ultra wide angle. This gives a different feeling to the image. I enjoy looking at a wide pano viewed at full height on the screen and scrolling left-right, I think it gives a greater sense of 'being there' than you ever get on an ultra wide.

Sometimes you don't have a lens wide enough to capture what you want. Stitching helps you work around this.

One fairly vintage example:
http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...=500&ppuser=34

I didn't own anything wider than 18mm at the time.

D.

[Adey Baker]

From the same viewpoint the perspective will be the same whatever the lens. The panorama formed by joining several shots will have more detail in it, though, as the super-wide angle shot won't have as many pixels per section of the view.

Jamie: fair cop, but not going to throw out 18-135 and next, hypothetical, cash surplus would go on macro well before WA

Gordon & Duncan: sure, if one needs to stitch 2 to overcome available lens limitation, absolutely no problem

Adey: kind of right only as a test I slashed the attached, one of the few occasions I have gone to FL 18 (actually to get the sky). As a panorama, it had to be unskewed as well as distortion corrected and yes, the detail is now poor. Less sure about perspective as I am usually at the other end using FL 80-180 region and tele lens definitely forshortens distances and I like that as it mirrors what eye+brain does; comparing with Gordon's beach shot just posted, this at least does invite into the water (especially with blue par of sky back in), whereas Gordon't makes it look like one of those low-tiders where you have to run about a mile to get to the water and paddle another to get waist deep

Of Gordon's pair, I think the first convinces me that there is a time and place, would love a bigger version to pick out the peaks. 2nd rather highlights hazards of getting too near the sun at one end

Thank you all for contributing

[Gidders]

Originally Posted by Chris

.... Less sure about perspective as I am usually at the other end using FL 80-180 region and tele lens definitely forshortens distances ....

I'm with Adey on this one... if you stand in the same place the perspective is the same whether you use a 35mm lens or a 300mm lens see examples in post 4 & 5 in this thread It is actually standing back from your subject that forshortens perspective .... and a corallary of standing a long way from you subject is the requirement to use a long focal lenght lens to fill the frame.

The thing about a short focal lenght lens is the phenominal depth of field that allows you to get very close to a foreground object, and it is that closeness that gives the unusual perspective - not the short lens (although the distortion of verticals that is a by product of not having the camera sensor plane vertical somtimes typifies these shots).

As a excercise in understanding the perspective changes brought about by the photographers position & lens choice in relation to the subject, try this exercise: -

With a suitable subject - a (long suffering) friend/family member, favourite tree etc, set your lens on the widest angle setting....
1) move back until there in lots of space round your subject - take a shot, move forward 5 paces - take a shot, move forwards 5 paces ... etc until you are so close that you are at the limit of the closest focus of your lens - take a shot.
2) go back to your original position and kneal down - take a shot - move forward on your knees to position 2 - take a shot... keep moving fowards on your knees intil you reach the limit of focus - take a shot.
3) go back to your original position and lie down on your belly - take a shot - move forwards ....etc. Finally at the limit of focus, roll over onto your back and the a shot
4) Set you lens on a mid zoom setting and repeat 1-3
5) Set your lens on a max zoom setting and repeat 1-3

This exercise will give you a unique understanding of the relationship of your view point - distance & hight - and focal lenght choice to enable you to understand better the different perspectives

[gordon g]

I have to say Chris that I prefered the original beach scene with its huge sky, but the crop does illustrate your point.
Thanks for the comment on my panoramas. The mountain views were taken using a canon A95 in panoramic mode - it gives you part of the previous image on the screen to assist lining the images up - and then stitched in photostitch, which was bundled with the camera. From memory it is composed of 6 or 7 individual shots. (I will try to remember to post a larger version in the gallery!)
You're right about varying lighting across a panoramic - it's easy to forget, especially if using an auto mode.
Clive - I remember trying that exercise when I first got a SLR. It is very interesting to see just how much your position affects the relationship of objects in an image.

thank you Clive, will try that on a tree! Though I detect a divergence of words and meaning. With landscape panoramas one usually has a limited choice of viewpoint. In my waterside one, right outside the boat house ±3 ft, on Gordon's peaks, could be a 1000ft drop if you go back or forward much! So the question becomes:"from a given viewpoint, do you get the same result by using say 2 frames at FL 18± as you would with 4 or 5 at FL 80±?" Need to try that too.

[Gidders]

Originally Posted by Chris

With landscape panoramas one usually has a limited choice of viewpoint. In my waterside one, right outside the boat house ±3 ft, on Gordon's peaks, could be a 1000ft drop if you go back or forward much!

Thats often true, although with a WA the perspenctive can be altered significantly by lying down

Originally Posted by Chris

So the question becomes:"from a given viewpoint, do you get the same result by using say 2 frames at FL 18± as you would with 4 or 5 at FL 80±?" Need to try that too.

Once you have cropped the images to the same view, the perspective will be practically same ...because you are shooting from the same view point (although of course they will more detail from 5 images over 2)