preeb
Established Forum Member
Posts: 375 
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by preeb on Apr 14, 2019 5:52:36 GMT
A couple of panoramas from my brief trip to Arches National Park last week. This one was taken in the park, even though there are no arches in it. It's stitched from 7 exposures and processed in Lightroom 6. I know that it looks like the horizon is off, but that just the way that layer of rock lies. The rock pinnacle near the middle is dead straight. Exif: Canon 60D, EF-S 17-55 (zoom at 17mm) f2.8 IS, ISO 200, 1/50 sec @ f22. .  This one was shot along the Colorado River near Moab, Utah. Merged 8 exposures for it. It too is properly aligned, even though it looks off. The walls and pinnacles are all nicely vertical. EXIF: Canon 60D, EF-S 17-55 (zoom at 55mm), ISO 200, 1/80 sec @ f16.  C & C welcomed. |
|
|
|
Post by cats4jan on Apr 14, 2019 8:57:44 GMT
Just beautiful. The “stitching” is perfect.
|
|
|
|
Post by whippet on Apr 14, 2019 15:02:45 GMT
I am not into towns and cities etc.
But this sort of photo, I can sit and look at all day long.
Panoramas are fantastic, such a feeling of space.
The contrast in the colour of your two pictures is amazing, Rick.
|
|
|
|
Post by pontiac1940 on Apr 14, 2019 16:38:19 GMT
Preeb Thanks for posting your panos of the deserts rocks. Great stitching and photos. I love the SW deserts! "C & C welcomed." For what it's worth, if possible, I'd like to see a bit more space/sky above the rocks in both images. The bottom image could have a titch less foreground. BTW, if the top-to-bottom space is tight when shooting in landscape, shoot in portrait..it just requires a few more photos. Thanks for sharing!  Clive |
|
|
|
Post by Sepiana on Apr 14, 2019 16:50:11 GMT
Rick, simply beautiful! I love how you captured Mother Nature's work -- blue skies, colorful soil/rocks, interesting rock formations, etc. So typical of that region!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Apr 14, 2019 21:57:43 GMT
I agree with Clive about a bit more sky in both images and shooting in portrait.
Especially if you intend making prints, I would always shoot in portrait orientation. It results in an image with many more pixels thus allowing you to make larger prints.
Maybe it's the way the images are rendered by my browser but the images appear to have been a little over sharpened. But that's only a minor point.
Great images and TFS.
|
|
preeb
Established Forum Member
Posts: 375
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by preeb on Apr 15, 2019 0:28:13 GMT
Preeb Thanks for posting your panos of the deserts rocks. Great stitching and photos. I love the SW deserts! "C & C welcomed." For what it's worth, if possible, I'd like to see a bit more space/sky above the rocks in both images. The bottom image could have a titch less foreground. BTW, if the top-to-bottom space is tight when shooting in landscape, shoot in portrait..it just requires a few more photos. Thanks for sharing! Clive Actually, both were shot in portrait orientation. I rarely do panoramas in landscape because they end up too long and skinny. This one is a merged panorama built from 14 portrait exposures, 2 rows of 7 each. In my opinion panoramas are best viewed as large as possible. I have this one or the Front Range in Rocky Mountain NP framed on my wall above my desk that I had printed 3 feet on the long side.  In my opinion panoramas are best viewed as large as possible. I have this one of the Front Range in Rocky Mountain NP framed on my wall above my desk that I had printed 3 feet on the long side.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Apr 15, 2019 1:08:43 GMT
Very nice panoramas Preeb.
I especially like the top one with the small lake as the foreground.
IMHO every photo should have a foreground and background whenever possible.
|
|
