I recently had this discussion with my dad. We went to the Garden of the Gods (in Colorado Springs) and I took a lot of photos, most of them going into panoramas (including two with 40+ photos). I was able to quickly process them all and showed them to him, and his reaction was "eh." He explained this by saying that it's very difficult to get a sense of the depth of the scene from a 2D photograph of a landscape, and because panoramas generally capture an even wider field, it becomes even more difficult to get a sense of what's going on, and to have it really impact you. I've decided that, in general, I agree. I think I'm a little easier than he is on panoramas that I like, but, after viewing practically every panorama thread on this site for the last year as well as my own panoramas from trips, I think I agree that the majority aren't nearly as interesting as I thought they would be. Lots of the ones posted by other people here, too, I think are few and far between that really "do it" for me. For example, from my own collection ... below are three panoramas that I think are good: And below are three more panoramas that I think captures the scene, but artistically are just blah: What are your opinions? Do you agree that it's hard to get a panorama to convey anything other than "snapshot?" Or do you think that most are pretty neat? Do you think that it's harder to get a panorama to be "good" than a regular photograph because of what it tries to capture? Etc.? P.S. For reference, the panoramas are, in order: Boulder Flatirons during second snow of 2007/8 winter, "Scenic Overlook" on the Big Island of Hawai'i, Sedona (Arizona), top of Mauna Kea (Hawai'i), Walnut Canyon Nat'l Monument, and Garden of the Gods.