Scarborough South Bay and Harbour Pano Attempt!

Bend The Light

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
2,591
Reaction score
375
Location
Barnsley, Oop-Nooerth, UK
Website
www.flickr.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Hi,
I previously showed a Pano of the North Bay in Scarborough but had "issues" with the sea. I thought I'd have another crack at it, this time showing the South Bay where the sea was a little calmer!
How did I do this time?
picture should link to larger images...

 
Last edited:
it is nice but....

Wonky horizon line :(

also, in the water, either there is 2 identical twins wearing the same clothes or your panno mis aligned its self slightly.
 
it is nice but....

Wonky horizon line :(

also, in the water, either there is 2 identical twins wearing the same clothes or your panno mis aligned its self slightly.

Thanks.

Currently working on the horizon...new image coming soon!

As for the twins...it wasn't misalignment, it was cloning :er: I've just zapped one of them!

Cheers

Craig
 
Having had a little feedback, I had another shot at it - levelled the horizon, tried to clean up the soft bit, got rid of the doppelgangers on the beach, and some general fettling of "joins". Does this look any better?
 
Hi,

If you are going to do a panoramic photograph, it needs to be perfect, even the smallest amount of visible digital manipulation is going to look appalling when viewed in full size. I'm not sure what package you're using to knit the images together, or if you are doing it yourself but you're leaving some distinctive lines in the sky, as well as marks and height variations on the horizon, even in the revamped photograph.

Aside from that, my biggest critique is the lack of crispness in the final image, nothing in the image is sharp. It doesn't look like grain, it actually looks like a mix between motion blur and compression issues, so I'm not sure if the largest image is being pushed further than the original image can be taken.

Steve
 
Hi,

If you are going to do a panoramic photograph, it needs to be perfect, even the smallest amount of visible digital manipulation is going to look appalling when viewed in full size. I'm not sure what package you're using to knit the images together, or if you are doing it yourself but you're leaving some distinctive lines in the sky, as well as marks and height variations on the horizon, even in the revamped photograph.

So, how do you do it without any sign? I am trying to learn, but how do I stop there being signs of manipulation?

Aside from that, my biggest critique is the lack of crispness in the final image, nothing in the image is sharp. It doesn't look like grain, it actually looks like a mix between motion blur and compression issues, so I'm not sure if the largest image is being pushed further than the original image can be taken.

I haven't used compression, I don't think? I imported from bridge, RAW files into CS4, auto aligned and then "tidied up". If I print this I intend to print it 13" on the short side (not framed) - which is about 2/3 the size it is showing on my screen...would that reduce some of that OOF?
 
Hi,

Download and try Autostitch (Photo-Freeware.net - Panorama Tool:AutoStitch Download), it's what I use to make Panoramaic photographs and I find it exceptionally good, much better than anything else I've tried and it's freeware too.

On the detail side, maybe if it's printed less than it's smallest size you might not notice, but certainly at it's full size it is apparent, look at the seagull sitting on the lamp post for example or the castle wall running across the top of the photograph.

Steve
 
Hi,

Download and try Autostitch (Photo-Freeware.net - Panorama Tool:AutoStitch Download), it's what I use to make Panoramaic photographs and I find it exceptionally good, much better than anything else I've tried and it's freeware too.

On the detail side, maybe if it's printed less than it's smallest size you might not notice, but certainly at it's full size it is apparent, look at the seagull sitting on the lamp post for example or the castle wall running across the top of the photograph.

Steve

Thanks.
This was Autostitch.
 
Hi,

If you are using Autostich already you have to try and help it a bit with the images you input into it.

Firstly how much overlap are you using? It's suggested to use a minimum of 15%, but the beauty of digital is that it doesn't matter, there is no cost in taking extra photographs. I use the metering points on my camera to mark my overlaps, and try to get 33% - 50% overlap each time. It means a lot more photographs, but also a lot more images for Autostitch to work with.

For seas etc I have noticed that, as all images are very similar to each other, particularly here where the sky is lacking distinctive clouds, Autostitch finds it hard to differentiate one image from another. Therefore it's in your interest to try and include other items in the photograph as well, e.g. take this panorama as a selection of portrait shots, each one showing the height of the image in total.

If you are still getting a lot of obvious stitching marks, apart from playing around with the settings in Autostitch itself, you can try working on the overall image in sections, i.e. stitch two or three photographs together at a time that you know were taken side by side, and then stitch the resulting larger images together. This way it's much more unlikely that Autostitch will place an image incorrectly.

Steve
 
Hi,

If you are using Autostich already you have to try and help it a bit with the images you input into it.

Firstly how much overlap are you using? It's suggested to use a minimum of 15%, but the beauty of digital is that it doesn't matter, there is no cost in taking extra photographs. I use the metering points on my camera to mark my overlaps, and try to get 33% - 50% overlap each time. It means a lot more photographs, but also a lot more images for Autostitch to work with.

For seas etc I have noticed that, as all images are very similar to each other, particularly here where the sky is lacking distinctive clouds, Autostitch finds it hard to differentiate one image from another. Therefore it's in your interest to try and include other items in the photograph as well, e.g. take this panorama as a selection of portrait shots, each one showing the height of the image in total.

If you are still getting a lot of obvious stitching marks, apart from playing around with the settings in Autostitch itself, you can try working on the overall image in sections, i.e. stitch two or three photographs together at a time that you know were taken side by side, and then stitch the resulting larger images together. This way it's much more unlikely that Autostitch will place an image incorrectly.

Steve

Thanks...I might have a go at that, stitching in sections...also, in Autostitch there are several settings to play around with. The only computer I have to play with at the moment only has 1Gig of RAM. Autostitch struggles with that...My works laptop has plenty of RAM, but I am unable to load programs onto it...our IT technician is paranoid we'll blow his servers up, so won't let us do anything!

I'll keep plugging away at it...
 

Most reactions

Back
Top