A
astrostu
Guest
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.
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.