Glenfarg Panorama

[Donald]

The image in this post is very large. So, if you have limited bandwidth or restricted allowance for download, you may want to avoid this message.

This is my first (and possibly last) panorama .... maybe. It's not my thing. But there is one image I always wanted to make - My home village from up on the hill that overlooks us.

I read a thread a couple of weeks or so ago in which the Hugin software was mentioned. So I thought I give it a try. The software is wonderful.

So, welcome to Glenfarg.

If you go to full-size in the lightbox it does, I think, show how good the Canon 24-70 F2.8L really is.

The problem is in that in uploading it here, it has distorted the image and made all the buildings tall and narrow. Anyone any idea why that should've happened?

As always, your thoughts and comments are always appreciated.

[IMG][/IMG]

EDIT - I've replaced the very large version of this with a reduced version that is 9999 pixels on the long edge. On my own monitor, that has solved the problem of distortion that I mention above and which is discussed in a number of posts below. With thanks to everyone who did contribute below.

[Shadowman]

Nicely done. Regarding the building perspective, did the software mention anything about specific settings per image prior to making into panorama?

[Donald]

John
It probably did, but given this was my first one......!

However, it is not like this on the original on my computer nor in the file on Flickr from which the copy above is linked. It is something in the connection from Flickr (where this is hosted) to the forum that seems to have caused this to happen.

[Gigi71]

Beautiful! Hope you don't mind me saying it reminds me a lot to the area where I am original from, Bavaria.

[Stagecoach]

Very impressive Donald, the detail and sharpness at full size really surprised me.

[John 2]

That;s nice Donald. Can't really appreciate it fully even in light box but if the fully enlarged image is anything to go by, your thoughts on the lens are spot on. Worth printing and hanging?

[Manfred M]

Works for me Donald. I can't think of a better way of showing what a place looks like other that through a pano.

[TonyW]

This is a fine image and the sharpness is remarkable. I downloaded the file and zoomed in and the detail is amazing. This brings back memories of my visits to Scotland, especially when I stayed for six months in Dundee many years ago.

Without knowing the buildings, it is hard to know what proportion they should be but the doorways did look out of proportion. I suppose it could just be the angle of view which makes them look like that. The file was 16008 by 2639 pixels with an aspect ration of about 6.1 to 1. Is that what you expected from the original file? It is also the aspect ration that I see on the forum web site.

[rpcrowe]

Donald, this is a lovely image.

Whenever I view a pano of this quality I wish that I could view it on a monitor screen two meters wide...

[deetheturk]

Great image Donald,i hope it's not your last pano if this is anything to judge them on

David

[tbob]

Quite intriguing. The detail is amazing. Looks like a great place to live

[IzzieK]

Scotland is a very nice place...judging from this pano and my travels there quite a while back...tack sharp but I am worried about the cars in the driveway and streets seems to be squashed looking. I thought the two white cars on the driveway of the beige house with a brown roof are both electric cars but the black car facing the right seems odd so I looked for other vehicles and they are all squashed too...weird, huh? Overall without looking too close, it is a good pano.

[Brownbear]

Gorgeous image of a beautiful place that I would love to visit one day. The sharpness and detail you captured throughout the image is incredible, as are all the tones. So much sharp detail in the homes, the brick building, rooftops and even in the grass. An inspiring image.

I'm curious as to which part of the scene you set up your exposure for (primarily), the sunlit grass? Thank you.

[Donald]

Thank you for all the comments. I must admit it was a fun thing to do and I'm sure there will be opportunities to think of doing it again.

I'm curious as to which part of the scene you set up your exposure for (primarily), the sunlit grass?

I shoot in full manual and use spot metering.. Just something I've got used to doing. In fact, I'm not sure I'd know how to use exposure compensation nowadays. Or, at best, I'd need to think very consciously about doing it, whereas what I do is done almost subconsciously.

I took the spot meter reading off the sky at the left hand side. I just point the centre spot at what I think will be the brightest spot in the image, push that up to the extreme right (by adjusting shutter speed, having determined my aperture value when looking at the scene) .... and start shooting.

For people who don't shoot in full manual on a regular basis, that might seem an odd, or unusual method, but it works for me.

[Brownbear]

Thank you Donald,

That is helpful to know but what I am trying to figure out is how you see a scene for the most important subjects in the image, simply because all of your landscapes show such beautiful tones and detail.

For example did you choose to meter off of the bright clouds simply because you knew that exposure would allow you to keep sufficient detail in the clouds, with less detail in the lighter coloured sunlit rooftops, but providing you with the perfect exposure for the grass, trees, brick houses etc... And still sufficient to see detail in the darker coloured rooftops and in the darker portions of the trees?

ie; When you create your landscape scenes do you decide immediately on the most important light and dark areas that are most important to your image and set your exposure accordingly? And do you just know this intuitively from experience... What would be your approach to exposing this image if you if it also including a dark foreboding mountain in the scene?

Thank you.

Thank you for all the comments. I must admit it was a fun thing to do and I'm sure there will be opportunities to think of doing it again.


I shoot in full manual and use spot metering.. Just something I've got used to doing. In fact, I'm not sure I'd know how to use exposure compensation nowadays. Or, at best, I'd need to think very consciously about doing it, whereas what I do is done almost subconsciously.

I took the spot meter reading off the sky at the left hand side. I just point the centre spot at what I think will be the brightest spot in the image, push that up to the extreme right (by adjusting shutter speed, having determined my aperture value when looking at the scene) .... and start shooting.

For people who don't shoot in full manual on a regular basis, that might seem an odd, or unusual method, but it works for me.

[Donald]

Christina

For example did you choose to meter off of the bright clouds simply because you knew that exposure would allow you to keep sufficient detail in the clouds, with less detail in the lighter coloured sunlit rooftops, but providing you with the perfect exposure for the grass, trees, brick houses etc... And still sufficient to see detail in the darker coloured rooftops and in the darker portions of the trees?

That explains it perfectly.

When you create your landscape scenes do you decide immediately on the most important light and dark areas that are most important to your image and set your exposure accordingly? And do you just know this intuitively from experience...

Again - Yes. My over-riding guide is 'Don't blow the sky'. I love skies and am always looking for clouds that I think add mood to a scene. There are many wonderful landscapes I've seen that I've walked away from because, although the light was right on the land, the sky wasn't right.

So, with the 'don't blow the sky' principle always being applied, I then consider the rest of the scene. One of the questions that I'm asking myself is if the dynamic range will be captured by the camera without the use of Graduated Neutral Density Filter. That's mostly (nowadays that I have some years worth of shooting under my belt) down to experience. But I'm am not averse to firing off a couple of test shots and checking the histogram to either a) confirm what I thought or, b) tell me what I couldn't work out for myself. (When I shoot using the LiveView function, I always have the histogram on show and, having made my composition, set exposure values based on the histogram, not the picture showing on the back screen.)

What would be your approach to exposing this image if you if it also including a dark foreboding mountain in the scene?

Again, that would be about working out the dynamic range within the scene. What's the value difference between the dark foreboding mountain and the brightest part of the sky that I need not to blow? Also, how do I want the mountain to look in the final image? How much detail of the mountain side do I want to show? Once we answer these questions, we can then start making decisions about exposure and, again, whether we need any sort of filter mounted in order to help us get the RAW file that we need to make the image that we have in our head.

Hope this helps.

[Brownbear]

Thank you so much Donald. Very helpful indeed and wonderful to know. I adore skies and clouds, and thinking about the mood of the clouds is a wonderful way to think of a vision that I will keep first and foremost in my mind... (Filters are on my to get soon list.

Truly appreciated. Thank you so much for sharing.

Christina


That explains it perfectly.


Again - Yes. My over-riding guide is 'Don't blow the sky'. I love skies and am always looking for clouds that I think add mood to a scene. There are many wonderful landscapes I've seen that I've walked away from because, although the light was right on the land, the sky wasn't right.

So, with the 'don't blow the sky' principle always being applied, I then consider the rest of the scene. One of the questions that I'm asking myself is if the dynamic range will be captured by the camera without the use of Graduated Neutral Density Filter. That's mostly (nowadays that I have some years worth of shooting under my belt) down to experience. But I'm am not averse to firing off a couple of test shots and checking the histogram to either a) confirm what I thought or, b) tell me what I couldn't work out for myself. (When I shoot using the LiveView function, I always have the histogram on show and, having made my composition, set exposure values based on the histogram, not the picture showing on the back screen.)


Again, that would be about working out the dynamic range within the scene. What's the value difference between the dark foreboding mountain and the brightest part of the sky that I need not to blow? Also, how do I want the mountain to look in the final image? How much detail of the mountain side do I want to show? Once we answer these questions, we can then start making decisions about exposure and, again, whether we need any sort of filter mounted in order to help us get the RAW file that we need to make the image that we have in our head.

Hope this helps.

[annie5154]

Beautiful ... and well done on producing such an image, Anne

[dje]

Great detail in the pano Donald. Looks like a nice village too.

If you look at your image full size in Lightbox, the aspect ratio does look distorted. If while doing this you right click and select properties, it says the image is 9999x2639. If however you download the full size image and view it on an image viewer (I use Faststone), it says the image is 16008x2639 and the aspect ratio looks "normal" to me. It also looks normal at full size when viewed directly in Flickr.

So there seems to something happening with Lightbox that is changing the horizontal dimension but I'm afraid I have no knowledge of the intricacies of Lightbox.

Dave

[Donald]

Great detail in the pano Donald. Looks like a nice village too.

If you look at your image full size in Lightbox, the aspect ratio does look distorted. If while doing this you right click and select properties, it says the image is 9999x2639. If however you download the full size image and view it on an image viewer (I use Faststone), it says the image is 16008x2639 and the aspect ratio looks "normal" to me. It also looks normal at full size when viewed directly in Flickr.

So there seems to something happening with Lightbox that is changing the horizontal dimension but I'm afraid I have no knowledge of the intricacies of Lightbox.

Dave

Dave

Many thanks for this. I hadn't got beyond seeing that it was distorted. I had not looked to see the dimensions and what that was saying. I've now got something that I can go to Sean (McQ) with and ask if he can look under the bonnet (hood) to understand what has happened.

Neither did I know that we could use another viewer to see it full size. I was struggling with that as well when telling friends how and where to view it.


EDIT - Just downloaded Faststone. That's brilliant!