Panorama City Scape - Learning exercise

[Brownbear]

Following are a few cityscape panoramas of downtown Vancouver.

Just 2 images stitched together as I photographed these from a high view point located on the top of a metal staircase. I lost a lot of images due to blur simply because the locale I chose was a very popular viewpoint (camera shake)

All ISO 100 Tripod, remote release and mirror up mode. I chose a small aperture because I wanted those stars in my images.

Processed in ACR to the best of my ability, and then used the curves tool to play with shadows and highlights selectively. I tended to decrease the highlights in the sky and lighten the shadows on the buildings. I sharpened and pushed the saturation of the images more than usual, keeping in mind the advice I received on my last attempt.

I used auto merge in Photoshop CC and it was easy to do!

Nikon 24-200 mm lens

Image #1

My favourite of the bunch but no stars seen f/18 SS 25 Seconds Focal length 150 mm




For boat lovers.... (Actually a billionaires yacht that I photographed simply because of the colours) I would like to know why I see the stars I wanted in this image but none of my city-scapes. Does it have something to do with the direction of the light? This boat was to the left of me.

Focal length 24 mm f/18 SS 30 seconds



Image #2

Focal length 105 f/18 SS 25 Seconds

I'm sharing this image simply because it seems to be very flat. Is this my post processing, the lighting or?



Image #3

Sunset... 300 mm F4 Nikon lens

My sharpest lens but too close to include enough sky or water.

f/16 SS 1 second focal length 300 mm




I would be most appreciative of general feedback on the image quality, composition, and post processing - just enough to allow me to learn what to strive for in these types of images. As simple as #1 is the best of the bunch because.... will suffice.

I was a little lost in post processing because this type of scene is new to me. Some of the bright lights and/or sun shining on reflective highrises in the city scape were challenging to manage. There is nothing that is attractive to include in the foreground to include.


I would also like to learn how to capture those night stars in my image.

Thank you.

[Kodiak]

Hey Christine,
Your exercise was very successful!
One last detail: I think I see the right end of the last frame being a tad too low!
Congrats!

[Brownbear]

Hi Kodiak,

Thank you for your encouraging words.

I would like to ask how you know that the last frame is too low, or should I say how can I learn to see such things? I used the lens correction button and the images look straight to me.

Hey Christine,
Your exercise was very successful!
One last detail: I think I see the right end of the last frame being a tad too low!
Congrats!

[deetheturk]

Lovely series Christina, well done

[Kodiak]

I would like to ask how you know that the last frame is too low, or should I say how can I learn to see such things? I used the lens correction button and the images look straight to me.

The lens correction tool, when profiled the right way, will recognize eventual
aberration, distortion, and even aspect ration of your given lens; a good
RAW converter should do these things. …but it will not recognize the horizon!
…since this is not a lens dependant feature.

I was looking at you last take in my RAW converter and I could detect that the
verticals are close to perfect but the horizontal… My conclusion: it appears that
your shot was skewed and cropped upon import. This could only be from an
improper lens profile. To be sure, I would need to scrutinize an untouched Raw file.

Maybe you want to fix that yourself:
See if your RAW converter has a proper lens profile available (not a generic).
If not, research to see if your lens manufacturer is providing one: download and
install or
Maybe the RAW converter makers are providing one.

As far as learning to see these things, everyone has to develop one's own gut
feeling… and this is very subjective! It comes, I suppose, with time.

[bnnrcn]

Very nice trials Christina

[Shadowman]

Nicely done, I'm surprised that you could see stars in any of those scenes as the cloud formations seem to cover most of the sky.

[John 2]

All very successful Christina. I particularly like the first two.

[Brownbear]

Thank you for advising. Truly appreciated.

I can see that slope now. Thank you for letting me know. I checked my lens profile in Lightroom and Adobe Photoshop CC, and both have the correct lens. The unevenness came about because I used auto merge in Adobe Photoshop CC to stitch the images together. I learned this by revisiting the image, and trying the merge again. When it joins the two images it lowers the 2nd one slightly, and then I cropped the checkered canvas. I now know what to look for and how to fix this.

Thank you!

The lens correction tool, when profiled the right way, will recognize eventual
aberration, distortion, and even aspect ration of your given lens; a good
RAW converter should do these things. …but it will not recognize the horizon!
…since this is not a lens dependant feature.

I was looking at you last take in my RAW converter and I could detect that the
verticals are close to perfect but the horizontal… My conclusion: it appears that
your shot was skewed and cropped upon import. This could only be from an
improper lens profile. To be sure, I would need to scrutinize an untouched Raw file.

Maybe you want to fix that yourself:
See it your RAW converter has a proper lens profile available (not a generic).
If not, research to see if your lens manufacturer is providing one: download and
install or
Maybe the RAW converter makers are providing one.

As far as learning to see these things, everyone has to develop one's own gut
feeling… and this is very subjective! It come, I suppose, with time.

[Brownbear]

Thank you Binnur, John (Shadowman) and John 2. I was really nervous about trying this and now I have the confidence to try it again another day.

John (Shadowman)....

It is not the stars in the sky that I am speaking of. It is the stars one sees in long exposure images of city scapes (ie; Richard's and others)... As seen throughout the image of the boat. The exposure was very similar but no stars seen, anywhere.

[Mike Buckley]

This set is dangerously close to being more than just an exercise. Well done!

[Polar01]

Christina you say that the second image is lower than the first image that is because you were not perfectly level when you rotated the camera to take the second shot. Did you use live view to get the horizon level? Nice series.

Cheers: Allan

[Brownbear]

Thank you Mike! FYI There is always a little imaginary Mike sitting on my shoulder advising when I try things like this. Far less intimidating than it was last time around. I planned it out (except for the shaky staircase with heavy traffic) and I even had a light to see by. I will be trying this again.

This set is dangerously close to being more than just an exercise. Well done!

[Brownbear]

Hi Allan,

Thank you for advising. I just peeked at the originals again, and yes perhaps the 2nd image is a wee bit lower. I thought it was because of the auto merge. I used a tripod, and virtual horizon. And earlier on I tested everything out with live view mode. I was in mirror-up mode. Is it not the case that my tripod should stay straight and stable even if I rotate my camera, or do I need to check this with every single shot?

Thank you.

Christina you say that the second image is lower than the first image that is because you were not perfectly level when you rotated the camera to take the second shot. Did you use live view to get the horizon level? Nice series.

Cheers: Allan

[Mark von Kanel]

Hi Christina, thanks for a very interesting and informative thread, if i ever get ashore im going to have a go. is ok to post here or should i start a new thread?

regarding your stars on lights i think you will find its something to do with the brightness and distance from the light source it will need to be a point light source not a diffuse one (i think)

[Brownbear]

Hi Mark,

It would truly be my pleasure if you post your images in this thread. I think it is a great way to share our learning experiences for others to learn from. So I hope you get to shore soon!

Stars on lights... that went over my head but thank you.

Hi Christina, thanks for a very interesting and informative thread, if i ever get ashore im going to have a go. is ok to post here or should i start a new thread?

regarding your stars on lights i think you will find its something to do with the brightness and distance from the light source it will need to be a point light source not a diffuse one (i think)

[Shadowman]

Thank you Binnur, John (Shadowman) and John 2. I was really nervous about trying this and now I have the confidence to try it again another day.

John (Shadowman)....

It is not the stars in the sky that I am speaking of. It is the stars one sees in long exposure images of city scapes (ie; Richard's and others)... As seen throughout the image of the boat. The exposure was very similar but no stars seen, anywhere.

Christina,

You get those from closing down the aperture, the light gets bent around the aperture blades creating those starpoints. I read that the more blades on your lens the more variety of shape you'll get.

[Mike Buckley]

Is it not the case that my tripod should stay straight and stable even if I rotate my camera, or do I need to check this with every single shot?

Though I don't do this kind of shooting, the people who are qualified to answer your question will need to know all details pertaining to the head and anything else that was attached to your tripod.

[Brownbear]

John (Shadowman)

Thank you for sharing. I wasn't aware of that. Both images were at f/18 (one has stars) so I suspect that it also has something to do with the light, too. Next time around I will try a smaller aperture for at least a couple of shots. Hopefully it will not comprimise my IQ too much (:

Mike... Thank you for advising.

FYI It is a quality tripod (Manfrotto) with 3 legs, a central column. The head has a lever that I move to attach my camera to the tripod (not a ball & head tripod). The only thing attached to my tripod was my camera with a remote release attached.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Christna,

Good to see this exercise and the results show it went very well.

The 'stars' on the lights is an interesting one and I can understand why you chose a smaller aperture to try and get them. I photographed the building front of a new hotel the other morning pre sunrise and noted that I got the star effect on certain lights at f/11 but not in the shots taken at f/22, absolutely no idea why.

With this type of shot of which IQ with respect to sharpness plays quite a significant factor should the priority be to use the sharpest aperture of the lens coinciding with required DOF? On your next visit it may be worthwhile experimenting with different apertures to see the affect on the finished image if you have not already done this.

Look forward to the next series.

Grahame