It isn't anything spectacular but was my first time blending HDR into a Pano. The stich is 13 slices wide with 3 images per slice - took about 2 hours to render through AutoPano. I wish I had paid more attention to my polarizer but all in all I'm fairly pleased.
Posted by Bill Brennan on March 8, 2010 at 9:51 AM
Nice work, Alex.
Bill Brennan
Posted by Jack Garrett on March 8, 2010 at 9:52 AM
Overall, I like this image. I agree that it isn't spectacular but not bad for a large pano. In an HDR book, I read that it's better not to use a polarizer when doing panos....just a thought but I don't see anything major here.
The polarizer is a minor nit, not that big a deal for me. Nice work on the stitch. Did you use a pano head? You also took this from near one of my favorite spots to shoot when going through RMNP. This would be well worth revisiting with "magic hour" light.
No, no Pano head, just patient rotation and re-leveling with a bubble level. I lost a fair amount of the foreground in the crop. I have another series of images that are two high (so 78 images total) that I’m considering as it will allow me to keep some of the whole trees up front.
Interesting about the no polarizer with HDR; I know HDR skies can be problematic and many people just layer in the best sky from the originals.
I will definitely come back here for some magic hour light in the future – hopefully I can time that with a fuller moon.
Alex this is a great sweeping pano. Those clouds show the effects of weather in the Rockies! As much as I want to agree with the rhetorical 'shoot it at sunrise' recommendations, personally, you should consider your audience. By this, especially in RMNP, most people visiting aren't observing the scene at sunrise, instead seeing it when Alex saw it, therefore, in my opinion, making more of a potential selling point if this is your intention. With so much emphasis on trying to get the perfect sunrise/sunset shot, I still believe there is a time and place for daylight shots. Work with what you have and make it work, as in the end it makes us work for those not-so-easy scenes.
Good point. Alain Briot makes the same point of his work in the Grand Canyon and Canyon de Chelly. Most people want to relate to their images, which means common views at common times.
Thanks man. P.S. Mary says Hi, she didn't get a chance to talk to you @ nrc on Friday.
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on March 8, 2010 at 11:49 AM
Nice stitch, Alex. I like the cloud bank capping the mountains.
I've found that polarizers and wide panos rarely ever mix - HDR or not.
I feel the much darker, grayish sky in the center is very distracting.
Since I've done this plenty of times, I'm probably more sensitive than others.
Posted by Kurt Bowman on March 8, 2010 at 12:03 PM
Good job on the stitch Alex. I agree with what others ahve already mentioned and like the image overall. Nice job obn the stitch.
I think the sky is a major problem with this one, but it's really the only problem, and the rest is spectacular. I'd work on the sky to even out the patchiness between medium blue and dark blue, perhaps lighten the darkest areas to even it out. But geez, this is nice.
BTW, you're looking at the Front Range, which encompasses the peaks from near the Wyoming border all the way south to about Canon City. Much of what you see is the Continental Divide before it swings south and away from Longs Peak, which is on the far left.
The Mummy Range is a sub-range of the Front Range, like the Tarryall or Platte River Mountains, Indian Peaks, or even the Pikes Peak massif, would be. But the Mummy Range would be behind and to the right of this view.
I have to agree with Todd, the lighting, composition, time of day, and stiching all work really well IMO, but, the polarized area of sky is a little too noticeable. Work on that sky area some more and you have a definite winner!.
P.S. I don't think this is the Mummy Range, that would be behind you, this is the Continental Divide, with Longs & Meeker on the left.
Skies nothwithstanding, this is one of the better HDR images I've seen.
You let the software do its thing without any of the typical HDR side effects...I like that!
I also find the cropped foreground a bit distracting. Well worth a return visit!
If you plan to pursue more panos in the future, perhaps an Acratech leveling base is a worthy investment?
I actually shot another series right after this that includes 2 up slices (78 total images). I'm hoping that that series will have a better foreground to work with. I agree I want that front and center tree truck and the two trees and rock to the left to be complete in the final image.
Thanks for the props on the HDR.
Posted by Kalin Wilson on March 8, 2010 at 9:17 PM
Lots of potential here. I like the scene.
I've had limited luck letting autopano pro do the blend and stitch. I've tried several approaches - do three stitches of the different exposures then blend the HDR in photomatix, do the blends first then stitch, etc. It really depends on the angular coverage of the pano, and the basic uniformity of the sky. Not using a polarizer goes a long way because you'll get a wide range of color shift due to the polarization across a large pano. This is one of my widest panos (150-160 degrees) that I consider a success in terms of stitching and blending. It's seven vertical, wide angle, bracketed shots. I spent a long time manually blending the sky from one frame to the next because neither photomatix nor autoPano could quite get it right. It can be a pain but worth the effort when you have a scene like you have.
You know, Alex, as I look at this, I could make a case for using a non-hdr sky. I assume you did three differently exposed pano stitches first, then rendered them in hdr software. If that's the case, I'd opt for using just the best complete sky from one of the stitches, and blending only that into this image.
@ Todd, yeah, I'm kinda leaning that way as well. I checked my master images and I don't have the color shift that I do in the HDR/Pano. I think I can mask it in without too much trouble . When I get it done I'll post again.
Discussion
22 repliesSorry for the small image - you can see the full sized one here:
http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/7/b/7/3/highres_13531603.jpeg.
It isn't anything spectacular but was my first time blending HDR into a Pano. The stich is 13 slices wide with 3 images per slice - took about 2 hours to render through AutoPano. I wish I had paid more attention to my polarizer but all in all I'm fairly pleased.
Cheers,
Alex
What's the name for this range?
Bill Brennan
Interesting about the no polarizer with HDR; I know HDR skies can be problematic and many people just layer in the best sky from the originals.
I will definitely come back here for some magic hour light in the future – hopefully I can time that with a fuller moon.
Thanks for the comments guys.
Good point. Alain Briot makes the same point of his work in the Grand Canyon and Canyon de Chelly. Most people want to relate to their images, which means common views at common times.
Thanks man. P.S. Mary says Hi, she didn't get a chance to talk to you @ nrc on Friday.
I've found that polarizers and wide panos rarely ever mix - HDR or not.
I feel the much darker, grayish sky in the center is very distracting.
Since I've done this plenty of times, I'm probably more sensitive than others.
BTW, you're looking at the Front Range, which encompasses the peaks from near the Wyoming border all the way south to about Canon City. Much of what you see is the Continental Divide before it swings south and away from Longs Peak, which is on the far left.
P.S. I don't think this is the Mummy Range, that would be behind you, this is the Continental Divide, with Longs & Meeker on the left.
You let the software do its thing without any of the typical HDR side effects...I like that!
I also find the cropped foreground a bit distracting. Well worth a return visit!
If you plan to pursue more panos in the future, perhaps an Acratech leveling base is a worthy investment?
I actually shot another series right after this that includes 2 up slices (78 total images). I'm hoping that that series will have a better foreground to work with. I agree I want that front and center tree truck and the two trees and rock to the left to be complete in the final image.
Thanks for the props on the HDR.
I've had limited luck letting autopano pro do the blend and stitch. I've tried several approaches - do three stitches of the different exposures then blend the HDR in photomatix, do the blends first then stitch, etc. It really depends on the angular coverage of the pano, and the basic uniformity of the sky. Not using a polarizer goes a long way because you'll get a wide range of color shift due to the polarization across a large pano.
This is one of my widest panos (150-160 degrees) that I consider a success in terms of stitching and blending. It's seven vertical, wide angle, bracketed shots. I spent a long time manually blending the sky from one frame to the next because neither photomatix nor autoPano could quite get it right. It can be a pain but worth the effort when you have a scene like you have.
Nope, it's just a section of the Front Range. The Never Summers are out of sight (distance/mountains blocking) and out of frame to the right.
@ Todd, yeah, I'm kinda leaning that way as well. I checked my master images and I don't have the color shift that I do in the HDR/Pano. I think I can mask it in without too much trouble
Thanks again all.