Posted by Mark Seaver on July 28, 2012 at 11:13 AM
I enjoy the occasional panoramic shot using PS to stitch together multiple images, such as this 7 image combo of Abraham Lake in the Canadian Rockies. I extended the width of this pano to insure getting everything I wanted into the final image and to allow for some cropping. Once I started cropping, I realized that I have no idea about how to compose (or crop) a pano. I'd like the hear from others about their thoughts and if there are good discussions of composition in panoramic images available. (I've done some web searching and it seems that most discussions are about technique/software/hardware not the human factors involved in viewing.) I'll post a couple of what I see as possible crops but I feel like such decisions should have something more than "gut feeling" behind them.
Posted by Mark Seaver on July 28, 2012 at 11:14 AM
Possible crop #1, with the vanishing point shifted left.
Posted by Mark Seaver on July 28, 2012 at 11:14 AM
Possibile crop #2 with the vanishing point shifted right.
Posted by Nancy de Flon on July 28, 2012 at 12:20 PM
Mark, first a disclaimer: I've never made a pano myself in that way so I'm far from an expert. From the point of view of composition, I'm not sure about the rock in the foreground. To my eye there's too little of it so that it seems almost like a "mistake." Maybe you want to try either including more of it or leaving it out? BTW, I prefer either the original or crop 2. In crop 1 I find the right side of the image too "top heavy," if I may put it that way.
I think a lot of times, it just depends on the photo. In your examples I like the composition of your second example, because cropping the hill on the left at its summit emphasizes the leading lines and moving the vanishing point off center improves the compositional appeal. Regarding Nancy's observation, the land on the lower edge doesn't totally spoil the image, but it isn't helpful.
I don't do a lot of panoramas, but when cropping a frame from the normal 35mm aspect ratio of 2:3, for example, I usually start with a panorama ratio of 1:2. But that's not a hard rule. Stitched panoramas would typically be wider. With reflections, I often prefer to center the 'horizon', but sometime using the rule of thirds can be very effective.
With panoramas the usual rules of composition still control. Like I said - it depends.
There are some photographers who specialize in panoramas. Do some googling and take a look at theirs as examples. I know a fellow who has an 8x20 LF camera. All his are 1:2.5, and he composes in camera.
I shoot a lot of panoramas (but I don't display them here because of the size limitations.) Balance of mass seems to be one of the most important compositional elements in a panorama, so in that respect crop #2 definitely works best. The downside is losing the tree which helps give depth to the scene. Speaking of depth, that is another important element of panorama composition, simply because it's difficult to achieve in a long narrow format. The little piece of land in the foreground of your image helps with the depth issue but unfortunately it distracts more than it helps because, as Mark mentioned, it's such a small piece that it looks like an accidental inclusion. Cropping the bottom would lose some depth when viewed small but because it would bring the mountains closer I think you would get some back when viewed large because there is a lot of perspective in the mountains.
If the compositional possibilities are questionable when I'm shooting the scene I will often shoot an extra row or two to include more of the foreground elements (if they're worthwhile). That leaves you with a huge scene (and image file) but you have a lot more options for the final crop. "Autopano Giga" will stitch multiple rows seamlessly so it doesn't really make for much more work.
I wish that Nature Photographers had a panorama category with allowable resolutions up to 1600 horizontal pixels. I think a lot more people would post panos because you could actually see them and we could maybe get some decent critiques.
I like "clean" compositions when it comes to panos so often I find fg elements distracting or at least unnecessary. Depth is hard to achieve I think......no help there. 50/50 comps work more often than with other types of images IMO. I like your image but would crop the tree and the fg rock out. All comments suggestive....of course.
Discussion
6 repliesI think a lot of times, it just depends on the photo. In your examples I like the composition of your second example, because cropping the hill on the left at its summit emphasizes the leading lines and moving the vanishing point off center improves the compositional appeal. Regarding Nancy's observation, the land on the lower edge doesn't totally spoil the image, but it isn't helpful.
I don't do a lot of panoramas, but when cropping a frame from the normal 35mm aspect ratio of 2:3, for example, I usually start with a panorama ratio of 1:2. But that's not a hard rule. Stitched panoramas would typically be wider. With reflections, I often prefer to center the 'horizon', but sometime using the rule of thirds can be very effective.
With panoramas the usual rules of composition still control. Like I said - it depends.
There are some photographers who specialize in panoramas. Do some googling and take a look at theirs as examples. I know a fellow who has an 8x20 LF camera. All his are 1:2.5, and he composes in camera.
I shoot a lot of panoramas (but I don't display them here because of the size limitations.) Balance of mass seems to be one of the most important compositional elements in a panorama, so in that respect crop #2 definitely works best. The downside is losing the tree which helps give depth to the scene. Speaking of depth, that is another important element of panorama composition, simply because it's difficult to achieve in a long narrow format. The little piece of land in the foreground of your image helps with the depth issue but unfortunately it distracts more than it helps because, as Mark mentioned, it's such a small piece that it looks like an accidental inclusion. Cropping the bottom would lose some depth when viewed small but because it would bring the mountains closer I think you would get some back when viewed large because there is a lot of perspective in the mountains.
If the compositional possibilities are questionable when I'm shooting the scene I will often shoot an extra row or two to include more of the foreground elements (if they're worthwhile). That leaves you with a huge scene (and image file) but you have a lot more options for the final crop. "Autopano Giga" will stitch multiple rows seamlessly so it doesn't really make for much more work.
I wish that Nature Photographers had a panorama category with allowable resolutions up to 1600 horizontal pixels. I think a lot more people would post panos because you could actually see them and we could maybe get some decent critiques.