| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/05/2006 03:53:24 PM · #801 |
Our academic year is ending so I have a little more time for photography. I was able to get out this weekend and take some panoramas. Photomerge is all I have and my earlier experience with it was satisfactory. But this time I'm getting the same crap that others have reported here. Neither the merge nor the blending are satisfactory. You can see it here.
So now I am going to go back to the earlier messages about software and pick something else to try. I'm using a Mac. Do any of you have specific recommendations for the Mac beyond what has been covered already in this thread?
--DanW |
|
|
|
06/05/2006 04:55:23 PM · #802 |
Originally posted by wheeledd:
I'm using a Mac. Do any of you have specific recommendations for the Mac beyond what has been covered already in this thread? |
Well, Dan, the good news is that there's a version of Hugin that runs on OS X. The bad news is that neither of the versions of autopano are available for Mac at all. You can still use Hugin, you'll just have to manually designate your control points.
Other than that, I'm afraid I won't be much help as I don't have access to a Mac. Sorry.
Jon |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 04:15:58 PM · #803 |
Speaking of panoramas...
//www.pbase.com/azleader/image/61488114
This is 25 megapixel pano I took with Kirbic in Sedona a couple month's back. It is at the Palatki Heritage site where there are petroglyphs and early Native American ruins. You can't see them but the cliff dwelling is behind him along the lower rock wall.
This is the first two row, 12 image panorama I put together with Hugin. Wanted to see how well it would perform. Mostly I learned that if you don't understand the parameters and enter them wrong you don't get anything anywhere near what you want and you can waste a lot of time figuring things out. :)
This is what I learned:
1-You can let Hugin generate the control points, 20 is plenty, and it will do a good job linking all the images. It built 500+ control points for the above pano. I did not put any in by hand.
2-Be ABSOLUTELY sure that you have the images in the order in which they were taken and that you select their correct orientation so Hugin will understand horizontal from vertical. Get it wrong and it will stretch the image in many bizarre ways.
3-Be sure to set a resonable anchor image for position and color. That is an important setting. Also tell Hugin to setup horizontal lines for leveling the image. Those are among the many, many parameters you have to set when running Hugin. Most you just guess at.
4-Hugin will do a decent job of color and luminosity blending. It can give a good merge even if the there is movemnet and everything does not match perfectly.
5-Whatever it does to build a multi-row image it requires a lot of RAM to open the finished image after it is saved. Why I don't know. That is strange. I've opened files as large as 2 GIGABYTES on my 512 Meg machine, but it runs out of RAM opening a little 88 Meg Hugin .tiff, and that was even after rebooting to a clean startup. The only way I was able to proceed was to open it in another smaller editor, trim it and save it again as .tiff then reopen it in PS. That worries me because 12 images for one pano is not very big.
There was some wind so the tall plant swayed while taking pictures and Kirbic was in two different places in two different pictures. It handled the plant fine but double imaged Kirbic. I cut out the pose I liked best from an original image and pasted it over the double imaged part them merged it to the Pano. Hugin resizes during stitching more than Photomerge so there is not an exact match.
Another artifact in Hugin is some color loss in the stitched file on the right side. So I clipped a large section from one of the original images and pasted it over the bad parts. I had to merge that into the pano as well. I will have to see if it proves to be a recuring problem with Hugin if you put together a lot of images.
It was surprisingly good, all things considered. There was only one small place where the merge did not get it right, but was easy to fix.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2006 04:49:55 PM · #804 |
| OK. I'm confused. I have read a lot of talk about multiple row panos, but am unsure as to what program is being used. Hugin sounds really good, if you have the time to learn it. I currently have Panorama Factory, and am pleased with my results so far, and the learning that I have done, but don't know how to do a multiple row pano in it. Any suggestions? |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 06:42:24 PM · #805 |
Originally posted by traquino98:
OK. I'm confused. I have read a lot of talk about multiple row panos, but am unsure as to what program is being used. Hugin sounds really good, if you have the time to learn it. I currently have Panorama Factory, and am pleased with my results so far, and the learning that I have done, but don't know how to do a multiple row pano in it. Any suggestions? |
Panorama Factory will let you do multi-row panormas, I believe. The key is how the control points are entered. Control points are the linked points between two different pictures that defines how they are merged together by the software.
To understand how a multi-row panorama "connects" I will talk about control points in two hypothetical panoramas. The first will be a simple single row with 5 images that overlap 25% and the second will be a two row panorama that has 5 images in each row that also overlap 25% side to side and 25% top to bottom.
For the sake of discussion we will say that the images in the first row were taken left to right. In the second two-row version the photographer dropped the camera below the 5th frame and took the second row in the opposite direction from right back to left. We will assume the top and bottom images are aligned though they do not have to be.
OK, the single row panorama is simple. Starting with images 1 and 2 you set control points in their 25% overlap area. Get enough and Panorama Factory will merge them perfectly. Then you do the same for images 2 and 3. Then you do control points between images 3 and 4 and lastly between 4 and 5. Now every image is linked to the next linearly. When stitched they will be merged using the control points and all connected together to make one long picture.
The two row pano is a little more complicated when it comes to control points. Images 1-5 and images 6-10 are linearly connected just like a single row panorama is. But to link the two rows into one image you have to add control points between the top and bottom images. In our hypothetical case that would be between images 1 and 10, 2 and 9, 3 and 8, 4 and 7 and, lastly, images 5 and 6. Image 1 is directly above image 10, image 2 is above image 9, etc.
Now you have control points set between all the overlaps of all the pictures and Panorama Factory will be able to put them all together properly because they are tightly bound.
Of course, if your images don't all line up (and mine didn't in the 2 row panorama I did with Hugin) you have the possibility for a lot more overlaping images and therefore need more control points to insure a good merge.
Message edited by author 2006-06-07 18:49:50.
|
|
|
|
06/07/2006 07:31:27 PM · #806 |
| Thanks for the information. I guess I just never tried it because it wasn't popping out at me in bold print in the program. I will have to head out tomorrow and take some photos, and try that tomorrow night. I'll post one if it comes out good! |
|
|
|
06/07/2006 10:55:43 PM · #807 |
Originally posted by traquino98:
Thanks for the information. I guess I just never tried it because it wasn't popping out at me in bold print in the program. I will have to head out tomorrow and take some photos, and try that tomorrow night. I'll post one if it comes out good! |
Oh... just so you know.... Fracman is the REAL expert. He taught me all I know. He knows EVERYTHING. :)
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 10:20:40 AM · #808 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by traquino98:
Thanks for the information. I guess I just never tried it because it wasn't popping out at me in bold print in the program. I will have to head out tomorrow and take some photos, and try that tomorrow night. I'll post one if it comes out good! |
Oh... just so you know.... Fracman is the REAL expert. He taught me all I know. He knows EVERYTHING. :) |
Gawrsh! That's so nice! Hmm, maybe you could email my wife, tell her that I know everything... she doesn't seem to agree :-) |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 02:15:52 PM · #809 |
Okay folks: that's about enough pano-work for this thread. It's a fascinating topic, but it wants a thread of its own from this point on I believe.
Now where do we go from here? I'm open to suggestions on the next topic. Absent any better suggestions, I'm leaning towards "People in the landscape"...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 02:27:45 PM · #810 |
| Sounds good to me, Robert! I have often wondered where you draw the line or if there is one when you include people in your composition. Is it still a landscape shot or has it become a "people" shot? Does it depend on what appears to be more dominate as the subject? Does this also include wildlife (such as birds) as part of the landscape (or is that another whole subject)? OK, I'll stop rambling now... going back to lurking mode... |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 02:51:41 PM · #811 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Now where do we go from here? I'm open to suggestions on the next topic. Absent any better suggestions, I'm leaning towards "People in the landscape"...
Robt. |
I have a recent one like that. This is resized from my already-edited/print version, but it had minimal post-processing. I think I did remove a piece of jet contrail from the upper-right sky. Shot with the Canon A80 in Auto mode.
 |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 02:59:42 PM · #812 |
| I like "people in the landscape". |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 03:01:47 PM · #813 |
Originally posted by ursula:
I like "people in the landscape". |
I like this topic too ;)
How is this for starters? |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 03:05:16 PM · #814 |
Ooohh, I have one of these
 |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 04:02:18 PM · #815 |
Alright let's start with that. Instead of me laying out "my rules" at the outset, let me hear YOUR opinions:
Why would you put people into a landscape? What can they bring to the party? Where do you draw the line between a "landscape shot" and a "people shot" if people are present? And so forth and so on: please discuss.
The three examples posted thus far (GeneralE, Rikki, kdsprog) are three very different images. One of them strikes me as borderline in the landscape area, another borderline in the people area, and the third absolutely a sublime merging of the two. Check them out and see if you agree. Discuss.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 04:15:24 PM · #816 |
Generally I don't like people in my landscapes unless they support it in a very direct way.
Even though I have pictures of this scene without people I used it with people because it conveyed the immense size of the trees, a bit of a sense of wonder by the guy on the left and they were wearing nice primary colors!
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 04:18:29 PM · #817 |
The inclusion of people in landscape shots adds another layer in the composition of the image. It adds depth, emotion, and a sense of place.
GeneralE's image I would consider as a 99% landscape photo. It's almost a game of where's Waldo in terms of looking for the person. Had this image been in BW, I think I would have missed the person altogether. The red shirt makes him pop. The leading line is highly effective. My eye is drawn "into" the image and consequently, his subject - the tree. The person makes me look at this image as somewhat a solitary travel. Someone's long journey. Solitude.
Kdsprog's image on the other hand is a sublime merge of the two concepts IMHO. The landscape is there. The big oak tree cast as a silhouette with its frail limbs and branches shadowing the people just along the horizon. The feeling of this image is different than Paul's. TYhe subtle sunset colors lend to a different mood. The leading lines work well too pointing me towards the horizon. My eye wanders around the frame looking for other things that would make this image sing. I look and I find textures, emotions, leading to a well nicely image. The tree being centered breaks the rule of thirds and might be placed off to the side a bit so that a bit of the horizon is shown.
My image on the on the other hand is borderline on the people area. My eye is drawn to the bright orange shirt of this guy taking a nap. The color of his shirt amidst the sea of green and blue is striking. The wispy clouds adds a nice surreal touch. The diagonal composition is dynamic and creates intrest throughout the image. The feeling of "wanting to be here right now" is what I see in this photo. An escape from reality or maybe merely a change of pace from our busy schedules.
Overall, I think that people and landscapes work well together. Done well and in a creative manner, it adds emotions and feelings to the composition. One need not over power the other. They should both work and compliment each other. It should almost be as if one isn't included, something is missing from the image.
Just my tewo cents of course ;)
Rikki |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 04:55:38 PM · #818 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Why would you put people into a landscape? |
Typically, I include people in the shot if my wife tells me "take my picture here!" You can imagine the fight that ensued when I told her that the fastest way to ruin a perfectly good landscape shot was to stick someone's face in it... ><
Anyway, I'm not sure if this counts for a landscape shot (which leads me to a question I'll ask later), but it has people and land:
Incidentally, I didn't like all the people, so I did some PP and removed the offenders in this version. To be honest, I took the shot because I liked the play of light on the little girl in white, so my intent here wasn't actually the land.
Other than that, if I'm trying to capture a landscape, I consciously try to not capture people in it. I don't think I'm opposed to the people/landscape hybrid, though, its just that when I'm out shooting landscapes, I'm often looking for stuff that's not people related (i.e. magisty of nature, subtle play of light on fields, etc.) When there's people in the shots, I'm typically using the landscape stuff as background for portraits.
Now, my question. For purposes of this thread, are pictures taken within wooded areas considered landscapes? The one above is a decent example, as would be these two shots. If they are, I would love a conversation about how to shoot in such conditions (flat light, somewhat tight space constraits, depth of field issues, etc.)
Message edited by author 2006-11-14 16:27:25. |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 05:26:36 PM · #819 |
I think of pictures of people taken in a landscape setting differently from landscape images with people in them. In the former the people dominate and the setting supports them. I would consider that a portrait ina landscape setting. In the latter the people in the image support the landscape. I consider that a landscape supportive human presence.
These are the only examples I could come up with landscapes of mine with supportive human presence that emphasis the landsacpe itaelf or its environment:
 ... ...
Message edited by author 2006-06-08 19:45:47.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 05:36:31 PM · #820 |
Originally posted by fracman:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Why would you put people into a landscape? |
Anyway, I'm not sure if this counts for a landscape shot (which leads me to a question I'll ask later), but it has people and land:
Now, my question. For purposes of this thread, are pictures taken within wooded areas considered landscapes? |
I would consider your image in the wooded area a landscape but obviously not a panoramic landscape. The subject is obviously the woods and the people add the supportive idea that the woods are there to be enjoyed.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 07:23:20 PM · #821 |
| Thanks for the compliment Rikki and Bear. I considered cutting off some of the left edge of the picture, but I kind of liked the tree centered. I took that picture both with and without people and thought the one with people looked so much better. The reason is emotion, IMHO. And I think that would be the only reason to include people in landscapes (other than I was here type pictures). Did I get it right Bear? |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 08:38:33 PM · #822 |
If you are a landscape photographer, the two obvious reasons for including people in the landscape are to "humanize" the landscape, or to add scale to it. Which category does kdsprog's landscape fall into? Or is it both? Or another reason altogether?
Regarding Fracman's image and question, there is no reason to consider a landscape detail to be outside the category of landscaped-in-general; it's a subset of "landscapes" and we definitely embrace details in this thread.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 04:25:40 AM · #823 |
An example where a person adds both scale and meaning to a photo.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 08:11:41 AM · #824 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If you are a landscape photographer, the two obvious reasons for including people in the landscape are to "humanize" the landscape, or to add scale to it. Which category does kdsprog's landscape fall into? Or is it both? Or another reason altogether? |
kdsprog:... justin_Hewlett:
I'm not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer so take my analysis with a grain of salt...
So with all due respect to kdsprog's fine sunset...
The people in kdsprog's image seem more incidental than purposeful. Adding scale implies their size proves that the other objects in the scene are either unexpectedly larger or smaller in reality than they appear to be in the frame or that they confirm, by their very presence, the scale of a scene that is in question. That does not seem to be the case here.
Justin_Hewlett's hiker, on the other hand, confirms the scale of a scene whose actual size could be in question. With the hiker it absolutely is not.
It is not immediately clear how the people "humanize" kdsprog's image. They could be deeply absorbed watching the sunset or they could just be casually walking back to their car oblivious to their surroundings. The viewer really can't tell from the image.
On the other hand, the viewer is drawn into Justin_Hewlett's scene by the hiker and can almost experience what the hiker is feeling while walking alone on a craggy desert trail toward the distant hills.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2006 08:21:48 AM · #825 |
I take the opposite view of stdavidson.
I feel that kdsprog's sunset works as well as it does because the people are in it, and it strikes me as having been set up that way. The people there look to be somewhat intimate, maybe getting ready to kiss. When combined with the sunset and the tree, the entire shot takes on, IMO, a very romantic feeling. I even think that keeping the tree centered was a good choice, as it downplays the human element so that it helps complete the image, but does not dominate over the landscape.
Justin_Hewlett's hiker, on the other hand, seems more incidental to me. His position low and close in the bottom of the frame doesn't send a sense of accomplishment, although perhaps sends a feeling of the trial yet to come. However, with that location, I personally still don't get a good sense of scale. Were he partway up the mountain, the scale might work better.
I think this is just one of the aspects of photography - different pics will appeal to different people for different reasons.
|
|
