In Perspective, Fun: Vertical Pano with Landscape Orientation

Hello, while browsing through some of my photo dregs from 2010 recently, I came across a series of four photos taken with the TS-e 90mm lens in portrait orientation with vertical shift.


The towers and wire could have been much more easily captured with a wider lens, but this was an interesting exercise in stitching as most of my attempts at panos have been made using horizontal shifts. At any rate, I now have a hi-res file of power lines in case anybody imagines they have a need for one.

Hi Tom,

Tom Robbins said:

Hello, while browsing through some of my photo dregs from 2010 recently, I came across a series of four photos taken with the TS-e 90mm lens in portrait orientation with vertical shift.

The towers and wire could have been much more easily captured with a wider lens, but this was an interesting exercise in stitching as most of my attempts at panos have been made using horizontal shifts. At any rate, I now have a hi-res file of power lines in case anybody imagines they have a need for one.

Click to expand...

Your title mentions "landscape orientation" and your post says "portrait orientation" for the lens. Which one is it? Since you have cropped the image to a square I cannot guess reliably, lol.

It's a pity that we see so little of the buildings on the horizon below the frame. Did you crop them?

BTW, we all know who would be interested in a hi-res file of power lines, don't we? ;-)


Cheers,

very nice planar panorama - though my personal choice would have been more earth detail and at the same time darker sky with more texture in the beautiful clouds

I guess you must have taken a series of photos moving the camera horizontally

congratulations and thank you for sharing

Sometimes my finished pano's, even after some 5 frames, will only end up at 25 megapixels of data. However that is 25 megapixels post persective adjustments, using a single shot would lose me far more resolution by the time I'd finished fixing the distortion/vanishing point.

Hello All, quick note - sorry about the contradiction, quite a doozy, eh? I probably should not try to post early in the morning before having my second cup of coffee. Anyway, the title was correct; this was a series of four frames taken with landscape orientation. The lens was shifted vertically for the pano.

Hi, Cem, Tom:

Cem_Usakligil said:

BTW, we all know who would be interested in a hi-res file of power lines, don't we?

Click to expand...

Yes, and this image itself is lovely.

Looks like 345 kV. The conductor spreaders are shown nicely.

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

Hi All,

Yes, there is too little land and way too much sky here. But then, this exercise was done mostly to find out what the aspect ratio would be. In short: square. Obviously, the same result can be expected when shifting horizontally while in portrait orientation. A horizontal square is no different from a vertical square, evidently. Heh-heh...

Canon's tilt/shift lenses, when shifted to their extremes, have noticeable light falloff when used with a full frame 35mm sensor. Part of the learning curve was to understand where this falloff was apparent and then avoid it. I had a fair sense of this several months ago when this pano series was taken. So, four shots shifted vertically while avoiding the extremes resulted in a square, more or less. The only cropping done in Photoshop was done to eliminate the blank edges of the stitch, and that was very minimal.

The trick now is to find a subject that makes such a fuss and effort worthwhile.

Tom Robbins said:

Hi All,

Yes, there is too little land and way too much sky here. But then, this exercise was done mostly to find out what the aspect ratio would be. In short: square. Obviously, the same result can be expected when shifting horizontally while in portrait orientation. A horizontal square is no different from a vertical square, evidently. Heh-heh...

Canon's tilt/shift lenses, when shifted to their extremes, have noticeable light falloff when used with a full frame 35mm sensor. Part of the learning curve was to understand where this falloff was apparent and then avoid it. I had a fair sense of this several months ago when this pano series was taken. So, four shots shifted vertically while avoiding the extremes resulted in a square, more or less. The only cropping done in Photoshop was done to eliminate the blank edges of the stitch, and that was very minimal.

The trick now is to find a subject that makes such a fuss and effort worthwhile.

Click to expand...

Tom,

I believe, but have not yet tested it out, that Capture One 6 has the background image feature to correct for vignetting which can be used to correct for this fall off.

Asher

Hi Tom,

I don't understand why do you need 4 vertically shifted shots? Since the max vertical shift of the lens is +/- 11mm, and assuming that you do not exceed 8-9mm shift in either direction, you could just take 2 or 3 frames. For example, to get a square frame on a full frame camera you could have one frame shifted down for 6mm and another one shifted up for 6 mm which would give you a huge overlap. Although taking 3 frames (which I do with my 24mm TSE) is the ideal situation (-6, - +6). One uses the central image area optimally where the IQ of the lens is highest.

Have fun with finding suitable subjects, I am sure you will find many.

Cheers,

Asher Kelman said:

Tom,

I believe, but have not yet tested it out, that Capture One 6 has the background image feature to correct for vignetting which can be used to correct for this fall off.

Asher

Click to expand...

Yes, one can use the LCC function to eliminate vignetting. But one has to take a picture through an opaque glass sheet or perspex using exactly the same lens configuration of focal distance, tilt and shift. The possible permutations are too many to pre-organize this so the blank shoots will have to be done in the field.

Cheers,

Tom Robbins said:

Hello, while browsing through some of my photo dregs from 2010 recently, I came across a series of four photos taken with the TS-e 90mm lens in portrait orientation with vertical shift.

The towers and wire could have been much more easily captured with a wider lens, but this was an interesting exercise in stitching as most of my attempts at panos have been made using horizontal shifts. At any rate, I now have a hi-res file of power lines in case anybody imagines they have a need for one.

Click to expand...

Tom,

This is a superb image to work with to see how you might be able to move those creative juices to bring out even more that's your files. I wonder how Bart and Cem's treatments with SNS-HDR tone mapping would work here.

Asher

Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:

This is a superb image to work with to see how you might be able to move those creative juices to bring out even more that's your files. I wonder how Bart and Cem's treatments with SNS-HDR tone mapping would work here.

Click to expand...

People other than Cem and Bart could use HDR tone mapping to cure the fact that this lovely painting looks like a bloody photograph!

Best regards,

Doug

Cem, you're right about being able to span this distance with 3, or maybe 2, frames. My M.O. lately is to use three frames for edge to edge coverage, but I hadn't yet figured that out several months ago.

Doug Kerr said:

People other than Cem and Bart could use HDR tone mapping to cure the fact that this lovely painting looks like a bloody photograph!

Click to expand...

Hi Doug,

You are correct, it's only too easy to go overboard with the processing. Interestingly though, butchering images seems to have a huge attraction, maybe because it's mistaken for "art". What's even more interesting is that it is not confined to those who grew up in "Disneyland".

[RANT]There seems to be an impression that applying, say, an Orton filter or over-the-top (HDR) tonemapping adds quality to an image. IMHO it rarely does, because e.g. the basic composition is weak. The postprocessing is then used to divert attention.[/RANT]

In the case of Tom's image, which was more an exercise in stitching, there is little I would personally do with regards to tonemapping. One could add a subtle amount of tonemapping to make the clouds stand out a bit more (as if using a polarizing filter after the fact, but without depending on the sun angle). It won't turn the image ito a work of Art, because it wasn't intended to be and thus misses what is required.

But it is still a nice high resolution image of powerlines (I suppose the thin lines are for data communication, correct?), and a useful exercise to hone one's stitching skills for when it does matter. Here's how far I might have gone under torture, but certainly not further, in accentuating the clouds (because it also distracts (!) from the powerlines):


The differences may be too subtle for some to see clearly, in which case I'd suggest layering the versions in Photoshop and alternating between them by switching the top layer on and off.

Cheers,
Bart

H Bart, that was a subtle adjustment, but very effective. Another easy way to compare your adjusted version with the original is to open this thread in another tab - must be using a browser that offers tabs, of course - then simply toggle back and forth.

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

Hi Doug,

You are correct, it's only too easy to go overboard with the processing. Interestingly though, butchering images seems to have a huge attraction, maybe because it's mistaken for "art". What's even more interesting is that it is not confined to those who grew up in "Disneyland".

[RANT]There seems to be an impression that applying, say, an Orton filter or over-the-top (HDR) tonemapping adds quality to an image. IMHO it rarely does, because e.g. the basic composition is weak. The postprocessing is then used to divert attention.[/RANT]

Click to expand...

Second that rant, saves my own!



The differences may be too subtle for some to see clearly,

[/QUOTE]

But they are easy to feel and experience!

Asher