View Single Post
Old November 11th, 2014, 02:15 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,941

Originally Posted by Tom Robbins View Post
I recently went to a Nature Conservancy area where bison were recently introduced. The hope was to get some eyeball to eyeball views of the animals from a respectful distance. But, the old sunlight mojo wasn't working and the subjects stayed put in tall grass.

It seemed a total shame to haul the old Canon 600mm f/4 all that way without using it, so I played around a bit and wound up with an almost 1:2 aspect ratio pano from two horizontally shifted shots. The lens collar and Wimberley gimbal head made leveling things out pretty straightforward. The lens and camera was mounted near its center of gravity, which may have been somewhere near the nodal point.

Anyway, here's the weird result:

Stone Barn Road, November

I was struck by a couple of things. First, the depth of field is remarkably shallow, even at the set aperture of f11. Second was the compression of the visual elements. The gravel road is fairly straight, but the slight wiggles and bends are greatly magnified here. The same effect is also seen as slight variations of terrain are turned into significant looking hills and dales.

Oh, the bison were hunkered down and out of sight in the grass at the left side of the frame. Crafty devils...

I'll keep the experience in mind, but right now I can't imagine a situation where this approach would be useful.


The image is eye catching with the fields, trees, different textures and sienna colors.

To me the method you have chosen has the advantage of throwing gezillions of pixels over this choice area, that would otherwise be poorly rendered in a crop from a wider view.

I like your organic way for going at composition. The compression is an interesting idea. but does compression differ on in how many pixels are allocated to a certain region. If one took the same picture from the identical position with a 50mm of 14 mm lens, would the compression be any different. My guess it would be the same, with far less pixels but wider DOF.

IOW, isn't "compression" but another way of talking about perspective? Or am I mistaken here?
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote