Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Chicago Skyline Panorama  (Read 2408 times)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Chicago Skyline Panorama
« on: November 17, 2014, 01:42:02 pm »

November sunrise. 17 verticals. Could print at 5' x 20' (that would be feet, not inches)


Chicago Sunrise Panorama
by Slobodan Blagojevic, on Flickr

To give you an idea of the detail available:
« Last Edit: November 17, 2014, 02:21:12 pm by Slobodan Blagojevic »
Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Chicago Skyline Panorama
« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2014, 02:11:51 pm »

A wonderful sunrise shot, Slobodan. Bravo!
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Dave (Isle of Skye)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • I've even written a book about it
    • SkyePhotoGuide.com
Re: Chicago Skyline Panorama
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2014, 03:26:48 pm »

Ah the joy of setting up and then capturing good large vertical pano's - very nice!

But.. do I detect a repeated almost rhythmical pulse of colour shifting along the top of the sky and if so and this isn't just the result of jpg compression, or from pushing a ProPhoto colour space image into the sRGB, then can I ask if you were using AWB for this series and perhaps if you were, could that be the reason, as the light temperature shifted across the shot as the AWB moved?

But other than that tiniest of nitpicks, a great example of just what can be achieved with a seriously large pano - I mean who needs MFD when you can get shots as good as this with a DSLR? And a good eye of course  ;D

Dave
« Last Edit: November 18, 2014, 03:30:51 pm by Dave (Isle of Skye) »
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Chicago Skyline Panorama
« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2014, 05:09:47 pm »

Dave, not to be defensive, but I do not see the color shifting, especially not in Lightroom. After LR, there are several compressions taking place: first while exporting to Flickr, then the Flickr itself does things to photos, and then when it ends up in LuLa, so some shifting/bending is possible.

In Lightroom, I used lens corrections (to remove vignetting) and a single WB for all 17 shots, and even Match Total Exposure.

It is also possible that the sky color varied slightly naturally, depending on the angle of the sun. It appears that the left and right sides are at equal distance from my position, while in reality they were anything but. As you can see in the attachment, the skyline (blue lines) actually forms an "L" so the sky behind my leftmost side and the sky behind the rightmost side are practically at 90 degrees.

Dave (Isle of Skye)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • I've even written a book about it
    • SkyePhotoGuide.com
Re: Chicago Skyline Panorama
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2014, 05:47:19 pm »

Slobodan, this really is a great shot and one to be truly proud of, so please do not get me wrong, as I think it is only my anal retentiveness that is probably the issue here, but just to show you what I think I am seeing and assume that you will now see as well, I have roughly and I do mean roughly, marked the areas I mentioned above, to show you how they seem to repeat rhythmically across the top.

I think it is probably more a shift in light than colour and so as you say, it is probably a natural phenomenon.

Oh and please forgive me for taking the liberty of drawing so horribly across your image  :)

Dave
« Last Edit: November 18, 2014, 05:52:18 pm by Dave (Isle of Skye) »
Logged

Dave (Isle of Skye)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • I've even written a book about it
    • SkyePhotoGuide.com
Re: Chicago Skyline Panorama
« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2014, 05:57:59 pm »

Did you use a polariser?

Dave
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Chicago Skyline Panorama
« Reply #6 on: November 18, 2014, 06:32:38 pm »

No polarizer.

Dave (Isle of Skye)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • I've even written a book about it
    • SkyePhotoGuide.com
Re: Chicago Skyline Panorama
« Reply #7 on: November 18, 2014, 07:15:10 pm »

Anything on auto?

Dave
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Chicago Skyline Panorama
« Reply #8 on: November 18, 2014, 07:32:55 pm »

All on auto, as I believe it is a better solution than a single exposure across such a wide span. Then it goes through Match Total Exposure in LR, then PS usually does a very good job at equalizing exposures on its own. Of 17 original exposures, however, 13 are at the same speed (1/100s), two are at 1/80s and two at 1/125s. Hardly more than ⅓ of a stop difference.

By the way, I still do not see what you are seeing.

P.S. Note to self: do not try to sell anything to Dave, he would be a picky customer ;D

Dave (Isle of Skye)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • I've even written a book about it
    • SkyePhotoGuide.com
Re: Chicago Skyline Panorama
« Reply #9 on: November 18, 2014, 09:07:14 pm »

All on auto, as I believe it is a better solution than a single exposure across such a wide span. Then it goes through Match Total Exposure in LR, then PS usually does a very good job at equalizing exposures on its own. Of 17 original exposures, however, 13 are at the same speed (1/100s), two are at 1/80s and two at 1/125s. Hardly more than ⅓ of a stop difference.

By the way, I still do not see what you are seeing.

P.S. Note to self: do not try to sell anything to Dave, he would be a picky customer ;D

Ah ha..

Now I think we are getting somewhere, it is that small but slight variation in exposure I think and/or possibly how LR Match Total Exposure (whatever that is, as I don't use LR) that may be causing this very slight, but to my old eyes still noticeable variation and also the reason why it appears symmetrical, as it is probably a software generated phenomenon, which for your average Joe wouldn't amount to a hill of beans, but for those of us (well me really) that get far too retentive about these things, it is something that can be easily cured at the point of capture, by setting everything to manual and allowing absolutely no variation what so ever to creep into the shot and that you then have to try to repair with software - try going fully manua Slobodan, you will be amazed and it really is very easy to do.

So not really trying to tell my granny how to suck eggs here or anything, I have written this for anyone wishing to read this info, but this is what I always do for my pano work and it works for me absolutely perfectly every single time (well, nearly  ;)).

1 - Never ever use a polariser.
2 - Use ALL fully manual settings and most definitely including WB.
3 - Level your tripod head to the base plate of the tripod before commencing.
4 - Rotate your camera into the vertical orientation.
5 - Work out where you are going to start and finish your series of shots and then add at least one more shot than you need at either end, so you can then crop out any lens softness or vignetting at either end of the shot.
6 - Select your f-stop that gives you the best detail, such as for your shot Slobodan, I would have gone for something like f/8 as the subject is quite distant and so DoF shouldn't therefore be a problem, so I woud go for the nearest I could get to the sweet spot of the lens.
7 - Having now lined up your shot, select the most dominant feature or the thing of most interest in the shot and then set your hyperfocal distance to work on this part of the shot - I use Live view fully magnified to achieve this.
8 - Now meter the scene at your chosen point of interest and manually select the appopriate shutter speed and ISO mix.
9 - Use a cable release.
10 - Take a single test shot and quickly check that your histogram isn't climbing either wall.
11 - Take a shot of your finger blurry in front of the lens (so you know back at the computer the following shots are part of a pano set).
12 - Go into mirror lockup and live view mode and rotate camera to beyond your left most shot so you can crop it off later to remove any of your lens edge effects, such as softness or vignetting that would appear on the left of the shot if you left it in.
13 - Make sure buffer is empty (no winking lights etc) before you begin as you are going to be shifting lots of data around in a very short time.
14 - Standing behind the camera and looking at the screen and with your remote in hand and prepared to work very quickly, take your first shot.
15 - Now quickly but gently rotate your camera half a screens view of the scene to the right as seen through your Live view screen, let go of the camera and count one thousand, two thousand to let the camera shake subside and take your next shot.
16 - Repeat step 15 through to the end of pano set, including an extra shot past where you want the pano to finish, that again will allow you to crop off any soft edge or vignetting effects of your lens on the right of the shot - I also find that I am holding my breath throughout this whole process, which of course is something you don't need to do, but it does seem to make me concentrate on what I am doing and makes me do it as quickly as I can.
17 - Take another shot of your blurry finger to show that the pano set is complete.
18 - Learn to do all this from start to finish without thinking in well under a minute, whereby the shooting part of the whole minute for say a 10 shot pano set, should only take about 16 seconds of your full minute - yes I know, it does indeed take much practice to do this fluently, but once you get it, it's a breeze  ;D

19 - Back at the PC and through Bridge, highlight all the files of your pano (without the blurry finger shots of course, but all the other shots in-between) and then go to Tools and select Photomerge and then in the large dialogue box that opens, select layout merge as 'Cylindrical', as this is the best merging method, ask Mr Schewe, he told me that and he is correct of course, also tick 'Vignette Removal' tick box, but do not tick Geometric Distortion tick box.

20 - Sit back and watch your creation come to life.

21 - You can now tweak the masks if there are non-aligned ripples in the sea etc or anything else that does not line up quite right, but other than that you can flatten the image and 'save it as' in a ProPhoto 16 bit Tiff for your main working copy, crop off the soft and possibly vignetted parts of the shot at either end that you never wanted in the shot, but still took anyway and also crop out any blank pixels around the edges created by the 'Cylindrical' merge layout process to square off the shot and there you have it, the image is now ready for any other tweaks that you might wish to throw at it and then save that worked version as a second finished copy just in case you wish to go back to your original Tiff.

A ten RAW shot vertical Pano created with my 5D MkII as a flattened but uncompressed ProPhoto 16 bit Tiff, is going to come in at around about half a Gig for the single image file, I even have some huge Pano's on my PC that are nearer to 2 Gig in size, so if you do intend to get more deeply into this, you are probably going to want lots of HDD space and processing power and especially if you start shooting and stiching 20 or 30 shot pano's together. But remember at these sizes, you will be shooting an almost 360 degree pano shot, so you are bound to start getting some interesting geographical distortion effects creeping into your images at those sort of numbers, a bit like using a super extra wide horizontal fisheye lens, mounted onto a camera with a 300mb sensor.

Have fun  ;D

Dave
« Last Edit: November 18, 2014, 09:25:59 pm by Dave (Isle of Skye) »
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Chicago Skyline Panorama
« Reply #10 on: November 18, 2014, 10:23:41 pm »

I guess we shall agree to disagree. We had a similar thread before, where I posted the following example (that was a quick, hand-held test) of PS ability to equalize obviously different exposures:

Dave (Isle of Skye)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • I've even written a book about it
    • SkyePhotoGuide.com
Re: Chicago Skyline Panorama
« Reply #11 on: November 18, 2014, 11:40:13 pm »

I guess we shall agree to disagree. We had a similar thread before, where I posted the following example (that was a quick, hand-held test) of PS ability to equalize obviously different exposures:

The thing is, when using auto with any of your settings for Pano’s, the camera will inevitably add in an unknown amount of variation of light from one shot to the next as it re-meters and re-temperature balances itself for every shot, and with Pano’s being generally quite long and taken over time and many shots, there is bound to be some unknown variations in light taking place across the scene. The sun will cause this when it is off to one side or the other, reflections off buidings/rocks/cliffs etc into your foreground, clouds moving around and shifting shadows about and so on and so forth. Then add to all these variations yet another variation of the lens’s ability, or should I say more often the lack of abiity to capture and bend the light into a perfectly even spread across the sensor, as well as the variability of the sensor’s photosites ability to capture the light evenly.

So we end up with unknown variations multiplied by unknown variations multiplied by unknown variations and so on. Now I am sure that the Adobe engineers are quite clever and have tried their best to write algorithms that attempt to fully and seamlessly cope with these effects however complex they are, but here’s the rub, when I shoot a pano, if there is more light at the left of the scene than the right due to the placement of the sun, then I want that to show up in the shot, because it will look natural, because it is natural and so I really don’t want an algorithm that tries to patch over that for me or worse still, make it go away.

I can overcome the lens’s and sensors shortcomings of vignetting and blurring around the edges etc, by shooting vertical and overlapping the shots by a half, as I know PS will pick the best pixels from each shot for the blend and I can then crop off the surplus start and finish shots to tidy up any lens blur/vignette from the edges.

I can overcome the camera’s variations of exposure and grey balancing act, by locking everything down by using only manual settings for everything.

I know with auto you are going to get somewhere near to 99% of the way most of the time, but I want 100% every time if I can get it and so this is why I have long thought about and then worked out my method as described above.

Perhaps I should call my method the ‘Anal Retentives Serious Exposure of High Optimisational Laws of Equalisation’, or ARSE HOLE for short  ;D ;D ;D

Yes Slobodan, I think we must agree to disagree, but only if you promise to give my method a try, I mean what is there to lose, so why not humour me this one time and give it a go and then tell me what you think?

BTW, it is now 04:45 in the morning over here on Skye and I now appear to be suffering through my first night of full blown insomnia, so forgive me if I sound a little manic, but I am going back to bed to give sleep another chance.

Nighty night everyone  :)

Dave
« Last Edit: November 20, 2014, 03:44:29 pm by Dave (Isle of Skye) »
Logged

William Walker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1134
    • William Walker Landscapes
Re: Chicago Skyline Panorama
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2014, 07:45:25 am »

Lovely pano Slobodan!

Nice tip Dave - I have just tried it in my back garden and it works really well! Thanks.

William
Logged
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens

Adam L

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
    • http://adamlozo.com
Re: Chicago Skyline Panorama
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2014, 08:01:24 am »

Dave,  I was with you until you saved as a TIFF.   Wouldn't it be best to save this as a smart object and then edit/warp that smart object to remove distortion?   
Logged
"That's a lot of money to move a few pix

Dave (Isle of Skye)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2515
  • I've even written a book about it
    • SkyePhotoGuide.com
Re: Chicago Skyline Panorama
« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2014, 03:33:44 pm »

Lovely pano Slobodan!

Nice tip Dave - I have just tried it in my back garden and it works really well! Thanks.

William

Your welcome  ;)

Dave,  I was with you until you saved as a TIFF.   Wouldn't it be best to save this as a smart object and then edit/warp that smart object to remove distortion?  

Yes Adam of course you can do it that way, in fact this is exactly what Jeff Schewe suggests, but I prefer to flatten to a Tiff after tweaking any of the masks and do my warping if any is needed with the Tiff, as it seems to render quicker on my PC and takes less processing, and if you make sure the pano part of your head is set level before you take your series of shots, not the camera that needs to be level, but the pano base pate, then the stitch shouldn't need much or indeed any warping or straightening using this method.

Dave
« Last Edit: November 20, 2014, 03:36:42 pm by Dave (Isle of Skye) »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up