When do you panoramic?

[OutdoorsLover]

Hiya,

Obviously, I have my own thoughts on this, but I'd love to hear yours: When do you make a panoramic image vs. grabbing a wider lens (assuming that you have one)? When do you panoramic?

Thanks!

Jeff

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

When there is little movement, you need a lot of pixels and minimum distortion.

[AreBee]

Jeff,

When do you make a panoramic image vs. grabbing a wider lens (assuming that you have one)?

Assuming that there is one - no lens can capture a 360°x180° field of view panorama in a single shot.

[Peter McLennan]

When I wish to image something with a particular lens longer than one that will cover the entire shot I have in mind.
When I'm too lazy or otherwise prevented from changing lenses.
When I want the maximum possible number of pixels to cover a certain FOV.

[BernardLanguillier]

My view is the following, the sequence is important:
1. When the subjects lends itself to a panoramic crop. This is the main entry criteria,
2. Among those cases, when you want the best possible image quality for large prints and files that will withstand time a bit better,
3. When there is no major reason not to do it. This means when the time scale of movement in the scene isn't incompatible with your ability to capture multiple frames of the various sub-sets of the scene quickly enough at the chosen aperture speed. If you are using a ND filter to blur water motion for example, there is typically zero issues with pano work. Moving clouds are never an issue if you use the right gear and are fast enough.

Overall, my view is that 80+% of successful landscape images are great candidates for panoramic stitching.

Cheers,
Bernard
 

[BobShaw]

You mean "When do you stitch".
Panoramic just means considerably wider than high.
The answer is that you stitch when you can't do something better.
You need more pixels or you need a wider angle.

[OutdoorsLover]

Thanks for all of the various answers.

The question stemmed from a panoramic image of Stonehenge that I saw today, that nothing spectacular in the foreground or the sky, so it kind of caused me to beg the question of why it was shot that way, when the same could have been achieved with a 80mm (based on the perspective that I saw). My assumption is that they wanted to make a very large print of it, and needed the megapixels.

[stevenfr]

Generally for me if I see the scene as a panoramic format, it is shot as a pano. It could be a design element within the scene that makes it fit for a panoramic or a interesting foreground, pattern or sky. I prefer the 1 to 3 format. You can check out the panos on my site. I have hundreds of them. As well, when hiking I carry with me a 1 to 3 framing card or a horseman 617 viewfinder to help in my decision making process on the composition. Most of my panos are forest scenes, forest are pure chaos and difficult to find a interesting composition, thus the viewfinder to help me find the spot. I have been shooting panos for over 20 years, your eye just starts to see everything as a pano after some practice.

Steven

http://www.friedmanphoto.com

[MattBurt]

I like shooting panoramic images (both in shape and multiple images stitched) to get a wide FOV combined with telephoto compression. Like this.
Or if there is so much in the scene at very close quarters I need multiple wide images to fit the features I want. Like this.

[stamper]

Thanks for all of the various answers.

The question stemmed from a panoramic image of Stonehenge that I saw today, that nothing spectacular in the foreground or the sky, so it kind of caused me to beg the question of why it was shot that way, when the same could have been achieved with a 80mm (based on the perspective that I saw). My assumption is that they wanted to make a very large print of it, and needed the megapixels.

The "problem" with panoramas is that most photographers try to include too much information in the scene that isn't relevant which means the image lacks interest. The eye is jumping form one part of the image to another looking for a focal point that isn't there. Too much information that is uninteresting.

[razrblck]

You can use stitching on moving subjects as well to create some interesting compositions, but you have to plan the shot.

This is a 10 shot test done with a 50mm on D7000 (75mm full frame equivalent) at f/2. The central shot with the cat was the first I took, then waited for the cat to move out of the scene and took the others. Lightroom panorama mode did the rest of the work, and then I cropped it to 2.4:1 ratio.

I just wanted to see how it could be made to work, and if I can do it with a cat you can certainly get a much better effect with people. The compression along with wide FOV makes it look more like a large format shot than something out of an APS-C camera. You do need to be careful with foreground objects, though, especially if you shoot without a tripod and pano head.

[BernardLanguillier]

The "problem" with panoramas is that most photographers try to include too much information in the scene that isn't relevant which means the image lacks interest. The eye is jumping form one part of the image to another looking for a focal point that isn't there. Too much information that is uninteresting.

Very true. I look at panorama as one crop aspect ratio, the focal length must be chosen accordingly.

Cheers,
Bernard

[AreBee]

Bernard,

Very true.

Not true. Aspect ratios do not a "problem" have.

[shadowblade]

I shoot panoramas/stitched images whenever I can. I make huge prints, and, the more megapixels I can get, the better. The only time I don't is when subject factors make it impossible (significant movement), when I'm shooting from an unstable/moving platform (drone, boat or sitting on a camel) or when I'm already at maximum focal length and still want to go longer.

The "problem" with panoramas is that most photographers try to include too much information in the scene that isn't relevant which means the image lacks interest. The eye is jumping form one part of the image to another looking for a focal point that isn't there. Too much information that is uninteresting.

That's not a problem with stitching, or panoramic aspect ratios. It's a problem with angle of view. Panoramic does not mean wide-angle.

This is a stitched panorama shot at 420mm:

[stamper]

I shoot panoramas/stitched images whenever I can. I make huge prints, and, the more megapixels I can get, the better. The only time I don't is when subject factors make it impossible (significant movement), when I'm shooting from an unstable/moving platform (drone, boat or sitting on a camel) or when I'm already at maximum focal length and still want to go longer.

That's not a problem with stitching, or panoramic aspect ratios. It's a problem with angle of view. Panoramic does not mean wide-angle.

This is a stitched panorama shot at 420mm:

What it means that you mostly include more information in the frame compared to an image captured with one frame.
And the increased amount of information means that it is often difficult to make the final image interesting compared to zooming and isolating a particular subject?

[shadowblade]

What it means that you mostly include more information in the frame compared to an image captured with one frame.
And the increased amount of information means that it is often difficult to make the final image interesting compared to zooming and isolating a particular subject?

No - you just shoot the stitched frames with a longer focal length lens than you'd use if you were trying to take it with a single shot.

For instance, a composition might call for an equivalent angle of view to a 35mm lens on full frame, but, instead of doing that, you'd take several shots at 85mm and stitch them for a higher-resolution image with the same angle of view. You might take a test shot at 35mm to determine your exact composition, but you'd shoot the final images at a longer focal length.

The composition and shooting method have nothing to do with each other. You firstly decide what you want to shoot - what to include or exclude, angle of view, etc. Then you decide how you want to shoot it - single shot with a wider lens, or several stitched images through a longer lens, depending on whether subject movement allows it. You don't just shoot with the same lens and include lots of extra stuff around the edges.

[razrblck]

It's not different than using a 80MP or 100MP back. You get more details, but if your composition is off it doesn't matter if you have 2MP or 2000MP, it will look bad either way.

[stamper]

No - you just shoot the stitched frames with a longer focal length lens than you'd use if you were trying to take it with a single shot.

For instance, a composition might call for an equivalent angle of view to a 35mm lens on full frame, but, instead of doing that, you'd take several shots at 85mm and stitch them for a higher-resolution image with the same angle of view. You might take a test shot at 35mm to determine your exact composition, but you'd shoot the final images at a longer focal length.

The composition and shooting method have nothing to do with each other. You firstly decide what you want to shoot - what to include or exclude, angle of view, etc. Then you decide how you want to shoot it - single shot with a wider lens, or several stitched images through a longer lens, depending on whether subject movement allows it. You don't just shoot with the same lens and include lots of extra stuff around the edges.

Stitching to increase the pixel count is one method but a lot of photographers stitch to increase the field of view because the lens they are using isn't wide enough to include all what they want within the frame.

[shadowblade]

Stitching to increase the pixel count is one method but a lot of photographers stitch to increase the field of view because the lens they are using isn't wide enough to include all what they want within the frame.

That's also valid. The point is, you decide on the composition first, then work out how you're going to take it. If you don't have a lens that's wide enough, then stitching may be the only option. But you don't stitch a panorama just to include a whole lot of other stuff that wasn't part of your original composition.

[chez]

The "problem" with panoramas is that most photographers try to include too much information in the scene that isn't relevant which means the image lacks interest. The eye is jumping form one part of the image to another looking for a focal point that isn't there. Too much information that is uninteresting.

Exactly what I find with many panoramic images...their composition is very weak. Just seems many photogs shoot a panorama just to increase the pixel count...but forget the composition.