Shindo Pass - sunrise over Mt Fuji

[shadowblade]

Sunrise over Mt Fuji and Lake Kawaguchi from the ridge at Shindo Pass, in Japan's Five Lakes region.

A7r3 with 24-70 GM. 3-shot vertical panorama at 35mm, f/10, 1/15s, ISO 100.

[thierrylegros396]

Very nice color palette.

Thierry

[rabanito]

A7r3 with 24-70 GM. 3-shot vertical panorama at 35mm, f/10, 1/15s, ISO 100.

I agree, very nice.

But actually it looks somehow horizontal to me 

Well, Japanese write From top to bottom and from right to left, then why not say vertical for horizontal as well?

Just a little well meant joke   

[shadowblade]

I agree, very nice.

But actually it looks somehow horizontal to me 

Well, Japanese write From top to bottom and from right to left, then why not say vertical for horizontal as well?

Just a little well meant joke   

I guess you could say 3 vertical shots, stitched horizontally...

[rabanito]

Actually it was only a joke.

The picture is great anyway 



https://www.google.com/search?q=vertical+landscape&client=firefox-b-ab&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=JbosN-k_q6hKGM%253A%252CMjff9f64WKZK3M%252C_&usg=AI4_-kQM0LNTh0GSRrQsle_7T2chdIYAXQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRhqWw2LPfAhVQ1BoKHVNQDrAQ9QEwB3oECAEQEg#imgrc=JbosN-k_q6hKGM:

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

I agree, very nice.

But actually it looks somehow horizontal to me 

Well, Japanese write From top to bottom and from right to left, then why not say vertical for horizontal as well?

Just a little well meant joke   

Yes I have the same problem when describing panos and even though I know you are joking, it is still a problem.

Currently I am describing my pano technique/method, by virtue of the orientation of the camera as I take the shot (vertical and horizontal), rather than the aspect ratio of the final image (lengthways and height). So a horizontally stiched pano taken with the camera in the vertical orientation, I currently describe as a 'Vertical' pano and a vertically stitched pano, taken with the camera in the horizontal orientation (which I also do occasionally), I then describe as a 'Horizontal' pano. Which is all very confusing indeed to the novice photographer I think, but if anyone has a better method of describing these types of pano and camera orientation pairings and methods, then do please shout up, as I could really do with using terms that are evident and easily understandable to other photographers, who may have never encountered these techniques and methods before.

Dave

[stamper]

https://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-shoot-vertical-panoramas-vertoramas/

[rabanito]

Yes I have the same problem when describing panos and even though I know you are joking, it is still a problem.

...

IMHO it is irrelevant. This said with due respect.

The natural position of my camera in my cheap panorama head is vertical (portrait).
I can pan the camera horizontally and also tilt it vertically.
Not only that, I can, say, make two (or 20) rows of three (or 30) vertical photos making a grid 3x2 (300x200) and stitch them as well, provided I have enough memory 
One can call it "monsterama" 
More important for the novice - I think -  is to know WHY one would need a panorama head in the first place, around which axis the combo body/lens is rotating and how it depends on the focal length one is using.

This again just my opinion.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... So a horizontally stiched pano taken with the camera in the vertical orientation, I currently describe as a 'Vertical' pano and a vertically stitched pano, taken with the camera in the horizontal orientation (which I also do occasionally), I then describe as a 'Horizontal' pano. Which is all very confusing indeed to the novice photographer I think..

Please don’t, mate.

And not only to a novice photographer, but to anyone with a basic understanding of English (you are in Scotland, so you are forgiven) and a basic grasp of logic 

It the OP example, a simple “3-vertical shot panorama” would suffice.

[Paulo Bizarro]

Wonderful.

[shadowblade]

More important for the novice - I think -  is to know WHY one would need a panorama head in the first place, around which axis the combo body/lens is rotating and how it depends on the focal length one is using.

Not focal length, but subject distance.

I very rarely use nodal point adjustment for panoramas - when shooting landscape or cityscape subjects, most features are more than a few metres away, and a centimetre or two of parallax error doesn't show up, even on the pixel scale. At the same time, I get a much more stable platform by being able to clamp the camera straight into the C1 Cube rather than on the end of a cantilever. This reduces the low-frequency vibrations due to wind (even light wind) that can plague landscapes shots taken at longer focal length and cause loss of sharpness.

Even for scenes with closer subjects, parallax doesn't come into play unless the close element is spread across more than one frame of the panorama. Judicious planning of the shot - keeping close elements and moving elements within single frames, to avoid parallax error and motion blur - can mitigate this.

[rabanito]

Not focal length, but subject distance.

I very rarely use nodal point adjustment for panoramas - when shooting landscape or cityscape subjects, most features are more than a few metres away, and a centimetre or two of parallax error doesn't show up, even on the pixel scale. At the same time, I get a much more stable platform by being able to clamp the camera straight into the C1 Cube rather than on the end of a cantilever. This reduces the low-frequency vibrations due to wind (even light wind) that can plague landscapes shots taken at longer focal length and cause loss of sharpness.

Even for scenes with closer subjects, parallax doesn't come into play unless the close element is spread across more than one frame of the panorama. Judicious planning of the shot - keeping close elements and moving elements within single frames, to avoid parallax error and motion blur - can mitigate this.

You are right to a point.
BUT:
IMHO Novices like me should learn first what is all about. How to do it perfectly and only then, when we understand the rules, begin breaking them when they are not necessary, depending on the situation.

Why should I use a C1 Cube which costs a small fortune to photograph subjects far away?
I hang a bag with sand from the tripod and it gets mores stability.
A little (light) wind will possibly not show. Or better: nobody will notice. Or better still: I will not notice.
A little "out of focus" doesn't matter either, the point of focus is one and only one. The rest is "acceptable".
Etc etc...
I don't use a magnifying glass to look at prints, not only mine    (little joke )

Of course, you do what works for you and your purpose.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... IMHO Novices like me should learn first what is all about. How to do it perfectly and only then...

Oh, God, no!

Everyone should start simple, and as we progress and learn, move to the next, more complicated, step. Learning to walk before running. Perfection is the elusive goal at the end of the journey, not at the beginning.

[rabanito]

Oh, God, no!

Everyone should start simple, and as we progress and learn, move to the next, more complicated, step. Learning to walk before running. Perfection is the elusive goal at the end of the journey, not at the beginning.

Slobodan, Slobodan... ayayay...
You are quoting me out of context...
Read the whole sentence 

"IMHO Novices like me should learn first what is all about. How to do it perfectly and only then, when we understand the rules, (only then) [brackets added] begin breaking them when they are not necessary, depending on the situation."


First read the whole sentence and only then ... answer   

Take it with humor, as intended 

For the word "perfection" let's blame my poor English, that's a fact.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... First read the whole sentence and only then ... answer...

I did, especially the now-bold part. You basically said: "Novices... should learn first... How to do it perfectly and only then..." (bold mine).

My view remains unchanged.

[rabanito]

My view remains unchanged.

Of course. I don't expect to change your views. Didn't mean to be disrespectful 

Again, under "perfect" you should understand "what we already know and can learn from the more knowledgeable", as in my case.
But the knowledge is out there waiting for you. You don't invent the wheel again.

If you want to fire a rocket at the moon, you can use Einstein's discoveries or Newtonian Physics, that of every day's life. With Newton you simplify (less exact) but the error there must be minuscule. Or so I was told.

Same in our case. You know for example that using the nodal points is more exact than not using them.
But if in the end nobody notices, why care?

All the way around, if you don't know about this and get noticeable parallax errors, what then?
Better to know in advance that this could happen and why, I believe.

[LesPalenik]

I shoot most of the time in vertical orientation (although the camera is sometimes positioned horizontally)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1lqrmbTK1I

[rabanito]

I shoot most of the time in vertical orientation (although the camera is sometimes positioned horizontally)

  ...

[sdwilsonsct]

I very rarely use nodal point adjustment for panoramas - when shooting landscape or cityscape subjects, most features are more than a few metres away, and a centimetre or two of parallax error doesn't show up, even on the pixel scale.

Fine image, good insights.

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

I very rarely use nodal point adjustment for panoramas...

I have never (NEVER) bothered to even consider the nodal point before taking any of my pano shots, no matter how long they are, or how close the foreground is to the front of my lens. And believe me, I have successfully taken many, many thousands of panos over the years, because PS (and especially since CS6), does such a good job of lining everything up so seamlessly every time. The only issues I ever seem to have is water movement such as waves etc., but even then I can usually correct it manually if I feel the image deserves the effort.

I have even shot panos on windy days by just using a fast enough shutter speed to stop the action and CS6 still joins the individual images together amazingly well. In fact if Adobe hadn't gone down the subscription route, I would have probably kept handing over hundred of pounds to them each couple of years just for this ability alone, even though the CS6 version that currently I own, is about as good as it can get for panos and so I would have been wasting my money, even though I would have still kept paying. But hey, that's an argument that is sooo long gone by now and is really old and so all I can do is thank Adobe for doing the subscription thing and saving me so much money 

Dave