Commons:Photography critiques/March 2020

Panorama woes

Just got back from a trip to Washington DC, and thought I had a couple good panoramas. Unfortunately, there are some big problems. See below. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Distortion

• 
• 
• 

Not as bad in the last one as in the first two, but still some issues. Is this just a result of being too close to the subject, regardless of the rest of the technique? Would it be better to get further away and use a larger zoom to get a similar resolution? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Rhododendrites: I will not be able to provide any suggestions since I have abysmal panorama photography skills, but I just want to tell ya, the second LoC picture really stands out to me; the distortion seems to provide a tinge of personality to the shot. I'd support it in FPC, since it looks technically excellent apart from the distortion. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 00:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. I think I'd want to give it another go at editing, at least, before nominating, especially since it's a much-photographed building. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Rhododendrites: Try to use a different projection like "perspective". What software do you use for stitching panoramas? More natural results are coming from a zoom lens (50-80mm let's say) and standing further from the building. The first shot from the left was taken on 20mm focal length. That is really wide for panoramas shots. You still achieve reasonably looking shots without distortion - check this picture, it was taken on 17mm focal length, but the quality suffers - check the corners of the linked photo. Shooting corners of the building under a weird angle means that your camera doesn't see enough of these areas. Once your project it like I did, it takes the information it has (which is insufficient on the edges) and stretches it out. It looks relatively natural but the quality is no good. I couldn't stand any further as there is another building but if you can, always a step further. There are often other obstacles like road signs, tourists etc. so it's all about balance the distance vs quality.
• I took this shot on 28mm FL and I felt like I was already pushing it. Ideally, I'd go for at least 40mm. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Podzemnik: I use Lightroom. I did try the different panorama options (perspective/cylindrical/spherical) and even did a little warping in Photoshop after in one case (the capitol image). Standing further (across the street) is possible, but as I'm up some stairs the platform I'm standing on here obscures the entrance (not a big problem -- lots of photos of this building are from that lower perspective -- but I hoped to avoid it). A bigger limitation is the lenses I have. It's 20mm micro four-thirds, so 40mm full frame equivalent, but yeah it's fairly wide. Other options are an even wider one or a 40mm-150mm zoom lens, but the quality of that one is much less. I'm due for an upgrade, I guess. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Rhododendrites: You can always try to share the raw files of the building with me (email on my user page) and I can try to give it a play. We can compare the results. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Big stitching errors

• 

If you look at the bottom middle triangle, you'll see it's wonky. Unlike the three above, which are taken by rotating a tripod head, with this one I physically moved to different points under the ceiling, creating 3 frames already more or less perspective-correct. That triangle was correct in the individual image, but Lightroom decided to mangle it. Is this a matter of just using a different stitching program? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Rhododendrites: I tried a couple of times to physically move a tripod but the results weren't good. My technique now is to stand at one place but take multiple portrait shots so I get as many megapixels as possible, and decrease the amount of megapixels at the end if I need to get sharper results. Yes, it does make a difference if you use other software. I usually use just Lightroom, but sometimes, especially when there are geometrical shapes like lines on a building, it doesn't stitch it properly. Try to use dedicated software like PTGui or Hugin. They can also work with RAW files. Save the result as a TIFF file and do the tone mapping in Lightroom. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• For something like the very long stretch I mention below, it just wouldn't be possible without moving the camera position. I would've thought it would be easier for the software to stitch since there's less of an issue with distortion, but maybe the distortion is what it relies on to know where things go... — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Lightroom failing

• 
• 

These are not the actual pictures, but representative. I tried to take a few long panoramas of ceiling mosaics. Several large rooms have repeating patterns with different images/names in the design as you move through the room, kind of like these two pictured. So I have 15-25 frames that look very similar, but with different details (they are lined up, unlike the two examples I have here). Lightroom utterly fails to offer any kind of panorama with them, regardless of mode. Recommendations? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Rhododendrites: Per above. Especially with complicated panoramas like multiple rows or with patterns, I get better results with PTGui. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Ok. I'll give one of the other programs a shot a bit later and see how it goes. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)