Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Laguna de Salinas, Arequipa, Perú, 2015-08-02, DD 16-19 PAN.JPG

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search


[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2016 at 13:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Laguna de Salinas, Arequipa, Perú, 2015-08-02, DD 16-19 PAN.JPG


The new image seems very stretched at both sides -- 2x wider in places and not sharp. I don't think it changed the slope issue. I'm afraid for the stretching of the scene I have to Oppose for now. Are you using Lightroom to stitch? I've found it ok for some small simple stitches but it isn't really configurable or precise. Contact me if you want me to help stitch with PtGui. -- Colin (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you can "live" with the previous version, I just restored it. My general modus operandi with panoramas is the following: I usually use LR. Sometimes I do have problems with LR and for whathever reasons (LR is not good at providing feedback) and then give it a try with PTGui Pro. I can use that tool pretty good in the meanwhile, I think. In this particular case I have to say that the result with LR was better than with PTGui (that is rarely the case). Yesterday, I actually gave it several tries but in spite of having 25 control points for each stitch the result was not good (stitching problems visible, which was not the case with LR). Well, long story short, I will give it a try again this weekend and see what can I do. Poco2 21:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've had my share of stitches that just don't seem to work out. I've removed my oppose. -- Colin (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, as promised I've uploaded a new version where I applied a tilt to the left frame. Please, have a look at it and let me know what you think. It looks pretty good to me Poco2 10:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm happy with that.  Support. I note, though, that it seems a little brighter and less contrasty than the first version. Perhaps, though, this is more like how it was. -- Colin (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, you could get a better result with hugin --The Photographer (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Photographer, do you mean with "better result" that there is still room for improvement? where?. I used Hugin some years ago but moved then to PTGui, and in the meanwhile to LR, as main tool because the results looked better to me. Poco2 10:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd expect Hugin to be a bit technical in how it do this task. That means that PTGui is easy to handle. PTGui does HDR natively but I prefer making my HDR with an outside program like Photomatix. --The Photographer (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PTGui can do tonemapping but it can also output HDR files (various formats including 32-bit TIFF). Importing this TIFF to Lightroom takes advantage of the superb tonemapping in that program, which many reckon to be superior to other software, including Photomatix. But if the image is a large stitch, then the 32-bit TIFF can be huge. I've never managed to get Hugin to generate output suitable for HDR work. The software claims to be capable of this, but that area seems to be so full of bugs as to be unusable. Generating panoramas with Lightroom (or Photoshop) is a bit of a gamble. It is convenient and can manage small landscape panoramas, but there are no options at all other than a few projection choices, and it really isn't capable of architectural panoramas. -- Colin (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Laguna_de_Salinas,_Arequipa,_Perú,_2015-08-02,_DD_16-19_PAN.JPG&oldid=189020517"