As image there is no vignetting due to the fact that it is a mosaic. Also, composits like this can use relatively contrasty images for the tiles, and the extra contrast is present in the final image without any blocking/blow-out effects.
The lens I used was the Nikon 50mm f1.8 $99 from B&H it exhibits almost no lens artifacts. I use Nikon Capture to process the RAW files, utilizing the vignette control feature. This enhances the continuity of the mosaic. Since this lens is sharp and free of chromatic abberation the source files are already better than what wide-angle lenses achieve.
The fact that it took so many images to cover the field of view required to capture this building is almost incidental. Another approach would be to render 800x1200 pixel TIFFs from the RAW files and stitch them into a 10 or 15 megapixel file. That whole process would probably have taken 10 minutes, instead of 90. The resulting image benefits from having no discernible lens artifacts whatsoever, and a total lack of noise.
In the future I'm probably going to use the 1308x2008 pixel file size when I render the RAWs for a stitch like this. On the D1x that is actually 100% vertical resolution, and 200% horizontal...a very sharp picture indeed, and 1/4 the size of the images I did render. If I had any other camera I'd probably go with 100% resolution files, but with the D1x the 2.6 megapixel file offers an intriguing combination of quality and size.
The largest quality gains do seem to be from eliminating noise and moire, and it is advantageous to produce the smallest possible file that still takes full advantage of the enhanced detail.
Posted here is an interior, from the same building, photographed in the same manner. It has no dynamic range enhancement, but it is two rows, 8 vertical images per row, and shows how well the 50mm f1.8 handles having bright light shine directly into it.
Here is an example; a portion of this image which I stitched and posted on this forum last week. Note the flat sky in the component images. I added a gradient this final stitched image, which I didn't do with the whole-building view.
Great stuff - I liked your post on how you created the photograph etc., and your experiences with GF etc. If I may ask what software do you prefer to stitch with and what do you like about it. I enjoy your posts and attention to detail.
Mark, thanks for a quite thorough discussion of many of the factors involved in this type of work. I like the gradient you added to the sky, though perhaps an even more subtle one would work nicely with your large print.
The interior - maybe you should clone a few examples of the arm and post them about the room like sconces! Seriously, since you got such good quality using the stitched 50 mm, were you planning to recapture some of the blown out detail in the patio and its mirrored image, or did that not seem worthwhile?
For the interior photo I'm not going to attempt a highlight recovery. It has no value as a portfolio piece and the client isn't going to pay for the extra work.
Please understand that shooting in this manner is something that was pure theory for me a few months ago. Upcoming jobs will provide me with suitable material for using this technique, but for now all I have is this one shoot.
All of my stitching is done in one of two applications: Realviz Stitcher or PT GUI. Stitcher is much easier to use, much more expensive, and less accurate. PT GUI has a learning curve second to none but is capable of perfection. There is no formula regarding which application I choose to use. I used Stitcher for this image, but it failed to properly align the photos that comprise the bottom right hand corner of the image (as Jmcfadden was kind enough to point out), which PT GUI would not have done. If you learn one App, make it PT GUI, and then get Stitcher if you feel you want/need it.
