I guess I am not the only one experimenting of late
The weather has been less than stimulating and the high country is only just opening up - slowly. I am getting an itching shutter finger but have not had a lot to "focus" on
Last week I busted my way through the snow and blow downs to get to this waterfall (I have posted a photo of this last year, I think). What I wanted to do was experiment some more with increasing resolution vis panoramas. Specifically, here, trying to match a single 35mm exposure with a 4-shot pano using a 55mm.
According to Photopills, a 35 mm lens subtends an angle of 37.9 deg along the short side and 54.3 deg along the long side. A 55 mm lens subtend 24.6 and 36.2 degs, respectively. In other words, the field of view along the long side of a 55 mm lens is almost the same as that along the short side of a 35 mm. (53mm is actually close to equivalency). So, why do this? 2 reasons - 1) - maybe you didn't bring a 35 but have a 50 or 55. 2) you may want to increase the resolution of your final image.
Below is a single 35mm image taken with my Nikon Df with the Nikkor 35mm f2 AIS, the other image is a composite f a 4-shot vertical pano, each image used was itself a 4-shot focus stack.
I cropped each to 4x5, as this is George's preferred ratio, especially for waterfall gorge shots! As such, the single 35 mm exposure yielded an image of approx. 13 MP, where as the 55 pano gave about 35 MP - so a 2x boast from the 16MP Df sensor.
The 35 was hand held from a little to the left of where I set the tripod. As expected, the field of view is slightly different. I actually prefer the 35mm composition- maybe I should have used my 50mm f2 instead to open it up a bit. Maybe next time.
I did say things were slow and it was time to experiment.
best wishes - Doug
PS - this would have looked better if I could have put the two images side-by-side. Is there a way to do that here without have to put them side-by-side in another program like, PS?
I guess I am not the only one experimenting of late
The weather has been less than stimulating and the high country is only just opening up - slowly. I am getting an itching shutter finger but have not had a lot to "focus" on
Last week I busted my way through the snow and blow downs to get to this waterfall (I have posted a photo of this last year, I think). What I wanted to do was experiment some more with increasing resolution vis panoramas. Specifically, here, trying to match a single 35mm exposure with a 4-shot pano using a 55mm.
According to Photopills, a 35 mm lens subtends an angle of 37.9 deg along the short side and 54.3 deg along the long side. A 55 mm lens subtend 24.6 and 36.2 degs, respectively. In other words, the field of view along the long side of a 55 mm lens is almost the same as that along the short side of a 35 mm. (53mm is actually close to equivalency). So, why do this? 2 reasons - 1) - maybe you didn't bring a 35 but have a 50 or 55. 2) you may want to increase the resolution of your final image.
Below is a single 35mm image taken with my Nikon Df with the Nikkor 35mm f2 AIS, the other image is a composite f a 4-shot vertical pano, each image used was itself a 4-shot focus stack.
I cropped each to 4x5, as this is George's preferred ratio, especially for waterfall gorge shots! As such, the single 35 mm exposure yielded an image of approx. 13 MP, where as the 55 pano gave about 35 MP - so a 2x boast from the 16MP Df sensor.
The 35 was hand held from a little to the left of where I set the tripod. As expected, the field of view is slightly different. I actually prefer the 35mm composition- maybe I should have used my 50mm f2 instead to open it up a bit. Maybe next time.
I did say things were slow and it was time to experiment.
best wishes - Doug
PS - this would have looked better if I could have put the two images side-by-side. Is there a way to do that here without have to put them side-by-side in another program like, PS? ...Show more →
Doug,
Both are nice but I prefer the 55mm pano.
If you use LR then you can easily place 2 images (or more) side by side by using the Print module. Create or select a 2x1 frame and drop in the images. Instead of sending them to a printer save the output as a Jpeg (Print Job menu on the lower right)
That does look good. I did the trial version of ON1, but couldn't get along with the UI. Having said that, it may be useful as a plugin with LR. Thanks for the samples.
I guess I am not the only one experimenting of late
The weather has been less than stimulating and the high country is only just opening up - slowly. I am getting an itching shutter finger but have not had a lot to "focus" on
Last week I busted my way through the snow and blow downs to get to this waterfall (I have posted a photo of this last year, I think). What I wanted to do was experiment some more with increasing resolution vis panoramas. Specifically, here, trying to match a single 35mm exposure with a 4-shot pano using a 55mm.
According to Photopills, a 35 mm lens subtends an angle of 37.9 deg along the short side and 54.3 deg along the long side. A 55 mm lens subtend 24.6 and 36.2 degs, respectively. In other words, the field of view along the long side of a 55 mm lens is almost the same as that along the short side of a 35 mm. (53mm is actually close to equivalency). So, why do this? 2 reasons - 1) - maybe you didn't bring a 35 but have a 50 or 55. 2) you may want to increase the resolution of your final image.
Below is a single 35mm image taken with my Nikon Df with the Nikkor 35mm f2 AIS, the other image is a composite f a 4-shot vertical pano, each image used was itself a 4-shot focus stack.
I cropped each to 4x5, as this is George's preferred ratio, especially for waterfall gorge shots! As such, the single 35 mm exposure yielded an image of approx. 13 MP, where as the 55 pano gave about 35 MP - so a 2x boast from the 16MP Df sensor.
The 35 was hand held from a little to the left of where I set the tripod. As expected, the field of view is slightly different. I actually prefer the 35mm composition- maybe I should have used my 50mm f2 instead to open it up a bit. Maybe next time.
I did say things were slow and it was time to experiment.
best wishes - Doug
PS - this would have looked better if I could have put the two images side-by-side. Is there a way to do that here without have to put them side-by-side in another program like, PS? ...Show more →
I agree, I like the 35 version better. One thing you did not mention. Is there any trout in that water?
Thank you very much everyone for the words of encouragement and well wishes. This community is just fantastic. I have not been troubled by my health and I guess it shows. I am probably coming across as making a meal of this. I solve things and move on and being constantly reminded this 2.5 months is not enough time to fully recover gets to me, sometimes.
I have very good days but also days I don't want where I have to remind myself or be reminded, no you can't do that, yet. Just been given permission to jog last week. I thought it was long overdue but the discomfort I have had suggests the physiotherapist was spot on. It is progress, nonetheless.
leighton w wrote:
I'm blind to the banality of this image. 55mm f2.8 ais.
That's an interesting image, leighton and in line with your current sauce shown in the previous page. Colour me blind to the banality, too. It's just what one can expect from this thread, anything can be turned into an interesting image.
Interesting discussion on angles and FOV. I will have to check out that site you mentioned. Yes, I do like the 4x5 crop
I am not in front of home monitor this morning to see great detail, but I do like the composition of the first shot. I like that it has a little more of snow in the foreground.
George
graytrekker wrote:
Nice set, Rafael!
I guess I am not the only one experimenting of late
The weather has been less than stimulating and the high country is only just opening up - slowly. I am getting an itching shutter finger but have not had a lot to "focus" on
Last week I busted my way through the snow and blow downs to get to this waterfall (I have posted a photo of this last year, I think). What I wanted to do was experiment some more with increasing resolution vis panoramas. Specifically, here, trying to match a single 35mm exposure with a 4-shot pano using a 55mm.
According to Photopills, a 35 mm lens subtends an angle of 37.9 deg along the short side and 54.3 deg along the long side. A 55 mm lens subtend 24.6 and 36.2 degs, respectively. In other words, the field of view along the long side of a 55 mm lens is almost the same as that along the short side of a 35 mm. (53mm is actually close to equivalency). So, why do this? 2 reasons - 1) - maybe you didn't bring a 35 but have a 50 or 55. 2) you may want to increase the resolution of your final image.
Below is a single 35mm image taken with my Nikon Df with the Nikkor 35mm f2 AIS, the other image is a composite f a 4-shot vertical pano, each image used was itself a 4-shot focus stack.
I cropped each to 4x5, as this is George's preferred ratio, especially for waterfall gorge shots! As such, the single 35 mm exposure yielded an image of approx. 13 MP, where as the 55 pano gave about 35 MP - so a 2x boast from the 16MP Df sensor.
The 35 was hand held from a little to the left of where I set the tripod. As expected, the field of view is slightly different. I actually prefer the 35mm composition- maybe I should have used my 50mm f2 instead to open it up a bit. Maybe next time.
I did say things were slow and it was time to experiment.
best wishes - Doug
PS - this would have looked better if I could have put the two images side-by-side. Is there a way to do that here without have to put them side-by-side in another program like, PS? ...Show more →
DeltaSigma wrote:
Both are nice but I prefer the 55mm pano.
If you use LR then you can easily place 2 images (or more) side by side by using the Print module. Create or select a 2x1 frame and drop in the images. Instead of sending them to a printer save the output as a Jpeg (Print Job menu on the lower right)
Thanks, Colin. The 55 pano is definitely sharper. As I mentioned, the 35 was hand held @ 1/20 sec. The foreground looks a bit soft, so maybe I was a little off on my depth of field/hyperfocal distance. I think I just turned the focus ring to infinity thinking it was wide enough. to have everything in. focus. Should have used the scale on the lens.
Interesting discussion on angles and FOV. I will have to check out that site you mentioned. Yes, I do like the 4x5 crop "
*** Photopills is a phone ap - I think it costs $9.95 and has many functions - best known for planning night shots, but lots of other useful information
"I am not in front of home monitor this morning to see great detail, but I do like the composition of the first shot. I like that it has a little more of snow in the foreground.
George"
*** Even though one's eye is drawn straight to the falls, that extra snow bank reinforces that by adding an extra "leading line" (ok - its an arc) to the same place. In retrospect, that's where I should have set my tripod for the 55.
BTW, I still have the pulley they gave me for PT, and it's still hanging from the hook in the ceiling. It has an over the door hanger on it, but I found it easier to sit in a chair and pull away. Even after PT stops at about the 6 month period, you'll still have some improvements over the next six months.
For what it's worth, my surgery was Sept 14, 2010, and I've not had any issues with the shoulder since then, and my work involves a lot of arm use on a daily basis. Don't let those "idonwannas" get in the way. Yeah, I couldn't see myself jogging 2.5 months out, ugh.
My last exercise at PT was a pitchback net and a ball. Fifty reps of throwing ball at net and catching with same hand. First day, they handed me the ball, so I didn't see what size it was. Second day, I wasn't sure what size ball it was on the rack, but the first ball looked too small, so I chose the second smallest ball, and continued to use that throughout that time frame. Come to find out, the ball I was using was a 4 pound ball, and the ball I was supposed to be using was a 1 pound ball... oops. I never missed a catch though. I really enjoyed that one.
SiMuMe wrote:
Thank you very much everyone for the words of encouragement and well wishes. This community is just fantastic. I have not been troubled by my health and I guess it shows. I am probably coming across as making a meal of this. I solve things and move on and being constantly reminded this 2.5 months is not enough time to fully recover gets to me, sometimes.
I have very good days but also days I don't want where I have to remind myself or be reminded, no you can't do that, yet. Just been given permission to jog last week. I thought it was long overdue but the discomfort I have had suggests the physiotherapist was spot on. It is progress, nonetheless. ...Show more →
I guess I am not the only one experimenting of late
The weather has been less than stimulating and the high country is only just opening up - slowly. I am getting an itching shutter finger but have not had a lot to "focus" on
Last week I busted my way through the snow and blow downs to get to this waterfall (I have posted a photo of this last year, I think). What I wanted to do was experiment some more with increasing resolution vis panoramas. Specifically, here, trying to match a single 35mm exposure with a 4-shot pano using a 55mm.
According to Photopills, a 35 mm lens subtends an angle of 37.9 deg along the short side and 54.3 deg along the long side. A 55 mm lens subtend 24.6 and 36.2 degs, respectively. In other words, the field of view along the long side of a 55 mm lens is almost the same as that along the short side of a 35 mm. (53mm is actually close to equivalency). So, why do this? 2 reasons - 1) - maybe you didn't bring a 35 but have a 50 or 55. 2) you may want to increase the resolution of your final image.
Below is a single 35mm image taken with my Nikon Df with the Nikkor 35mm f2 AIS, the other image is a composite f a 4-shot vertical pano, each image used was itself a 4-shot focus stack.
I cropped each to 4x5, as this is George's preferred ratio, especially for waterfall gorge shots! As such, the single 35 mm exposure yielded an image of approx. 13 MP, where as the 55 pano gave about 35 MP - so a 2x boast from the 16MP Df sensor.
The 35 was hand held from a little to the left of where I set the tripod. As expected, the field of view is slightly different. I actually prefer the 35mm composition- maybe I should have used my 50mm f2 instead to open it up a bit. Maybe next time.
I did say things were slow and it was time to experiment.
best wishes - Doug
PS - this would have looked better if I could have put the two images side-by-side. Is there a way to do that here without have to put them side-by-side in another program like, PS? ...Show more →
Both are real nice shots, but I'm going to agree with Colin and say that I like the pano better. To me, the snow on the left side in the 35mm photo makes me feel like I'm being pushed to the right. I like how the pano makes the scene feel more open and allows the river to lead my eye to the waterfall.
spoupard wrote:
Both are real nice shots, but I'm going to agree with Colin and say that I like the pano better. To me, the snow on the left side in the 35mm photo makes me feel like I'm being pushed to the right. I like how the pano makes the scene feel more open and allows the river to lead my eye to the waterfall.
Thanks! - interesting how feelings on this are split. It reminds me when I posted another gorge/waterfall and asked people which crop they liked - pretty much split between 4x5 and 2x3. My preference on that one was actually 5x7 - kind of in between, so in like manner, I flip-flop between these 2 views. I guess my "Gemini" is showing through
