White Mountains Pano

[Arthur Morris]

This is a four frame vertical stitched pano. See: I am a fast learner <smile> Image created near Conway, NH with the Canon 100-400mm IS L Zoom lens (at 180mm) and the Canon EOS-1D MIII on a Gitzo CF 3530 LS and the Mongoose M3.5.

Evaluative meter + 1 stop set manually so as just to burn the sky a bit: 1/80 sec. at f/18.

Would you have used less depth of field for more shutter speed?

All comments welcome; don't be shy.

[denise ippolito]

I like it . It looks like a painting. I don't know if it's my monitor but the colors look alittle soft. You have a few spots in sky and some kind of hair or something on right -side it's distracting. But very nice work as always!

[Arthur Morris]

I like it . It looks like a painting. I don't know if it's my monitor but the colors look alittle soft. You have a few spots in sky and some kind of hair or something on right -side it's distracting. But very nice work as always!

Please explain by "the colors look a little soft." Thanks. As for the huge hair or whatever it--I just checked the 4th frame in the pano--the hairs were some tree branches. Not at all sure how I missed them but thanks for pointing them out. I actually processed the j-peg and sharpened it rather than creating it generically via an action. Let me know what you think of the repost.

[denise ippolito]

Robert Amoruso did a (LCE) using USM on a BG copy at 20/50/0 This increased the contras tw/o sharpening image it looked good I just thought yours might need that.He did John Chardine's image in Landscaping forum The title of photo was Trees to ? if you want to look at it.

[denise ippolito]

After re-visiting this or perhaps looking on a different monitor I would like to take back my previous comment. The colors look good and bold . They do not look soft on this monitor!

[Arthur Morris]

After re-visiting this or perhaps looking on a different monitor I would like to take back my previous comment. The colors look good and bold . They do not look soft on this monitor!

Ah, music to my ears. Thanks. :) :) :)

[Robert Amoruso]

Artie,

Sharpeness looks good. Shutter speed and DOF at f/18 all appear good. If you focused on infinity, DOF would be about 250 ft to infinity. Hyperfocal distance would be about 125 ft to infinity focused at 255 ft. Worked out using http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html.

I like the diagonal lines the evergreen trees, fall foliage colors and mountain ridges form. The three tall trees in the LLC add the strong FG center of interest - I am sure their placement is no mistake. :)

[Roman Kurywczak]

Hey Artie,
Can't believe you didn't run with this fix as I know it is one of your new ones........only on the sky with a layer mask.........linear burn at 100% opacity. A little color adjust to the blue.......+11.........brings everything into range. I would have recommended my signature 3 stop grad ND :D.......but not sure how it would work on a pano :confused:........so the linear burn or multiplied layer........should be the way to go on the sky.

BTW.......... I also tried a bit of highlight recovery on the sky first..............then did the same exact corrections above.............darkened up the sky noticably.......but it was a bit much.........even for me..........but you may want to check it out for yourself.

Let me know your thoughts.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks Roman, I think that it is a big immprovement.

1-What did you use to select the sky?
2-Did you feather the selection or do something else or nothing?

And yes, I had never seen anyone suggest using Linear Burns on selections for nature photography. I guess I am a better teach than a student!!!

[Robert Amoruso]

And yes, I had never seen anyone suggest using Linear Burns on selections for nature photography. I guess I am a better teach than a student!!!

I did at http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18261 and then saw your post about it a day later in the Educational Forum. I use it occasionally if it works better then Multiply.

[Arthur Morris]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Arthur Morris http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/fusion/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?p=158439#post158439)
And yes, I had never seen anyone suggest using Linear Burns on selections for nature photography. I guess I am a better teach than a student!!!
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


I did at http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18261 and then saw your post about it a day later in the Educational Forum. I use it occasionally if it works better then Multiply.

As my Linear Thread post in ER said, I first wrote about the technique here: http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17876 which was six days before you mentioned it so I stand uncorrected :) :D :)

[Robert Amoruso]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Arthur Morris http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/fusion/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?p=158439#post158439)
And yes, I had never seen anyone suggest using Linear Burns on selections for nature photography. I guess I am a better teach than a student!!!
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



As my Linear Thread post in ER said, I first wrote about the technique here: http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17876 which was six days before you mentioned it so I stand uncorrected :) :D :)



Not trying to correct anything - only commenting against your statement you had not seen anyone recommend it for landscape images. I only saw the ER forum post after my post. Note in my response to that ER thread I had mentioned my recommendation in the landscape forum. And yes I did follow that link and saw you mentioned it before I did - a mention that I had never seen until reading the ER thread.:)

[Roman Kurywczak]

[quote=Arthur Morris;158439]Thanks Roman, I think that it is a big immprovement.

1-What did you use to select the sky?
2-Did you feather the selection or do something else or nothing?


Sorry for getting back so late.....but I wasn't able to get onto the site for most of the afternoon yesterday........I used the lasso tool........I wasn't super neat either........just made sure I got the whole sky.........I used the magic wand the 2nd time around......set to 40.........it was neater.........anyway....this is what I did

.......copied the BG.......used lasso on sky............select>color range.........matte black preview......held down the shift button until the whole sky was selected........fuzzines was at about 23........added the layer mask........pulled down linear burn from the menu...opacity was 100%.......filter blur>gaussian blur.......around 22 pixels........blurred the edge sufficiently.

Hope this makes sense........so let me know.