Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 18 Mar 2012 (Sunday) 16:39
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

How do you deal with this issue when you take panoramas, such as beaches?

 
Polarized
Member
127 posts
Joined Mar 2012
     
Mar 18, 2012 16:39 |  #1
bannedPermanent ban

http://www.nfilipovic.​com …0Beach%20Panora​ma%202.jpg (external link)

IMAGE: http://www.nfilipovic.com/content/photography/travel/022-africa-durban/images/Africa_Durban_2009_065_Umhlanga%20Beach%20Panorama%202.jpg

As you can notice, the middle of the picture appears closer and the sides wrap around behind... while in real life of course it would be just one straight beach.

Usually when one takes a panorama they just rotate the camera on a tripod, which doesn't seem practical to me. The other option is moving the tripod itself along the beach and taking a picture every "station". Of course that doesn't seem that practical either.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Mr. ­ Bill
Senior Member
Avatar
927 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 26
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Southwest USA
     
Mar 18, 2012 16:47 |  #2

You can try using lens correction in either camera raw or in Photoshop. That should fix some of it.



Link to my Pictures (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sorarse
Goldmember
Avatar
2,193 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Kent, UK
     
Mar 18, 2012 17:02 |  #3

The problem there is the different perspective you get when rotating your viewpoint. When looking out to sea, the beach to your left does indeed stretch out to your left, but if you turn 90 degrees to your left, the beach now reaches out straight ahead of you.

Personally I've just accepted that this happens when you do really wide pano shots, so have never tried any sort of lens correction in post. I guess for a truly 'flat' pano, you would need to take your shots several metres apart, but all looking in the same direction.


At the beginning of time there was absolutely nothing. And then it exploded! Terry Pratchett

http://www.scarecrowim​ages.com (external link)
Canon PowerShot G2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,232 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2035
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Mar 18, 2012 17:44 |  #4

What you are seeing can be reduced by use of a lens with Shift movements...lateral shift, rather than rotational change of focal plane orientation.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hermeto
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,674 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Mar 18, 2012 18:58 |  #5
bannedPermanent ban

Take a look here:

The Nodal Point for Panoramas (external link)


What we see depends mainly on what we look for.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,232 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2035
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Mar 18, 2012 19:04 |  #6

Hermeto wrote in post #14109215 (external link)
Take a look here:

The Nodal Point for Panoramas (external link)

Non-use of nodal points affect the relationship of background objects to foreground objects...change of perspective. But that won't really alter the beach becoming a curved shoreline instead of its 'straight line' reality. The curve is created when the focal plane's relationship to the shore is altered.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ricardo222
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
16,066 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 167
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
     
Mar 18, 2012 19:17 |  #7

Wilt wrote in post #14109247 (external link)
Non-use of nodal points affect the relationship of background objects to foreground objects...change of perspective. But that won't really alter the beach becoming a curved shoreline instead of its 'straight line' reality. The curve is created when the focal plane's relationship to the shore is altered.

Correct. If you change the orientation of the film-plane/sensor, whatever, the apparent perspective is bound to change. Only be keeping the sensor parallel in different shots will the perspective remain true to the original. For some people it's easier to comprehend this in the matter of tilting a camera up to take in a tall building...it appears to recede and this can be prevented wither by use of a shifting lens ot in PP. So the same happens when you rotate a camera around it's vertical axis to make a panorama...the perspective recedes first one way then the other.

Solution...sideways shift of lens with TS, or correction in PP. Moving bodily along the beach will have other consequences that may make a good outcome impossible, as in the relative movement of far and near objects.


Growing old disgracefully!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,624 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Likes: 481
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Mar 18, 2012 23:05 as a reply to  @ Ricardo222's post |  #8

Even with a T/S though, you're not going to get 180deg or more.

I don't even know if you can make this look realistic since we don't see 180deg with our eyes. If you had more foreground you could probably try changing the projection - but then you would need to take care of parallax.

No, looking at it again, I don't see how you could make this look 'realistic' in 2D. I'm willing to be proved wrong, but how to you get one side of the beach opposite the other side? Imagine trying to straighten the transition from the beach to the grass.


Edward Jenner
5DIII, 7DII, M6, GX1 II,M11-22, Sig15mm FE,16-35 F4,TS-E 17,Sig 18-250 OS Macro,M18-150,24-105,T45 1.8VC,70-200 f4 IS,70-200 2.8 vII,Sig 85 1.4,100L,135L,400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
x_tan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,130 posts
Gallery: 137 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 325
Joined Sep 2010
Location: ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ 'ǝuɹnoqlǝɯ
     
Mar 18, 2012 23:26 |  #9

Welcome to POTN.
Use telephoto lens to reduce the fore group, which will give bit more 'natural' looking Pano.


Canon 5D3 + Zoom (EF 17-40L, 24-105L & 28-300L, 100-400L II) & Prime (24L II, 85L II, 100L, 135L & 200 f/2.8L II; Zeiss 1,4/35)
Sony α7r + Zeiss 1,8/55 FE
Nikon Coolpix A; Nikon F3 & F100 + Zeiss 1,4/50
Retiring  (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ricardo222
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
16,066 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 167
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
     
Mar 18, 2012 23:30 |  #10

ejenner wrote in post #14110748 (external link)
Even with a T/S though, you're not going to get 180deg or more.

I don't even know if you can make this look realistic since we don't see 180deg with our eyes. If you had more foreground you could probably try changing the projection - but then you would need to take care of parallax.

No, looking at it again, I don't see how you could make this look 'realistic' in 2D. I'm willing to be proved wrong, but how to you get one side of the beach opposite the other side? Imagine trying to straighten the transition from the beach to the grass.

On reflection you are absolutely right with this scene. Trying to make an accurate 2D pano would be like Mercator making a 2D earth projection...something has to give!!! :D


Growing old disgracefully!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Polarized
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
127 posts
Joined Mar 2012
     
Mar 19, 2012 03:27 |  #11
bannedPermanent ban

x_tan wrote in post #14110830 (external link)
Welcome to POTN.
Use telephoto lens to reduce the fore group, which will give bit more 'natural' looking Pano.

Thanks!

And I like the idea of using a telephoto lens.

Are panoramas of things far off in the distance (say an island across an ocean) more natural than something very close to the camera?

What is best in photoshop, cylindrical, perspective or auto? Or I should ask what do you all prefer?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ricardo222
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
16,066 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 167
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
     
Mar 19, 2012 03:42 |  #12

Normally I make panoramas of scenes where the foreground is not a part of the scene, which prevents the problems discussed above.

Like many, I also prefer to use longer FLs for panoramas...more shots but less distortion. And of course, the more shots there are in the final image, the greater the resolution...if that is a factor. I have made some panoramas of my town using the 70-200 in vertical orientation, set at about 130-140mm FL, and 10-11 shots have been sufficient. On a 6'x17" prrint you can see wonderful detail.

2-3 shots with the 17-40 would have covered the same scene but the resolution...horrible at that size!

I have made multiple shot panos with the 600 f4 as well, but they tend to be rather narrower views!


Growing old disgracefully!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MesserschmittMan
Senior Member
Avatar
358 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
     
Mar 19, 2012 04:28 |  #13

Ricardo222 wrote in post #14111616 (external link)
Normally I make panoramas of scenes where the foreground is not a part of the scene, which prevents the problems discussed above.

Or if you want to include the foreground make the panoramic angle similar to a more natural field of view.


Canon 7D | Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 | Canon 50mm f/1.4 | Canon 70-200mm f4 IS L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
x_tan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,130 posts
Gallery: 137 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 325
Joined Sep 2010
Location: ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ 'ǝuɹnoqlǝɯ
     
Mar 19, 2012 04:36 |  #14

Polarized wrote in post #14111585 (external link)
Thanks!

And I like the idea of using a telephoto lens.

Are panoramas of things far off in the distance (say an island across an ocean) more natural than something very close to the camera?

What is best in photoshop, cylindrical, perspective or auto? Or I should ask what do you all prefer?

I would try to cut off much fore group as much as possible, as the fore group reference give your brain those "unnatural distortion".

I can remember how many shoots to combine into below photo in Lightroom 3; I used 24-105L @ 58mm with EOS T2i / 550D, handhold, so about 92mm with 35mm full-frame camera:

IMAGE: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5143/5636296365_4f61df5dd8_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/x_tan/563629636​5/  (external link)
Manapouri, New Zealand (external link) by X_Tan (external link), on Flickr

Full size image here: http://farm6.staticfli​ckr.com …36296365_e688a0​83e9_o.jpg (external link)

Canon 5D3 + Zoom (EF 17-40L, 24-105L & 28-300L, 100-400L II) & Prime (24L II, 85L II, 100L, 135L & 200 f/2.8L II; Zeiss 1,4/35)
Sony α7r + Zeiss 1,8/55 FE
Nikon Coolpix A; Nikon F3 & F100 + Zeiss 1,4/50
Retiring  (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
x_tan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,130 posts
Gallery: 137 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 325
Joined Sep 2010
Location: ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ 'ǝuɹnoqlǝɯ
     
Mar 19, 2012 04:42 |  #15

BTW, my photo is unnatural with lighting difference in the mountains - left sides of mountains were under full light; but right sides of mountains under the shadow.


Canon 5D3 + Zoom (EF 17-40L, 24-105L & 28-300L, 100-400L II) & Prime (24L II, 85L II, 100L, 135L & 200 f/2.8L II; Zeiss 1,4/35)
Sony α7r + Zeiss 1,8/55 FE
Nikon Coolpix A; Nikon F3 & F100 + Zeiss 1,4/50
Retiring  (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,890 views & 0 likes for this thread
How do you deal with this issue when you take panoramas, such as beaches?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Guy Berridge
849 guests, 393 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.