Really getting annoyed at Pano pics not coming out right

Ok I finally got the chance to go back down to weehawkin,nj to get a pano of manhattan from the George Washington Bridge to the Verrazano bridge ((about 12 miles or so)
Got there set up, took a reading of f/10@10seconds using iso 100, xt with kit lens (24-105 is getting serviced). Everything looked good on the lcd screen. Got home and started the photomerge and noticed:
1. Underexposed pretty bad
2. Not as sharp as I'de like, had no problem autofocsing.
3. To much noise for iso100
4. used manual mode, but when pics were arranged in PSE2.0, i got the one pic or 2 that has a brighter sky then the rest clearly showing the merge. What I dont understand is if the shots were all at the same shutter speed and aperture how could this happen?

Here's the pic, not sure if it will show up or not.
http://img294.imagesha​ck.us …noseptermber29t​h20yo3.jpg

2005GLI wrote in post #4034649
1. Underexposed pretty bad
2. Not as sharp as I'de like, had no problem autofocsing.
3. To much noise for iso100
4. used manual mode, but when pics were arranged in PSE2.0, i got the one pic or 2 that has a brighter sky then the rest clearly showing the merge. What I dont understand is if the shots were all at the same shutter speed and aperture how could this happen?

1) The camera LCD is not an accurate judge for exposure. Use the histogram.
2) Are you sure it's not camera shake or so? Post a 100% crop.
3) Because it was underexposed and corrected in processing?
4) No idea.

Nice image though.

couple of guesses:

shooting over water you can get air convection which makes the image blur a little.

did you set manual white balance? or auto? it can change from shot to shot in a pano and change the sky color.

Wasn't till after i posted that i realized the one thing i truly hate about the xt is the lcd. If you look at it at one angle its nice and colorfull, look at it the way it should and its to dark. Thats one of the things i love about the 40d, the lcd does not change color if moved arond a bit.

This is a 100%crop or it should be. I sized it up at 100% in ps and saved it that way. If printed it would be roughly 50 inches by 8 inches or so. The white balance was set to tungsten, it was the only wb that gave the most correct true color. I didn't bring the expodisc with me, wish i had to see if it made a difference in this scene. But im still confused about the high amount of noise for iso100. Hoping for another crystal clear night tonight. Going to write down my settings and change them up once i get down there.

2005GLI wrote in post #4036406
This is a 100%crop or it should be.

No, it isn't.
100% crop.

Well, it's hard to tell from what you've posted, but I don't think that image is bad really.

if you click on the pic in the second liknk when it pops up it becomes larger. you'll see the different frames and how they didn't stitch properly and all the noise. and now i see a halo effect on it too.

If I click it, I get an image of something like 4" high. Still not big enough to judge sharpness or noise...

^ Yea, what he said... and based on that, it looks fine.

ok here is the imageshack link that works the best. Click on the link below, when the page opens click on the photo it will give the actuall size that i saved it at.

http://img294.imagesha​ck.us …noseptermber29t​h20yo3.jpg

That's an image 436 pixels high, 3422 wide.
Would make a 1,453 by 11,407" print...

Sharpness. Too small. Even that "large version" is only 3,422 x 436 pixels, as René says. The original should have been about 18,000 x 2,300 if shot in landscape orientation, or 27,000 x 3,400 if shot in portrait orientation. Show us a crop from that - or even from a version that's been resized to say 9,000 x 1,100 - and then we can comment on the image quality.

Stitching problems. Even if you shoot manual, it's essential that you avoid altering the exposure when you do the RAW conversion. And it's also essential to have the same White Balance in each shot. Did you do that? (You haven't told us yet.)

Exposure. I think you're probably OK. You said you shot at ISO 100, 10s at f/10. Both of these two of mine were taken at ISO 100, 5s at f/8, which is about 2/3 of a stop LESS than your effort, and they're clearly fine.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Dam, i didn't know i needed to size the pic that big. I wish i still had the original files, i deleted the card already.

I shot the pics in landscape, using manual .jpg with same settings on all pics with same wb on all pics. I didn't do any PP to the pics till after they were merged.

2005GLI wrote in post #4054258
I wish i still had the original files, i deleted the card already.

Doh!

Still, at least you've learned a valuable lesson from the exercise... even if that lesson is nothing to do with making a pano...

Who deletes original images?!? I think THAT'S the lesson learned here.