Show us your recent Panoramic photos!

^^ It's perfectly clear to me where the problem is , it comes from a profound sense of awe when viewing your pics ! :) . For me it's a sort
of jealousy , 'cuz I can't take that great a picture , and living in B.C , it's not because there's nothing stunning to take photos of . Peter
 
gbealnz said:
Stick with the Portra, why make things more difficult? The results speak for themselves.
Gary
Click to expand...

Moto-Uno said:
^^ It's perfectly clear to me where the problem is , it comes from a profound sense of awe when viewing your pics ! :) . For me it's a sort
of jealousy , 'cuz I can't take that great a picture , and living in B.C , it's not because there's nothing stunning to take photos of . Peter
Click to expand...

Peter, Gary, thank you for your kind words.
 
All these panoramics are jaw-dropping amazing. Mastering this perspective cannot be simple and you folks seem to do it with ease.

Bravo!
 
Personally, for every "good" panoramic shot I take (in my opinion), I also get 2 reasonable shots, and one mediocre shot. The great thing using the Linhof is there are only 4 shots per roll, and each one is bloody expensive, so it slows you down! Less fails that way and a lot of fun
 
One common problem with “failed” panos is that the shot didn’t need to be in pano at all. If you can't fill the frame with relevant material then better to use another format. I tried doing street photography with the Xpan once and it was not a good experience. I couldn't frame properly for pano with the speed required for street.

xpan by ray tai, on Flickr
 
james.liam said:
All these panoramics are jaw-dropping amazing. Mastering this perspective cannot be simple and you folks seem to do it with ease.

Bravo!
Click to expand...


You certainly learn over time to "see" a panoramic scene and to capture it. The other side is selection of the images shown. I usually don't scan whole films and also show not every scanned panorama. This skews the view a bit.
 
48810663212_bb90e0dda3_z.jpg

48810160888_3da28a5264_z.jpg

48810160658_4803a516d0_z.jpg
 
Rayt said:
One common problem with “failed” panos is that the shot didn’t need to be in pano at all. If you can't fill the frame with relevant material then better to use another format. I tried doing street photography with the Xpan once and it was not a good experience. I couldn't frame properly for pano with the speed required for street.
Click to expand...

In my experience, you need to get pretty close and most street panos are not. I think these work as panos but are not quite close enough. I could crop, I guess. I have some that are better but they're somewhere on the old hard drive. Just saying the frame has to be filled w/ relevant info is a bit dismissive. There's a sense of forcing concentration. Not every shot in a 2.35:1 film has relevant information. There are tons of close-up, portrait-ish shots.


Untitled by gaijin_punch, on Flickr


Untitled by gaijin_punch, on Flickr
 
kiss-o-matic said:
In my experience, you need to get pretty close and most street panos are not. I think these work as panos but are not quite close enough. I could crop, I guess. I have some that are better but they're somewhere on the old hard drive. Just saying the frame has to be filled w/ relevant info is a bit dismissive. There's a sense of forcing concentration. Not every shot in a 2.35:1 film has relevant information. There are tons of close-up, portrait-ish shots.
Click to expand...

It’s just my personal style. The test I do is to crop the image and see if the edited parts are vital to the image. I prefer to have the final image at exposure and not crop the final print. It’s petty I agree! Else I would just shoot in a rectangular format and crop to pano. BTW those two are good shots and well composed panos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom