Thanks for the ideas, Moose. You are right of course that if this were
a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, then doing the kind of corrections
you suggest would be the thing to do. But in this case it is easier
just to go back an re-shoot.
Cheers,
Nathan
Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu
http://www.nathanfoto.com
Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog
On Jun 25, 2009, at 8:51 PM, Moose wrote:
> Nathan Wajsman wrote:
>> I would not think so either (the aperture used was f11, BTW).
>> Exposure was constant as well, except for one thing--I had left the
>> camera on auto ISO, so it could be that ISO was changed from 160 to
>> 320 for some of the images.
>>
>
> So we have a couple of possible causes. Further experiment may
> result in
> technique without the problem. but what if I have taken a panorama
> that
> is important to me and difficult, expensive, whatever, to recreate?
>
> As usual, Moosie is interested in ways to correct image problems after
> the fact. There is A solution to this problem, if not THE solution.
>
> In the PS Photomerge function, there is an option to keep all the
> separate images as layers, rather than flatten them. The layers then
> have masks to reveal/conceal each other. Painting the masks with a
> soft,
> large, low flow brush can pretty easily blend sky colors to give
> seamless transitions. Without the sky clues, I don't think anyone
> would
> notice anything in the sand, such as Chuck said he noticed.
>
> In this particular panorama, there's one obvious awkward detail
> overlap
> spot on the far right, just past the last buildings and cranes and
> just
> above the right side of the yellow umbrella. It might work out well
> with
> the same technique, but with smaller brush, or might need a bit of
> touch-up.
>
>> I suspect that it might have been this, plus the natural change in
>> the color of the sky as you rotate 360 degrees, that is responsible.
>>
>
> That doesn't seem right to me. The same spot in the sky should be the
> same color/brightness whether viewed through the left or right side of
> the lens. Assuming the images are taken reasonably quickly, there
> shouldn't be changes at boundaries from this source. There are some
> overall changes, not at boundaries, that I think are attributable to
> this source.
>
> I'm also interested in how the sky between buildings seems to have a
> different brightness and gradient than elsewhere. That could be a
> result
> of the Auto-ISO changing exposure where the building make subject
> brightness lower.
>
> Moose
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|