Panoramic Photos on CS3

[canon400d]

I have just started to make panoramic photos on CS3 and I would like to know how to make the photo deeper vertically. I have tried magnifying it and when I transfer the completed photo to 'My Docs' I find upon opening it, it has gone back to its original size. I love the merging but the depth of the photo spoils it for me. If you can help me I would appreciate it.
Kind regards

Bob

[Nikolai]

I have just started to make panoramic photos on CS3 and I would like to know how to make the photo deeper vertically. I have tried magnifying it and when I transfer the completed photo to 'My Docs' I find upon opening it, it has gone back to its original size. I love the merging but the depth of the photo spoils it for me. If you can help me I would appreciate it.
Kind regards

Bob
Hi Bob!
I'm pretty good with both Photoshop CS3 and its Photomerge module, and I'd realy like to help you, yet I have no clue what are you talking about :dunno
Maybe some pictures would help (you know they each worth a kilobyte of words:-):scratch

[canon400d]

Hi Bob!
I'm pretty good with both Photoshop CS3 and its Photomerge module, and I'd realy like to help you, yet I have no clue what are you talking about :dunno
Maybe some pictures would help (you know they each worth a kilobyte of words:-):scratch

Hi
I am so pleased you have responded. In other words the photo is so narrow. I am working on it to send you a photo as it is a while since I last posted one. I am sure you know now what I am on about. Not the length in the panoramimic photo but the depth.
Thanks ever so much for replying

Bob

[canon400d]

Hi Bob!
I'm pretty good with both Photoshop CS3 and its Photomerge module, and I'd realy like to help you, yet I have no clue what are you talking about :dunno
Maybe some pictures would help (you know they each worth a kilobyte of words:-):scratch

http://canon400d.smugmug.com/photos/250160428-L.jpg

Above is the link to show you the narrowness of the photo.
Regards

Bob

[Nikolai]

http://canon400d.smugmug.com/photos/250160428-L.jpg

Above is the link to show you the narrowness of the photo.
Regards

Bob

Bob,
I honestly don't get...:dunno
Yes, it's a pano... An image with one (horizontal) dimension being a lot larger than its another (vertical) one. Depending on the covered angle they all look more or less like this.
So, what is it that you want to do with it? Making it "taller"? This would include shooting another row (or two) of frames. However in this case it would not make the image better, since these extra rows of frames would only include the sky or the ground.

There are, however, some cases where the multi-row panoramas do make sense. A fine example (by Mr. Andy Williams hisself:-) can be found here (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=62383&highlight=arches+panorama).
In this case you use a relatively long lens and pan both vertically and horizontally to create a super-wide image with a super high resolution.

In some cases you can get away with doing it hand-held, but it's highly recommended to use a tripod and a special pano rail. In Andy's case he was also using a TS (tilt-shift) lens (in shift mode) that simplify making such pano images a little (since you don't have to worry about second nodal point, lens takes care of it itself with its shifting mechanism).

And of course if you use a view camera with bellows you can do this even easier :lol3

[canon400d]

Bob,
I honestly don't get...:dunno
Yes, it's a pano... An image with one (horizontal) dimension being a lot larger than its another (vertical) one. Depending on the covered angle they all look more or less like this.
So, what is it that you want to do with it? Making it "taller"? This would include shooting another row (or two) of frames. However in this case it would not make the image better, since these extra rows of frames would only include the sky or the ground.

There are, however, some cases where the multi-row panoramas do make sense. A fine example (by Mr. Andy Williams hisself:-) can be found here (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=62383&highlight=arches+panorama).
In this case you use a relatively long lens and pan both vertically and horizontally to create a super-wide image with a super high resolution.

In some cases you can get away with doing it hand-held, but it's highly recommended to use a tripod and a special pano rail. In Andy's case he was also using a TS (tilt-shift) lens (in shift mode) that simplify making such pano images a little (since you don't have to worry about second nodal point, lens takes care of it itself with its shifting mechanism).

And of course if you use a view camera with bellows you can do this even easier :lol3

Thanks Nilolai for your reply and the advice I really do appreciate it. The reason I initally enquired was because all the panoramic photos I have seen were bigger than the ones I have done. As I have said I don't mean in length but in width. Thanks again for all your kind help.
Regards
Bob

[gus]

Bob...say you take one photo. It is 20 cm wide & 10 cm high (as an example to try to explain this)

Now if you take two on them & stitch them together ...its a panorama now 40 cm wide BUT still only 10 cm high because you are adding to the sides/width only.

Now you take 5 photos & stitch them together... its now 100 cm wide BUT still only 10 cm high. So its starting to look rather thin & wide as you mentioned.

You getting what its looking like now ?


.

[Nikolai]

Thanks Nilolai for your reply and the advice I really do appreciate it. The reason I initally enquired was because all the panoramic photos I have seen were bigger than the ones I have done. As I have said I don't mean in length but in width. Thanks again for all your kind help.
Regards
Bob
Well, how about this one ;-)
http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/83117270-XL.jpg
And I can find even "skinnier" ones :deal
I say, for a pano yours looks fairly normal, to me at least...

[canon400d]

Bob...say you take one photo. It is 20 cm wide & 10 cm high (as an example to try to explain this)

Now if you take two on them & stitch them together ...its a panorama now 40 cm wide BUT still only 10 cm high because you are adding to the sides/width only.

Now you take 5 photos & stitch them together... its now 100 cm wide BUT still only 10 cm high. So its starting to look rather thin & wide as you mentioned.

You getting what its looking like now ?


.

Thanks Gus I fully understand what you are saying and appreciate your reply.
Regards
Bob

[canon400d]

Well, how about this one ;-)
http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/83117270-XL.jpg
And I can find even "skinnier" ones :deal
I say, for a pano yours looks fairly normal, to me at least...

Thanks again Nikolai you have put my mind at ease and I understand exactly what you say and I appreciate again your kind help.
Regards

Bob

[dbd]

Here is an example of 6 images, handheld, 14mm (x2) horizontal. (Lone Pine, the Alabama Hills and Mt Whitney in storm.)

http://dbdimages.smugmug.com/photos/251264227-L.jpg

And another, 6 images vertically at 69mm (x2) from the tripod in the picture above:

http://dbdimages.smugmug.com/photos/251264249-L.jpg

Both images were shot with the camera in landscape orientation. They could have been deeper and narrower if I had rotated the camera to portrait orientation.

Dale B. Dalrymple
http://dbdimages.com
http://stores.lulu.com/dbd

[Bigmitch]

Have you considered rotating your camera sideways and shooting the panorama that way?

You would need to shoot more frames to cover the start and end of your image, but at least you could get more vertical detail (if thats what you want).

[canon400d]

Have you considered rotating your camera sideways and shooting the panorama that way?

You would need to shoot more frames to cover the start and end of your image, but at least you could get more vertical detail (if thats what you want).

Thanks for the tip I will certainly try that.
Thanks again
Bob

[Nikolai]

Have you considered rotating your camera sideways and shooting the panorama that way?

You would need to shoot more frames to cover the start and end of your image, but at least you could get more vertical detail (if thats what you want).

This is a very good advice indeed, I wonder why I forgot to mention it. :bash

Lately I rarely do panos any other way, i.e. my camera is almost always roated with its wide part towards to panning direction, i.e. if I shoot a lanscape pano may camera is in portrait position. It's a great way to encrease the coverage by 33% without getting into all the multi-row/multi-pass hassles

Here's one example of such a pano, which doesn't even look like a pano, yet consits of 4 widely overlapped frames (Many Glacier, Montana, Sept 2007):

http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/206391864-L.jpg

and this one is more pano-looking, also made of 4 portrait shots with a narrow overlapping (Peekaboo Loop, Bryce Canyon, Utah, May 2006)

http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/83117316-1200x800.jpg

[zacker]

wow, there are some great shots here... geeze... i am impressed to say the least!!

[canon400d]

wow, there are some great shots here... geeze... i am impressed to say the least!!

Wow those shots are really awsome. When you say turn your camera I take it you mean taking a vertical photo. Am I rigth or not?

[dbd]

Wow those shots are really awsome. When you say turn your camera I take it you mean taking a vertical photo. Am I rigth or not?
Placing the long axis of the image horizontal is also called landscape orientation whether in the camera or on paper or CRT. Placing the long axis of the image vertical (yes, your vertical photo) is also called portrait orientation whether in the camera or on paper or CRT.

When you shoot single row panoramas, you need fewer images and have less resolution (fewer pixels) when you align the long axis of the camera images with the long axis of the panorama. It will take more images and have more resolution (more pixels) if you align the short axis of the camera image with the long axis of the panorama.

We have said these things a number of different ways (and that may not have helped).

Dale B. Dalrymple
http;//dbdimages.com