Windermere Pano (fail)

[Martyn]

After a five mile walk we ascended Wansfell Pike from Ambleside. By the time we reached the summit my legs were burning, I was breathing heavily and the sweat on my back was chilled in the strong cold wind. I decided to try a pano of Windermere, but in the heat of the moment forgot to use manual settings. I was gutted when I got home and realised what I had done. I've done my best to match the exposures before stitching the shots together but I can still see the joins.  Lesson learned!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bugmeister]

You might be able to see the joins but I don't think I can, and I was looking for them after your comment!   I think you did a very good job with exposure matching and the scene itself is especially good in the sky with those boiling clouds

[ChrisLumix]

I agree ^

[NannyFerret]

I can't see the joins either. You did a reall good job and t was well worth you getting the shots.

[Martyn]

Thank you all, you are too kind! I hope to go back and retake this pic. I only had my 35mm f1.8 with me for convenience, but will take the Sigma 10-20 next time for a wider view.

[pauln]

I can't see the joins either, good job there :)

[MattGrey]

I can see one join (I think) dead center, visible in the water?  If so, I am sure it could be edited out?  Nice shot!  ;-)

[ChrisLumix]

I can see one join (I think) dead center, visible in the water?  If so, I am sure it could be edited out?  Nice shot!  ;-)

 

Don't be silly. Can't you see the long neck and tiny head? Oh wait, wrong lake...

 

If it IS a join, it's an odd one, being at a slant?

[MattGrey]

I use PS to stitch and it does join at odd angles. 

[Martyn]

I use PS to stitch and it does join at odd angles. 

 

I used a trial version of PS Elements for the stitch, and yes they do appear to be at an angle. Three joins for the four images used. 

 

One thing I've noticed since I started walking is that I make a lot of basic mistakes; maybe it's fatigue, adrenalin, feeling rushed and pressured to keep up with the group, I don't know; but I need to learn to stop and put my photographers head on when I see a shot.

[THELONGMAN]

That,s a good Pano Martyn, how many shots was it?

 

Geoff

[Martyn]

That,s a good Pano Martyn, how many shots was it?

 

Geoff

 

There be four shots in that there pano.

[THELONGMAN]

Cheers Martyn, looking at the ground covered I would have thought perhaps about 8 or 9  would have worked better?

 

Geoff

[ChrisLumix]

Cheers Martyn, looking at the ground covered I would have thought perhaps about 8 or 9  would have worked better?

 

Geoff

 

Surely, the fewer the better?

[THELONGMAN]

Surely, the fewer the better?

Hi Chris, I agree on small panos, --- I find, and its only my opinion, that sometimes more shots over a great distance work better, This one is a 7 shot sequence across about 2 miles, hand held and processed in PSE12, --the most I have used is 9 shots,

 

Geoff

[ChrisLumix]

Hi Chris, I agree on small panos, --- I find, and its only my opinion, that sometimes more shots over a great distance work better, This one is a 7 shot sequence across about 2 miles, hand held and processed in PSE12, --the most I have used is 9 shots,

 

Geoff

 

I guess it's what works in experience? This was one that was never intended to be a pano - it was simply 3 shots on 35mm film at 28mm wideangle, taken in the days before stitching software was ever dreamed of, Photoshop was still in its infancy, and most people didn't even have a computer. I recently stitched them together in PSE and tried to make the best of it that I could, though in reality the bay stretches further away from the eye in the forward direction (the effects of wideangle). Would a greater number of shots have worked better? Impossible to say, except the stitching would have been even more difficult.