Author Topic: Panoramas (Read 16393 times)

madelaide · « **on:** February 13, 2013, 10:04 »

Hi all,

I have been enjoying lately the art of making stitched panoramas. ICE by Microsoft has made my life much easier... Anyway, considering the stcck photo market, is there a proportion between height and length that is considered more adequate? Of couse this depends also on the subject, but I was wondering if there is a proportion I should be aiming as a thumb rule.

This is my latest, from this morning.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #1 on:** February 13, 2013, 10:06 »

The main problem is that they become too skinny to see if you have a really wide one. I tend to make them the size I think suits them and trust to luck - but that's probably not the most earnings-effective strategy.

steheap · « **Reply #2 on:** February 13, 2013, 10:09 »

Great panorama!

I've created and uploaded quite a few stitched panoramas and they sell reasonably well. I tend to reduce them to around 8000 x 2500 or so - much bigger than that and you start to exceed upload limits or file sizes on some agencies. At that size, people can crop within the panorama if they don't want to use the whole thing. I usually make them with my camera vertical and so I have a reasonable amount of height available, but you always get missing pieces in the sky or foreground because of the way the panoramas are made and so I have to crop them a bit more narrowly.

Steve

JPSDK · « **Reply #3 on:** February 13, 2013, 10:11 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 13, 2013, 10:06

The main problem is that they become too skinny to see if you have a really wide one. I tend to make them the size I think suits them and trust to luck - but that's probably not the most earnings-effective strategy.

Thats right, they get too thin if they are very wide and the customer cannot see what is on the thumbnail.
It is my experience that large files 16/9 sell better. Then people can cut them thin if they want.
Anyway, it is important that panos have a striking and ballanced compositions, not golden sections as in normal formats.
Compositions with voids can be ballanced.

madelaide · « **Reply #4 on:** February 13, 2013, 10:33 »

I used to take my photos horizontally until I noticed it was stupid most of the times.

The only problem is that I have more difficulty keeping the horizon straight - of course, an issue only when not using a tripod, which is the normal case when I travel. These ones with the sea also pose a problem with the ripples and I have noticed that generelly using less photos spreading a wider angle of movement can be better than using more photos just slightly moved. In either case, I do some retouching in the overlapping areas to correct the lack of alignment of ripples.

For Alamy - I will submit a couple to them to try - I suppose I shall mark these were digitally manipulated, even when it's just the stitched image?

I wouldn't consider 16:9 a "real' panorama image, although one of mine has more or less this proportion. I would think that 2:1 or more would fit better in this definition.

I have several above 3:1 and above, and they do look too skinny, that was my concern. They cover a very large angle of view however, like viewing from a lookout, but then I can not see much use for such an image, even if I have seen some for sale as posters (I have no idea if people buy them).

Pinocchio · « **Reply #5 on:** February 13, 2013, 11:10 »

Panoramas are one of my specialities.. With regard to the OP's questions:
1. I've been told that when the aspect ratio exceeds 5:1 or 6:1 or more, it becomes very hard to sell them.
2. There was a discussion in the Alamy forums about the "digitally altered" question. No definitive answer from Alamy, but my opinion is that digitally stitched = digitally altered, shot with panoramic camera = not digitally altered. Point is that stitching inherently requires you to include/exclude in the overlaps...
3. "Traditional" definition of "panorama" is aspect ratio of at least 2:1

Full size panoramas are used as full or half-page spreads; downsized they're used for web banners - but these are most easily made by cropping a normal single image, no need to stitch.

You should be using at least a panoramic head to avoid parallax, but you can use a macro rail instead for single-row panos. You will need a spherical head (on your tripod, no surgery required) for multi-row panoramas. Most appropriate outlet for these is a specialist agency; these panoramas can be a lot of work, and I very much doubt RF pricing will generate a positive return.

Water and other moving objects makes panoramas quite tricky.

You should find the Alamy discussions quite easily with this search term

site:www.alamy.com "digitally altered"

in google

Regards

mattdixon · « **Reply #6 on:** February 13, 2013, 11:18 »

There are no hard and fast rules, sometimes the subject lends itself to a very wide pano, others a more 16:9 cinematic type. You can usually tell what works best when you come to crop the image, I wouldn't sweat it just shoot what looks good and what works well in post production.

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #7 on:** February 13, 2013, 11:33 »

Nobody makes any money with panoramas, don't bother, far too much work. You'd never catch me wasting my time with them.

sharpshot · « **Reply #8 on:** February 13, 2013, 12:38 »

Quote from: fotoVoyager on February 13, 2013, 11:33

Nobody makes any money with panoramas, don't bother, far too much work. You'd never catch me wasting my time with them.

I disagree, some sell well. They don't have to take long to do. I don't sell any on alamy though. They really should improve the thumbnails for panoramas. It's been discussed a few times in their forum.

Milinz · « **Reply #9 on:** February 13, 2013, 12:56 »

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/UM/redmond/groups/IVM/ICE/

Is commercial use allowed?

JPSDK · « **Reply #10 on:** February 13, 2013, 13:02 »

Quote from: fotoVoyager on February 13, 2013, 11:33

Nobody makes any money with panoramas, don't bother, far too much work. You'd never catch me wasting my time with them.

I agree. Just make a bit fat file with an aspherical wide angle, then the customer can crop out the sky or the horizon if he wants.
I used to make HDR panoramas, up to 9 exposures of every image, and 5-6 sidewards.
Nice huge pictures, that had no commercial use.

mattdixon · « **Reply #11 on:** February 13, 2013, 13:36 »

Quote from: sharpshot on February 13, 2013, 12:38

Quote from: fotoVoyager on February 13, 2013, 11:33
Nobody makes any money with panoramas, don't bother, far too much work. You'd never catch me wasting my time with them.
I disagree, some sell well. They don't have to take long to do. I don't sell any on alamy though. They really should improve the thumbnails for panoramas. It's been discussed a few times in their forum.

I would ignore fotovoyager he's a newbie, bless him, doesn't know what he's talking about.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #12 on:** February 13, 2013, 15:39 »

If you use a short telephoto lens you can hammer out panos without using a tripod. The speed you can shoot at is particularly helpful with foreground motion and the distance makes parallax caused by three or four inches of movement between shots completely irrelevant.

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #13 on:** February 13, 2013, 16:02 »

Quote from: mattdixon on February 13, 2013, 13:36

Quote from: sharpshot on February 13, 2013, 12:38
Quote from: fotoVoyager on February 13, 2013, 11:33
Nobody makes any money with panoramas, don't bother, far too much work. You'd never catch me wasting my time with them.
I disagree, some sell well. They don't have to take long to do. I don't sell any on alamy though. They really should improve the thumbnails for panoramas. It's been discussed a few times in their forum.

I would ignore fotovoyager he's a newbie, bless him, doesn't know what he's talking about.

Ha! You made snort my beer through my nose.

steheap · « **Reply #14 on:** February 13, 2013, 17:01 »

Quote

Quote from: mattdixon on Today at 13:36
Quote from: sharpshot on Today at 12:38
Quote from: fotoVoyager on Today at 11:33
Nobody makes any money with panoramas, don't bother, far too much work. You'd never catch me wasting my time with them.
I disagree, some sell well. They don't have to take long to do. I don't sell any on alamy though. They really should improve the thumbnails for panoramas. It's been discussed a few times in their forum.

I would ignore fotovoyager he's a newbie, bless him, doesn't know what he's talking about.

Ha! You made snort my beer through my nose.

I would like to humbly disagree with the initial comment that nobody makes money from panoramas. I have 4 of them in my top 30 images on Shutterstock (sorted by popularity) and if you are a photographer as well as a stock photographer, then making a panorama of an interesting/beautiful scene is not "work", it is enjoyment. If it then sells, then great. If not, you have a nice photo for your portfolio or to sell on FineArtAmerica.

Steve

tickstock · « **Reply #15 on:** February 13, 2013, 17:18 »

steheap · « **Reply #16 on:** February 13, 2013, 17:29 »

My mistake, I humbly apologize for not seeing the irony in the previous posts. Sorry!

Steve

RacePhoto · « **Reply #17 on:** February 14, 2013, 01:22 »

Quote from: steheap on February 13, 2013, 17:29

My mistake, I humbly apologize for not seeing the irony in the previous posts. Sorry!

Steve

And how would anyone know from an anonymous name on a forum? Although I did guess it was sarcasm even without a smiley.

For the other question:

If you ask for "standard" panorama size, it can be anything, but conventional is 4 x 12 (or 6 x 18, or 3 x 9...) one tall by three wide But there's no restriction, you can do what you want. The idea is that in the days of film, that was about what someone would find in frames and prints.

I have some on the wall, they are 12 x 36 because that's the poster size frame that I find at church sales.

Some people consider 360 to be a panorama, so have at it.

1:3 ratio is the old standard.

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #18 on:** February 14, 2013, 02:06 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 14, 2013, 01:22

Quote from: steheap on February 13, 2013, 17:29
My mistake, I humbly apologize for not seeing the irony in the previous posts. Sorry!

Steve

And how would anyone know from an anonymous name on a forum? Although I did guess it was sarcasm even without a smiley.

For the other question:

If you ask for "standard" panorama size, it can be anything, but conventional is 4 x 12 (or 6 x 18, or 3 x 9...) one tall by three wide But there's no restriction, you can do what you want. The idea is that in the days of film, that was about what someone would find in frames and prints.

I have some on the wall, they are 12 x 36 because that's the poster size frame that I find at church sales.

Some people consider 360 to be a panorama, so have at it.

1:3 ratio is the old standard.

Sorry. I have amended my signature accordingly.

rubyroo · « **Reply #19 on:** February 14, 2013, 04:05 »

Wow. Fotovoyager. Just looked at your website and have been clicking the the 'stories'. SUCH beautiful work. Congratulations on your fabulousness.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #20 on:** February 14, 2013, 04:51 »

One thing about panos that's worth noting is that a photographer/gallery owner from Dubai told me that panos are one of the best-selling genres for print sales. When you see them on a wall, they impress; when you see them on a website thumbnail, they don't.
He was actually carrying a $10,000 Linhof 6x17 panoramic film camera with him (which is probably the format where the traditional 3:1 ratio comes from).

Batman · « **Reply #21 on:** February 14, 2013, 04:55 »

Quote from: rubyroo on February 14, 2013, 04:05

Wow. Fotovoyager. Just looked at your website and have been clicking the the 'stories'. SUCH beautiful work. Congratulations on your fabulousness.

+1

RacePhoto · « **Reply #22 on:** February 14, 2013, 11:00 »

Yes, it's allowed. The license and ULA is referring to distribution of the software, not what you make with it. At least that's the way I read it?

Quote from: Milinz on February 13, 2013, 12:56

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/UM/redmond/groups/IVM/ICE/

Is commercial use allowed?

madelaide · « **Reply #23 on:** February 14, 2013, 11:59 »

Quote from: Milinz on February 13, 2013, 12:56

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/UM/redmond/groups/IVM/ICE/

Is commercial use allowed?

Oh, do they say anything prohibiting it? Argh! My previous manual stitching procedure kept most of my to-be-pano shots sitting in the HD. I've only built a fraction of what I had in hand because of the amount of work required!

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #24 on:** February 14, 2013, 12:04 »

I've found Adobe CS4 does a pretty impressive auto stitching job, though earlier versions I tried didn't. Or there is Hugin, for those who like to do things by hand. Hugin takes a bit longer but can handle more awkward tasks.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Panoramas (Read 16393 times)

madelaide

BaldricksTrousers

steheap

JPSDK

madelaide

Pinocchio

mattdixon

fotoVoyager

sharpshot

Milinz

JPSDK

mattdixon

BaldricksTrousers

fotoVoyager

steheap

tickstock

steheap

RacePhoto

fotoVoyager

rubyroo

BaldricksTrousers

Batman

RacePhoto

madelaide

BaldricksTrousers

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors