Looking for opinions (D'oh), Keep it or toss it?

Scott_Quier

Captured this pano (stitch of 5 images, in portrait orientation) on a recent trip to Alaska. Stumbled across this processing technique but I'm not quite sure it really has merit. For me, it kind of has a metal feel to it and I see it printed on metalic paper, then mounted in a simple black metal frame with white (or near white) matting.

So anyway, what do you think - is this a keeper or should it join the rest of it's brethern in the dust bin?

rwells

Scott,


The processing is different than a normal conversion, I'll grant you that. I happen to be one who in general enjoys shots/processes that are "out-of-the-box" from what most consider "normal".

The mountains have a 3D feel to them. I can't quite put my finger on what's keeping this image from being a total "wow" shot. Maybe, it's that the water has too much detail/contrast/sharpness to it.

I think that horizontal shadow on the water added to the above is what keeps pulling my eye away from those nice mountains.

Of course, YMMV ~ I don't' really know what your "goal" was for this image. It may be perfect given that info.

Richard

Scott_Quier wrote:

So anyway, what do you think - is this a keeper or should it join the rest of it's brethern in the dust bin?

I think you have lost quite a bit of detail in the processing, which sort of defeats the purpose of a multi-shot panorama. It's an impressive scene, though, so I would try reprocessing before I tossed it.

Edit: It occurred to me that perhaps there is a downsizing problem here. Can you post a link to a larger version?

Sam

Scott,

here is my 2 cents worth..............At first glance I liked the image, I don't think there is anything wrong with it.

Yet I don't find it compelling. Normally a multi shot stitched image is meant to be printed large to capture a wide expanse and / or print a large print with exceptional detail.

If I were going through all this effort and printing expense, I would like to see a really compelling image that draws me in.

Sam

Scott_Quier

Richard wrote:

I think you have lost quite a bit of detail in the processing, which sort of defeats the purpose of a multi-shot panorama. It's an impressive scene, though, so I would try reprocessing before I tossed it.

Edit: It occurred to me that perhaps there is a downsizing problem here. Can you post a link to a larger version?

Here's the link to the Original

Scott_Quier

rwells wrote:

Scott,


The processing is different than a normal conversion, I'll grant you that. I happen to be one who in general enjoys shots/processes that are "out-of-the-box" from what most consider "normal".

The mountains have a 3D feel to them. I can't quite put my finger on what's keeping this image from being a total "wow" shot. Maybe, it's that the water has too much detail/contrast/sharpness to it.

I think that horizontal shadow on the water added to the above is what keeps pulling my eye away from those nice mountains.

Of course, YMMV ~ I don't' really know what your "goal" was for this image. It may be perfect given that info.

That shadow is caused by shallows. Believe it or not, that fjord is actually quite shallow all the way across the 3 miles you see here. And, I agree with you about the shadow being a distraction. I'm not quite sure how to over-come this short coming.

Richard

Scott_Quier wrote:

Here's the link to the Original

That looks a lot better, though there are some plugged shadows here and there on my (uncalibrated) monitor. If you like it, then go for it.