Lake Mead Pano

kdog

This is Lake Mead which is the lake made by the Hoover Dam. So, it's part of the Colorado River. The west rim of the Grand Canyon is 20 miles east.

Click on the pano to see a much bigger size (it's worth it. :wink)


Canon 20D plus 100-400L @100mm, nine shots, single row, vertical orientation, hand-held, manual exposure and focus.

Here's a link to the google satellite image. Yes, this is a very remote place.

Thanks for looking.
-joel

Tommyboy

Really nice job. You're right; the big version IS worth it.

kdog

Tommyboy wrote:

Really nice job. You're right; the big version IS worth it.

Thanks, Tommy. I appreciate.

Hey, you're not that far away! Another beemer rider too!

-joel

TassieD

Definatley woth looking at the larger version and job well done.

Swartzy

Very nice
Great job on this...love the BIG version too...feels like I'm standing there at the tripod...hmmm....good idea

jsedlak

awesome work! How did you do this handheld!?

Richard

Great pano, Joel. What did you use to put it together?

Cheers,

kdog

TassieD wrote:

Definatley woth looking at the larger version and job well done.

Thanks, David.

-joel

kdog

Swartzy wrote:

Great job on this...love the BIG version too...feels like I'm standing there at the tripod...hmmm....good idea

Thanks, David. But no tripod -- hand held. :-)

I still need to get myself a decent tripod one of these days.

-joel

kdog

jsedlak wrote:

awesome work! How did you do this handheld!?

Thanks, John. It's really no big deal. Look at the area you want to shoot first, taking note of the highest point in the picture. Then plan your scanning so that you get that point on a straight-line pan. Then just pan away, leaving maybe 20% of overlap on each shot. I guess it just goes to show you that you don't really need a ton of expensive pano gear to do these. Plus you don't always have the time to set up all that gear.

On the other hand, one is much better off using a good tripod if you have one, and the time to set it up. Despite my best efforts, I did lose a lot of real estate in the cropping, which was a shame. Plus, I guess in general one gets better pictures from a tripod, which I don't actually have much experience in.

Cheers,
-joel

kdog

rsinmadrid wrote:

Great pano, Joel. What did you use to put it together?

Cheers,

Thanks, Richard. I used the free demo version of Autostitch.

Cheers,
-joel

ian408

I like looking at panoramas. Especially of places like the Grand Canyon. This
is a cool shot.

Pano's are nice to look at. But I disagree about the need for pano gear.
At least slightly.

Pano gear makes the job easier and helps eliminate parallax. In your shot,
this doesn't matter so much because most of the subject is fairly far away.
To visualize what I'm talking about, stick your arm out & raise your thumb.
Now look at your thumb. First with your left eye and alternating with your
right. Do you notice the shift in subject? Pano gear helps fix that by allowing
you to correctly position the nodal point of the lens to eliminate that shift
as you pan. You can do this setup for both horizontal and vertical panning.
Do you need expensive stuff to do this? Not really because all you need to
do is rotate at the nodal point of the lens. I think it was Gus that posted a
DIY device for helping to set this up-I'm guessing it cost maybe $5 to make
(if that). The software can sort out some of the issue of parallax but not
all of it. If parallax is too great, you may notice banding where overlap
occurs.

Before rotating about the nodal point though, it's probably more important
to keep the camera level as you shoot (or as level as possible).

kdog

Thanks, Ian! Your explanation of the nodal point is as concise and understandable as anything I've seen on the topic. Pretty much all the panos I've done so far are "big" landscapes like this. I had a gut feeling that the combination of a long lens and distance made the shots work even without the pano gear. Your explanation helps to explain why, which is great. I wonder two things. At what distance/focal length combination does one really need pano gear? And how much is the stitching s/w helping out here? Those are rhetorical questions of course, and the answers could only be found by doing a lot of experimentation. Or I could just keep doing them like this for now and not worry about it. :giggle

Best regards,
-joel

Jigger

Wow Amazing God!! Indescribable!

kdog

Jigger wrote:

Wow Amazing God!! Indescribable!

Thanks, Jigger! It's a pretty amazing place. We're still new to the area, and there's spectacular scenery around every corner it seems.

Let's see more pics of the Philippines!

Cheers,
-joel

CatOne

Decent job with the pano, but the light sucks. The shot itself is sorta boring, no? Other than it's a pano?

I don't "feel" it.

kdog

CatOne wrote:

Decent job with the pano, but the light sucks. The shot itself is sorta boring, no? Other than it's a pano?

I don't "feel" it.

Thanks, CatOne. The light was ok I thought. It was afternoon, and the light was at my back. It would have been much better later in the day though, so I can't argue that with you. I do wish there was better contrast on the mountains in the background.

Whether or not the shot is boring is a subjective call. Some folks have not seen landscape like this, as the comments from Jigger (who hails from the Philippines) and others suggest. I personally had never seen anything like it either. On the other hand, the novelty wears off quickly and what we're left with is a very repetative scene. Looking at your (excellent) gallery, I see you're quite familiar with this area, so there's nothing novel here at all for you.

Basically, I agree with you. I guess the merits of the shot are more technical than composition, and that's pretty typical for me. (See the moniker over my avatar.) I'll try to do better next time.

Regards.
-joel

CatOne

kdog wrote:

Thanks, CatOne. The light was ok I thought. It was afternoon, and the light was at my back. It would have been much better later in the day though, so I can't argue that with you. I do wish there was better contrast on the mountains in the background.

Whether or not the shot is boring is a subjective call. Some folks have not seen landscape like this, as the comments from Jigger (who hails from the Philippines) and others suggest. I personally had never seen anything like it either. On the other hand, the novelty wears off quickly and what we're left with is a very repetative scene. Looking at your (excellent) gallery, I see you're quite familiar with this area, so there's nothing novel here at all for you.

Basically, I agree with you. I guess the merits of the shot are more technical than composition, and that's pretty typical for me. (See the moniker over my avatar.) I'll try to do better next time.

Regards.
-joel

I like the landscape, I like the treatment. I think there's a lot that could be done with that shot, but it would have to be at 6 AM or 6 PM. That's what's tough about landscape photography... it cannot be reconciled with hiking at any time of the day that is acceptable to non-photographers

When we did the SmugMug trip to Bryce... one of the mornings we had to get up at 4:15 AM, lol.

kdog

CatOne wrote:

That's what's tough about landscape photography... it cannot be reconciled with hiking at any time of the day that is acceptable to non-photographers

Bingo. Most of my photography these days takes place on family outings, this trip included. However, you've got me thinking. When the weather warms up a little, I should probably take a motorcycle ride out there and catch the sunset. So many great places to shoot, so little time. :bluduh

Cheers,
-joel