geebee wrote:
> Works for me too. Here are a few non OM shots to keep you going until
> things pick up :-)
>
As long as Chuck hijacked my thread to comment on the desultory level of
posts this beautiful weekend, when one hopes all in the No. Hemisphere
are out taking pictures,and you hijacked that to post eight OT images....
Here's nine non Oly images, but all stitched together so you only see one.
<%3Chttp://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Miscellaneous&image=MossBraeP116laz.jpg%3E>
I have very ambivalent feelings about panoramas. Neat idea and does the
otherwise impossible without specialized cameras with motorized lenses.
But how to display them? On the web, either so small vertically as to
lose all sense of scale and detail or viewed a bit at a time by scrolling.
I can print roll paper, so I can do a long print, but I sure better like
it, with paper, ink, custom mat and framing costs.
But sometimes.... This falls is so spectacular in person, and well
beyond the scope of 17 mm WA on FF. Really a challenge to even come
close to conveying what it looks like in a photo. A series of springs
cascade down the banks of the Upper Sacramento River along a stretch of
over 100 yds/ms. Even this shot misses some more minor falls to the
right, but they are invisible around the corner of the bank from the
spot where I took this image.
So I tried nine hand held portrait format shots at 35 mm, to get the
full height, and PS Photo Merge did a darn nice job with them. I only
had to patch one little incongruity with a feathered in little piece of
an original.
Even 1300 pixels wide is an 8x reduction from the original, so the
incredible detail (the other advantage of panoramas) is lost. In the
usual battle of sharpness vs. funny looking foliage, I went slightly
toward softness this time.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
