Thanks, Moose. So, I make a lousy carbon-based tripod elevator, huh?
:-) You're probably right about the stitching. I do actually have
photos of those bassoons that fit in the full frame, or almost, sans the
top bell. What I may do is use those, and include the partial shots as
"details of." The problem was that the further I got from the cases,
the worse and more numerous the reflections. My one wider lens was a
stop slower and not as good. Did the best I could.
Thanks for the references. I'm very familiar with the history, and have
several books on the subject myself. But there's nothing like nice big
pictures, as opposed to teeny dotty halftones or teeny Web images. And
the experience of standing next to a piano that Schubert, Schumann or
Brahms actually composed on--priceless.
I'd love to peruse the Boston MFA collection. I grew up near Boston,
but didn't know about the instruments. I'm told there is an excellent
instrument collection in a London museum, which I'd love to get to. I
saw the collection of the Paris Conservatoire some years ago.
The modern player looks a little dangerous. Coincidence: A bassoonist
here in Seattle, who plays with the ballet orchestra, forms a duet with
a harpist who is the daughter of the horn player in my quintet. I'm
going to a concert involving the harpist this weekend.
> On 2/1/2018 11:04 PM, Peter Klein wrote:
> . . .
> Some longer instruments, such as my beloved bassoons, would not
fit in a single picture without my backing off and losing too much
detail, so I took them in two or three sections, using my knees as a
camera elevator. (Ouch!) Can anyone recommend a stitching program that
would put them together again.
> I suspect it's not possible to do the instruments justice. You did
some "bad" things in taking the shots. There's not enough overlap
between shots. The camera is not level, varying between pointed up and
down. Look at the metal bands, for example, relatively straight in one
shot, curved strongly up or down in the next. Nor is it kept in the same
vertical line, so parts of the instruments 'rotate' relative to other shots.
> Easy is good. Free is good, although not too expensive is also
OK if it's
> worth the money.
> PS couldn't automagically match any but two from the first set.
> Hugin is the free alternative, and is far more powerful in allowing
user engagement in the process. It only understands horizontal, so I
rotated the images. Like PS, it only found one pair match on its own. I
added control points to connect the third, although the small overlap
didn't help. The result was pretty awful.
> I don't think a stitching program is going to do you any good. Were
they mine, and were it for some reason impossible to get decent images
some other way, and were it really important to me, I believe I could
put them in layers and use the Edit=>Transform tools in PS to squeeze,
stretch, etc. so the images overlapped in not too bad ways to make
> Here are two sets of three pictures each of some bassoons and
contrabassoons to show you what I am dealing with. I don't care what
happens to the backgrounds or the non-subject instruments at the sides
of the pictures.
> Thanks for any advice.
> My advice is to forget these shots, cherish your memories and look
> you need coherent images.
> Search "Ancient Bassoons" on the web and select 'Images'. There are a
> images out there, but unfortunately small.
> This site has lots of pix, covering the whole history, but all small.
> The Met only shows a couple of bassoons, but nice pix.
> Check out "The Bassoon", by James B. Kopp.
> Visit the MFA in Boston's ancient instruments display. You can see
what they have here. <http://www.mfa.org/node/9492> Unfortunately, as I
recall, there are also problems with lighting and reflections there. I
took a few shots in a hurry years ago when I discovered this part and
they were closing, but I don't recall what. Nor do I recall what double
reeds were on display at that time.
> Baritone Moose
> PS: Modern instrument with attractive operator. :-)
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/