Jon, thanks for commenting. You're correct, web viewing of a pano leaves something to be desired. I posted this because I have a large copy hanging over my desk and wanted to see how the web post was received by others. Its one of the first I've attempted and pulled off and I'm really impressed with the image quality when blown up to something like 36" X 12". Viewers have confused it with a medium format. I've got some more and will probably post them in the future.
Kenneth Waller -----Original Message----- From: Jon Glass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Apr 20, 2005 8:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: PAW: Alaska Range Pano On 4/20/05, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Love the lighting on the highest peak. Because of the flatness and > lack of any interest in the foreground and many of the peaks so > similar, I don't think this makes for a very strong pano. Isolating the > main lit peak so I can see it much better would make for a stronger > image. > > As far as panos go, this one looks well put together. > I would say yes--at the size and resolution that we see it on the web, but if you think larger, like someone else said--on a wall.... This photo would have quite an impact, and, in fact, needs the rest of the mountains to really make Mt. McKinley stand out in it's powerful contrast. It is a wonderful panorama, perfect composition for the format, I believe. Thanks for sharing it! -- -Jon Glass Krakow, Poland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ________________________________________ PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
