An interesting photo. But Jens, I don't get this. I have a naive(?) question. Why using a 344mm setup for panopics? My choice would simply be using a wider lens, and cutting top and bottom of the image in post processing. I do understand that your approach gives more details. But if I'm not mistaken you are shooting for a magazine here. Can't see that a magazine format will display the details. To me it seems like a lot of trouble, for, what?
Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > -----Original Message----- > From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 18. september 2005 17:08 > To: [email protected] > Subject: PESO: The Laguna > > I shoot panoramas. > This one i for work. We are planning and building a new 40 ha harbour. > Some > panoramas will illustrate an article about this in magazine shortly. > > I think it is very diffucult to get the colours right. I must underexpose > quite a lot to prevent burned out highlights. In order to get the colours > right, I edit the photographs PS after RAW conversion. I make several > layers: > An "original" layer, a "munual levels" layer, an "autolevels" layer and an > "autocolours" layer. Then I mix these layers until I thinks it looks > right. > > http://gallery13117.fotopic.net/p20325574.html > > Pentax *ist D, SMC-F 1.7 AF Adapter, SMC-K 2.8/135mm, Tripod, two spirit > levels, PhotoVista 3.5 and PS 8.01. > Regards > > Jens Bladt > Arkitekt MAA >
