Op Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:00:16 +0100 schreef Shel Belinkoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Yes, very nice photo's, especially the tulip. But is a vertical 'narrow
photo' still a panorama? Doesn't a panorama by definition need to be
horizontal, and a wide sweeping view? Panorama's in nature are, panorama's
in painting as well, as far as I know. Or can you call any rectangular
photo (over a certain aspect ratio) a panorama?
Curious for you opinions,
--
Regards, Lucas
(who has an idea or two, but needs some time to execute them...)
Neat idea - I don't think I've ever knowingly seen a vertical pano
before.
;-))
Shel
[Original Message]
From: David Mann
My only real complaint about most pans is that they're too wide.
Bigger than about 3:1 I really can't view the whole thing as an
entire photo: I end up getting in close to pick out the details.
Pans are *hard* to do well. The usual "rules" of composition tend to
go out the window, and it's difficult to stay away from clichés. The
last time I went out with the intention of shooting panoramas, I shot
the entire roll full-frame.
I have a whole bunch of boring old landscape panoramas but I've shown
most or all of them here before.
Here are a couple I have that are slightly different, but probably
not what you're intending. These are quick files I've generated from
old scans.
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/temp/pans/tulip.html
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/temp/pans/sign.html
--
Regards, Lucas
