1. Other

Landscapes

Assorted panoramic shots and other interesting landscapes I've taken.
Read More
This was my first experiment with building a panorama.  This is Polychrome Mountain in Denali Park in south-central Alaska.<br />
<br />
I used an 85 mm lens on my Canon 20D.  Used manual exposure (exposed for highlights) and focus at infinity.  I held the camera horizontally (landscape).  This was all hand held; the closest points (extreme left and right of the frame) were over 1000' away and most of it was miles away, so any positioning error was minimal.  When I optimized with Hugin I had worst case errors of well under 1 pixel -- completely insignificant.<br />
<br />
I've done very little post-processing -- just a bit of curve tweaking, some saturation boost, and a light unsharp mask.<br />
<br />
In retrospect, I should have used a shorter lens (perhaps 50 mm) and held the camera vertically.  The strip is simply too narrow to be very good, although the detail is incredible.  I was pressed for time (our tour bus wasn't stopping for very long) and didn't plan out what I wanted to do.  My 50 mm lens is plenty sharp itself.  Using a monopod would also help, not so much to avoid positioning error (which would be more of an issue with the 50 mm lens since I'd have more foreground) as to ensure each photo was taken from the same vertical angle (to permit me to use as much of the shot as possible).<br />
<br />
My other technique of shooting with two focal lengths might also have been helpful, although less so than with my other panorama, which had less foreground detail to begin with (and where that foreground wasn't in focus anyway, and mostly served to frame the image).
1 / 118

This was my first experiment with building a panorama. This is Polychrome Mountain in Denali Park in south-central Alaska.

I used an 85 mm lens on my Canon 20D. Used manual exposure (exposed for highlights) and focus at infinity. I held the camera horizontally (landscape). This was all hand held; the closest points (extreme left and right of the frame) were over 1000' away and most of it was miles away, so any positioning error was minimal. When I optimized with Hugin I had worst case errors of well under 1 pixel -- completely insignificant.

I've done very little post-processing -- just a bit of curve tweaking, some saturation boost, and a light unsharp mask.

In retrospect, I should have used a shorter lens (perhaps 50 mm) and held the camera vertically. The strip is simply too narrow to be very good, although the detail is incredible. I was pressed for time (our tour bus wasn't stopping for very long) and didn't plan out what I wanted to do. My 50 mm lens is plenty sharp itself. Using a monopod would also help, not so much to avoid positioning error (which would be more of an issue with the 50 mm lens since I'd have more foreground) as to ensure each photo was taken from the same vertical angle (to permit me to use as much of the shot as possible).

My other technique of shooting with two focal lengths might also have been helpful, although less so than with my other panorama, which had less foreground detail to begin with (and where that foreground wasn't in focus anyway, and mostly served to frame the image).

polychrome

  • This was my first experiment with building a panorama.  This is Polychrome Mountain in Denali Park in south-central Alaska.<br />
<br />
I used an 85 mm lens on my Canon 20D.  Used manual exposure (exposed for highlights) and focus at infinity.  I held the camera horizontally (landscape).  This was all hand held; the closest points (extreme left and right of the frame) were over 1000' away and most of it was miles away, so any positioning error was minimal.  When I optimized with Hugin I had worst case errors of well under 1 pixel -- completely insignificant.<br />
<br />
I've done very little post-processing -- just a bit of curve tweaking, some saturation boost, and a light unsharp mask.<br />
<br />
In retrospect, I should have used a shorter lens (perhaps 50 mm) and held the camera vertically.  The strip is simply too narrow to be very good, although the detail is incredible.  I was pressed for time (our tour bus wasn't stopping for very long) and didn't plan out what I wanted to do.  My 50 mm lens is plenty sharp itself.  Using a monopod would also help, not so much to avoid positioning error (which would be more of an issue with the 50 mm lens since I'd have more foreground) as to ensure each photo was taken from the same vertical angle (to permit me to use as much of the shot as possible).<br />
<br />
My other technique of shooting with two focal lengths might also have been helpful, although less so than with my other panorama, which had less foreground detail to begin with (and where that foreground wasn't in focus anyway, and mostly served to frame the image).
  • I was at a recruiting fair at MIT in September 2007 with some other folks from Sun Microsystems, where I work. A number of graduating seniors mentioned that they were interested in Sun, but they assumed that Sun is a California company and they didn't want to move there. Those of us with roots in New England can well understand. Fortunately, I had my laptop with me, and was able to set up the screen saver to display some fall shots of the campus I had taken in previous years (the Burlington campus is really spectacular in the fall). However, I thought that for future recruiting fairs we could do better -- some good prints of the campus in the fall would get the point across that we have a real presence in the Boston area.<br />
<br />
In early October I took some shots of the campus in the afternoon and at sunset. I brought my camera in again the next day because I wasn't really satisfied. There's a small hill just outside the ring road that has always struck me as a good spot, but somehow in the 7 years I've been at Sun I had never gotten around to taking any photos from there. So Josh Simons and I wandered over there one day at lunch, and I shot some more, and then almost as a lark I took a series of shots that could be stitched together into a panorama.<br />
<br />
From a photographic standpoint, the conditions that day (bright noontime sunshine) were not typically ideal. However, it being October, the sun angle wasn't really that high (no more than 40 degrees), and the alignment of the sun and the surroundings actually made for a soft, even light. I actually took three sets of shots spanning about 130 degrees, two with a 50 mm lens (which is a short telephoto on my Canon EOS 20D) and one, covering a wider area, with a 28 mm lens (which is a standard lens on that camera). I used a monopod rather than a tripod, because this was a bit spur of the moment, but I was careful to manually set the exposure and white balance so that all the shots would come out (close to) identically.<br />
<br />
I wound up creating a panorama using the 6 shots with the 28 mm lens and 12 out of about 20 shots with the 50 mm lens. This allowed the main subject of the photo (the buildings and foliage) to have very high resolution, while the sky and foreground needed fewer shots. It would have taken about twice as many shots had I used the 50 mm lens for everything. If you look carefully, you can see which parts of the image are lower resolution, but you really do have to look carefully at the full resolution image.<br />
<br />
Building the image took a lot of work. I actually used the high resolution JPEGs from the camera rather than the RAW files, since dynamic range in the most important parts of the photo wasn't much of a problem. I used Hugin to stitch the images together, but enblend (the tool Hugin uses to create the final output) didn't know to give priority to the higher resolution shots, so I wound up having to manually run enblend twice, once to stitch together the high resolution shots and then to stitch together the low resolution shots (which Hugin had already aligned and remapped).<br />
<br />
The next problem was that the 50 mm lens and the 28 mm lens aren't quite identical optically, even though they were both stopped down to f/8. The 28 mm lens was a bit brighter and more contrasty. So I wound up having to tweak the curves to get a good match, and then cut a hole out of the center of the low resolution image so that I could run a final pass of enblend to stitch the images together to produce a single TIFF file.<br />
<br />
The next problem was a couple of alignment problems between the low resolution and high resolution images. One of the problems was a lamppost in the foreground that wasn't quite aligned (because I didn't use a tripod). The second problem was a shadow from a different lamppost in the foreground that had moved in the few minutes it took me to take the multiple sets of shots. Fortunately, I had enough redundancy to allow them to be fixed up.<br />
<br />
The next issue was improving the colors and tonality. The day was actually a bit hazy, as is typical of warm, dry days in October, with the result that the sky was somewhat washed out and the colors in general a bit muted compared to a really brilliant day. I managed to come up with a clever GIMP hack to increase the contrast and saturation of the sky selectively without affecting nearby foliage by using layer operations that selectively tweaked colors with excess blue over red, so the surrounding brown branches, green foliage, and white clouds were untouched. The result is that it retains a natural look. While I was at it, I also jazzed up the colors a bit in general, and used a similar technique to enhance the remaining green foliage.<br />
<br />
(Update 20090512: the layer operation involved converting the red and blue channels to layers, and subtracting the red from the blue.  I used the result as a layer mask to control the application of saturation, and also to tweak the shade of blue of the sky.)<br />
<br />
All of this took a lot of work. I estimate that I spent a total of 100 hours working on it. When all was said and done, the image was 96 megapixels. I did most of this work on my server with 2 GB of RAM, but some of it I did on my laptop, which has 1.5 GB. Even so, it was extremely slow -- I was using a lot of layers at some points to tweak the sky just so, and that made for tremendous memory consumption and heavy paging.<br />
<br />
Was it worth it? I think so. The Burlington campus is a really beautiful setting, and I think I captured the New England landscape aspect nicely. This shot definitely looks better as a large print, to really show the scale. I've made a test print at 24x79 inches (which is still over 200 DPI), and it's still tack sharp.<br />
<br />
Update 20090318: if you look really closely you can find the transitions between the high resolution and low resolution images in the trees at the right of the frame and in the foreground.  I've been thinking about rebuilding it with the transitions in different locations.  Since I still have the two composites, and since most of the hard work was done via adjustment layers, it wouldn't be all that hard to rebuild; the biggest amount of work would be spotting out a dust mark in each frame (it seems to be in the sky on all the shots) and matching tones between the high and low resolution shots.  Rather than doing the final blending with enblend, I'm thinking of simply feathering the transition zone in GIMP, possibly with a layer mask.  Some tests I've done suggest that that achieves a smoother blend with this shot than enblend.  I think I'd get another 4 GB before doing this, though -- 64 bit GIMP with a 96 megapixel image and lots of layers will chew up a lot of memory.<br />
<br />
Update 20090512: Hugin and its associated toolset can also do photometric optimization now.  I haven't experimented with it, but that might be able to save some time with matching the output between the lenses.
  • On the beach at the Wolfeboro Inn, Wolfeboro, NH.  11 shots with Sigma 12-24 at 24mm, 1/100@f/10.  Saturation and luminosity tweaked.
  • This was taken from Hawk Mtn. in Waterford, Maine.  Blended using a 50 and 28 mm lens, spotted, and curves adjusted in HSL space.<br />
<br />
This is a short and easy hike, maybe 200' elevation gain in 1/2 mile or less.  It's probably about the best view I've seen (spectacular) for the effort (negligible).
  • My first experiment with HDR.  From an overlook just north of Franconia Notch.  Canon 20D, Sigma 8-16 mm lens@8 mm, exposures -4, -2, 0, +2, +4, using Hugin 2009.4.0.  Minor curve tweaks and USM.  I'm impressed with how sharp the lens is.
  • Panorama from the pass between Burnt Mountain and Sugarloaf Mountain, Carrabassett Valley, Maine.
  • 360 degree panorama from the summit of Burnt Mountain near Carrabassett Valley, Maine.  Sugarloaf is the peak in the clouds near the right.
  • Sugarloaf Mountain near Carrabassett Valley from about halfway up its neighbor, Burnt Mountain.
  • Panorama from the pass between Sugarloaf and Burnt Mountain near Carrabassett Valley, Maine.  Same basic sequence as #6 in this album, but this was a wider lens and I also did the remapping from cylindrical to rectilinear I mentioned in shot 10.
  • Exposure fused pano from Cathedral Ledge near North Conway, NH.  I hiked up, but it's better known for rock climbing; there's also an auto road.  Dynamic range was a real problem in late afternoon, but with 3 exposures 2 stops apart there was enough to get good tonality.  Full size is about 40 megapixels.
  • Quick and dirty pano from the upper viewpoint just below Bear Notch.  This one wasn't exposure fused.  Full size is about 30 megapixels.
  • Exposure fused pano from the North Conway/Intervale rest stop.  Full size is about 50 megapixels.
  • 360 degree exposure fused panorama from the monument in Provincetown, MA.  This one was tricky to shoot because the viewing areas on each side are covered with plexiglass and bars, and there was only a small area I could squeeze my monopod under.  I lost a fair bit of the foreground thanks to having only 4 available locations.  You can see most of Cape Cod from here.  Full size is about 35 megapixels.
  • Same shot as #5 in this album, but with a little tweaking both with Enfuse and with GIMP.
  • Exposure fused panorama from Mt. Willard in Crawford Notch.  3x3 shots with Sigma 8-16 @8 mm on Canon 7D, with some tweaking, flare cleanup, and a fair bit of other work.  The cylindrical panorama Hugin produced was too narrow at the left and right for my taste (the normal effect of remapping rectilinear shots), so I then reloaded the pano into Hugin, told it that I used a 20 mm panoramic lens, then projected it as a rectilinear pano.  The "bowtie" effect let me use more of the foreground.  I was actually planning to use a different panorama I shot from the main viewpoint, but then I tried this one and was much happier with it!  The full size (which I may post some time) is 8197x3190.
  • One final panorama from our trip last month.  This one's from the summit of Mt. Crawford, just off the Davis Path in the White Mountains.  Mt. Crawford is on a subsidiary ridge of the Presidentials; Mt. Washington is visible about 2/3 to the right.  I'm not certain exactly how wide it is; depending upon exactly what I did, Hugin gave me estimates of between 270 and 310 degrees.  This was hand held, and I had to perform a bit of surgery to get some seams to line up (in addition to synthesizing some rock and sky).  The Sigma 8-16 that I used (at the wide end) isn't a flare monster, but I did have to clean up some flare spots.  Full size is about 35 megapixels.
  • This was long my personal favorite.  I took it on Jan. 1, 1998 from the top of the ski lift at Wildcat in Gorham, NH.  I don't actually ski, but they let me take the lift up and back down (it was a chairlift then).  This was the first shot I took when I reached the summit (col, actually), and it was a grab shot, with ISO 400 film and my trusty Tamron 28-200 on my then Canon Rebel XS.  Sometimes those grab shots work, though!  Wildcat is across from Mt. Washington, with the Gulf of Slides, Tuckerman Ravine, a small unnamed ravine, and Huntington Ravine from left to right.  A storm was coming in (the great ice storm of January 1998, I believe), making for some very interesting lighting.
  • Half Dome in Yosemite National Park at sunset, from Olmsted Point.  Exposure fused from a bracket set.  I had tried this the previous night, but had some problems.  I went back up the next evening, but it was socked in when I got there.  I don't give up *that* quickly, though, and was rewarded for my patience.
  • On the western side of Yosemite, near the tunnel.
  • Vernal Falls in Yosemite National Park.  This is a two frame panorama using an 8 mm lens.  The hike to Vernal Falls is short, but the last .2 mile or so is very steep, on rough steps.
  • No Comments
  • Photo Sharing
  • About SmugMug
  • Browse Photos
  • Prints & Gifts
  • Terms
  • Privacy
  • Contact
  • Owner Log In
© 2022 SmugMug, Inc.