Panoramas: How to retain sense of height?

[newmurph]

<p>I'm finding that when I make panorams, in this case storm clouds being the subject, the storms looks massive and really high above me, but when I actually stitch the panorama together, the image looks too flat and the clouds look too distant. How can I retain the real life perspective?<br>

This image is comprised of 13 horizontal images shot at 18mm. Is this why the storm looks so far away and small compared to what I saw in real life? Would shooting more verticle images at longer focal length help retain the sense of size?<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18249820-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="750" /></p><div></div>

[ellis_vener_photography]

My first thought is that your horizon line is too high in the composition. Does all that lawn make a "narrative" contribution

to the finished photograph? If not try cropping the photo to the point where it is just barely there.

 

Secondly by shooting with the long edge of the frame parallel to the ground you are throwing away a lot of resolution, but

that isn't related to tje problem you asked about.

[User_6502147]

<p>If the sky truely contributes to some sort of substance, you could shoot it in vertical (90-105mm or so)....and then shoot additional "<strong>2nd story</strong>" pano, overlapping with the lower pano.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[Member69643]

<p>Panoramas aren't limited to vertical.</p>

[newmurph]

<p>Les,<br /> Are you talking about a second row on the top or bottom, or shooting verticaslly AND horizontally?</p>

<p>Patrick,<br /> This is true, but I'm wondering if shooting wide and horizontally is making the storm look further away than it really was.</p>

<p>Everyone,</p>

<p>The scene doesn't have a lot of contrast and it is also dimly lit. Would I polishing a turd here to try and lighten the shadows and lower the overall exposure to make the details in the clouds clearer?</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18249828-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="553" /></p><div></div>

[User_6502147]

<p>Yes, I was talking about second row. You can do this horizontally or vertically (overlapping)....and you can add more rows as you need it. I think this works better on a static scene (church, temple, etc) vs something that's constantly in flux.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[kim_johnson1]

There is nothing that says you have to use a wide or ultra wide lens (which is giving you that far away feel). You can use

a 50mm (to mimick what you saw), or any focal length, you'll just have to take more images.

[dave_smith36]

<p>Hi Matt,<br>

I'm new here (to photo.net) but definitely not new to photography. I've lurked on photo.net for a while now. I like your picture and your question, and you've inspired me to join just yesterday and now my first post.</p>

<p>1) Leading lines, and the Rule of Thirds<br>

It really looks like you consciously put thought into the composition to have the leading lines in the grass converge into a point that is placed at one of the "rule of thirds" intersections. And I think it's quite nicely done. The "rule of thirds" (ROT) is an established and effective composition tool. In this case, it draws the viewers eye into the picture and holds the attention there. Further, the horizon line (although somewhat obscured by the trees and houses) is also at the lower ROT line. Again, very nicely following the composition rule.<br>

By following the ROT rule so closely, I think that there is a very strong pull for the viewer to look at that one spot, which draws attention away from the clouds overhead. The receding point on the ground is so strongly composed that it shouts out "hey, look here (not up at those clouds)".<br>

There's a variation on the rule of thirds that's more generically called the "rule of odds". This means that focal points can be placed at 1/3 lines, or 1/5 lines. In practical terms, you can't do much more than 1/3 or 1/5, but the idea is that the odd numbers work well in the visual arts. The concept of placement, aspect ratios and framing is described quite nicely in a book that I like by David duChemin, called "Photographically Speaking". He places heavy emphasis on composition and the psychology behind it.<br>

I bring this up because I like and agree with Ellis' point about placing the horizon much lower. This lessens the impact of that one point in the image and gives the sky a better chance of getting some attention.<br>

And I think you've actual done this with your second image. I was just wanting to provide some background or reason why that's the case (from a composition perspective).</p>

<p>2) Aspect Ratio<br>

I also like the suggestion about shooting a vertical aspect ratio like Ellis and Leszek made. Depending on what the sky had to offer may or may not have made that practical. Either way, I don't know if you even captured the upper part of the sky and if that's an option.</p>

<p>Sometimes, it's just a matter of shooting a vertical image anyways, just to see (later) if you like it.</p>

<p>3) Tonal contrast<br>

The viewer's eye is drawn to the point of greatest contrast. The sky is somewhat uniformly light in tonality. The ground and trees are dark. The point of greatest (tonal) contrast is the line that separates them.<br>

If, in post-processing, you (subtly) lifted the shadows or lightened the lower half of the picture and also darkened the sky and increased contrast a bit (using a tone curve), I wonder if that would better tell the story of happy/cheerful on the ground (lighter tones) and the impending doom of a storm coming. The way that I interpret this image, I'd probably give that a try, but your intent might be different.</p>

<p>4) Focal length and compression/expansion<br>

This happens more with "why do the mountains look more distant?" than with your picture here (with clouds vs. ground), but you wondered aloud about "making things (the storm) look further away than it really was".<br>

Shorter focal lengths (like the 18mm here) will optically push distant things further away. We know that the "feel" of the aspect ratio straight out of the camera is "normal" somewhere around 35mm - 50mm (depending on the sensor size). If you want to visually bring distant things in closer, you may want to try to zoom in tighter. You'll have to take more pictures to cover the same area, but the "feel" will be different and "more compressed".</p>