Getting Closer...

Beautiful pano !!

If don't want use PS in a kind of USSR-era style then try a sling (but it's more risky!!)- ;o))!

Cheers and congrats again. I felt I was a in bit Sydney today! Thanks Tony and forget my joking PS jobs!

The left hand lamp globe is the place where the picture opens in PN. It's where you enter the picture. Top left. I wonder how differently people might view this if the "offending" lamp had been on the right of the picture?

 

Looking at the picture on a smaller scale (in fact like I'm looking at it now doing this comment) the lamp balances with its distant cousin on the right hand side (meaning distance from lamp stem to adjacent side margins) and the importance of this is more significant I think than if say the lamps had been of different designs and not related.

 

The suggestions seem only concerned with the top of the lamp. No crits concerning the base which is also cropped of course. If you're gonna have this lamp (and you've got to) and keep the balance on the left and right margins then that means stepping back, probably creating all sorts of problems with excessive railings, smaller lamps further away and God knows what else. I think the position of this left lamp is just about spot on. It doesn't interfere with the pillar to its left nor the bench to its right. Were you to crop this lamp out how weaker the picture would be. The journey to next lamp would be a snail's pace. Note the acceleration required to get to the second one in compared to that from second to third one in, and how by that journey you're on to the line where city meets bay and shooting off to the bridge and Opera House. The journey in is superior to that from the right hand side and I think a lot of that is down to this darn lamp globe.

 

Good luck when you reshoot with peeps. I'd hog this position and give it up to no man.

What's that I just read about pouffy Canon rubbish. I'm surprised to read meat, 3 veg and neat whiskey on the opposite sides of the same sentence. Everyone knows that digital is the preferred choice of the world's soppiest photographers :)

Ah yes, we must indeed suffer for our art. :-) The more I look at this the more I marvel at the complexities presented in the composition of a stitched panoramic. When you say this shot represents an almost 360 degree view of this location it becomes clear that finding that perfect spot to set your camera could easily come down to a matter of inches!

 

You wondered what I real photographer would do? In my case, since someone once called me a real photographer (ex-girlfriend, not too bright), I would find one of those big beers that you need 2 hands to hold (you do have mighty big beer down there!) and tell myself that I could have nailed the shot if I wanted to. But I CHOSE not to!

 

"Again I ask, where does reality lie? Or (to be clever) is all "reality" simply a lie?"

 

Now this is an interesting question. It's true that what people perceive as reality changes when viewing the world in 2 dimension. I tested this once after shooting some ornately framed mirrors for a catalog. They were to be shot straight on, nothing fancy. Utilizing the features of the 4X5 camera I was able to photograph these mirrors without the reflection of the camera, and more importantly my ugly mug, reflecting in the mirror. After I completed the shots I showed one of the chromes (this was back in my film days) to several people around the office. Accountants, sales people, and the like, and asked them if they saw anything odd about this image. Here was a mirror apparently breaking the laws of physics. Existing in a world where the angle of incidence no longer equals the angle of reflection. A mirror not doing what mirrors love to do (reflecting me and the camera) and not a single person found it odd! Now, if the camera WAS reflected in this mirror I assure you everyone would have noticed something odd.

 

Very often, as you've done in the colors of the sky, we must warp reality to achieve reality. It's a fascinating process!

 

BTW - Speaking as someone with a box full of old FE's, F3's, N90's, and now using a D100. I agree with you on the Canon's. Totally pouffy! :-))

Tony, as a long admirer of your portfolio I have to say this is a very interesting location with great panoramic potential. It is very interesting to read all your thoughts and considerations going in to these pictures. To have people in a panorama like this would be great, though at 8 seconds they will be pretty blurry people :-)

 

As far as composition goes, have you considered to move one lamp closer to the seats of the restaurant, and if possible a slightly higher viewpoint? That could make the restaurant area more interesting (especially with dining people) and would also maybe solve the obscuring of the opera house.

 

Also, you mentioned somewhere that you didn't see the advantage of raw over jpg. I agree for most shots the difference is non-existent but one advantage that may apply to a shot like this is that you can experiment with the white balance after the fact. I've done several of these mixed light shots where I thought it made a difference. I have no experience with Nikon raw though (and only a little with Canon raw).

Looks wonderful Tony and thanks for sharing the

technical detail also. I really do like it.

Terrific shot...what more can I say? Super!

On the position of the lamp...

First some orientation: looking "north" is to the right of this picture, "south" to the left ("west" is right in the middle).

* I physically couldn't move any further west because then I would have been "with the fishes", as don Corleone would have put it (and some of the fishes in Sydney Harbour are sharks, even here, right in the middle of the city).

* I only had a 24mm lens, so I couldn't go wider optically.

* If I moved further north then that granite-veneered concrete block (just to the left of the rightmost lamp) would have appeared bigger than the Opera House itself.

* I couldn't get up on top of the concrete block for reasons set-out in an earlier post.

* I didn't have a scaffold to climb up on.

* Not that any of the above means there wasn't a better position here. I couldn't possibly claim that. But those were my reasons for setting up where I did (and you're right Bob Hixon... I did move the tripod 18 inches further north after my initial setup).

I actually did take a full 360 degree shot, starting with the lamp at the left. In fact, I adjusted the starting point of the pan head so that the left border of panel #1 (the lamp) is exactly as you see it here. The rest I let fall where they fell (the head was set to 24 degrees between shots). So this picture is cropped at the right to "equalize" the two lamps, even though one is one near, one far. What is missing at the far right was unnecessary for the picture (dimly lit buildings). There is no vertical cropping at all.

However... one of the joys of shooting the full 360 degrees is that you can take a bit of the right and stick it on the left (and vice versa). Once the panorama is rendered, the geometry at any point is fully resolved and you can cut and paste to your heart's content. Who's to say your original "left hand side" should stay your left hand side? You can shoot the whole view and then come back and decide your final composition when you aren't shivering to death. Horizontal framing is yours to tweak as you wish. It's the vertical framing you have to get right at the time.

Phil has analysed the lamp positioning in great detail, so much better than I could myself. It's a great read, a sort of "post-mortem". But the original thoughts go through your head in a flash.

On "reality"...

People want to believe that something they see makes sense. We go to the cinema and the success or failure of the film depends on suspension of disbelief: that days, weeks and years can be compressed into 90 or 120 minutes; that the hero sleuth can solve a crime merely by the exercise of intuition over a five minute period; that a shot really does represent Ancient Rome in all its glory. Same with Bob's "it's all done with mirrors" shot. No-one saw anything wrong with the shot because they wanted to believe and Bob helped them skillfully. In the end it was so convincing that he got irritated about the success of his shot. No-one saw how clever it was! As he said, so succinctly, ... we must warp reality to achieve reality. Photography is an emotional art, like any other art. The only truth lies in our emotinal reaction to the artist's vision.

Otherwise we may as well just be lab technicians, gathering dry, visual data.

On composition...

(Don't worry, I'm not going to mention "negative space" once)

One day recently a thought struck my mind and I haven't been able to shake it off. It is this:

There are many compositions for a given scene, some right, some wrong. But just about everyone will agree which ones are right and which ones are wrong.

In short, "Compositional values are universal values." Even across cultures, races and places (I'm not sure about across species).

Why is this?

Why are dogs the ultimate cynics? Why, when you hold them up to a mirror do they not react? Why do they somehow know that there is no dog in that mirror? And why do we humans suspend our disbelief and see "self" (permanently reversed, of course), and even position ourselves so that we automatically achieve a perfect balance, even when brushing our hair in that mirror? We are composing a picture when we look in a mirror, and everybody does it the same way, except dogs, cats and almost any other species (unless they're caught by a surprise reflection).

OK, so there been some friendly argument about the positioning of the lamp-post in this pic, but most wouldn't say it's plain wrong.

If compositional values really are universal in the way I've suggested, then what other artistic values can match it? Musical scale? Color? Poetic meter?

I'm probably wrong, about this, but the thought persists. If anyone can point out my error, then I'd be glad to hear their point of view.

On Raw vs. JPEG...

I read the book about what RAW files can do for those who use them, but I rarely actually use them. Here's why.

They're a pain to use in situations such as this one, as you end up waiting an age for the camera to write to the memory chip. It can take over a minute sometimes. Even the JPEG writes to memory hold up proceedings every once in a while.

I just can't see the practical gain from shooting RAW with a view to changing color balance later on. What I mean is, I often DO change color balance, but only just a tad.... 8-bits is fine for me. With tonality, my experience (empirical only) says to me that a badly over-exposed shot remains over-exposed (highlights gone forever) whether its RAW or JPEG. A lot of people seem to think that RAW files somehow keep all the detail in a shot and these details are there for mining, if we're prepared to pay the price in time and memory of using the RAW format. The lamp-posts in this shot had some detail in them, but there was no way that RAW, JPEG or any other format would show it as they were about 8 stops brighter than ambient. Bye, bye highlights whatever way you choose to encode them.

In some publications I see RAW files characterised as sort of "tonality misers", stingily doling out highlight and shadow details to lesser formats such as TIFF and JPEG, hogging all the real quality for themselves. If this is true it's more subtle than I can tell on a practical, day by day basis. If this is true it must only be at the margins, and I try to shoot well within the margins (he says smugly).

Can anyone give me a concrete example (even a reliable internet link) of better tonality from a RAW vs. JPEG shootout (apart from image detail which might vary in some situations between the two formats) that couldn't be achieved by just using your exposure meter more skilfully? Or a white balance problem that couldn't be nixed in the bud by some basic forward thinking about what you're going to shoot? I'm not seeing RAW winning hands down against JPEG with the D100, that's all.

Works for me; a pleasure to view.

I gave up drinking bourbon whiskey long ago Phil (it was the Coca-Cola that was killing me). Actually, now I drink Australian chardonnay (the red gives me a headache nowadays). My wife rightly insists on the 3-veg dinner, the meat is optional.

 

Hope that clears up the misunderstanding.

Yeah I get the picture Tony. Seems lifes a little watered down these days. It simmers and occasionally sizzles perhaps. Not to worry. Look at whats left. Youve still got something trusty in your holster and youre still demanding your women straight. And as the image above confirms, a photograph's still got to look like a photograph.

I even find myself saying things like, "Rap has no melody and celebrates immorality". Exactly what my mum used to say about the Rolling Stones. Fancy that...

 

...and the way those young punks drive their cars so fast, zipping in and out of lanes. They oughta be locked up!

 

People of any age insist their's is the framework from which to look out on the world and make judgement. The older enviously wish the young not to make the same mistakes they made, and the young smugly think the old too cautious. The ones in the middle sneer at their children while counting the days towards inheriting their own parents' houses.

Maybe it was said anywhere... Pan IS DIFFERENT! Why?: Look around in photo.net - 95% men... Men usually can revers better with the car but can not listen ;-) anyone knows this kind of well sellings books... Men are starring on the but, while women pass you and you do not recodnize that they fixed you... Does men has a more focused view? The standart images and the "golden" rules are pointing to a focus in the pic at a well learned 2/3 spot. This is all (most) different in a pan. A pan needs more from the photographer and from the viewer! You have to scroll along and to find your spot - or not a spot a more general overview...

I had a walk yesterday aside my house along the riverside and passed a point where I'm always thinking how can you catch this and then I started above mentioned thoughts. So far my few cents.

Great photo. The skies in Sydney are as great as they are in Holland.

The lamp at the left works great just because the bulb is only partially visible.

The light opening in the cloudy sky leads my eye to the middle of the bridge...the light opening is in the perfect place between the buildings in the left and the bridge....a stroke of a genious. Considering the time it all took to make the pics and the darkness setting in....a marvellous job.

The opera house gives a nice light element at the right end of the picture.

 

All in all I think you got there. I hope you will have just as great a sky the next time you go there.

 

 

 

Tony, I'm curious for your opinion since you've now used both methods...

 

Given the capability of doing digital stitching to create panoramic images, if you had to choose today, would you pick:

 

a) X-Pan or

b) digital camera and use stitching software

 

I'm very close to buying an X-Pan, both for its portability and panoramic capability. The Fuji 617s are capable of wondrous images, but are simply too much camera to haul around.

 

I'm still a happy film user, but like you (and I'm sure, many others), staring at thousands of slides in filing pages gets old. I'd rather spend more time enjoying images online, and less in post processing grief.

Tony,

 

With 13 panels stiched together you must have created a sizable composite file. How large a print would you be comfortable making from this file on, say, a Lightjet at 300dpi?

 

Wonderful image, by the way. Inspiring.

 

The "XPan v. Stitched" panoramics question is one that's giving me some grief.

So far, in the first few weeks of my digital journey, I've noticed the workflow (read: immediacy) advantages of digital, it's adaptability (you can make its images look "transparency-like", "neg film-like" or whatever-like), its inexpensive processing costs (read: nil) and many other good things.

But I've only used my new digital camera near home base, that is, physically near the security blanket of my PC with lots of storage and backup capability. If I was to venture further afield, and needed to travel light then use of a digital camera becomes more problematic.

Oh, I know there are lots of storage media out there for the peripatetic digital photographer: solid state memory chips, sticks and virtual disks, as well as real disks, and even (for those times when you really need to process your shots before you leave the area) the ubiquitous laptop.

The chips-and-sticks approach seems more practical, less encumbering to me, but it's cost can get pretty prohibitive when you get to the gigabyte range. The laptop idea has many advantages as far as mass storage goes (and also as far as checking out your concepts goes... nowadays they're a portable darkroom), but they're also eminently stealable in the bazaars and alleyways that I sometimes like to frequent in the cause of a good picture. And frankly, leaving a laptop in a hotel room in some foreign clime while I'm out-and-about adding to my portfolio, and then returning to find it gone - along with all the shots from the trip so far - and with nary as much as a hasta la vista, baby to replace it, strikes dread into my fevered imagination every time I think of it. What I mean to say is, even taking into account highly optimistic self-opinion of my own work that I do - from time to time - indulge in, no-one ever tried to steal my negatives.... my life's work is, barring natural disaster, safe in its unlocked drawer in my office here in Sydney, and it's just as safe in an exotic hotel room in some warmer clime, if clearly labelled, "Holiday Snaps Only: Please Leave" in sixteen handy languages. Score one for film.

Yet, the problems with film are well-known for the tourist-photographer. Reason-enough to loathe the elusive Osama and his mates is that they have made walking through an innocent airport X-ray metal detector an illuminating (literally) experience, and a fatal one for your film, if you walk the green mile too many times before you have it processed.

Which leads me to my next point and the next question: size.

Despite the very valid comments made in a post above concerning third milennium electronic viewing options, the ultimate viewing experience for me is to look at a good print of a good photograph. This is where the XPan has limitations. Try as I might, I can't get a really good print from an XPan shot bigger than about three or maybe four feet across, that will stand close-up scrutiny. The 6x17 format (also mentioned above) will go a lot further, size-wize, but will also turn an innocent photo shoot into an expedition complete with heavy gear - tripods, heads and other bulky accoutrements - and requires, if it is to be best taken advantage of, the injection of large amounts of cash for both originating equipment and consumables. But those 6x17 prints are really auperb, aren't they? The closer you get, the better they get.

I've had some lucky exposures with the Xpan - where the light is perfect, the exposure accurate to a tenth of a stop and the processing spot-on - exposures that practically burst into song, they look so good as large prints. But for the main, 35mm film - even the best of it, treated perfectly - has limitations that prohibit the more grandiose of my mad schemes involving large print sizes. A 15-to-one enlargement of an Xpan frame will produce approximately a metre-wide print, by about 14 inches high. The same enlargement of a 6x17 will extend out to eight-and-a-half feet wide by thirty-four inches high... an awe-inspiring wall-hogger of a size, and at the same level of detail as a 40-incher from an XPan. To tell the truth, I only have one wall in my home suitable for the Big Bertha size (the others are either in thre wrong place with the wrong light, or are already in use), so my calculations regarding 8-footers would most-likely stay in the realm of daydreams and size-fetish fantasies.

Hell, who says you have to be able to enlarge a print that big anyway? Perhaps only a few, and their reasons may be complex (and not all connected with photography), but like the famous Sydney beaches (which I now rarely attend), it's nice to know they're there. It's relaxing to think that you could if you wanted to.

The XPan is a wonderful, wonderful camera and I will not sell it (like I sold the Pentax 67). Like the large prints and the Sydney beaches, it's nice to know it's there. It's day may yet come again.

In all this waffling-on, I forgot to answer the last question: how big does this print go? At its original (non-extrapolated) filesize, the image is 10 inches high, by 50 inches wide @ 300 dpi. Taking into account that one can enlarge well-shot digital images about an extra 50% above "native" resolution (due to the lack of grain, mostly... but I know this is controversial), that would give us a print about 15 inches high by 6-or-so feet across. Add a frame and a matt and you have a wall-hogger by any measure.

I might also note here that recently I've been doing experiments with multi-row stitched panoramics, that is, making two or more passes around the clock at differing tilt angles and then stitching the resulting panoramics together vertically (as well as horizontally). There's a trick to it that requires some extra hardware (sadly not available from Manfrotto, so I had to make my own), but the results - given the right subject - are truly awesome in size and/or fine detail. My most energetic effort to date is a three-row by nine-column effort that winds out to nearly 300 megabytes filesize. That's 27 photographs all stitched together... seamlessly. As I find out more about the process, I'll post one or two of these monsters.

A few things I can say already: you need to be meticulous, you need just the right conditions and you need the right equipment (not necessarily expensive, or heavy either).

Who said digital cameras took all the fun out of photography?

Tony: You are a national treasure for your experience and willingness to share it, both in accuracy and prose. If Australia ever becomes independent of the Commonwealth, they should put your panoramic photos on the currency!

 

Your point about film as simpler to deal with than all the backpack-busting electronics is critical. I have an ongoing debate with a friend of mine (who, not surprisingly, has gone all digital) on this issue. His point is that indeed it may be more problematic, but the storage capacity of digital exceeds film in terms of physical space, the quality *may* be higher depending on application and equipment, etc.

 

My counter has been that I can purchase film anywhere in the world, those little canisters are incredibly durable, and if I lose one, I've parted with 36 unique pieces of work, and not thousands. On top of it all, film works well, even in difficult environments -- I do a lot of work in the high arctic very near the North Pole, and dealing with -50 C in high winds is commonplace. Electronics has no place in that world.

 

As with any major technological shift, we're at an inflection point and I suppose the tilt isn't dramatic enough just yet for me to make the leap. So I'll likely buy the XPan for its combination of simplicity, portability, and minimalist approach. That's not to say I won't long for the Fuji GX617. I think we're all going to end up shooting everything onto sensors in the next few years -- and ultimately with even better resultant images than medium format can supply.

 

Soon, maybe I'll be able to buy something in an XPan size package which will give me 617 size output, all digital.

 

As we used to say back in the New York area, that would be some fancy-schmancy stuff.

 

Thanks again for your learned advice. It's *tremendously* helpful.

First of all congratulation! It is a fantastic picture of a fantastic town.

 

As for the problem of digital storage, I recently bought eFilm's PicturePAD, it has 30GB storage capability and USB interface, 14.6 x 8.2 x 2.9 cm and weights only 290 gramms. I think it is the best way to store your fotos on a trip. It cost 750 US$.

I use Nikon D1x and travel with it a lot, and I had no trouble! Just you need a good bag!

Wonderful, this is simply beautiful.