albero

1"; f11; iso 64; 16,2 mm (63 mm eq); some 25 panels stitched using

Photoshop Elements' Photomerge.

This seems too strongly a Photoshop output for my taste. I guess it could be an artifact of the photo merge process, but the leaves near the top look profoundly wrong to me and the strange lens-flare isn't working for me either.

By contrast, your architectural photographs are much more appealing (especially the black and white ones) for being much less (if at all) retouched *and* being well-conceived to boot. I also really like the "colour slides" folder.

I see what you mean, because I had the same strange feeling with the leaves when I first watched the results of the merger: more exactly, part of the problem is, in my opinion, that the leaves are too strongly back lit by the sun light (exposure measurement was made only on the dark side - the bottom - and kept to all the following pictures) and this part of the problem is not tied to photoshop retouching; the second part is that there's a diagonal band at the top of the picture where 'photomerge' failed (and I noticed that only after uploading). What is somehow surprising - and i need your opinions here - is that the tree seems or could seem to be in its upright position and watched from a far location in front of it, when actually its top has been photographed from down to up, with the lens almost vertical, the same holds for the leaves at the bottom of the picture (from up to down).

I'm not an expert on this technique, i'm just beginning with it and, digital or not (though digital allows you to save metres of film wasted by stitching images) i'm impressed by the range of possibilities this gives you, also in architectural photography, and by the fact you must have a "project" to develop when facing one of these shots, thing that lately I often missed.