• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Fire and rain

Ruben Alfu

New member
Hello everyone, coming back from a short 3 years vacation. What I like about this pic is the dramatic contrast in the weather conditions. This is from the top of one of the tallest buildings in Panama. I was setup to capture a beautiful sunset with clear skies and in half an hour the clouds and the rain came in. The clouds were moving fast in front of the sun creating dramatic rays of light so I grabbed the camera and shot a pano handheld with four or five frames. Then I had to run because an electrical storm was really closing in, I'm still waiting for the weather to let me do the paradisiacal shot.


20171205_the_point_MG_8522_large.jpg
 
Fantastic, Ruben! Few of us are in such a place when this combination of elements occur, and fewer yet have a camera available to capture it
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hello everyone, coming back from a short 3 years vacation. What I like about this pic is the dramatic contrast in the weather conditions. This is from the top of one of the tallest buildings in Panama. I was setup to capture a beautiful sunset with clear skies and in half an hour the clouds and the rain came in. The clouds were moving fast in front of the sun creating dramatic rays of light so I grabbed the camera and shot a pano handheld with four or five frames. Then I had to run because an electrical storm was really closing in, I'm still waiting for the weather to let me do the paradisiacal shot.


20171205_the_point_MG_8522_large.jpg

What is so stunning is the magnificent scale of the picture. What size is the final stitched image and what the technical details of lens and ISO?

How large can this be printed and still look magnificent!

Asher
 

Ruben Alfu

New member
What is so stunning is the magnificent scale of the picture. What size is the final stitched image and what the technical details of lens and ISO?

How large can this be printed and still look magnificent!

Asher


Thanks Asher, the stitched file is 93M (8bit). In theory that would give a printed image around 26" x 14" 300ppi. I guess at that size it should look fine but frankly I have almost no experience doing large prints.

As I mentioned, this was shot in a rush, and I did at least two sequences with bracketed exposure.

Camera Canon 6D
Lens EF24-105 f/4L @24mm
Exposure 1/1000 f5.6 ISO 400
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Thanks Asher, the stitched file is 93M (8bit). In theory that would give a printed image around 26" x 14" 300ppi. I guess at that size it should look fine but frankly I have almost no experience doing large prints.

As I mentioned, this was shot in a rush, and I did at least two sequences with bracketed exposure.

Camera Canon 6D
Lens EF24-105 f/4L @24mm
Exposure 1/1000 f5.6 ISO 400


Rubin, it all depends on looking at the files and printing intended printing-magnification cut outs say on 8x10 paper with the same inks and chosen paper.

Then look at it from the viewing distance, say 25cm or 1 meter and see if it holds up. In this case, the posture and energietic sweep of the clouds over the cubic rectalinear buiding motifs below, are what needs to be shown. The eye does not need detail on the buildings, but if the transitions and colors of the clouds are posterized, then this is not at exhibition level.

The success of the picture, as a print, now, soley depends on the gradients and hues that have survived the processes of capture.

Are these from RAW or jpg. If from JPG, then once you see that the file can be printed from what you have, then redo everything from scratch using those RAW files and optimize for the clouds on the right, buildings, sky on the left and then water in four different layers and blend by hand using masks. Then add back ~10% to 17% or so of the original to "unify" the combination you created.

I believe you can upress this picture by 50% at least, but you will. know soon enough from your test prints.

This is one of those once in 2 years pictures that fortune has given you to test you out and hopefully reward you!

Asher
 

Ruben Alfu

New member
Rubin, it all depends on looking at the files and printing intended printing-magnification cut outs say on 8x10 paper with the same inks and chosen paper.

Then look at it from the viewing distance, say 25cm or 1 meter and see if it holds up. In this case, the posture and energietic sweep of the clouds over the cubic rectalinear buiding motifs below, are what needs to be shown. The eye does not need detail on the buildings, but if the transitions and colors of the clouds are posterized, then this is not at exhibition level.

The success of the picture, as a print, now, soley depends on the gradients and hues that have survived the processes of capture.

Are these from RAW or jpg. If from JPG, then once you see that the file can be printed from what you have, then redo everything from scratch using those RAW files and optimize for the clouds on the right, buildings, sky on the left and then water in four different layers and blend by hand using masks. Then add back ~10% to 17% or so of the original to "unify" the combination you created.

I believe you can upress this picture by 50% at least, but you will. know soon enough from your test prints.

This is one of those once in 2 years pictures that fortune has given you to test you out and hopefully reward you!

Asher

Wow that's great info Asher, thanks so much. These are RAW and I don't see mayor problems in image quality. Now, I couldn't tell if it is at exhibition level. Here are some crops at 100%, do you see any potential?

20171205_the_point_MG_8522_crop02_large.jpg



20171205_the_point_MG_8522_crop01_large.jpg



20171205_the_point_MG_8522_crop03_large.jpg
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Ruben,

Excellent! It's already from RAW software stitched almost everything well.

However here, the work it did, (on matching the solid building structures), seems to have induced stuccatto edges in the line of clouds above them. These artifacts also, on occasion, damaged the gray distance layers of the hills atvthe horizon.



20171205_the_point_MG_8522_crop01_large.jpg





What stitching software did you use: Photoshop CC, Autopano Giga from Kolor.com or else PTGUI or perhaps something else?

Or you did it by hand??

These particular artifacts are easily repairable to perfection. If there are really bad ones elsewhere in the total area of the image, one could simply restitch with more stringent parameters and some corrections. I always do such an important project to be output, (with all the original contributing images), in layers with all so Each area can be edited to reinsert the true original structure or natural gradients.

So, I figure this will should eventually print well.


Asher
 

Ruben Alfu

New member
Ruben,

Excellent! It's already from RAW software stitched almost everything well.

However here, the work it did, (on matching the solid building structures), seems to have induced stuccatto edges in the line of clouds above them. These artifacts also, on occasion, damaged the gray distance layers of the hills atvthe horizon.



20171205_the_point_MG_8522_crop01_large.jpg





What stitching software did you use: Photoshop CC, Autopano Giga from Kolor.com or else PTGUI or perhaps something else?

Or you did it by hand??

These particular artifacts are easily repairable to perfection. If there are really bad ones elsewhere in the total area of the image, one could simply restitch with more stringent parameters and some corrections. I always do such an important project to be output, (with all the original contributing images), in layers with all so Each area can be edited to reinsert the true original structure or natural gradients.

So, I figure this will should eventually print well.


Asher


I did it with Photoshop Asher, it was a quick assembling because my only purpose was to share it online. For commercial work I might use Autopano Giga if needed. Now I'm certainly motivated to redo the whole thing and see if it works for a large print. I'm taking note of your observations.
 
Top