|
|
Roger Williams
{K:86139} 4/9/2009
|
Neither cropped nor stitched! This is from a single panorama negative taken on a Fuji TX1, the same camera as the Hasselblad panorama camera, which uses 35mm film but creates a much wider than usual negative (24 x 67mm). I just sold it and I think I am going to regret it!
|
|
|
|
|
Nalin Hettiarachchi
{K:804} 4/8/2009
|
Very nice color and nice pamaramic view. Did you corp it to make pamoramic photo or merge photos?
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
{K:86139} 4/8/2008
|
Naseer... thank you for the kind comment. THe last one was two years ago!
|
|
|
|
Naseer Fedaee
{K:4956} 4/7/2008
|
EXCELELNT.........!
|
|
|
|
AJ Miller
{K:49168} 5/6/2006
|
Ha ha, it's on the front page at last! Nice one, Roger! One more to go...
John
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
{K:86139} 4/23/2006
|
Thanks, Tom. Note: no stitching required with this one! You are quite right about the possible use of a polarizing filter. I'm a bit cross to think I have one but it didn't occur to me to use it. What I thought was over exposure was probably just the effect of glare from reflections. Thanks for the insight. From now on into the summer glare going to increase so I'll be sure to pack the filter!
|
|
|
|
Tom Horton
{K:1605} 4/23/2006
|
Terrific shot, Roger. The colors are fabulous. The resolution seems to hold up very well in Webshots' panorama viewer, but the limitations are still that make it hard to compare this resolution with your original images. One thing I note is the glare from the sun angle on some of the foliage. Just messing around with a polarizer one day, I noticed that it usually does a nice job of diminishing glare from slick plant surfaces, so you might want to try it some time.
|
|
|
|
Ellen Smith
{K:14418} 4/22/2006
|
This is a stunning shot Roger I can't find anything wrong with it, sorry.
Into the top ten.
|
|
|
|
|
Mary Brown
{K:71879} 4/19/2006
|
Hi Roger. I didn't see it either as I have had no access to a computer for 4.5 days. I'm glad your picture got some exposure. Your panoramic technique is very intersting.
MAry
|
|
|
|
|
AJ Miller
{K:49168} 4/19/2006
|
Roger, I didn't see this on the front page on Saturday either, and I definitely visited, perhaps just not at quite the right time... "Today's" featured critique on the front page actually dates from 8 April. So maybe these are still popping up randomly.
John
PS. Oh, and this image is a HUGE colour blast - I have to scroll vertically as well as horizontally to see it all on my screen.
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
{K:86139} 4/16/2006
|
Dear Mary, your lovely comment was a "featured critique" and I missed it on the front page! (I was trying hard to meet a fierce deadline and worked all day Saturday with no time for browsiing Usefilm or leaving comments myself). Thank you SO much... This camera with its wonderful lens and large negative gives really beautiful images--this one is the proof of that. I love it.
|
|
|
|
|
Mary Brown
{K:71879} 4/15/2006
|
For me, the panormama form for this makes it more closely ressemble the wider expanse what one would see in reality. YOu know I can not comment on your techniques because I really would have no idea where to begin trying them. What I do see is a beautiful splash of colour and flower variety. I can almost smell them. I am looking at this on my son-in-law's monitor which does not show the detail and colour that my new one does. So, my figuring is if it looks this good here, it would look even better at yhome. The other thing is though, my monitor shows up more detail and I see more things in mine like picture quality etc that I was not able to see before.
Mary
|
|
|
|
Joćo F * Photography
{K:41945} 4/15/2006
|
Dear Roger excelent floral lines nice & srtong tone colors Too!
joćo
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
{K:86139} 4/13/2006
|
Sorry to hear that, Gabriela. Perhaps you could try a "resend"? There is only a 10MB limit on the size of mails at my mail server, so unless the files were huge or numerous they should have got through. But sometimes the ISP is down for maintenance, and stuff gets bounced.
|
|
|
|
Gabriela Tanaka
{K:16594} 4/13/2006
|
Roger, this is real gorgeous ONLY when looked at in panoramic!!! There one can realize and enjoy the beauty of this shot!
Thanks for the technical explanations! I sent you a mail with photos and it was bounced back by the Mail Administrator. A pity, I had attached some photos, too.
Best regards,
Gabriela
|
|
|
|
stingRay pt.4 .
{K:250401} 4/13/2006
|
There you go with Hugo again, getting all technical:):) Fascinating exchanges.
I love this wonderful floral panoramic composition and for me, a floral addict, it looks truly beautiful with such a wide range of gorgeous colours and great details Roger. We have a small tree with red leaves in late Winter and throughout Spring that gradually turn green in the Summer. Maybe related to your variety. Well done to you my friend, I do so enjoy your photography and your comment exchanges. Very best wishes and a HAPPY EASTER.....Ray
|
|
|
|
George Black
{K:102014} 4/12/2006
|
A most remarkable rendering of a great display of colors. The highlights look to me as if they haven't suffered much from overexposure--certainly not in the context of the whole composition. Really nice work . . .
Regards,
--George
|
|
|
|
Rashed Abdulla
{K:163889} 4/12/2006
|
very impresive and beautiful panorama ,great DOF and wonderful colors, very pleasant to view, all of the best my friend
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
{K:86139} 4/12/2006
|
Hi again, Hugo. I just downloaded this large (Over 2000 x 850 pixel) image from Usefilm to my desktop. The file is identical with the one I uploaded. So no, no degradation of the main image... Under what circumstances do you detect a deterioration? Surely it isn't that ancient bugbear of 300dpi vs 72dpi images? I thought we'd established that this doesn't make any difference to file size/disk space! Although I know that for quite a while Usefilm was compressing and sharpening automatically any files detected to have 300dpi settings.
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Williams
{K:86139} 4/12/2006
|
Hi, Hugo. I very definitely notice this on the downsized photo that appears on the non-donor page, and the file size is very much smaller than normal, I mean under 100k instead of nearer three times that. Obviously this is a trade-off to allow the larger panoramic images, and it's perfectly reasonable as far as I'm concerned. But I must say I haven't noticed any differences between the larger panoramic images on Usefilm and on my own HDD. I will look out for that. Thanks for the "heads up."
|
|
|
|
Hugo de Wolf
{K:185110} 4/12/2006
|
Hi Roger, Huge image in the full size pano view. Good thing to try, yet I also think the beauty of this shot lies in the overview. And a very pleasant overview it is.
Compared to the quality issues I'm experiencing, I think the image quality in both images is pretty decent. I did notice a difference between the photo on my HDD which I used to upload and the same image downloaded from Usefilm. The downloaded version shows much more artefacts and JPEG compression errors than the original (equally sized) photo. Is that something you notice too?
Cheers,
hugo
|
|
0 
