technique

...now browsing by tag

 
 

House on Fire ruin–a vertical panorama

Monday, February 8th, 2010

In my last post, I discussed a few techniques that can be used to effectively shoot panoramas.  All of my examples were of grand landscapes, and they were all landscape-oriented panoramas.  I want to use this post to point out another time you can shoot panos to yield great results.

Last November, we visited the Cedar Mesa area near Blanding, Utah.  Since we were limited on time, we chose to visit a familiar and often photographed Ancestral Puebloan ruin that’s been nicknamed the “House on Fire” (also called the Flaming Roof ruin).  I blogged about that visit here, in November.  While at the ruin, I envisioned someday wanting to print it very large, and wished I had a medium format camera with me.  Additionally, I really wanted to emphasize the “flames” exiting the roof of the ruin.

So, I took 3 landscape-oriented images, but rather than putting them next to each other, I stacked them on top of one another,  thus producing a larger image.  If you click on the image, you’ll see a larger version–the detail is amazing!  That said, it would look even better printed on canvas over your couch :)

A view of an Ancestral Puebloan ruin near Cedar Mesa, Utah

"House on Fire" vertical panorama, Utah, November 2009

Shooting panoramas with minimal equipment

Saturday, February 6th, 2010

As a photographer, or even a nature lover, you’ve probably stood staring at a wide vista wondering how you can possibly do that view justice in your photographs.  Maybe you’ve even wanted to be able to print that picture large to give a room in your home the same feel as actually standing there.  Have you ever thought about taking multiple images of a scene and stitching them together into a panorama?

Shooting “panos” has become more popular in the last few years with the advent of point-and-shoot digital cameras that stitch the image in-camera for you, but if you want to shoot a panorama with your SLR, there are some things to consider.  First, and this should be a no-brainer, pick something interesting to shoot.  It may look impressive as is, but if you pick out something with substance, it will look even better!

So you’ve got your vista picked out.  Now what?  In my experience, the key to producing quality panoramas is making sure your tripod is level.  If this is the case, you will have much better luck at the stitching process.  I have used two different methods to level my gear; the first is via a 2-stop process that’s super cheap.

My tripod does not have a built-in bubble level, so I start by removing the head, and placing a bubble level (~$3 at Ace Hardware) on the tripod.  Tinker with the lengths of your tripod legs until you level the tripod.  Now, put your head back on, and you’ll see that it can rotate on a level base.

using a bubble level to level my tripod

By removing the head and using a spirit bubble level, I can make sure my tripod head is rotating on a level base.

The second, and more recent, method I’ve used is by putting a leveling base on my tripod.  I use the Manfrotto 438 leveling base, but other companies like Acratech also make them.  They’re more expensive than my first method, but they’re way faster and you don’t have to fiddle with your tripod legs.  To level your camera on your tripod use a hot shoe level like the Jobu Designs Dubble Bubble level.

tripod head with manfrotto 438 leveling head

My tripod head can be leveled easily and quickly using the Manfrotto 438 leveling base.

level and set up for shooting panoramas

After leveling my tripod head, I level my camera on the tripod using a hotshoe level.

OK, now you’re level.  The rest of the pano practically shoots itself.  I usually work from left to right, making sure to overlap my images by anywhere from ~1/3-1/2.  This makes for a lot of images (many of mine are 12-15 images) but you’re almost sure to get a better stitch at the computer.

A couple of other things to consider before we discuss stitching:

  • To shoot vertical or horizontal…that is the question.  In stitching, you’re almost guaranteed to lose a little of the top and bottom of your images because the software will correct for barrel distortion.  Because of this, I almost always shoot my panos in a vertical orientation.  That way I’m left with an image that is a little more proportional, instead of something VERY long and skinny!
  • Just like with any shot, sharpness matters.  When I shoot panoramas, I almost always use a cable release and set my camera to shoot in mirror lock-up mode.  This reduces any possible vibration, hopefully ensuring a better stitch.
  • Do not change your focus or any camera settings while shooting your panorama.  However, consider bracketing your shots.  That way you have more to work with at the computer, and you can even consider making an HDR panorama (let’s save that for another blog post, please).
  • I haven’t addressed the problem of parallax yet.  Unless you are rotating on the nodal point of your lens (or using a pano slider), you will have parallax issues if anything in your pano is closer than ~10-15 feet.  The cheap solution is to make sure trees, rocks, etc are further than ~10-15 feet from my camera, and that seems to work to subdue parallax.  The obvious downside to my method is that you’re constrained as to your compositional choices.

So, now you’ve got your image files, and you’re back at the computer.  Can you simply align them in Photoshop manually, then crop the canvas down to its final size?  I think this works for most people ~1% of the time (I’ve managed to do it once, and I’m 99% sure it was dumb luck).  Every other time, the barrel distortion, as well as other factors, will necessitate the use of software to help you stitch your images together.

Panoramic photograph of Zabriskie Point at sunset, Death Valley National Park, California

Dumb luck. I stitched this 4-image pano together manually--I've never gotten it to work since.

For stitching panoramas, I use the software package Panorama Factory.  I like it because it has a fully automatic mode, which should work really well if you leveled your rig properly and provided enough overlap between images.  Alternatively, Panorama Factory allows for various levels of manual stitching, letting you define stitching points, and for the occasional difficult to stitch image, I like that mode a lot as well.  If you are interested in shooing HDR panoramas, Panorama Factory will stitch different sets of exposure identically so they overlay perfectly.  I have to admit that I’ve tried this once, and it didn’t work quite as smoothly as I’d like.  I’ve found that using the auto-align feature in Photoshop CS4 works well before blending images.

So, that’s basically it.  This tutorial was meant to get you taking beautiful panoramas using a minimal amount of equipment.  I hope you enjoyed it.  Feel free to add to the comment section if there’s anything I missed, or needs corrected.  Hope you can find this useful!

A panoramic photo of the Ritter Range, Sierra Nevada, California

An 11-image panorama of the Ritter Range, Sierra Nevada, California

    Tuolumne Meadows in summer

    Thursday, February 4th, 2010

    If you ask my wife, patience is not one of my virtues.  I usually want instant solutions to problems, and you do not even want to be around me at Christmas (little kids have nothing on me!).  However, in photography, I tend to have significantly more patience.  I’m happy to wait several hours for a shot, and lately I find myself sitting on images for days, weeks or even months before processing them.  This potentially has a lot of benefits: it helps us assess their artistic value without the excitement of having fresh images hang over our head, and it also forces us to be patient and thorough in post-processing.

    The image I processed tonight benefitted from my waiting, I think.  I took this panorama of Tuolumne Meadows, in Yosemite National Park, last August, but I haven’t processed it until tonight.  Once I got home, I wasn’t really excited about the way it looked.  But, tonight, that golden light on one of my favorite meadows made me wistful for the high country, as well as letting me look forward to summer.  This is a 10-frame panorama of the meadows; I processed each RAW file 3 times, at -2/3, 0, and +1/3 EV then combined them in Photoshop using the blending technique recently described by Younes Bounhar.

    I’m pleased with the result; clicking on the image will link you to a larger image file so you can more fully appreciate the detail here!   I love panoramas because they really bring you into the scene.  Enjoy!

    Tuolumne Meadows panorama, Yosemite National Park, California

    Tuolumne Meadows panorama, Yosemite National Park, California, August 2009

    Click here to see all of my Yosemite National Park images.

    Photo of the Month-February

    Monday, February 1st, 2010

    I really cannot believe that January–1/12 of 2010–is already behind us.  It seems like just yesterday we were all sharing our favorite images of 2009, and we’ve already created so many fantastic images this year.

    Here in southern California, the weather is already starting to feel spring-like.  Around my house, the hillsides are turning the vibrant green that will be with us until April.  There’s talk of a decent wildflower season after our epic rainfall totals during the last couple of weeks.  While our spring will have moved into summer by the time the rest of the nation begins theirs, I’m looking forward to all of those spring time photo outings–the ones where you (should) take just a few moments to bask in the warm sunlight, or in a grass-filled meadow.  I’m also looking forward to hopefully fitting in our annual trip to Death Valley National Park this year.

    If you haven’t been, Death Valley is a pleasantly deceiving national park.  The idea of “DEATH Valley” brings to mind a barren landscape that’s, to put it bluntly, boring.  Anyone who’s been there will tell you the opposite.  Its an amazing park, encompassing many ecosystems, and several natural wonders.  What amazes me is how much diversity is present in a relatively small space.

    One of my favorite places in Death Valley is the Racetrack Playa, where the famed “racing rocks” are found.  The playa itself is a very flat surface; its altitude varies only a few centimeters across its 1-mile length!  When the playa is wet (as it probably is now), it makes a very slick surface, and high winds push the “racing rocks” along, leaving tracks that remain after the mud has dried.  Many of the rocks are quite large, and I’m happy I haven’t been on the playa during the winds that are capable of pushing rocks that heavy–I would guess there would have to be gusts in excess of 80 or 90 mph!

    This month’s photo is a star trail shot I took in April 2009 on the Racetrack.  It is a composite of about 25 2.5-minute shots, stacked using Photoshop.  I wanted to include the north star–Polaris–in my shot, so I had to look for a rock that had a northerly trajectory–apparently there aren’t many!

    racetrack star trails

    Star trails on the Racetrack Playa, Death Valley National Park, April 2009

    G. Dan Mitchell, an excellent San Francisco Bay Area photographer, has recently been writing a couple of very informative and comprehensive guides to visiting Death Valley.  You can see them here and here.  Mac Danzig, who has an amazing Death Valley portfolio, also has taken the time to write an excellent guide to Death Valley here.

    You can see all of my Death Valley photographs here.

    The evolution of an image, and the value of critique forums

    Saturday, January 30th, 2010

    Like any artist or hobbyist, photographers spend a lot of time learning skills to make themselves better–they want to make their images better, they want to better define their vision, and, alas, they try to make their websites better too.  In the midst of all the things out there to help you improve your photography, a very simple move you can make is to start participating in an online community that includes image critique forums.  Both Bret Edge and Justin Reznick have recently blogged on this topic, but I wanted to throw my $0.02 in, with a slightly different twist.

    I began participating in photo critique forums over at Photo.net in 2005, not long after I started shooting.  At the time my images were pretty bad–by all measures, they simply weren’t that good.  While I did receive some constructive feedback, I mostly got images bashed by non-nature photographers.  They weren’t trying to be mean, but as I said, the images were pretty bad.  However, in 2006, I discovered Naturescapes.net and began participating in earnest.  My photographs, well, they still weren’t good, but I quickly became part of a community that helped me learn to improve not only my technique behind the camera, but also my post processing skills as well.

    There are many important steps you can take to help improve your photography, and I believe that participating in a forum is one of them.  If you decide to participate, you SHOULD expect to put in just as much as you get out of it.  In other words, you need to participate, not just post a photo now and then, expecting everyone to fix your problems for you.  Also, you SHOULD feel free to ask questions.  In my personal experience, the forums I participate in are filled with people way more knowledgeable than I am, and I know I’ve looked like a doofus more than once with my questions.  While they may be snickering, people are always very nice in answering questions.  You also SHOULD have fun with it.  Although we are critiquing others’ photographs, forums are really a celebration of what we love doing: photography. Embrace that.

    That said, if you decide to participate in a forum, you SHOULD NOT take it personally if someone says they don’t like one of your photos.  Ideally, that person would give you some reason as to why they don’t like it, but if they don’t it shouldn’t matter.  Photography–like any art form–is highly subjective, and if someone says s/he doesn’t like it, it shouldn’t stop you from liking your photo.  Beauty in photographs goes way beyond the surface, and viewers cannot always detect the special meaning behind a photograph. With that in mind, you SHOULD give critiques as you would want to receive them.  Not only will receiving critiques make you a better photographer, critiquing others’ photos will help that as well.  In that sense, participating in a forum will help crystallize your own photographic vision.  Finally, you SHOULD NOT be intimidated or threatened by other peoples’ outstanding images (yes, I know of people who feel very threatened…that for every good image someone else makes, they lose business….hogwash).  I feel honored to be able to share my work with these fantastic photographers; their work continues to inspire, motivate and humble me.  That’s the way it should be: photographers should encourage and inspire one another…not compete.

    So what does the title of this post have to do with all this?  I write the above because I know what a valuable resource photography forums are, and I’ve just had (yet another) experience that proves it to me.  Last November, I made a quick run out to Joshua Tree National Park, with the intention of photographing Arch Rock.  That night, I took a star trail image, with the arch as the main subject, but I could never get it to work for me…something about the processing just looked “off”.  Last weekend, I saw a similar image of another arch, and thought, “Hey, I’ve got a shot very similar to that…maybe I can get it to work for me!”

    When I got home, I pulled up the RAW file and processed it.  I wanted the arch to have a very warm feel, as I’d painted it with my headlamp, and I wanted it to stand out against the sky.  What I ended up with was a cool effect, but not what I remember seeing.  I posted it to Naturescapes.net and, while everyone agreed it looks cool, it just seemed a little too bizarre.

    Arch Rock at night, Joshua Tree National Park, Californi

    Attempt 1, Joshua Tree National Park, California, November 2009

    Even with city lights nearby, I do not remember the sky looking that golden…er…pumpkin…that night.  While it occurred to me to use some layer masking, Alister Benn made some invaluable comments in guiding me on re-editing this image.  Alister is a master of night photography, and with his comments in hand, I re-edited the image, really making it pop.

    Star trails over Arch Rock, Joshua Tree National Park, California

    Star trails over Arch Rock, Joshua Tree National Park, California, November 2009

    What I didn’t do is make a bombastic, unrealistic image from a RAW file.  I used valuable comments from a critique and discussion forum to process an image so that I had a realistic representation of the scene.  Many thanks to Alister, and to all my online friends for making for making this a great community of photographers!

    Putting the puzzle together

    Thursday, October 15th, 2009

    My Grandma is a wonderful, no nonsense, “my way or the highway” sort of woman.  I remember once when I was little, working on a puzzle with her, and she was determined that a particular piece fit where she had it (it didn’t).  She just forced the piece in until it fit.  Needless to say, the rest of the puzzle didn’t go together correctly, but that’s my Grandma for you.

    One of the things I’ve learned over the years is that photography isn’t like putting a puzzle together–if something doesn’t fit, the shot isn’t going to come together for you.  One of my biggest struggles as a photographer is to think outside of my pre-conceived box.  In my mind’s eye, I visualize the shots I may want on an upcoming shoot, and if things go south, I’ve learned that forcing that proverbial puzzle piece simply does not work.

    Our recent Sierra Nevada trip was a perfect example of that piece not fitting, and having to look elsewhere for the proper fit.  Because I was going to the Sierra for the specific purpose of fall color, I envisioned spending 3 days in aspen groves, with perhaps a short side trip or two to some of my favorite places.  However, the grand display of colors never materialized, and in the groves I was able to find it felt chaotic…like I was forcing that puzzle piece into a place it simply didn’t fit.  So, I was forced to look elsewhere.  On the second day of our trip, I abandoned aspens, and had some lovely hikes at Mono Lake, Yosemite National Park, and in Devil’s Postpile National Monument.  The hike in Devil’s Postpile was especially neat because they essentially closed the gates behind us for the year.  Having the feeling of being the year’s last visitor was a special one.

    So, I’m getting better at stepping outside of my comfort zone, and making the best of things.  I guess I have my Grandma to thank for that lesson.

    Minarets at sunset, Sierra Crest, California, October 2009

    Pines & Grass

    Thursday, October 8th, 2009

    We happened to plan our family camping trip to the Tioga Pass area on the same late August weekend that a front was passing through, so all of my sunrises (and sunsets) were horrendously windy.  Rather than curse the lack of calm water (which I admittedly did a little of), I was struck by the way the pines tended to stand tough against the wind, while the grass was swept about.  I tried to capture that contrast with this image:

    Pines & Grass, Tioga Pass, CA, August 2009


    Sphinx moths

    Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009

    A friend of mine in Laramie Wyoming reported snow yesterday; here in southern California we’re baking in nearly 100 degree temperatures, but that means that insects are still out, and I can still photograph them!  One of my favorite insects is the sphinx moth.  Sphinx moths are a family of moths (Sphingidae) comprising about 1,200 species; the white-lined sphinx moth (Hyles lineata) is very common here in southern California.

    White-lined sphinx moth, 2009

    I caught this individual flying around in my garage one evening (they’re nocturnal).  After catching it, I did what any good biologist would do: I put it in the fridge.  Why?  Because I wanted to do what any good photographer would do: take pictures of it.

    After letting it cool down, I placed the moth on some vegetation in my front yard.  Using my 300/4 lens with a 1.4x teleconverter, I was able to fill most of the frame with the moth at the minimum focusing distance.  I used a flash with -1 2/3 stops compensation to act as a fill flash.

    Moths–like all insects–are ectotherms, meaning they are “cold-blooded”.  In other words, they have to derive their body heat from somewhere other than metabolic sources.  You and I are endotherms–we produce our own body heat via our metabolism.  So, as this guy warmed up from being in the fridge it started to move around more and more.  But, it still needed more heat to be able to fly.  That’s when things got interesting.

    Ectotherms have to derive their body heat from external sources (usually the environment–this is why you see lizards and snakes sunbathing), but sphinx moths display something called ‘periodic endothermy’–they flap their wings at a very rapid pace to build enough body heat to be able to fly:

    White-lined sphinx moth beating wings in a display of ‘periodic endothermy’, 2009

    Beating the wings in this manner generates a large amount of heat, which can then be used for flight.  This moth displayed this behavior for about 3 minutes, then took off.  It was a great interaction, a good physiology lesson, and I got some great pictures out of it!

    Throwing image sharpness out the window

    Sunday, September 20th, 2009

    As photographers, we strive to make the sharpest, most crisp images we can.  We spend thousands of dollars on the best lenses to help us achieve this, and there are many websites and articles devoted to helping make images very sharp (examples here, here, and here).  However, sometimes it can be fun to make images that aren’t sharp at all.

    Last spring, we were enjoying a beautiful spring afternoon at the Huntington Library, near Pasadena, California, and I was completely drawn in by the bamboo groves that they have:

    Bamboo, April 2009

    I really like this image, but when you have to stay on the path, your compositional choices are pretty limited!  That said, the vertical lines (and long exposure times) gave me a great idea: vertical pan blurs:

    Bamboo pan blur, April 2009

    This gives the scene a completely different feeling.  Not to sound too dark, but for me this image conveys an almost “nightmarish” feel–one of running away from something through the woods.  What does it evoke for you?

    Another example of “alternative” techniques is when I was shooting lupine on a freeway offramp near San Diego this spring:

    Lupine, San Diego County, CA, March 2009

    This time, leaving the camera on my tripod, I zoomed in as I exposed the frame:

    Lupine zoom blur, San Diego County, CA, March 2009

    This shot has a very “smashing” feel to it.  It also screams, “Don’t look at me right after eating lunch!”  I guess it might be a bit vertigo-inducing…

    My point is that abstract nature can be just as fun to shoot, and just as evocative, as the sharp, crisp nature.

    Incidentally, I saw a magazine spread once of shots like this, but they were all taken by people tripping the shutter, then tossing their camera into the air.  Anyone who played basketball with me in the 4th grade knows I should NOT be doing that with my digital SLR.  However, if you’re a little more confident in your skills, then go for it!

    Tone mapping a single image: RAW or TIFF? A comparison.

    Friday, September 11th, 2009

    In hindsight this seems like a no-brainer, but since its come up in a few threads recently (e.g. http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=162031 ), I thought I would address the question of whether its better to feed a TIFF or RAW file into Photomatix for HDR generation. For this comparison, I chose to tone map only one image, not several. Although you probably already know the outcome, the end images are only subtly different, but getting there was quite different.

    I started with a base image, shot in Zion National Park last weekend:

    This is the RAW image; all I did before feeding it into Photomatix was adjust the white balance to “shady” in DPP. The TIFF image looked identical; all I did was save it as an uncompressed TIFF with no other change. As soon as I opened the RAW image in Photomatix, it underwent a process of demosaicing and decompressing. I could already tell that it would be taking advantage of the “extra” info in the RAW image. It opened the image as a “pseudo-HDR” image, and I was able to obtain some stats on it:

    The TIFF image opened simply as the TIFF image, and there was no more information associated with it than with a regular image. I first tonemapped the images using the Details Enhancer algorithm, and saved them as TIFF files for use in PS. There wasn’t much difference between the two:

    Here’s the RAW file tone mapped with DE:

    And the TIFF file tone mapped with DE:

    Then I did the same thing using the Tone Compressor algorithm:

    The RAW file:

    And the TIFF file:

    Whoa! I can only assume this funky-looking image is the result of the loss of information during conversion from RAW to TIFF early in my workflow. So, now I have 2 tone mapped images obtained from the original RAW file, and 2 from the original TIFF file. My workflow for each of the 2 final images was slightly different although not much:

    For the RAW-derived images I used the DE tone mapped image as the base image in PS, and pasted the TC image over it. I used the Overlay blending mode at ~30% opacity, and the image looked pretty good. I did levels and curves adjustments (and also a desaturation of about -15), noise reduction with Imagenomic Noiseware, then some sharpening and I called it good:

    For the TIFF-derived images, I again used the DE tone mapped image as the base image, and pasted the TC image over it. This time, because of the extreme nature of the TC image, I used a “Linear Burn” blending mode at about 25% opacity, and the image looked pretty natural. After normal processing (including noise reduction), here is what I got:

    In the end the differences between the images are subtle, and I like them both for different reasons. The RAW-derived image looks more “natural”, but I sort of like the reddish “glow” that’s present in the TIFF derived image. The no-brainer here is that you certainly lose a lot of valuable information by using TIFF instead of RAW for this sort of application.

    I doubt anyone cares as much as I do (haha), but this was an instructive exercise to go through.