HDR Panorama

[ohkphoto]

I'm not a fan of panoramas, but thought I'd give it a go just because . . .
I only did 3 portrait shots on a tripod.--autobracketed each for 7 shots at 1.0 stops



I chose 5 (eliminated the first and last on each sequence) and composited them in Photomatix,
(made sure the sliders on all settings remained the same)
I then stitched those 3 HDR images into a panorama via photoshop (CS5)

So, I'm not sure that the result is any better than if I had had a wide enough lens and simply done one HDR. I guess I'll do a comparison one of these days.

So, my question to the HDR/pano experts: did I get the sequencing right?

All comments are most welcome. I am always interested in different viewpoints.

 

[Eduard]

That's a great question. . . I've never tried HDR on a pano. I've had good luck with Topaz Adjust to make a HDR-like effect. I really like the results!!!!

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

I really like the effect on the clouds. Looks more like a painting than a photo.,

 

[Browncoat]

You beat me to it, Helene. An HDR/Pano shot was high on my priority list, because it's not something I've seen much of. I think you pulled it off flawlessly! I always bracket 5 shots when doing HDR...3 isn't enough, and 7 is usually redundant. Good choice on shooting in portrait orientation, I think you managed to capture more of the sky that way.

On the flip side, I think a wide angle would've done the job too, with less work. I like the processing here, my only issue is that it just doesn't seem like enough scenery. The composition doesn't scream "pano", it looks like a normal wide angle shot. I think 5 or even 7 bracketed sets would've given this more of the stretched look that is typical of panoramas.

Awesome work as usual!

 

[Joseph Bautsch]

Please allow me to give you a different point of view. I shoot a lot of HDR and never more than 3 shot brackets. A three shot bracket will give you a more normal looking photo with a wide tonal range and that is the type of HDR I'm looking for. Using more than a three shot bracket usually produces problems with "overcooking" as what has happened with your shot above. If I may I pulled up an HDR Pano from my gallery as an example of this process and that I posted here back in June. It's eleven HDR shots stiched into a pano. Each HDR is a three shot bracket. The shot is of the Kenai Glacier in Alaska.

 

[ohkphoto]

"overcooking" as what has happened with your shot above.

I remember seeing this shot, Joseph, and also remember commenting how much I like it and wondering why you didn't "cook" it just a tad more to make it a little more vibrant.
I like the "overcooked" look sometimes in some cases. I find that I can get this "overcooked" look with just 3 autobracketed shots, and have done so . . .I think it has more to do with which sliders are where and not so much how many shots. There are times when I want a subtle HDR look, too, and can control the sliders to achieve that with 5-7 shots. But I was going for dramatic in this case. We don't usually have clouds like these. Thank you for your thoughts, Joseph.

Anthony, I realize now that 3 shots is not enough for a pano because there seems to be about 25% loss of the photo due to overlap and cropping. Maybe I'll try this again with a different landscape. Right now, I'm not convinced that all the PP in an hdr pano is worth the effort. I guess I haven't converted to liking panorama's yet

Thank you all for your comments and critiques. It is much appreciated.

 

[Browncoat]

A three shot bracket will give you a more normal looking photo with a wide tonal range and that is the type of HDR I'm looking for. Using more than a three shot bracket usually produces problems with "overcooking" as what has happened with your shot above.

I have to agree with Helene on this one. I think most people favor a processed look when it comes to HDR. To what degree is often a subject of personal taste, as it ranges from photorealistic to surreal. But personally, I think HDR images should be discernible at first glance, otherwise what's the point?

In the glacier panorama for example: there is excellent detail in the glacier and rocks, but there is none in the sky. This is because the extreme ends of the tonal range have been omitted, and as a result, we have a detailed but flat image.

Helene, you have some of the best scenery on the planet to work with. Keep at it, and I'm certain you'll find something amazing. You definitely have the ability!

 

[nmjameswilson]

I storm chase and though I do not have the time while chasing to stop and drop a tripod I can not help but think of what amazing results I could get after looking at your photo. I LOVE IT!