This is a first reaction to our #555. Force for Positive Change call for reader engagement. Is it a guest post by Oliver, describing his trials and tribulations in creating wide-angle shots and panoramas. It is important for 2 reasons :
(1) Stitching is a greatly underrated technique that can give us medium format sensor size at a fraction of the cost. It helps me create square format medium format shots without cropping and losing resolution.
(2) I hope it encourages others to follow and experience the thrill of publishing their ideas 🙂
So, a big thank you to Oliver for this very interesting topic and article. The long and winding path is one we can relate to and the final 3 recommendations are very valuable to anyone wanting to start out.
Did you ever try going wide in photography ? Do you like working with wide-angle lenses ? Do you love depicting landscapes ? Are you a stitching fan ? Then this blogpost might be appealing to you.
First of all let me introduce myself as a guest writer at DearSusan. Please allow me to stay anonymous for the time being. Just call me ‘Oliver’.
Born as a son of a photographer I got my first plastic toy camera in early childhood. It had a wide-angle lens. That probably started it – my zest for going wide. Later followed experiences with the moderate fixed wide-angle on my mum’s Voigtländer camera. Still in school I got the SLR of a friend in my hands – and I was hooked. This was WYSIWYG and it had a 28 mm lens – 75 degrees of visual field and the possibility to compose in the viewfinder.
Within a year I saved my pocket-money to buy an SLR with a 28 mm prime, myself. Sweat and tears came next. The first pouring down when searching for motives in the summer holidays, the latter pouring down when listening to the image critiques of family members …
To keep the rest of the story short, intensive search on the second-hand market lead to purchases of 20 mm, 17mm and a 16 mm full frame fisheye.
THAT ONE WAS WIDE. PERIOD.
With the reduction of the focal length you have to get closer. Compose, be lucky – or both? I wonder whether this fisherman ever pulled out that fishing boat …
Foreground. Background. Transition? Lines that the eye can follow? Sharpness point ? The message you want to transfer?
The wider you go, the trickier it gets. Distortion bumps in. In those times before pixel peeping and digital manipulation, you had to:
- watch the line of the horizon and get it leveled. You could only correct it slightly when cutting/framing the slides.
- make sure that you only have subjects at the sides/edges of the frame that do not suffer from distortion.
Both are – to a certain point – still true for fisheye and panorama photography. Keep the horizon at the center of the frame and make sure that you rather have a distant lake or mountains/hills at the edges of the frame rather than ‘straight’ trees. The result can look very pleasing and natural although the distortion of 180 degree fisheyes by design is massive.
Still, in the film days, the format was always the same: 24x36mm. Panorama prints meant cutting and fiddling together. Panorama projection meant either masking the slides or more than one projector and very careful photography. Hasselblad/Fujifilm changed the game with their fascinating X-Pan/TX1 cameras. Still 24x65mm was limited in terms of panoramic photography. Projection and with that ‘cinematic experience’ was also an issue.
The Digital Quest
With my first DSLR the question of an adequate wide-angle arose again. The widest choice at that time was 12 mm (for APS-C). Got it. Had great fun with it. Wide angle photography in the European Alps. The crispness and saturation increase that a polarizing filter offered. Auto white balance of my semi-pro DSLR seemed to be at least good enough. Jpegs looked great – I had no idea what the Raw format was for, apart from wasting space on the small CF cards. 128 MB – with a horrendous price tag.
Sometimes I compressed the files even more to save space. The result ?
Look at the skies – compression artefacts. No raw, in such a situation, means no rescue.
Soon after, I discovered a stitching programme. Suddenly the limitations of all my previous ‘super wide angles’ were gone and the solution came up which created the topic for this blogpost:
Have you ever tried stitching together imperfect Jpegs with one of these very basic stitching softwares ? I got all the issues. And the blues.
Let’s name them:
- white balance deviations led to quite a ‘colorful’ appearance of the resulting image
- the polarized sky showed up like patchwork in the final stitch
- the lack of distortion correction of the lens (in camera or in post processing) lead to mismatches in parts of the image
- too little overlapping of the individual frames even exaggerated the above issues and produced ‘banding’ effects especially at the edges
- tones were cut off through compression
- colour fringing at contrast edges showed up
- pixel peeping on a high-resolution screen worsened the psychological effect
- moving objects leading to ghosting effects.
Alright, Sir. You may take it as motivation to change your workflow, Sir.
Here we are today. High tech cameras of 40-100 Mpix resolution paired with dedicated super wide-angle lenses and software lens profiles might make the above issues obsolete for you. Cropping to taste. Done. The price tag ? Very flexible in the upward direction …
I decided to upgrade my gear in a more affordable way and change my workflow.
Here’s the recipe:
- Take a medium resolution camera (15-20 Mpix) for bigger pixel size (light sensitivity per pixel) and less colour abberation sensitivity
- Select a lens which has good correction in 3 ways: A) peripheral abberation (colour fringing) B) distortion C) sharpness across the frame should be rather even at your working apertures.
- For this lens should be a lens correction profile in your RAW converter software (light falloff to the edges and distortion shall be corrected, as well as colour fringing if necessary)
- Use full frame lenses e.g. on APS-C-cameras to utilise only the best parts of the lens
- Shoot in JPEG and RAW
- Utilise a stitching software with good rendering possibilities – test them to see whether the workflow or automatisms are good for you before you buy …
- Make test stitches with your jpegs to preview and decide which way to go (selection of frames, white balance, sharpness, etc.) I use Zoner for that.
- Develop the individual RAW files to taste for this panorama (focus on white balance, which should be the same for all frames, sharpness levels, lens corrections)
- Output as high quality 16 bit TIFF files, as you have better colour depth and not all stitching programmes can work with Raw files
- Choose the files and the desired projection format (e.g. in Hugin)
- Start stitching the files together and brew a cup of tea. It may take some time to see the finished result depending on the size of the files and your hardware
- Enjoy !
? … ??????
panoDrama again …
The stitching programme (in this case Huging 2016 V2) confirmed good preparation of the individual files with the words ‘images combined with 730 control points. Average deviation after optimization 0.6 pixels’. Everything seemed fine, till I saw the result.
64 Mpix of crap:
This is NOT a night panorama taken with a defective camera !
Explanations are missing, still. I used a powerful Win 8.1 machine with a good graphic card, develop the files from Raw using the very capable Capture One solution with dedicated lens and camera profiles. The stitching freeware Hugin is said to be stable and very good in its iterations. There are plenty of tweaks and projections – but none worked for me. The results look like the above …
So what now ? Writing off the hardware investment and meditating in a cave in order to get rid of emotional imbalances ?
I tested Affinity Photo for Windows. This new software looks promising. The iteration works faster than Hugin but with a good to very good result on my PC. It can fill in patches after the stitching process automatically (works well in sky areas – but not at all for branches/twigs and other structured stuff). The workflow with ‘personas’ is different, but one can get used to it.
It looked like all tech quirks had been solved. Which leads the topic back to the qualities and the creative process of the photographer.
So starting the process again, I selected a couple of shots for another panorama, developed them properly, stitched them together and was happy with the result. In fact that happy that I wanted to have a print on acrylic/aluminium dibond in the size of 2×1 meters.
Looking at the file size I realised that the aspect ratio was about 2,2 x 1,0, not the desired 2×1. Cropping would have cut off important parts of this particular mountain view and disturbed the amazing symmetry in this panorama. The idea came up to expand the skies. Simple idea, difficult to realise in your software if you aren’t a pro. The next hours were spent on all different sorts of trials and error. From copying parts of the skies, mirroring, patching, copy paste/brush techniques and everything I could find in my programmes. All efforts lead to results which looked like patched in one way or the other.
The next day I opened up one of the files and it looked perfect in 2:1 aspect ratio. Even when pixel peeping. There is no rational explanation for it. It was like the creator himself had worked on it during the night.
Anyway, this sentence leads to the very beginning within the creation process. So here is my additional advice for you as a creator and photographer:
1) when creating the single files, leave enough space around your object, so that you have sufficient space for A) leveling the panorama B) cropping to a standard print format. Either by selecting a wider focal length or taking 2 or more rows of photos
2) choose a software that works on your system. Test the workflow, whether it suits you.
3) concentrate on 2 or maximum 3 focal lengths so that you get the experience, which one works best in which situation (sharpness, lens deficiencies, field of view etc.). Personally I changed to more moderate focal lengths like 20/50 mm for APS-C which equates to about 35/80 mm in full frame (35mm) terms. Extreme focal lengths are much more difficult to optimize and often bulkier/heavier.
Enjoy your creativity and … go wide !