As the T90 doesn't have any (pseudo-)panorama mode, I had to stich that from two separate photos. It is not a perfect stich as you can see in the middle of the photo. Even using a tripod and turning the camera horizontally, you still have to fight against the different light intensity of the two takes. And even correcting manually the two exposures there are still minimal lighting differences which are most visible at the stich line.
I would be grateful for any idea of making the lighting of the two takes as identical as possible at shooting time. Any special correction procedures for that?
Thanks a lot for the additional advices and ideas, Collin. I also think that there is no method that works always. Still trying to accomplish such thinks with the camera though. Even if it doesn't work it is a good exercise for getting more understanding and experience.
Perhaps I should also use many different kinds of films and see what happens.
Hi Nick, I agree entirely, an understanding of light is essential. Although I can't think how it would be possible to determine a foolproof method when the intensity of light varies in each frame. Balancing intensity in one frame isn't hard with ND grad filters. I don't have this problem with panos anymore as I ownly shoot digital raw which gives a very large exposure latitude. I just take an average of the entire seen, lock AE, take the series to be stitched and then adjust exposure in CS2. If you can afford the film you could take a series of exposures of each frame. Expose for the highlights, midtones and shadows and if you have photoshop CS2 you can merge to them to a high dynamic range image. Once you have tone mapped each frame separately you could then stitch them. I know that is not what you are after but I don't think it possible to get constant exposure throughout high contrast scenes on film, especially if the sun comes into your frame. Regards, Collin
I'll try that software when the time comes, but as I said, first I want to be able to balance light myself at shooting time using the settings of my camera and light metering. It is essential to know how to work with light *before* using anything else.
In this sense, I find it really remarkable that only you suggested something regarding settings/metering/optics etc, though my question explicitely referred to techniques at shooting time. Many many thanks for your suggestion. This is what I also did many times - *but*, turning the camera for shoting the next frame *will* cause deviations from the average EV, for example because one frame contains some intense light source while the other doesn't. Your suggestion is very useful for scenes that are uniform in lighting, but if the scence contains some strong luminance gradient, it won't work perfectly. I think that one has to find some average, then make individual meterings for all the frames that will be shot, and correct EV in all frames individually in such a way that the wished average is achieved. Still I have to work out the details, though.
To put it in other words, Eddie Van Halen is not a great gitarrist because he has great macihinery, but because his fingers can squeeze anything out of the strings. ;-)
Mike, many thanks for the nice detailed comments and the suggestions for software packages!
However, I want to be able to perfectly adjust and balance lighting myself, in order to be able to shoot photos as I want to have them rather, than leaving it to some auto-settings of some software, which would not improve my skills in any way.
Knowledge of what we do is unavoidable if we want to procceed and get better, I guess.
Thank you very much for the comment and the suggestions, Valery! And also for the welcoming in the panoramic world. Hey, the space here is so... big!!! ;-)
As I said in the about box, I would like to know how I can manage to perfectly match the light of the different frames myself when I shoot the photos and not afterwards by using some software. Learning such basics of photography is a must, or else how can we know what the effects/results of the settings of our optics will be? Letting some software do that for me might be easy, but what knowledge about photography do I gain that way? And how would I shoot the next good photo if I don't know what I am doing? These are the questions that I have to puzzle with. And thus I prefer to master my cameras perfectly before I start using such software. Much like learning how to add numbers before learning how to push buttons of calculators, I guess.
Hi Nick, I agree with Mike autostitch is a great place to start but not if you want to make big prints as it ony accepts 8bit jpegs. Autostitch doesn't facilitate any manual control which is a downside. PTGUI is awesome it can also automatically find control points (and manually) and blend variations in exposure but you can stitch uncompressed 16 bit files and output your blended pano to photoshop in separate layers for editing. PTGUI costs 65 euro and you get free updates for a year. As far as minimising exposure differences you can take an average of the entire seen and lock that exposure value. Regards, Collin.
Great manual stiching job. This is a very nice landscape with a wide variety of different object as focal points! For software I would look into AutoStich. There are many comercially packaged software that uses this engine. I would start with AutoStich (free) and then move to another that uses the same engine but more features when you can afford it!
The answer is simple, take any special program for stitching and you'll merge hundreds of images together. The lighting differences will be taken care of. What program? There are different opinions. Go this site’s forum – Panoramic Software – read the discussion. And welcome to the panoramic world. Valery
0 
