It’s mid-winter, or at least it would be if this wasn’t what I’ve termed “The Winter that Never Was.” It’s been several months of bipolar now-it’s-warm, now-it’s-not, with almost no snow. And now we’re mid-February and headed for the doldrums of March, and both inspiration and motivation are fleeting.

I’ve been doing far too little shooting in the past weeks. I’ve hardly picked up the camera in the last two. Which is depressing. And cyclical, where a lack of inspiration leads to even less inspiration. Add in some distractions, and it’s hard to get much of anything done.

Of course when it comes to distractions, I have plenty. Like a new laptop, which I unfortunately spent all weekend setting up, and then playing an older computer game that never worked on my Vista system. That was at least 8 hours across two days that could have been better spent.

{Click to view larger}

Without the snow, the landscape in Northeastern PA is dreary. And muddy, the ground saturated with water, alternately frozen and thawed. With temperatures in the mid-40s many afternoons, there isn’t even any chance of finding interesting ice formations. Outdoors seems like a photographic dead zone.  I did venture down to Promised Land State Park on Monday and spend a couple of hours trying to make the images in this post.  They don’t look very wintery – much more like spring, although that’s deceptive.  I’m not really in love with any of them, but it was at least time with the camera, working with the wide-angle again and trying to shoot something a little less ordinary.

My normal Dec-Feb standby is, of course, the eagles that congregate on the Delaware River. For the past two years, I’ve made the trip to NY almost every weekend during that period. This year, I haven’t been out there once. Without the ice, the minor waterways aren’t freezing like they usually do, and the eagles aren’t congregating en-mass in the usual spots. I keep checking the reports online, but they aren’t encouraging. It simply isn’t a season for eagles.

The good news is that I did venture out this past weekend with my brother, to help him with a photo assignment for one of his college classes. He had never even held a DSLR before, but he checked out one of his school’s Nikons and came down for a crash course, which was a lot of fun. And it was a chance for me to wipe the dust off my own skills and see if could turn a muddy, insipid not-quite-winter landscape into a decent image.

Brent Pennington

Brent Pennington is a professional photographer and the driving force behind The Roving Photographer. When he’s not working with commercial or portraiture clients, he’s usually out in the field pursuing nature and wildlife shots.

   

This was sparked by a combination of events, but most notably the new releases by several manufacturers, including Canon. Thankfully, in this connected internet age I was able to reach out to several reliable sources for additional information and input, which helped me make a decision. For now, I’m staying with Canon – but it’s more a decision to wait a while longer than one to remain dedicated to the EOS system. The details are after the break. Fair warning, this is a long, gear-oriented post.

This was a difficult decision to even face, regardless of the fact that, for the moment, nothing is changing. To leap into a new system presents several challenges: I’d have to sell my complete kit and invest in an entirely new one, learn its intricacies and quirks, and to some extend redefine how I use my tools. I also have to accept the leap into the unknown – I’m taking a risk. Of course, everything is a risk. Staying with Canon is a risk, too. So it all comes down to risk management, one of those painfull business-esq terms.

Let’s start with the negative factors that are contributing to my interest in changing systems:

• The increasing expense of the Canon EOS system. One of Canon’s real perks, when I was first investing in the EOS system, was the smattering of excellent, relatively low-cost lenses throughout its lineup. The 50mm f/1.8 Mk I, the 85mm f/1.8, and the 70-200L f/4 IS are all excellent examples of truly superb lenses available for very reasonable prices. But looking at Canon’s newest releases, this appears to be going away. The new 24mm f/2.8 IS USM that was just announced is by no means a spectacular lens, and it’s going for $850. The new 24-70L II is $2200. And the rumored 100-400L IS II is (rumored) to run around $3000. To say nothing of the new II versions of the super-telephotos released this past year, all of which are exorbitantly expensive. Canon’s pricing model isn’t only going up, in many cases it seems to be doubling, which places lens upgrades beyond my economic reach. Forget some of the “dream lenses” I’d love to own someday, at this rate I’m genuinely concerned about my ability to purchase everyday workhorse lenses.

{The Canon 400L II - yours, if you've got $11k}

• The sheer size of the EOS system hit home recently, as I’ve been adjusting my insurance coverage and going around documenting everything for my files. I bought a storage cabinet/drawer unit from Ikea. The top section (the largest) is just for my gear. It’s full. In the past two years I’ve had to upgrade bags several times to accommodate a larger selection of lenses that are, themselves, larger. Hauling a full kit + lighting gear to shoots by myself is taxing. Even just going into the field with a wide-angle, standard, and telephoto is difficult with any of the bags I own – and dropping another $200 on (another) new bag isn’t appealing. Yet I don’t have anything I feel I can cut from my kit, leaving me with the feeling that it has become somewhat unwieldy.
• I have no real need for additional camera performance increases. The 7D is an amazing camera and fully meets all of my needs. At ISOs below 400, the files are clean and lovely. And honestly, I rarely shoot above ISO 400, and even when I do it’s almost always for my personal work, and not for clients. I use lights, so ISO 12,500 is irrelevant for me. Even my trusty 400D continues to impress me with it’s images. But I know that someday, it will finally die. An upgrade is inevitable. But I neither need – nor want – more megapixels. Nor do I feel the need for more AF points/faster FPS/ets. I just want a dependable camera that produces great files and fits my style. I do not want to get sucked into buying a 5D Mk III or 1D series in the future, simply because that’s the only remaining option in the EOS system course.

That may paint a bleak picture. There are a lot of troubling aspects to what I just wrote – at least to me. But what troubles me most is the realization that, overall, I’m starting to take issue with certain aspects of Canon. I’m starting to doubt my ability to remain with them, which causes me to doubt me desire to do so.

{The camera that caught my attention}

But there’s a flip side. There’s new technology hitting the markets, technology adapted into systems that canon (and Nikon) have shown little or no interest in actively competing with. I’m speaking primarily of the micro four-thirds (m4:3) system here, which up until recently I’ve discounted as being some sort of fad, or toy system. But that’s been changing as I’ve learned more about it, especially as I’ve been reading Kirk Tuck’s blog and his experiences with m4:3. Then came the recent release notice for the Olympus OM-D EM-5, which incorporates several technologies that make the current Canon DSLRs look dated. Here’s the pros:

• The OM-D touts an advanced, 5-axis in-camera IS system. All IS systems are becoming more advanced, so there isn’t much of an edge there. But having it in-camera is huge. That means that every single lens you own is effectively an IS lens. Whereas Canon charges (a lot) extra for IS in a lens, in m4:3 it has become a standard. I personally depend on IS a great deal – I won’t bother with a non-IS telephoto because I know I can’t hold it steady enough to achieve optimal performance.
• Auto-focus has traditionally been a sore spot for mirror-less cameras, but Moore’s Law is fixing that. Olympus claims the OM-D has the “world’s fastest AF system.” It’s marketing, so I take it with a grain of salt. But regardless, one of the perks of the m4:3’s AF is that focus takes into account all the variables – including the lens. No more AF micro-adjustment. No more front/back focusing lenses. Even wide open, good optics should be properly focused and sharp – and reports from the field are backing this up.
• On a similar note, many of the m4:3 lenses (primarily Olympus and Panasonic) are gaining a real reputation for excellence. Especially some of the fast primes, which are reported to be outstanding performers. And while the lens range is currently small, compared to the EOS range, there’s no doubt that they will continue to grow.
• Although I was initially apprehensive about the size of the m4:3 cameras, I’m coming around to them. Having big hands, even my 400D can feel cramped at times. the OM-D alone would be slightly smaller. But Olympus a fairly extensive grip available for it (of course them do) that adds both size and controls for both landscape and portrait orientation shooting. While I’ve always felt that EOS grips make the cameras too big and bulky, for the OM-D I think it would be the perfect addition. And with or without the grip, the combined camera and lens is much smaller. And I’m convinced that this would encourage me to carry a camera with me more often. In all honesty, there are times when I just don’t feel like dealing with the 400D and a lens – especially my standard 24-70mm, which is a big honking thing. And there are some places – like NYC, for example – where I’m just not comfortable carrying a big DLSR and expensive lens. But something like the OM-D, maybe without the grip, and a small zoom or prime – I think I’d be much more comfortable carrying it around, and when I traveled (both to gigs and on trips) my overall gear load would be smaller and more manageable.
• As I use a manual lighting setup, my lights would continue to work with a m4:3 system, save for my 580EX, which would have to be replaced.
• Finally, I’ll just admit it – I love the physical look of the OM-D. It reminds me very much of Canon’s old A-1 film camera, which I have always loved. There’s something classic and retro, but very functional, to it.

From this list – and a look at the OM-D’s spec sheet – you can probably see why I’m interested. And it was very, very tempting to start selling off my gear now, so that come it’s release in April, I could order up a big box of Olympus gear and start shooting. But there are also some nagging issues that held me back:

• m4:3 uses a sensor that is 40% smaller than an APS-C. I’m okay with its 12mp size, but I want the best files I can get, and this leaves me a little nervous, at least until I see samples. It also introduces a 2x crop factor; this is less of an issue, since there’s a wide enough range of lenses that I can easily cover my popular focal lengths, from about 14mm all the way to 600mm. That’s right, on the long end, a 300mm lens becomes an effective 600mm (with IS!), which would be simply amazing for wildlife shooting.
• The zoom lens selection is a little unimpressive right now. Although there are a number of fast primes, there are no fast zooms, and nothing at all to replace my 70-200L f/4 IS, neither in that focal range or constant speed (to say nothing of any constant f/2.8 lenses). This is likewise a concern; for portraits I can easily shoot with primes, but for commercial gigs and especially weddings, I depend on fast zooms. Will they eventually appear? I imagine so. But they’re not here yet.
• The OM-D’s ISOs are listed in full stop increments. Maybe this is minor, but I’ve come to depend on the 7D’s third-stop increments (part of the reason I hacked the 400D was to gain this feature). I’d hate the loss of fine control.
• And finally – and this is the concern that I like the least – what about perception? I show up to a gig, clients expect to see a big ol’ Canon and white lens hanging from my shoulder. While the OM-D could be every bit the equivalent to the 7D in terms of final output, to those ignorant and/or uninformed about out tools, they might look at it and think that I’m trying to do the job with a consumer-grade “point & shoot.” Yes, I can always explain it to them. But it may very well add a roadblock to my business, albeit a minor one.

The ability to reach out to other photographers online has never been greater. The best part is, that most professionals – and especially those who run their own blogs – are very happy to provide help and advice when they can. I reached out to professional photographer Kirk Tuck, via email, for his take on my situation. I also ran the idea past my buddy Mike, who is as much of a gear-head as I am, but also very practical.

They both gave me variations on the same response – wait. The technology is definitely heading towards mirror-less cameras all around and the in-camera tech will continue to increase. As such, the lens offerings will also increase. We may even see Canon themselves jump into the ring (finally). But for the moment, the m4:3 system is still evolving – it may well evolve to replace the APS-C system, but that’s still a ways away.

So I’m going to keep an eye on things and bide my time. When the OM-D is released in April, I’m going to find a store with a floor model and spend some time playing with it myself. I’ll either love it or I’ll hate it. But even if I hate it, I’ll be keeping a finger on the pulse of the the m4:3 system, as I do believe that there’s a paradigm shift coming soon. The conspiracy theorist in me even thinks that perhaps Canon’s new pricing model is designed to drive the EOS series out of range of the soccer moms, hobbyists, and semi-pros, to make room for a mirror-less system, as a sort of replacement to the Rebel line. Who knows?

On the other hand, if I try the OM-D and fall in love with it, I probably will switch systems, so long as the limitations are balanced by the benefits. Either way, there are interesting things coming.

Brent Pennington

Brent Pennington is a professional photographer and the driving force behind The Roving Photographer. When he’s not working with commercial or portraiture clients, he’s usually out in the field pursuing nature and wildlife shots.

   

So which word is best? “Puzzlement” comes readily to mind. As does “curious.” And finally, “anticlimactic.”

“Puzzlement” and “curious” both apply to the 28mm & 24mm lenses, which are a strange update of the wide, prosumer series. Actually, I think an update to this series is both welcome and long overdue, it’s just curious that Canon would choose this particular update. Both are wide-angle lenses, although neither is particularly wide on an APS-C body. Both are f/2.8, which isn’t particularly fast, either. And now both with IS, which has predominately appeared on telephoto lenses in the past, and almost never on wide-angles.

{Photos Credited: Canon USA}

And both wide angles, within 2mm of each other? I can’t fathom Canon’s investment in even producing two nearly-identical lenses. A 24mm and a 35mm, sure, but 24mm & 28mm? Why?

Personally, I’d like to be interested in at least one of these, but have a hard time mustering must enthusiasm. A 24mm f/1.8 IS would have caught my attention, but not a f/2.8. And given the price-points – $800 and $850- I can’t see myself adding either to my bag.

My final word, “anticlimactic” applies to the 24-70L. I suppose I’ve been vocal about my disinterest in the original version of this lens, which I never found to be especially impressive. And that carries over to this new version, which checks in at just under $2200 and still doesn’t include IS, which seems like it would have been far more useful here than in the wide-angle primes. However good it is, at nearly twice the price of the original version, and without IS, it’s grossly overpriced.

{Photo from DPReview.com}

So who knows what Canon is thinking. I’m sure they have a plan and are following it, it must make sense to them. But from this end, it’s a little baffling.

The one highlight I did see was a comment that this year might be Canon’s biggest yet for lens releases. Call it a rumor, or speculation, or wishful thinking, but I still find that exciting. I’d love to see some good, older glass revamped and updated. And I’d like to see some new glass released into the wild. Like that 200-400L f/4 IS we were teased with a while back. I still don’t expect that I’ll be able to afford one, but at least I’d be able to wish for it.

Looking at the comments on Canon’s press release at DPReview, it seems I’m not the only one who is unimpressed with the new lenses. Actually, some folks over there are outright hostile…

Brent Pennington

Brent Pennington is a professional photographer and the driving force behind The Roving Photographer. When he’s not working with commercial or portraiture clients, he’s usually out in the field pursuing nature and wildlife shots.

   

I was cleaning out old files a couple of weeks ago and found some old photos – the effect they had on me was a little surprising.  It took some thought to get my words down properly, but  I think I finally managed it.  The full post is on my professional site – click the image above for the link.  Check it out, and feel free to let me know what you think.

Brent Pennington

Brent Pennington is a professional photographer and the driving force behind The Roving Photographer. When he’s not working with commercial or portraiture clients, he’s usually out in the field pursuing nature and wildlife shots.

   

Tuesday’s missed post was brought to you by a nasty viral cold. After several days on the couch, I’m finally back on my feet. But if this post doesn’t make sense, you can blame it on the cold meds.

I almost feel like this shouldn’t be a “Saturday Light” post, since there aren’t any strobes involved. This edition was shot wholly with ambient light. I can tell you two things about this right off the bat: this is the first time I’ve shot portraits with only ambient lighting and, second, it’s a lot easier than you might think.

Here’s our scene: it’s an overcast, windy day, mid-afternoon, outdoor location. We’re on a tight timeline, with only about 20 minutes to get the shots we want. It was either haul a flash along (and enjoy all the fun that goes along with using an umbrella on a windy day) or work with the ambient.

I went with the ambient. It’s a new look for me, but one that I’ve been studying. I’ve long been impressed by other photographer’s abilities in working with the light that’s already there. The images have a very different look from those created with flash, a softer, more subtle look. Equally important is my ability to shoot with much wider apertures, since max sync speed is no longer a limiting factor in the light-balancing equation.

So I’m going with the theme of “make the most of what you have.” And what I have are some great open shadows to work in. Open shade is like shooting inside a giant diffuser. The light is very soft and maintains only a little directionality. Ideally, open shade should be continuous, without breaks and splotches of hard light that can ruin an exposure. In this case, I’m working in the shadow of a church. It’s the perfect mix of interesting background texture and great light.

As you can see, however, I’m not taking it entirely as it comes – I’ve got a VAL with me, and have traded in the lightstand for a reflector. This was also my first time working with a reflector – or rather, having my VAL work with one. Fortunately, it’s easy. Unlike flash, a reflector is a constant light source, so what you see is what you get. Which makes it easy to steer the reflected beam to wherever I need it.

I was given a collapsible 5-in-1 reflector for Christmas, through the Google+ Secret Santa exchange, and this was my first time using it. Suffice to say, it worked really well. And since this was a shoot of firsts, it was also my first time shooting with my newly-repaired Canon 85mm f/1.8 lens. I’ve been wanting one of these as a portrait lens for some time and was finally able to pick up a good used one before the holidays – unfortunately, USPS trashed the focus while it was en-route (more on that another time).

I’ll wrap up this utterly random Saturday Light post with a few final thoughts:

• I enjoyed shooting ambient-only and will definitely be working more with it. It’s nice to be free of the constraints that Speedlites impose. And I really like the ambient-only look.
• A reflector is a great piece of gear to have in your kit, and especially a 5-in-1. It can be used for both ambient and flash reflection/diffusion, or as a flag to block light.
• Even in open shade, a reflector will help focus/direct the light onto your subject, although the effect is much weaker than in direct light.

Brent Pennington

Brent Pennington is a professional photographer and the driving force behind The Roving Photographer. When he’s not working with commercial or portraiture clients, he’s usually out in the field pursuing nature and wildlife shots.

   

Today I’m going to join the ranks of millions on Flickr and bore to you tears with flower shots. Actually, I really hope that I don’t bore you. But I am still going to share them with you.

Orchids are amazingly beautiful and I’ve always wanted one, but had heard that they are difficult to care for. Since I’m not much of a gardener, I held off until two years ago when I found them in Wal-mart. The care instructions were idiot-proof, so I bought one and proved that I am not, in fact, an idiot, as the plant is still alive today. More than alive, it’s blossoming for the first time since I bought it, which I find very exciting. Enough so that I set it up in the studio and photographed it every few hours while the flowers were opening.

The setup here is fairly straightforward. I have the orchid sitting on my shooting table, with my black backdrop folded and draped over the rear as a background. The orchid is at the front edge of the table, to keep as much separation as possible between it and the background. For lights, I’ve got the 24” softbox above and behind, slightly to camera right. It’s running at a little over half power and is lighting from the top, but also providing some back light to make the color in the blossoms pop. The second flash is firing through a small shoot-through umbrella at camera right, which is feathered in front of the orchid. There is also a white fill card to camera left, just out of the frame.

Originally, the softbox was the key light and the umbrella was providing fill. But as I continued shooting through the series, I kept edging up the power on the umbrella flash until both were at the same power. It probably became the key at this point, since it had more influence over the results than the softbox.

Compositionally, my focus was on the blossoms, but I also wanted to include some of the leaves – they are broad and smooth, with very fluid curves, and picked up rim lighting very well, which I felt added a dramatic element.

All of the lights are in as close as possible; this both maximizes their relative size and their power output. Combined with the reflector board, I’ve got light coming in from three sides and the top, for a very filled-in look. The only real trick here was keeping the background black. There was some light spill onto it, but it was an easy fix in ACR via the blacks slider.

I shot with a variety of lenses – pretty much everything in fact, trying to get a close-up. Turns out that none of my lenses have very close minimum focus distances, save the 18-55 IS. (The 70-200L had me with by back against the far wall of the office.) I’ll also mention that, since I was in a studio setting, I had the 7D tethered to the computer. I’ll do a full post on this later, but for now I’ll just say that when it comes to static work, I find this very helpful.

I’m not about to add to the overabundance of flower shots on the internet, and this is one of the few times you’ll ever see me share something like this. As a post, my primary interest is in sharing the photographic aspects that went into this shoot. On a personal level, I just wanted to capture a short record of my orchid in bloom. In my house, plants become somewhat like pets – maybe that’s weird, but I have an affection for them. But the greater point is that we all have digital cameras these days, and there are things in our own lives worth documenting. Maybe no one else cares, but these events are important to us. And if we’re going to document them, even if it’s just with a point & shoot, we should at least take the time to do a nice job of it.

Brent Pennington

Brent Pennington is a professional photographer and the driving force behind The Roving Photographer. When he’s not working with commercial or portraiture clients, he’s usually out in the field pursuing nature and wildlife shots.

   

Pecha Kucha Night Scranton was a HUGE success and a heck of a lot of fun!  My presentation, complete with narrative, is posted on my professional site – click the image above to jump over there and take a look.

Brent Pennington

Brent Pennington is a professional photographer and the driving force behind The Roving Photographer. When he’s not working with commercial or portraiture clients, he’s usually out in the field pursuing nature and wildlife shots.

   

Stepping back to Vermont during the holidays (the same day that I shot the sunrise photos in the freezing cold) the afternoon temperature reached a balmy 23* and I headed to the woods with my brother, Nick.  The goal: to make some portraits that were all about him.

Nick is like most people when it comes to having his photo taken: he’d rather not. Over the past several years we’ve shot together just a couple of times, some sports shots and his high school senior photos. They’ve been good, but for the most part they were photos that someone else wanted, and so he had to conform to their expectations, instead of simply being himself.

This is the problem with most portrait sessions. There’s always someone – a parent, school, team, business, etc – who expects the photos to look a certain way, for you to dress a certain way and smile at the camera, so that no matter how good the resulting photos are, they aren’t truthful to the subject himself.

My brother is well on his way to being a woodsman. He’s a Wildlife Management major, he loves hiking, camping, and archery, and has been a junior counselor at his conservation camps for several years running. When I think of him, I think of his outdoor nature. It’s who he is. And it’s what we agreed his photos should be, complete with the coonskin cap I gave him for Christmas.

The lighting here is simple, because we’re in the woods. Granted, we’re within sight of the park driveway, so it’s not as if we had to bushwack our way to the outback. But still, there’s no sense in complicating things, especially on an environmental shoot. I’m using the ambient here as background fill and the 43” octa as key. My sole criteria for location was a creek; Nick is on one side and I’m on the other, shooting low across the ice. Mandy is playing VAL, holding the octa to camera left.

I’m shooting at SETTINGS, so the ambient light is knocked down between 1 and 2 stops. There are two YN-460 II Speedlites inside the octa, both firing just one level down from full power. The light is quite a bit father away than I normally position it, due to the creek, and that distance eats up some of the power. The upshoot is that the octa’s light illuminates not only Nick, but also feathers out across the environment around him. The downside is that fast recycle times are out of the question.

We did a whole series: Nick posing, stalking through the woods, drawing an arrow for his quiver, aiming intently at an imaginary target, and even (Darwin help me) shooting arrows into the ice not far from me. I had hoped to catch the moment of launch, a blurred arrow just starting to leave the bow, but they moved too fast and the timing was too short. Oh well, we still got some keepers.

We switched places near the end of the session, Nick climbing up onto the big rock that had been next to me (and which I’d climbed up on) during shooting. On the rock, there wasn’t any room for movement, so we put Nick in a series of dramatic looks poses as I shot from below. This is my one regret, that I didn’t think to raise the light up so that it was still coming slightly from above. Chalk it up to an hour in the cold (and a radio slave transmitter almost lost in the creek), but I didn’t think of it until we were breaking down.

The shots turned out good anyway. They weren’t what I had envisioned while I was planning the shoot, but that’s okay – I’m happy with them and, even more importantly, Nick loves them. Mission accomplished.

Brent Pennington

Brent Pennington is a professional photographer and the driving force behind The Roving Photographer. When he’s not working with commercial or portraiture clients, he’s usually out in the field pursuing nature and wildlife shots.

   

{Click to view larger}

In my last post, I discussed how I shoot images for a panorama. This time, I’ll walk you through my post-production process for making a final, composited image. Again, this is pretty simple stuff – I like to keep things simple whenever possible.

We’re going to be working with an older panorama for this example. I shot this pano at sunrise at Fords Pond, in December of 2009. It’s comprised of 6 images. Once my photos are downloaded from the card, I find the panoramic series in Bridge and tag them. (The tag is just a visual reminder to me that these photos go together, so that if I save the RAW files, I’m able to remember this in the future.)

Although I shoot in RAW, I don’t do any processing to the images at this point, except to apply the lens correction profile in ACR. Then, with the necessary images selected, I click Tools → Photoshop → Photomerge.

Photomerge is Photoshop’s image compositor. Choosing this command will launch Photoshop, and the Photomerge menu will appear, showing a list of files to be merged, as well as several options for how to merge them. I leave this set to Auto. (Note: you can also skip Bridge and launch the Photomerge window from within Photoshop itself, then select the files to merge. I like my way better, because I like Bridge.)

Photoshop does all the heavy lifting from this point on. Depending on how many photos you are merging, the size of your RAW files, and your computer’s hardware, the actual composition process may take anywhere from a few seconds to…well, I had one run for a half-hour once. In CS5, Photoshop opens each image and adds it to the growing panorama as a layer, although I can’t see the finished image until the very end. What I will see is a series of status bars, and as well as the growing layers on the Layers palette.

This is a hardware-intensive process. The pano I shot this past Sunday had 26 images in it, took about 10 minutes to assemble, and resulted in a 1.56GB layered file. I’m working on a desktop computer running a 2 Ghz quad-core processor with 6GB of RAM. Watching its performance on the Task Manager, both the processors and the RAM maxed out. The processor is what it is, but more RAM would definitely have helped my computer out.

Once the photomerge finally finishes, it’s the moment of truth. You’ll see the final panorama, with each individual image existing as its own layer, blended to the layers on either side of it. What you might notice, looking at the composited image, are thin lines that appear on the boundaries between layers. Don’t panic! These won’t appear in the final image, it’s just PS showing where they are.

Your job right now is to zoom in on the image and examine it for merge errors. Most of the time these will be obvious: cut-off objects, strange color/exposure swaths, etc. But sometimes they are small and subtle. Take the time to look now, because it really sucks to share a final pano image with someone, only to have them come back with, “Yeah, but what’s that weird place way down in the bottom left corner?”

Once I’m confident that the merge was successful, I flatten the image. This reduces the file size markedly and makes it much easier for the computer to continue working with it. My first step is to straighten the image, using the Arbitrary Rotation tool until the horizon is as level as possible. If I’m going to try and correct any perspective shifts, this is the time – although they don’t always work and can result in increased distortions. Next, I crop the image down. I simply clear out the crop tool’s fields and draw it across the image, keeping it as tight to each side as possible without including any empty (non-image) space.

Sometimes, if it will improve the image, I’ll include small amounts of empty space, but only if they are in areas where I can easily fill them via Content Aware Fill or the Clone tool. (Think small patches of sky, grass, etc.)

After this, it’s business as usual. I generally save the flattened, cropped panorama as a TIFF file and close it out of Photoshop, then reopen it in ACR. I’m a huge fan of ACR and like the way it works. I’ll perform basic exposure edits here, apply a digital graduated filter if necessary, and sharpen the image before returning it to Photoshop for final edits, including Curves, spot removal/healing, etc.

When I’m completely finished, I again flatten the image and re-save the TIFF file. I don’t really care what the dimensions are at this point, because I do most of my image posting/sharing in the digital environment. If I need to make a print of a panoramic image, I’ll bring it back in Photoshop and crop it to print dimensions at that point. This can be a little frustrating, since the selection of available print sizes is limited and it can be had to find a crop that is both flattering to the image, and fits the paper sizes. In these instances, I’d rather crop too large than too small. Meaning, I’d rather crop to include an inch or so of empty space at the bottom of the image, as opposed to leaving out elements by cropping into the image. Fill the empty space with black and add some text – the title of the image, your name, etc – and it looks great.

And there you have it – that’s everything I know on the topic of panoramas. Hit up the comments to tell me what you think, if I left anything out, or if you have a better way of doing it.

Brent Pennington

Brent Pennington is a professional photographer and the driving force behind The Roving Photographer. When he’s not working with commercial or portraiture clients, he’s usually out in the field pursuing nature and wildlife shots.

   

First off, I like shooting panoramas. There’s something in the nature of the final images that strongly appeals to me, the sweeping nature of the image and the way that it shows so much more context and sense of place than a single shot is able to. That said, panoramic shooting isn’t necessarily something I plan on. It’s somewhat uncommon that I head into the field with the express intention of creating one, but rather its something that occurs organically once I’m there and see a scene that would be best expressed that way.

{Click to view larger}

There aren’t any hard rules for this. Strong horizontal elements are naturally necessary, but aside from that I shoot panos with more emphasis on the feeling that “I cannot capture this scene with a single image, but feel that it’s worth capturing nonetheless.” It’s a huge advantage of digital that I can shoot multiple frames and merge them with relative ease; it’s an even bigger advantage that I can see the frames as I shoot them, and therefore accurately judge the composition and overlap.

Once I’ve decided to shoot a panorama, I have to decide how I’m going to accomplish it. Shooting from a tripod is generally accepted as being the “proper” way to proceed, but I often fail to bring mine along, especially if I’m planning on covering ground. So there is hope for handheld panoramic shooting as well.

In either case, I always shoot a little wider than the scene I want to capture. This means two things: first, I use a slightly wider zoom setting (ie: I shoot “loose”), and second, I extend the panoramic series father on both the starting and ending sides. The reason for this is simple: when assembled in post, the resulting image will be uneven. Either the ends or the middle will be wider, or sometimes the layout follows a sort of shallow curve. Either way, I’ll have to crop in to achieve a nice, rectangular image, so allowing myself some extra space makes this much easier. (Failure to do this results in some frustrating Photoshop time, trying to clone in missing corners. You quickly learn to shoot loose in the field.)

{Click to view larger}

Shooting a pano always begins with locking in the camera settings. I’ll meter different parts of the scene, and usually snap a few test shots just to nail down the exposure, before switching to Manual. If I’m shooting from a tripod, then slow shutter speeds aren’t an issue and I’ll stop the lens down to at least f/11 at ISO 100 and engage the Mirror Lockup and 2-second self timer (or use my remote, if I remembered to throw it in the bag – but really I find the timer to be easier, and one less small accessory to carry around/lose).

If I’m hand holding for the shots, then shutter speed becomes essential, and the faster the better. Nothing ruins a panorama faster than camera shake on a single image in the middle of the series. I may trade aperture for shutter speed and I’ll definitely increase the ISO. I won’t engage high-speed continuous shooting, however, since a consistent composition is more important that spray-and-pray ability.

Tripod mounted, I usually shoot verticals. It takes more shots to cover the whole range, but the final resolution is larger. Hand held, KISS is the rule to follow, and fewer frames means fewer chances to screw up, so I’ll usually shoot horizontals. The number of frames in the series depends entirely on the size of the scene I’m trying to cover, as well as the focal length of my lens. What matters most is the overlap between frames. The more overlap you include, the easier it is for the software to match features and create an accurate panorama. I try to shoot each frame with a 33% overlap. I always work left to right, so the right third of my first frame and the left third of my second frame contain the same portion of the scene, and so on.

{Click to view larger}

Realize, however, that overlap is good, but there is such thing as overkill. I find approximately 33% to be a rule of thumb that results in good panos. If I’m shooting handheld, or in a hurry (fleeting light/subject, whatever), I may only use 25% overlap. And on the other end of the spectrum, you have to remember that the more overlap you shoot, the more frames you’ll have to merge. More frames = increased demand on your computer’s resources, and lower-end systems may not be able to handle it. (More on this in Part 2.)

Here’s the catch! If you read any articles/websites/books about shooting panoramas, you’ll certainly hear mention of nodal points, followed by some sort of sliding tripod attachment meant to properly align your lens. The short version is this: to make an accurate, distortion-free panorama, the point of rotation shouldn’t be the camera itself (which it is, using a standard base plate and tripod) but the nodal point in the lens. Achieving this means that the camera needs to be moved backwards until the nodal point is directly over the tripod’s point of rotation. Hence the slider accessories and special tripod heads. (Some good news: if you have a telephoto lens with a tripod ring, it will be much closer to the nodal point than the center of the camera itself. Bad news: you’d have to shoot a panorama with a telephoto.)

Personally, I don’t worry about nodal points. I shoot my panoramas on a normal tripod and accept that there will be distortion. Either I work with it in Photoshop (cropping, free transformations) to fix it, I accept it as part of the artistic nature of the image, or I delete it. If I get really serious about this in the future, maybe I’ll invest in the equipment. Or if I get inspired someday, I’ll DIY a nodal slider. But for now, I shoot panos because I enjoy it, so I’m not going to stress over it.

{Click to view larger}

A few final thoughts on shooting a pano. I’ve already said that I lock the settings in via Manual mode in the camera. This is essential – you don’t want things to change from one shot to the next, or they will not match up properly. This goes for lens filters, too. Used across a sweeping range, a polarizer will show an ugly gradient. I’ve tried it, I’ve deleted the resulting files. Don’t bother. A graduated ND filter can be used with in a scene with a level horizon, but again, you need to evaluate what you’re shooting and make sure that the effect will be consistent across the entire range.

I lock my focus in manually as well, for this same reason. No fancy method here, I simple visualize where the focus should be, and then pick a representative spot to auto-focus on, some feature that is at a distance that is fairly consistent throughout the range. Once focused, I switch the lens to manual focus, align for my first composition, and start shooting.

During the composition phase, I make an effort to level the camera to the horizon in the center of my capture range. As I rotate the camera, it may go off-level to either end of the range, especially combined with distortions, and this is something I just have to accept. But I want it level in the center to start with.

As for actually rotating the camera, my tripod has a rotating center column, and I just spin that around as I go (making sure it’s plenty loose before I start). Some tripod heads have an isolated panning adjustment – that’s good, too. However you do it, you’ll want the tripod securely placed and smooth, easy rotation. Or, if you’re hand-holding, you want to be in a position where you can keep the camera to your eye and turn in place without falling over or into anything. Common sense, there…

The last thing I’ll do after shooting a pano is shoot a junk frame – something intentionally blurry, or with my hand in the image, just so I know that the pano series ends there. It’s one of those simple things that can make life easier on the computer.

And that’s it – there’s nothing terribly scientific about my process, but it does seem to work. What I like most about it is that it’s quick. I don’t spend a lot of time futzing around with extra gear or making measurements or any nonsense. I get in, I setup, and I make the image.

Check back on Saturday for Part 2, which will cover my post production!

{Click to view larger}

Brent Pennington

Brent Pennington is a professional photographer and the driving force behind The Roving Photographer. When he’s not working with commercial or portraiture clients, he’s usually out in the field pursuing nature and wildlife shots.