First church of Otago Pano Revisited

[TonyT]

I am not sure about this one it a 5 shot pano



Edit added to subject line revisited

[Mr Darcy]

A few of issues I see here:
1. The overall image looks overexposed to me. If you shot RAW you can probably claw back some detail in the sky. Those clouds could look kick-ass ominous pulled back a stop or two. Mind you, you would need to carefully apply the same adjustment to each of your source images then combine again. In LR you just select them all, then turn on Autosync, do the adjustment on one then turn autosync back off (or else you will make a mess of subsequent edits!!!)
2. The building looks like it is leaning back. Maybe a perspective adjustment would help here. Easy to do in LR (manual Lens corrections) and CS, but I don't know what software you are using. In this case, I would apply it to the final image.
3. I think you could crop a little all round. There is a lot of dead space on all sides

The stitching itself looks good at this resolution. Maybe you could add a link to a higher res image. But not full res. I don't want to wait all day for it to load.

[zafra52]

I agree with the above.

[biggerry]

vertical panos are certainly harder to nail than horizontal ones, similarly to Greg, i can't see any stitching issues so hats off there.

Two things bounce me when i first look at it.

1) The blown cloud really draws my attention away from the church goodness..

2) The perspective on the church kinda makes it look slightly twisted, also is it straight? Were you smack in the middle ie perpendicular to teh front face of the church (its looks not so?)

How about a BW conversion, that may resolve the blown sky issue to an extent.

not a shabby looking church either

[aim54x]

Why do I read all the comments before I add anything? I agree with what Greg said...and the twist that Gerry mentioned.

Hope you shot in RAW...that will give you some wriggle room to pull back that sky if you did.

[Mr Darcy]

Why is no one mentioning the T![T word?

[Steffen]

Why is no one mentioning the T![T word?

I don't think it's tilt we're seeing here, rather some kind of parallelogram distortion. It is probably a result of the stitching process and should be easy enough to correct.

Cheers
Steffen.

[surenj]

I know this location and you might need a tilt-shift lens to capture this structure without tilts.

What focal length was your lens?

[TonyT]

Thanks for the excellence comments people
I use LR3 and CS5 and shoot in raw. I created the pano in PS and used distortion slew to stretch the the bottom sides to vertical and reduced the height as well. The sky is not a problem at all as the first try i did has heaps of detail, the building the problem.

I will do it again I will go down the path Greg suggested Thanks Greg

Gerry I didn't notice the twist I think I was in the middle but maybe not as you said.

Tilt is what annoys me the most it looks like the steeple is going to fall off backwards

Thanks Steffen I look at the distortion

Sigma 28-300 (don't tell Cam) The church is on a rise and I was about eye height below the bottom step. Surenj A Tilt lens I wish maybe I can borrow your

I will try and post the next on the weekend but will do have the grandchildren this weekend.

[surenj]

Surenj A Tilt lens I wish maybe I can borrow your

 LOL. That will be the day I win lotto.

Please show us any further corrections...

[TonyT]

Here's another try I did not know want I would get when I started I am happier with the building but I sort of got a HDR effect. Thats OK I think I am going in the right direction thanks ever bodies advice.

[Mr Darcy]

The sky is much better now but a little too HDR for my taste. However given of choice of "a" or "b" I would definitely take "b".

While the halo effect almost works as a "Holy place" marker. I personally would try to lose it, though I don't know enough about HDR processing to suggest how to go about it. And maybe reduce the brightness of the whole sky so there is a greater contrast between the church and sky.

I think its time to pay attention to the details now.
1. The lack of symmetry in the road markings (arrows) are now more noticeable. Perhaps clone them out.
2. The light on the left has become more obvious with the HDR processing Again perhaps clone it out
3. The patch of blue sky is now a bit jarring. Perhaps pull down the saturation on the blue channel though that may affect the grass too. If you can localise it that would be good.

[TonyT]

1. The lack of symmetry in the road markings (arrows) are now more noticeable. Perhaps clone them out.
I more been concern with the building and sky but good point
2. The light on the left has become more obvious with the HDR processing Again perhaps clone it out
I put the light on, the shots were taken in the middle of the day just playing:lol:
3. The patch of blue sky is now a bit jarring. Perhaps pull down the saturation on the blue channel though that may affect the grass too. If you can localise it that would be good.
Yer I notice that too as well and I totally agree I look at that at the next try
I first auto sync the shots then sent them to PS I was surprised by the HDR effect it was not want I was trying to do. This was a test using your suggest I am not unhappy with result as I am happier with the building now

While the halo effect almost works as a "Holy place" marker. I personally would try to lose it,
I don't like it as well I reduced it a bit in this one but I am thinking I will try and reduce it in the original shots before I create the pano It was more noticeable in the other one I done but not as bad in this one.
Thanks for the comments Greg I will turn the lamp light off promise