DSLRUsers.com

I finally figure out how to make a pano.

Here is a composite of some pics i took at dawn (0500) last week of Sydney Harbour. The sky was stormy and was just begging me to take a photo of it. So i did, i mean how was I to say no to fate, nature or God. Take your pick!

NOTE: The colours are as natural as i could get them.





For a bigger picture follow this link. (Dialup warning 400k)
http://killakoala.smugmug.com/gallery/292396/1/11619501


This is my first ever panorama so hopefully i can improve on this.

Please criticise the ____ out of it. Let me know if it's crap or a stroke of genius. I'm a crusty old sailor with a hard salt encrusted shell, so i can take it.

Bring it on................

(EDITED- I have done a bit more post processing on the image. I have removed all obvious joins and rotated it a bit to make it more level. I also did some more cloning to remove things that were doubled due to stitching)

From another crusty old sailor - very atmospheric - I like it heaps

Cheers

Chris

Mr Killakoala...

that is a wonderful shot... sky is very difficult to capture... and you have caught it with clouds absolutely perfectly...

one critique if it's okay.... try rotating the image .5-1 degree anti-clockwise to make the horizon perfectly straight... and then crop as per necessary ....

well done... good to see the inspiration is back

Nailed it mate!!!!!!

Great first effort, they only get better from here on in  PS: I got board with my old avatar

Cheers
Ray

Nice!

I agree with Xerubus tho, there's something slopey about the horizon!

Love the dramatic clouds and wide angle perspective..

A little tip I learned a while back (not sure if you already know this or not but i'll tell ya anyway!!)..

When doing panoramics, rotate your camera and take your shots in portrait format (ie, tall rather than wide) this way you get more resolution and less lens distortion! Down side is you have to stitch together more photo's!

Liam =]

beetleboy wrote:Nice!
When doing panoramics, rotate your camera and take your shots in portrait format (ie, tall rather than wide) this way you get more resolution and less lens distortion! Down side is you have to stitch together more photo's!

Liam =]

Agreed!!

Another way is to stay out of the wide end of the zoom range; this will help in keeping the distortion down to.

Cheers
Ray

Raydar,
Watch out!!!! you've a burned CCD with your new avatar.

Birddog114 wrote:Raydar,
Watch out!!!! you've a burned CCD with your new avatar.

 LOL, all I'm worried about is I mite get done for Copy Right!!!!!

Cheers
Ray

Very good Killakoala, the only stiching point that I really really noticed was on the right handside of the image to the right of the Sydney Harbour bridge to the left of that structure in the water. You can see some differences in the water.

G'day,
Wow, really nice moody work Killa... Great sky, good job...

Be tempting to try and bring out some of the shadow detail in the trees on the edge of the city in PP and some people might love or be distracted by the light reflecting of the few (middle) city buildings... Didn't pick any joins though...

Really nice work... Colors in the sky are terrific... NSW tourism related businesses would be interested in that... Never know, might make a sale...

Cheers,
Mudder

mudder wrote:G'day,
NSW tourism related businesses would be interested in that... Never know, might make a sale...

Cheers,
Mudder

It's copyright, can't sell for business, for fun is OK, for biz then require a permit to shoot and use otherwise no no no. This applied to any landmark, parks etc....

[/quote]

It's copyright, can't sell for business, for fun is OK, for biz then require a permit to shoot and use otherwise no no no. This applied to any landmark, parks etc....[/quote]

Wow, you know I never thought of that... Doh... Obviously I've sold heaps huh..... ar ar ar... Worth a thought...

Actually, when I was looking at a park on a web-site today I noticed photographic permits, der (as I hit myself on the forehead)...

Cheers,
Mudder

Birddog
I don't think this image is copyright. It's a general cityscape and no one can stop you from flogging as many copies as you like for any reason. Also, I feel very very strongly that governments or anyone else, think they can copyright trees, buildings, bridges...(payed for by taxpayers) or anything else that can be seen from a public place. Its wrong and we need to confront it and challange it. (Before we end up like the USA).

Newsbreak! The Sydney City Councel has placed a copyright on the entire CBD. No one may photograph, sketch or describe in words any structure etc etc etc.

Not in my lifetime. Not on my watch.

mudder,
It's worth to do a search on this forum, this issue has been discussed before.

Yes, you can sell your photos with any landmarks, beaches to someone privately, if it get caught by any authorities then there you go.

For biz, say i want you to shoot a commercial in video or film or digital with some landmarks as in Melbourne or Sydney Opera house or Bondi beach or the Great Ocean Road then a permit is required. This laws is applied around the world not only in Australia, even Govt. Dept.

If you don't think it's right, just start a thread and you'll get lot of reply from this forum or other forum like dpreview and nikonian.org

Excuse my French but Christ we live in a controlled society - you can’t do this, you can’t do that - very soon the only thing that we will be able to photograph is the sky - so long as God is not present - if he is we will need a permit from the Australian government. . .

had my rant about the restrictions of freedom to photograph what we want

Cheers

Chris

Chris,
Did you know this rubbish rules or laws?

Killakoala,
have we discussed this one before?

Anybody wanna buy my pic?

Bob Carr, where is your bid?

The NSW government makes me sick with their desire to control pretty much everything.

I's like to see ther NSW Government try to get some money out of me.... (Or should i say, more money)

Matt. K wrote:Birddog
I don't think this image is copyright. It's a general cityscape and no one can stop you from flogging as many copies as you like for any reason. Also, I feel very very strongly that governments or anyone else, think they can copyright trees, buildings, bridges...(payed for by taxpayers) or anything else that can be seen from a public place. Its wrong and we need to confront it and challange it. (Before we end up like the USA).

Newsbreak! The Sydney City Councel has placed a copyright on the entire CBD. No one may photograph, sketch or describe in words any structure etc etc etc.

Not in my lifetime. Not on my watch.

Matt,
I knew it, but the whole photo and its content is landmark of Sydney. They did not stop you to take photo for private use or fun or hobby but they don't want you to use it in your biz or sell to biz or commercial.

Hi Birddog

In the years I have been doing photography and as a creative art director it has always been understood that the photographer holds copyright on his photos - even if shot for a client who pays. It is the photographer that has the right to reliquish copyright.

If you, I or anyone else places there photos into a web browser library we have automatic copyright.

But these days remind me of the 30s in Germany - whatever way you turn you appear to be doing something illegal.

A question I have is this - if a TV station interviews someone with the Opera House in the shot do they have to get permission?

Cheers

Chris

I do not like stupid authority and never will

Chris,
They all do have the permits to shoot around Sydney and they been granted an annual general permits not limited permit.

I don't like them either but what can you do?

I shot the image from COMMONWEALTH LAND. Does this mean that the NSW Governemnt has no rights to make money form me?????

Hmmmmmm, interesting.

Killakoala wrote:I shot the image from COMMONWEALTH LAND. Does this mean that the NSW Governemnt has no rights to make money form me?????

Hmmmmmm, interesting.

Depend on what do you want to do with it!
You can shoot a thousand photos of opera house for your private albums no one give you any words , but can not use them in any commercial without a permit.

Moral outrage at the affront to our liberties aside (an outrage I share, I should hasten to add), Killa, very nice panoramical. (Good expression by the way.) This really demonstrates the power of a pano with this kind of vista, and where the foreground is unobtrusive.

You must have shot in fairly rapid succession to avoid cloud movement related problems.

sirhc55 - I love any post that starts with "Pardon my french, but..." We must be similar vintage

With regards to copyright, does the same principal apply to our own property? Can we stop people photographing our private houses without our permission if they are to be used commercially? If the answer is yes then we can mount a class action against the company that produces the software for real estate agents with aerial photos of every house in Sydney. They never asked my permission.

phillipb wrote:With regards to copyright, does the same principal apply to our own property? Can we stop people photographing our private houses without our permission if they are to be used commercially? If the answer is yes then we can mount a class action against the company that produces the software for real estate agents with aerial photos of every house in Sydney. They never asked my permission.

PhillipB
Yes, you can stop and seek legal advice or seek compensation if there's a lost or damage to you, other side you've registered copyright of your property with the Authorities prior to do that. Every States has a listing of registered landmarks.

I can tell you: has anyone seen & remember the Qantas commercial around the world with the song : I'm still call Australia home?

Do you know how much did Qantas pay for license/ permit to shoot those scenes in total? more than US$2Mil. at that time.

If someone photo your property and use its design without your consent, and its design belongs to you, then you can proceed legal action against them, if that design, belongs to a builder or architech, then that their rights, not your rights.

No, because our properties are not registered w/ copyrights and do not recognized or classified as landmard of the city/ country, so there's no chance

Steve,

Killakoala wrote:I shot the image from COMMONWEALTH LAND. Does this mean that the NSW Governemnt has no rights to make money form me?????

Hmmmmmm, interesting.

I would say yes, that makes things very different.

There's probably some relevance to the proposal to put a shopping centre at Bankstown Airport; it's on Commonwealth land, and therefore not subject to the State government's planning authorities and processes, and not subject to their centres policy.

Thank goodness!

Think you've got it bad? I was almost arrested and my D70 confiscated for taking a picture (cityscape) that had a federal building in the shot. Itook my time, set up, took meters, snapped a few, adjusted, snapped a few more, was looking at my laptop when I was confronted by 4 deputies that started grabbing equipment. They said due to 9/11 (overused excuse by now) it is a federal crime, a felony at that, to take a picture of ANY federal building in the US; terrorism and all. Apparently our money is illegal since it all features a federal monu,ent of some sort. Some one should tell our gov't they've broken the law...........funny thing is, i work for local gov't as a firefighter. I knew one of the cops and he didn't say a word.

Needless to say, I've written a few leters........so sad....

Andrew

Sory Killa! Love the pano. What setup were you using at the time? Lens, tripod, head, etc. I have been playing with pano and haven't quite got it....yet!

A

Andrew,

atencati wrote: it is a federal crime, a felony at that, to take a picture of ANY federal building in the US

So ... I'm in DC, on The Mall. I look around and see that most imposing structure, The Capitol. I can't take a picture of that ?

I wander down the road ... arund a couple of corners, and happen across the beautiful white building on Pensylvania Ave, nestled behind a fance and surrounded by a moat of gardens ... again I can't take a piccie of that??

I keep walking towards where I see a couple of taller buildings ... there's a hotel, and an M station. Across the road, there's the Smithsonian ...

Or is that not under Feral - er, I mean Federal - juristiction?

What about state law? I want to take a picure of the State Capitol in Sacremento? I can remember that, ten years ago, parking was permitted in the square that surrounds the Capitol; I'd be surprised if that's still the case.

Dang Andrew - sorry to hear of your experience. That is truly sad what "anti-terrorisism" efforts means with respect to photography today. I thought it was bad when I got asked for ID because I wanted to walk down a street in NYC on my visit there. I had walked down the same street just the day before! (It was 35th St, on my way to B&H).

I understand not abusing someone elses personal properties for gain, but if everyone has equal access to public domain (ie: Statue of Liberty) where does ownership begin or end. It IS public property, and if you are ALSO on public property where is the line drawn. How do you ensure fairness universally???? Outlaw cameras? Photography? Video????? It has to end somewhere doesn't it?

just some thoughts...err...confusion

'll keep you posted if I receive any "Official" responses.

-A

Great Pano.

I love the lines that the clouds make. They sort of spread out from the center and draw my eyes towards the center. Then I notice the colors and the bridge. Damn near perfect shot man. I don't look at a lot of the little details, but there is some serious presence in that shot.

My wife was in DC with her mum and they spied some people taking some photos of something and they reported them. Crazy.

I was taking a picture in the New York subway and a uniformed man told me to stop. Needless to say I did and got the hell out of there before he figured out I had already taken it and want to take away a camera that wasn't mine.

I think that you should sell the pic for hundreds of thousands and then use that money to fight the lawsuits, then you can change the law...then the world.

It is fascinating reading the experiences people have had with regards to taking a few photos in what would otherwise have been innocuous places ten years ago.

Has the world gone mad? I think it has.

16 months ago i was standing on the wharf in Kuwait harbour, wearing ballistic body armour and with an automatic rifle in hand, loaded but with safety on and wondering if i was going to get to empty the magazine or not. Two days before i had been in Iraqi territorial waters and could see the lights of some Iraqi town whose name escapes me.

Two weeks ago i was standing on the port bridgewing of my ship shooting the photos of my home city for the panorama and thanking whomsoever that i was still alive and able to do just that.

I was asked by the Australian Government to go to the Persian Gulf and help not only restore democracy to a country without it, but also to make the world a better, safer place. A world that i can live in and take photos of without fear or prejudice that i was doing anyone any harm and no harm coming to me.

At no time during my photography that morning did i even think that i was taking a photo of a sight that i would have to get a permit for if i wanted to sell the images.

It's my city, it's my home, it's my bloody country. Australia is a country that prides itself on being a superior democracy and one of the best places to live, anywhere in the world. I've visited enough countries to know that Australia is most definately one of the best places to live in the world.

I am going to go out of my way now to take photos of public buildings in the hope that someone confronts me. Then i am going to complain to the authorities about how a Gulf War Veteran has been victimised by the very democratic society that he put his life on the line to defend.

It's time.......

Wish me luck!!!
Steve

I am with you 100% - I was in Cambodia in 1968/69 ostensibly as a photographer - today I would have to go as a nanny so I did not break any photography laws - I can just imagine Capa asking the Spanish Government if he could take a photo of a soldier dying - get real

Cheers

Chris

I am also with you 100% Steve.

It is troubling that the response to real and perceived terrorism includes a lessening of the very freedoms which we seek to defend, and for which people like Steve put their lives on the line.

Killakoala,
Drag me along with you as a supporter and I sign a petition as well.
I knew some rules and States/ Federal laws cos I was involved with lot of people in the past and present, like channel 9/ AP/ POLAIR Wing/ SAR etc.. that what I learned from, which brought myself in wondering with no any more trust to those Authorities.

Steve,

Well said, and good luck.

While I might not hold that same views as our politicians wrt any need to intervene in other regions of the world, I both respect and support the work that you and your comrades (strange word to use in this context) executed during these difficult times.

Freedom is a rare priviledge that we enjoy, and it, more than anything els, needs to be protected.

Now, if we could just get Captian Chaos to get the trains to run. On time would be good, but running would be a start.

Hey killa......sorry to get us off on that rant, just wondering if you could still post the lens, exif, etc....Thanks!!!!

Andrew

Hey killa......sorry to get us off on that rant, just wondering if you could still post the lens, exif, etc....Thanks!!!!

Hehe, that's OK Andrew. i think as photogs we have a soft spot for public domain and the removal of our right to take photos of whatever we want

I used the following config.
Kit lens at 35mm exactly in landscape.
1/80 at F4.2
+0.3 EV
ISO 200
Adobe Colour mode
Manfrotto Monopod.
Guessed the level and didn't do a good job of that. it required quite intensive Post Processing to get it level.
And of course each of the 9 images was taken at the same settings with AE-L button locked.

Stitched in Panorama Factory and further post processing in PS CS. Cloned a few bits such as the middle of the harbour bridge where the cables hang down to the roadway, cloned a few annoying double images due to the stitching not working quite accurately. Quite a bit of work was done to the water in front of the point directly in the middle of the image. It didn't stitch very well and the water looked silly with different colours not corresponding to the skyline (not sure why that happened). Also the usual unsharp mask, colour and contrast adjustments and i also rotated the image .5 of a degree anti-clockwise to level the road way more. (The road way does actually dip away from the centre of the image naturally, but it doesn't look right in the photo.

Took me about 2.5 hours to do the work.