Sierra Nevada high resolution D7 images and panoramas

Pixel Pete said:

would you be willing to e-mail me privately
the directions on how to find those Eureka Dunes you photographed?

Click to expand...

There's really no secret to the Eureka Dunes...they are clearly marked on the map that everyone gets when they enter Death Valley. There are two ways of getting there, but both are on bumpy dirt/gravel roads (you probably should have a 4wd vehicle):

1. From Scotty's castle (about 45 miles).
2. From Big Pine (about 50 miles).

On the day that we visited, we didn't see another human being there or at the racetrack (also accessible only via dirt/gravel road). I think that the fact that these two locations are relatively out of the way, and accessible only via dirt roads, keeps the traffic low.

Here's some more information about the sand dunes in Death Valley:

http://www.thesierraweb.com/sightseeing/deathvalley/dvdunes.html

Max

Jeanette,

Speaking as a relative digital novice I must admit that it is very daunting at first trying to choose the right model. Living in Diss I know the complete lack of shops in Norwich which have any good selections of camera. I even ventured out in to the new year sales to try and find a shop which sold the Minolta S304 (My final choice after alot of research). The usual suspects, PC World, Comets, Dixons, Jessops and John Lewis to name but a few all seemed to stock the same, safe, run of the mill brands, but nothing out of the ordinary.

I've had the camera for nearly a week now and bought it (I know I should have tested it first) based on the reviews of magazines and websites along with a few personal recommendations. I am chuffed to bits with it and continually surprised at what is achievable with these quite amazing pieces of kit. I wouldn't hesitate in recommending it but if you can, try and find others opinions.

Give WWW.Digitalcamerasdirect.co.uk a look. They have all the major brands along with links to reviews and all at seriously good prices.

Best of luck, I'm sure you'l find the right one for you!!

Karl

Please look at the thread named 'A converted newbie' , I got a bit carried away and didn't put a very suitable title!!!!

Hope it helps,

Karl.

Can you recommend another, simpler stitching program? I used QuickStitch, but they are not upgrading to Win200, WinME, etc. Right now, I'm keeping one computer with an old Win98 operating system just to stitch pictures.

I started taking pans and mini-mins about 10 years ago with an old Canon SureShot and hard-copy photos. The new digital cameras and software make it even more fun, and your eye for creating art with your camera is inspiring.

Max Lyons said:

I've just posted a new gallery of pictures from the Sierra Nevada
mountains in California. All images were taken with a Minolta
DiMage 7 and stitched together into large, high resolution images
using Panorama Tools, PTAssembler and ColorFix:

http://www.erols.com/maxlyons

(Click on the link for the "Digital Sierra Nevada" gallery).

All images have been resized for web-display. (The full-sized
images are up to 40 megapixels in size and are not practical for
web display).

Panorama Tools: http://www.fh-furtwangen.de/~dersch/
PTAssembler: http://tawba.tripod.com/ptasmblr.htm
ColorFix: http://tawba.tripod.com/colorfix.htm

Max

Click to expand...

Jean Ricket said:

Can you recommend another, simpler stitching program? I used
QuickStitch, but they are not upgrading to Win200, WinME, etc.
Right now, I'm keeping one computer with an old Win98 operating
system just to stitch pictures.

Click to expand...

I haven't used any other software in over a year. I used to like Panorama Factory (despite the fact that it can only stitch in one direction), and Photovista was quite good as well. I'm sure other folks have suggestions, and http://www.panoguide.com has some very detailed reviews as well.

Max

I have to agree with the others that these images are stunning. My question for you is what settings did you use on the D7 for size and quality. My guess is that you used the max on both. When I try this I get huge files and very slow camera-recovery-time.

Tom

Max Lyons said:

I've just posted a new gallery of pictures from the Sierra Nevada
mountains in California. All images were taken with a Minolta
DiMage 7 and stitched together into large, high resolution images
using Panorama Tools, PTAssembler and ColorFix:

http://www.erols.com/maxlyons

(Click on the link for the "Digital Sierra Nevada" gallery).

All images have been resized for web-display. (The full-sized
images are up to 40 megapixels in size and are not practical for
web display).

Panorama Tools: http://www.fh-furtwangen.de/~dersch/
PTAssembler: http://tawba.tripod.com/ptasmblr.htm
ColorFix: http://tawba.tripod.com/colorfix.htm

Max

Click to expand...

Tom Bishop said:

I have to agree with the others that these images are stunning. My
question for you is what settings did you use on the D7 for size
and quality. My guess is that you used the max on both. When I try
this I get huge files and very slow camera-recovery-time.

Click to expand...

Actually, I use the medium quality JPEG compression setting.

Max

Max Lyons said:

I used Photoshop's graident tool to create layer masks and then levels > adjustment to change the brightness.

Max

Click to expand...

Hi Max:

Thanks for posting this. For months now I've had difficulty editing the layer masks output by Panorama Tools via the airbrush tool, but I'm now finally beginning to understand how to use the gradient tool to get a better result.

Brian

Max Lyons said:

I've just posted a new gallery of pictures from the Sierra Nevada
mountains in California. All images were taken with a Minolta
DiMage 7 and stitched together into large, high resolution images
using Panorama Tools, PTAssembler and ColorFix:

Click to expand...

The Dimage 7 has a offset tripod screw.

Does it cause problems?

--Minolta Dimage 7 Owner

Stuart Halliday said:

The Dimage 7 has a offset tripod screw.

Does it cause problems?

Click to expand...

It can introduce visible parallax errors if you include objects that are close to the lens. I use a homemade panoramic head adapter to solve this problem (took 10 minutes to put together and cost $1.14). Here's some documentation I wrote for the one I used on my Nikon 990:

http://www.erols.com/maxlyons/panhead.htm

I use something very similar for the D7.

Max

Hello Max

Doesn't really matter what you took the pictures with they are really marvellous.I am sitting here envious of your portfolio.The weather is dull foggy and I can't think of anything to photograph ,the light is terrible.I tried the cat but it wouldn't sit still long enough so I kicked it outside now it's posing on the window. Roll on Spring these are SAD days and congratulations on a fine set of photos.
Fred.

Max Lyons said:

Stuart Halliday said:

The Dimage 7 has a offset tripod screw.

Does it cause problems?

Click to expand...

It can introduce visible parallax errors if you include objects
that are close to the lens. I use a homemade panoramic head
adapter to solve this problem (took 10 minutes to put together and
cost $1.14). Here's some documentation I wrote for the one I used
on my Nikon 990:

http://www.erols.com/maxlyons/panhead.htm

I use something very similar for the D7.

Click to expand...

Right.

I worked out the distance from the centre of the lens to the tripod hole is 33mm?

I'd really like to get someone to make this for me in the UK as I've no access to metal work tools. Any offers from budding DIY people?

Shame no photo shop seems to sell these devices.
Oh well... :--)

Lastly...

My first meagre Panorama is at:
http://www.longleat83.co.uk/photos/
Its called panvue_image.jpg
there is a small version for non-broadband visitors.

Its a picture of my local Forth Rail bridge. Its 112 years old.

It was assembled using evaluation panvue software using 3x 2560 images in fine mode. It was a hand held shot.

--Minolta Dimage 7 Owner

Max,

Have you ever tried the compression program called Mr. Sid? It's used to compress very large (1 gb+) images and there's a free Photoshop plug-in. I'm not sure if the original .psd format (with layers) is saved like when zipping or tarring files. It just seems a shame that after all of the really wonderful efforts you put into making the images that you have to compress using jpg. Oh, wait, does 'very low compression JPEG' mean -using Photoshop numbering - you use a 10ish setting or 2ish setting?

-Shelley

Max Lyons said:

Dale Johnson said:

I'm wondering what your computer system is comprised
of?ram,processor,hard drive?

Click to expand...

384MB RAM. Athlon 600MHZ. Western Digital 30GB, Western Digital
80GB. I'd like more RAM and processor power...it would speeds
things up!

Max Lyons said:

Also what method do you use for
storage(both in camera,and after downloading)?

Click to expand...

In camera I use JPEG standard compression...not TIFF, RAW or JPEG
fine. On my PC I use a lossless format (typically PSD, TIFF or
BMP) for intermediate saves, until I'm ready to save the final
image as a very low compression JPEG. (If i saved everything in an
uncompressed format, I'd end up with about 6-10 images per CD. Not
really practical given the number of images I've got.)

Max Lyons said:

Have you any experience with the program-"icorrect
professional"?,for fixing color?

Click to expand...

No.

Max Lyons said:

What about your printing experiences with these large photos?What
printer do you use?Got any recommendations about printers and
papers?and inks?

Click to expand...

I don't own a printer...at least not one that is suitable for
photo-printing. I use ezprints for large prints and have used a
number of the other services (epixel, ofoto, shutterfly, etc.) for
small prints. I've seen some excellent output from inkjet
printers, but they aren't as good (to my eyes) as a "real" photo
print like the ones from the services I mentioned. I know it
irritates people, but the first thing I do when I see a digital
print is take off my glasses and examine it up close. I've yet to
see an inkjet print where the dots aren't visible if you know where
to look. I understand that most people don't do this. I
understand that most people don't/can't/won't see the dots. But I
do, and I prefer the smooth tones from a "real" photographic print.

Max Lyons said:

Again thanks for sharing these wonderful pictured with us all. Dale

Click to expand...

Thanks all!

Max

Click to expand...

----newbie--

TerraUnbound said:

Have you ever tried the compression program called Mr. Sid? It's
used to compress very large (1 gb+) images and there's a free
Photoshop plug-in. I'm not sure if the original .psd format (with
layers) is saved like when zipping or tarring files.

Click to expand...

I have not tried the program you mentioned...I'll take a look.

TerraUnbound said:

It just seems
a shame that after all of the really wonderful efforts you put into
making the images that you have to compress using jpg. Oh, wait,
does 'very low compression JPEG' mean -using Photoshop numbering -
you use a 10ish setting or 2ish setting?

Click to expand...

I use 10 or 11, which perform relatively little compression. I don't see it as much of sacrafice...Try saving an image as a JPEG, and then load it up as a new layer on top of the original and set the layer blending mode to difference. Any pixels that are different will show up as colored. It is really quite an instructive exercise about the "horrors" of JPEG compression!

Max

TerraUnbound said:

-Shelley

Max Lyons said:

Dale Johnson said:

I'm wondering what your computer system is comprised
of?ram,processor,hard drive?

Click to expand...

384MB RAM. Athlon 600MHZ. Western Digital 30GB, Western Digital
80GB. I'd like more RAM and processor power...it would speeds
things up!

TerraUnbound said:

Also what method do you use for
storage(both in camera,and after downloading)?

Click to expand...

In camera I use JPEG standard compression...not TIFF, RAW or JPEG
fine. On my PC I use a lossless format (typically PSD, TIFF or
BMP) for intermediate saves, until I'm ready to save the final
image as a very low compression JPEG. (If i saved everything in an
uncompressed format, I'd end up with about 6-10 images per CD. Not
really practical given the number of images I've got.)

TerraUnbound said:

Have you any experience with the program-"icorrect
professional"?,for fixing color?

Click to expand...

No.

TerraUnbound said:

What about your printing experiences with these large photos?What
printer do you use?Got any recommendations about printers and
papers?and inks?

Click to expand...

I don't own a printer...at least not one that is suitable for
photo-printing. I use ezprints for large prints and have used a
number of the other services (epixel, ofoto, shutterfly, etc.) for
small prints. I've seen some excellent output from inkjet
printers, but they aren't as good (to my eyes) as a "real" photo
print like the ones from the services I mentioned. I know it
irritates people, but the first thing I do when I see a digital
print is take off my glasses and examine it up close. I've yet to
see an inkjet print where the dots aren't visible if you know where
to look. I understand that most people don't do this. I
understand that most people don't/can't/won't see the dots. But I
do, and I prefer the smooth tones from a "real" photographic print.

TerraUnbound said:

Again thanks for sharing these wonderful pictured with us all. Dale

Click to expand...

Thanks all!

Max

Click to expand...

--
--newbie--

Click to expand...

As a soon to be digital photographer I feel I should congratulate you on your work and thank you for your support.

You are trully an artisan and a renaissance man as well, your mastery of the technical workings of digital photography along with a very gifted eye truly formidavble. Also, as it was mentioned, the generosity of providing others with the tools as well as the techniques you use or even developed is quite commendable.

It is really nice for a change to be able to draw inspiration from sources within digital photography as opposed to traditional silver photography. To me it's a sign that the medium is gaining independence.

Thanks and keep up the good work, Sir.

Well said on all counts and aspects of your work. My word for the gallery: Fanf* ingtastic!

I wish you, your D7 and tripod were with me last month in Alaska. I thought I did a nice hand held pano of Turnagain Arm of Cook Inlet with an Oly E100RS but after your gallery it may be a long time until I ever post images again...

I think your excellent work is proof that resolution matters. Even reduced, the images are just sharper, better.

D7i on the way. Inspiring work and thanks for all the info and tool links...

Yote
----------------------------------
Marcelo Massat wrote:
........

Absolutely beautiful work! I grew up in Alaska, went to college in Utah, started work in Colorado. I wish I could go back in time with this technology and take the pictures that were not possible at that time.

Thank you for sharing. It is truly inspiring.

Tom Maughan
Currently in San Jose, CA

Beautiful pictures Max, thankyou.

Since they are the type of pictures i like to create, and for what looks like similar reasons, you have made me more sure of the d7i than before.

A couple of questions, please:

o how do you deal with large amount of featureless sky? For example, sometimes I can imagine that in oder to get the amount and width of sky, with, say, 6, 8 or 9 images, that 3 or 4 of the images are going to be mostly if not all sky. Although featureless, gradations across the sky are often important. Do you simply stich these together without worrying about that and fix the "featureless" sky gradation in the final picture, or do you do some fancy footwork while stitching?

o one point that has made me step back from the d7i just recently is what seems like a lot of noise compared to pre-production Nikon 5700 shots. Do you shoot with sharpening on "normal" or "soft"? Brian Biggers is persuasive about using soft to drastically reduce noise. I was steering away from the 5700 because I love wide angle (20-28mm), but you have opened my eyes to what can be done using multiple shots. If it has significantly less noise (lets ignore sharpness of lens that the d7(i) on soft, then I'll have to consider it again. So (after all that prelude), are you happy with the amount of noise in your originals? Can you share the camera settings you typically use - eg. sharpening, contrast, colour etc.?

Again, thanks for sharing the lovely pictures. They, and you with your sharing of them, are an inspiration.

Robert

And following up my own questions... I see you use neatimage for noise reduction.
o Do you do any photoshop sharpening or just use neatimage's?
o do you reduce noise then blend & or stitch, or the other way around?

o when taking portrait pano's, do you use another method for rotating around the point since it looks like your node point adjusting metal fabrication will only work in landscape mode?

Thanks again!