Nice one, Malch.
(can't edit my earlier post so adding info here)
I have one that I've never been completely satisfied with...
I processed this several years go and don't recall all my feelings from that time, but it needed some HDR or there would not be much to see. I tried several variations and this is what I settled for - fairly basic but restrained HDR with Photomatix. It is 'obviously' tweaked, but is it excessive?
It does still give me the feeling I had when I shot it - I feel sort-of-invited into some of the homes in the foreground.
I do plan a re-shoot, with a better sky and an aircraft on approach to YYC.
John W Hall wrote:
I think it's not specific to Photomatix, though they make it too easy to do.
I call it the "HDR (Overdone)" look.
I understand your point but I think that Photomatix does add some additional subtle but distinctive quality. I'd say it has to do with their local contrast algorithm and not just the fact that the defaults are too aggressive (for my taste). I was underwhelmed with the results even after toning down those sliders.
I was also quite unhappy with the alignment algorithms in Photomatix. The king in that regard is the align_image_stack program from the Hugin package.
Maybe it's an illusion based on the fact that the buildings are smaller toward the edges.
But, of course, receding horizons on the left and right is one of the distortions I get when I do a pano where the subject is too close. I then have to use my pano software to try to straighten the horizon. This subject does not seem too close so I was just wondering.
Of course I am stunned by a 77 image pano but I suppose the OP used a motor driven system to move the camera and take the images. Can't do that with my hand-held Canon DSLR. And the combined image is just stunning.