Since were all friends here I am hoping you (Smooth) could clue me in on this. You said become friends with photoshop especially Clone an Healing. Is there a forum you know of that discuses this that relates to getting the sky as Smooth as you did? I did look I moderately good with photoshop and still cannot figure your recipe to this picture. How long did it take you and what should I be doing to achieve this? did you convert to cube when editing?
I do not know of any Photoshop tutorials or specific forums on cloning and healing but I'm sure they exist. Try Google. That pano took under one hour and yes I converted to cube faces to edit.
Yes mate, 100% Panoweaver 4.0 (6 shots only) and patched the nadir and zenith.
I have been giving this thread abit of thought because I had very similar problems when I first made the jump to PW4. The first thing that comes to mind is that with PW3 you were using 2 or 3 images so the area from light to dark in the sky or ground was spread out over 180 degrees with 2 shot and 120 degrees with 3 shots. When your stitched these images the change from one hemisphere to the next was not as great because the change is spread out over a larger area. Now with PW4 most of us are now stitching 4 images with the Sigma 8 or 6 with the Nikon 10.5 so the light to dark area is now spread out over only 90 degrees or 60. The change is less gradual and with the overlap for stitching the change becomes very apparent. Plus the increased clarity in optics from the Coolpix cameras and fisheyes to DSLR cameras and interchangeable lenses probable further enhances the problems at the seams. I agree with Smooth that shooting in RAW allows you the opportunity to get you images closer for stitching. With proper adjustment to exposure, shadow, white balance and more, you can get close with PW4. However, you still need good skills with Photoshop to clean up the seams to make it presentable to a client. Here is one of my efforts with some time consuming PS cleanup. I admit in advance that I am not a PS expert.
Or you could use a stitching program that uses blending technology. I stitched TCarr's pano with such software and only downsized in PS.
There is still some work to be done but I am sorry not like the results I got when I stitched with PW4. Again only downsizing in PS.
Sorry to throw the product under the bus but hopefully this will show a need for more features like blending in PW5. For me, I just don't think that PW4 is up to the needs of high-end DSLR use without much post PS work.
If you want to look, all of the panos in this Tourweaver tour were made with the other software with little to no seam editing.
I am happy with Tourweaver.
Sorry for the rant ...
I can't stand it any longer. LOL. I have to post on this thread.
First off, Panoweaver is not an inferior product. The problems presented here and other problems mentioned in some of the posts are not because of the software. If you INPUT crap you will get back crap. Matching points...learn to live with it. It happens. IF you take the time to learn you find that some scenes will require this no matter what while other scenes will stitch with no problems. Its a fact of pano making.
Second, Neither the Sigma 8mm and especially the Nikkor 10.5 mm lens used with a DSLR are "novice" set ups. There is a considerable learning curve involved in making "good" panoramas. To make "perfect" panos, with minimal work flow time takes several years of experience. It is possible to fix a bad pano if you want to spend enough time doing it but this is cost prohibitive to you and the client. So one must figure out how to do it right to begin with and then master the PS tricks so you can fix the occasional screw up without spending 5 hours on one image.
This not to say that these rigs are for "professional photographers" only. They are not. It IS possible to learn how to do this in a reasonalbe amount of time and effort but this will depend on how bad you want to learn it. If you are looking for a automated, idiot proof method than get a one shot lens or do 2 shot with IPOX.
The answers to the particular problem presented here and other similar problems have been extensively posted on with detailed explanations. I know becasue I have written a lot of them. The information is here. However you will have to dig and read to find it.
This is a forum not a "tutorial index". It would be nice to have something like that but it does not exist here so you will have to simply search the forum and read A LOT to pick it out. Ask SPECIFIC questions on a single topic. Don't ask general questions. Post on old threads that have info you are needing if you need to. Provide image examples and your set up info. We will be glad to help.
Now, on to some problem solving tactics.
Exterior panos in direct sun:
Long exposures will tend to produce an over exposure in the frame near or at the sun. Therefor use small apertures F8 to f11 and shutter speeds at 1/1000 to 1/3000. A long exposure in direct sun would be shutter speeds of 1/1000 or less. Consider obscuring the sun by a tree trunk, power pole, tree limb or some feature of a building. Shoot when the sun is at its highest angle in the sky....high noon. Moving clounds in the wind will cause the sun to move in and out of the clouds and this will change the light if you shoot as a cloud moves across the sun then peeks out again. One must consider such circumstances. As Smooth states shoot off center but not on the seam. It helps to balance the over exposre that can occur between two frames. Bracketing at 2ev can help alot. Even if you don't use HDR one of these three sets will have a better over all exposure between frames than the other two. Perhaps allowing a very eash patch on photoshop. Or you may end up with a good set without having to patch the sky.
I do not shoot RAW for panos. However this offers ultimate flexability in exposing your frames because you can "develop" them your self instead of having the camera do it for you (ie shooting JPEG). You will also benifit from overall better quality. But this adds another series of steps to your work flow. My work flow is already complicated enough. Depending on how many panos you shoot per week the added steps may or may not cause issues with time in post production. When you have a disaster having RAW originals be a life saver because you can do things to RAW images that can not be done with JPEG.
RAW offers ultimate flexability in fixing problems but it comes with added work flow time. If you are skilled in shooting the scene and use HDR, RAW is not n
yeah, i agree. gen lee should have been a writer
although i agree with a lot of what u said,
ovreall panoweaver does a poor job blending
in comparision to other products out there.
im sure a lot of you are happy with the stitching results,
but then quickly dissatisfied with the blending.
i've been forward with my dissastisfaction about this since i can remember.
although panow has improved in many areas, blending has not been one that
i can WOW about.
ironically, joe blow might not notice tiny stithcing errors, but he will definetly notice the difference in colors/ exposure seams!
"why are there different colors on my white ceiling?"