Panorama software (Which do you use)

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Father McKenzie

unread,
Jan 3, 2008, 5:55:54 PM1/3/08
to
Recently started using PTGui and have been very impressed with the results.
Taking lake/beach panorama's I have found photoshop CS3 doesn't stitch
at all especially when it comes to water movement and waves. It does the
dark WE CAN'T JOIN HERE line. Autopano seems to curve the horizon and
won't let you level it out.
After a couple of tests with PTGui it seems to be more manual than
Autopano. Seems to blend a lot better and doesn't leave the photo
looking flat.

About to get the latest Autopano pro (1.4?)which they say doesn't cut
things in half if it is a moving object, will see how it goes.

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 3, 2008, 6:05:00 PM1/3/08
to

I also use PTGUI and am very impressed, even though I haven't yet
added Enblend/Smartblend (which does the not-cut-in-half thing).

It's ability to automatically straighten, handle very large images and
its excellent exposure/color blending won me over from the pain and
suffering I was getting from other pano programs..

PixelPix

unread,
Jan 3, 2008, 6:12:30 PM1/3/08
to
On Jan 4, 9:05 am, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 4, 8:55 am, Father McKenzie <father_mcken...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Recently started using PTGui and have been very impressed with the results.
> > Taking lake/beach panorama's I have found photoshop CS3 doesn't stitch
> > at all especially when it comes to water movement and waves. It does the
> > dark WE CAN'T JOIN HERE line.  Autopano seems to curve the horizon and
> > won't let you level it out.
> > After a couple of tests with PTGui it seems to be more manual than
> > Autopano. Seems to blend a lot better and doesn't leave the photo
> > looking flat.
>
> > About to get the latest Autopano pro (1.4?)which they say doesn't cut
> > things in half if it is a moving object, will see how it goes.
>
> I also use PTGUI and am very impressed, even though I haven't yet
> added Enblend/Smartblend (which does the not-cut-in-half thing).
>

You gotta get them Mark. ;-)

Father McKenzie

unread,
Jan 3, 2008, 6:15:02 PM1/3/08
to

One of the things that impressed me with PTG is how quick it saves an
image over autopano (not sure if it has changed in the latest one).
PTG saves a huge image in around 10 seconds where AP can take several
minutes to render it to a save location

(not quite so) Fat Sam

unread,
Jan 3, 2008, 6:45:52 PM1/3/08
to

I've only ever managed to get one decent stitch job out of Photoshops
photomerge tool.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/swampy_bogtrotter/1909329806

I've had far better, and more satisfactory results from manually merging and
stitching the images together. It takes time, but I prefer the results
because I have more control over them.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/swampy_bogtrotter/1233966661

I'm going to have a look into the other applications you mentioned, as I'm
really not satisfied with how photoshop attempts to auto-stitch composite
images.


Scott W

unread,
Jan 3, 2008, 6:58:46 PM1/3/08
to

I agree, Smartblend is a must have plugin, Endblend does not see to
work as well.

Scott

AxisOfBeagles

unread,
Jan 3, 2008, 8:19:00 PM1/3/08
to
I agree regarding the PS stitch tool - it sucks. I have more success
using the tool provided with Canon s/w. One would think that Adobe
would get it right.

ray

unread,
Jan 3, 2008, 8:36:13 PM1/3/08
to

I have used panotools in the past - hugin and enblend and all that. I have
found that the pandora plugin in GIMP is much faster and generally does
all I need or want. It's main limitation is that it will only take one
series of shots from left to right - i.e. won't handle a matrix of photos
and must be properly ordered.

Paul Furman

unread,
Jan 3, 2008, 8:42:33 PM1/3/08
to
mark.t...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 4, 8:55 am, Father McKenzie <father_mcken...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Recently started using PTGui and have been very impressed with the results.
>> Taking lake/beach panorama's I have found photoshop CS3 doesn't stitch
>> at all especially when it comes to water movement and waves. It does the
>> dark WE CAN'T JOIN HERE line. Autopano seems to curve the horizon and
>> won't let you level it out.
>> After a couple of tests with PTGui it seems to be more manual than
>> Autopano. Seems to blend a lot better and doesn't leave the photo
>> looking flat.
>>
>> About to get the latest Autopano pro (1.4?)which they say doesn't cut
>> things in half if it is a moving object, will see how it goes.
>
> I also use PTGUI and am very impressed,

I believe that's also a good one for de-fishing fisheye lenses, no?
Any other programs good for this?

D-Mac

unread,
Jan 3, 2008, 8:46:14 PM1/3/08
to

"Father McKenzie" <father_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5u57fuF...@mid.individual.net...


There are two versions of PTGUI. The "Pro" version is in My opinion, the
only one worth having.

Having said that... I use Corel PhotoPaint to manually assemble my complex
panoramas. Many of which are opportunistic in that I didn't take a tripod or
pano head with me and later decided the photos needed to be destined for big
prints. Photo Paint gives me much more control in fixing errors like wave
mismatches that no automatic program can ever hope to do.

Here are some examples of a simple and 2 complex panoramas I assembled by
hand using Corel Photo Paint which is way easier to use for this task than
Photoshop.

Parts from the bottom example have been posted and commented on before. The
only person in these groups who has actually seen a print of it is Colin D
from New Zealand whom I sent a print of the right hand portion. About 3 feet
wide as I recall.

I guess the trolls dogging my every post and accusing everyone from the Dali
Lama to the drover's dog of being me will take this opportunity to rag me
again. with taunts "Bullshit it can't be done" and "Oh look, I found an
artefact".

The difference between them and me is that I do it for a living, they just
dream about doing it.

So father...
By all means use Ptgui. It's a toy program good enough for many people. Keep
in mind that if you can't fix the nodal point of the lens or you shoot
moving objects (waves, birds, cars etc) as part of a pano, you won't get
much joy from any automated program.

Serious stuff needs rolled up sleeves and requires you to get down and dirty
with a program you can add bits and pieces of images sometimes not related
to the finished work ...when you get serious about it. I also use a GWS Fuji
panorama camera when I can be bothered with film!

Douglas


PixelPix

unread,
Jan 3, 2008, 9:28:41 PM1/3/08
to
On Jan 4, 11:46 am, "D-Mac" <o...@the.groups> wrote:
> "Father McKenzie" <father_mcken...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Based on those examples.... I'm convinced!! lol

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 3, 2008, 9:54:39 PM1/3/08
to
On Jan 4, 11:42 am, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:

> mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 8:55 am, Father McKenzie <father_mcken...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Recently started using PTGui and have been very impressed with the results.
> >> Taking lake/beach panorama's I have found photoshop CS3 doesn't stitch
> >> at all especially when it comes to water movement and waves. It does the
> >> dark WE CAN'T JOIN HERE line. Autopano seems to curve the horizon and
> >> won't let you level it out.
> >> After a couple of tests with PTGui it seems to be more manual than
> >> Autopano. Seems to blend a lot better and doesn't leave the photo
> >> looking flat.
>
> >> About to get the latest Autopano pro (1.4?)which they say doesn't cut
> >> things in half if it is a moving object, will see how it goes.
>
> > I also use PTGUI and am very impressed,
>
> I believe that's also a good one for de-fishing fisheye lenses, no?

Well, I can report it certainly handles stitching up a pile of very
casually handheld shots taken at 28mm equiv, with lots of bent/curved/
tilted buildings and other problems... Example here (note the 'half-
bus' - yes, I must get that Smartblend thingy..) (~1Mb):
http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/pano2_small.jpg
That was a quick/dirty, default settings, no-user-intervention stitch
of six (I think?) images (non-DSLR). Only adjustments were a quick
levels change to fix underexposure, and a resize to about 40% of
actual size. I was testing out this location for when I come back to
do it more seriously later. The original images were badly
underexposed (about 2.5 stops - stoopid operator error!), and the
shots really were randomly tilted and distorted. Yet PTGUI sailed
through it, with only a couple of very minor seam issues (mainly due
to my lack of intervention!).

OK, it's hardly fisheye correction, but it bodes well...

> Any other programs good for this?

If PTGUI doesn't do what you want, try PTLens maybe? I don't use it
for de-fish-eyeing, but it handles pincushion/barrel/CA etc very well.

Annika1980

unread,
Jan 3, 2008, 10:09:21 PM1/3/08
to
On Jan 3, 8:19 pm, AxisOfBeagles <m...@donotreply.com> wrote:
> I agree regarding the PS stitch tool - it sucks. I have more success
> using the tool provided with Canon s/w. One would think that Adobe
> would get it right.

That "PS stitch tool" you refer to is called PhotoMerge and it works
quite well in CS3.

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 3, 2008, 10:30:58 PM1/3/08
to
On Jan 4, 11:46 am, "D-Mac" <o...@the.groups> wrote:
> There are two versions of PTGUI. The "Pro" version is in My opinion, the
> only one worth having.
The Pro version supports HDR merge/stitch, vignette correction, and
global exposure/colour correction, iirc. Other than that they are
identical. I've not used any of those functions yet so can't comment.

> Here are some examples of a simple and 2 complex panoramas I assembled by
> hand using Corel Photo Paint which is way easier to use for this task than
> Photoshop.
>

> Parts from the bottom example...

???? Mmm. Those 'examples' are proof positive!

Hint to Doug, if he still hasn't got it - SOMEONE FORGOT TO POST THE
LINK.

> The
> only person in these groups who has actually seen a print of it is Colin D
> from New Zealand whom I sent a print of the right hand portion. About 3 feet
> wide as I recall.

How positively strange. Here:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.photo/browse_frm/thread/40e6244692d7982a
Douglas refers to the print he sent Colin in the following (typically
enraged and somewhat incomprehensible) way:

> Almost as bad as someone claiming they can enlarge pictures in the face
> of a few wankers who say it can't be done and that someone sending a
> certain NewZealand Ex-Pro a sample to prove it can... Followed by
> months of silence from him, isn't it?

In other words, Douglas was claiming that image was a straight
enlargement demonstration. There is no mention whatsoever of it being
a stitched panorama. If it was a stitched image, it is hard to see
how that wouldn't be cheating...

Or, to give him the benefit of the doubt, is he talking about
*another* image? I'm sure he can clarify this...

Perhaps Colin D would like to comment.

> I guess the trolls dogging my every post and accusing everyone from the Dali
> Lama to the drover's dog of being me will take this opportunity to rag me
> again. with taunts "Bullshit it can't be done" and "Oh look, I found an
> artefact".

Only the bullshit parts. Your comments about PTGUI are fine. We'll
just wait for the examples, shall we?

> The difference between them and me is that I do it for a living, they just
> dream about doing it.

Sorry, what was the name of that chain of stores again? Or the
'Global Print Centre'? So many folk are clamouring to try them
out... Yet you and your website are both silent on the matter.

> So father...
> By all means use Ptgui. It's a toy program good enough for many people. Keep
> in mind that if you can't fix the nodal point of the lens or you shoot
> moving objects (waves, birds, cars etc) as part of a pano, you won't get
> much joy from any automated program.

Certainly shooting at the nodal point is very useful when you have
foreground objects, but there are programs that can help handle these
issues quite well - Smartblend being one of them..

Jeff R.

unread,
Jan 3, 2008, 10:31:00 PM1/3/08
to

"D-Mac" <on...@the.groups> wrote in message
news:Gdgfj.31237$CN4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> Here are some examples of a simple and 2 complex panoramas I assembled by
> hand using Corel Photo Paint which is way easier to use for this task than
> Photoshop.

links?

--
Jeff R.


Father McKenzie

unread,
Jan 4, 2008, 12:10:12 AM1/4/08
to

What examples?

>
> I guess the trolls dogging my every post and accusing everyone from the Dali
> Lama to the drover's dog of being me will take this opportunity to rag me
> again. with taunts "Bullshit it can't be done" and "Oh look, I found an
> artefact".
>
> The difference between them and me is that I do it for a living, they just
> dream about doing it.
>
> So father...
> By all means use Ptgui. It's a toy program good enough for many people. Keep
> in mind that if you can't fix the nodal point of the lens or you shoot
> moving objects (waves, birds, cars etc) as part of a pano, you won't get
> much joy from any automated program.
>

It may be a toy program but is does the job for me and millions of other
users.

> Serious stuff needs rolled up sleeves and requires you to get down and dirty
> with a program you can add bits and pieces of images sometimes not related
> to the finished work ...when you get serious about it.


Add stuff in? Doesn't it then change from photography to artwork?

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 4, 2008, 12:51:44 AM1/4/08
to

ok, alright, I give in!! Have just installed smartblend, and..

Hey, it works! (O; I've only done a couple of test runs, but it has
done a remarkably good job - eg the half-bus vanished perfectly in my
example, and it seems to have cleaned up a couple of other tiny seam
errors. T

There'll be nothing left for me to do, at this rate....

Father McKenzie

unread,
Jan 4, 2008, 1:08:17 AM1/4/08
to

Have you also found a program that takes the next lot of photos for you :)

Pete D

unread,
Jan 4, 2008, 1:11:21 AM1/4/08
to

"Father McKenzie" <father_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5u57fuF...@mid.individual.net...

Autostich works for me.

And I do some big panos and print them like this one.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2319/2162008230_37828a8830_o.jpg


Colin_D

unread,
Jan 4, 2008, 3:33:47 AM1/4/08
to
I commented at the time that it was a competent print, a 24 x36 inch
blowup from a 20D. I was not able from looking at the print, to know
whether it was cropped or not, or stitched. I saw no indication of
stitching, and the aspect ratio was exactly 3:2, so I doubt if stitching
was involved.

As for a prolonged silence, I refuted that at the time.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Rob.

unread,
Jan 4, 2008, 5:22:59 AM1/4/08
to
D-Mac wrote:

>
> Serious stuff needs rolled up sleeves and requires you to get down and dirty
> with a program you can add bits and pieces of images sometimes not related
> to the finished work ...when you get serious about it. I also use a GWS Fuji
> panorama camera when I can be bothered with film!
>
> Douglas
>
>


So thats a 6x9 camera then???

Scott W

unread,
Jan 4, 2008, 6:01:59 AM1/4/08
to
On Jan 3, 7:10 pm, Father McKenzie <father_mcken...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> D-Mac wrote:
> > "Father McKenzie" <father_mcken...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

It is in fact one of the best stitching programs out there, but D-Mac
is very unlikely to have every really used all its features, D-Mac
lives life pretty much clueless.

Scott

Paul Furman

unread,
Jan 4, 2008, 9:20:03 AM1/4/08
to

Robotic tripod that shoots a 360 pano, stitches then chooses a few nice
compositions based on rule of thirds & repeating rhythms... just set it
in a pretty location & get out of the way.

Peter

unread,
Jan 4, 2008, 11:04:09 AM1/4/08
to
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:dagfj.1620$pA7....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

> mark.t...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 8:55 am, Father McKenzie <father_mcken...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Recently started using PTGui and have been very impressed with the
>>> results.
>>> Taking lake/beach panorama's I have found photoshop CS3 doesn't stitch
>>> at all especially when it comes to water movement and waves. It does the
>>> dark WE CAN'T JOIN HERE line. Autopano seems to curve the horizon and
>>> won't let you level it out.
>>> After a couple of tests with PTGui it seems to be more manual than
>>> Autopano. Seems to blend a lot better and doesn't leave the photo
>>> looking flat.
>>>
>>> About to get the latest Autopano pro (1.4?)which they say doesn't cut
>>> things in half if it is a moving object, will see how it goes.
>>
>> I also use PTGUI and am very impressed,
>
> I believe that's also a good one for de-fishing fisheye lenses, no?
> Any other programs good for this?

Nikon's Capture.

--
Peter

Peter

unread,
Jan 4, 2008, 11:11:23 AM1/4/08
to
"Father McKenzie" <father_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5u57fuF...@mid.individual.net...


I have used the Arcsoft product. Haven't tried it on my Vista machine. It
just did it's job without fuss, under WinXP. Although I had to arrange the
shots to be stitched. they have a free 15 day trial version.

http://www.arcsoft.com/products/panoramamaker/

--
Peter

D-Mac

unread,
Jan 4, 2008, 2:55:42 PM1/4/08
to

"Father McKenzie" <father_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5u5tdmF...@mid.individual.net...

Snipped...


>
>> Serious stuff needs rolled up sleeves and requires you to get down and
>> dirty with a program you can add bits and pieces of images sometimes not
>> related to the finished work ...when you get serious about it.
>
>
> Add stuff in? Doesn't it then change from photography to artwork?
>

From my understanding of the word "Photograph", no image taken with a
digital camera qualifies as one. The general consensus seems to be that
anything which starts out as a camera image is a "photo". This includes
panoramas which are created from many (several?) images.

I have for many years created "wall art". I have always promoted it as such.
They are derived from images originating from digital cameras. Whenever I
sell a Panorama photographs originating from my GWS 617, I promote it as a
photograph.

The separation between artwork and photograph is becoming more blurred every
day. If you use Photoshop to alter blend or join images from digital cameras
is the final result a photograph or artwork?

Douglas


D-Mac

unread,
Jan 4, 2008, 3:04:30 PM1/4/08
to

"PixelPix" <ma...@pixelpix.com.au> wrote in message
news:7cf3f433-a051-4deb...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

There's no pleasing some people! First I get a flame for posting links to my
pictures with ads on the pages. Now you crack up because I didn't post a
link! LOL!

Here it is: http://www.douglasjames.com.au/stitched-panos.htm

Douglas


D-Mac

unread,
Jan 4, 2008, 3:25:20 PM1/4/08
to

"Colin_D" <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:477de3b7$0$26024$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> mark.t...@gmail.com wrote:

rubbish snipped


>>
>> Or, to give him the benefit of the doubt, is he talking about
>> *another* image? I'm sure he can clarify this...
>>
>> Perhaps Colin D would like to comment.
>>
> I commented at the time that it was a competent print, a 24 x36 inch
> blowup from a 20D. I was not able from looking at the print, to know
> whether it was cropped or not, or stitched. I saw no indication of
> stitching, and the aspect ratio was exactly 3:2, so I doubt if stitching
> was involved.
>
> As for a prolonged silence, I refuted that at the time.
>
> Colin D.
>
> --

Hi Colin.

It was indeed a 20D image and the one I sent you was most definitely
'cropped' from the panorama. I've been selling people sections of that
picture, based on their boat or unit being in it, for several years. The NZ
owners of the management rights to those units have parts of the picture on
display in their office and on their business stationary. They frequently
sell "suitcase" * varieties to visitors.

It matters not to me if it is correctly described as a picture, artwork, a
photograph, a montage or a 'piece'. For me it has been one of my most
profitable images ever. Well and truly paying many times over the cost of
the camera, lens and manfrotto 'pano head' I bought to take the picture in
the first place.

The print I sent you came off my old Sherpa I believe... A printer not known
for it's sharpness but capable of true photographic output. Sometimes when I
shell out for Epson inks, I wish I still had it!

Quick and dirty 3:2 aspect ratio cropping instructions for Photoshop in 3
easy steps:

1. Select crop tool.
2. In the dimension boxes that appear when you do ...define any dimension of
the aspect ratio you seek. I.E. 6" x 4" or 24" x 36" and the resolution you
want the print to be.
3. Drag the crop tool over the area you want to crop and click "OK".
Like magic, you get a perfect aspect ratio crop!

* Suitcase variety refers to a stretched canvas print able to be put in the
bottom of most suit cases.

Douglas


D-Mac

unread,
Jan 4, 2008, 3:26:01 PM1/4/08
to

"Rob." <me...@mine.com.> wrote in message
news:477e0903$1...@news.peopletelecom.com.au...

GWS 617 Rob.


D-Mac

unread,
Jan 4, 2008, 3:37:56 PM1/4/08
to

"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9760a8da-fac2-46cc...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...


It is in fact one of the best stitching programs out there, but D-Mac
is very unlikely to have every really used all its features, D-Mac
lives life pretty much clueless.

Scott
---------------

More hate mail from yet another jealous idiot.
Shit... I'm collecting fans quicker than football cheer squad!

Come on Scott... Show us a stitch of a wave set done with it. Amateur
photographer's find PTGUI a compelling program because it automatically
does what previously needed skilled artists to do... With static scenes.

When you make panoramas for a living, 40% of the time, programs like this
still can't produce an image as good as a skilled operator does by hand.
Being a successful panorama photographer is not about automation. It's about
creation and automatic programs simply don't cut the mustard when you need
them most.

If you actually sold your work, you'd know this but I guess dreaming is
still your best bet for success, eh Scott.

Douglas


Scott W

unread,
Jan 4, 2008, 3:57:26 PM1/4/08
to
On Jan 4, 10:25 am, "D-Mac" <o...@the.groups> wrote:
> "Colin_D" <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:477de3b7$0$26024$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>

Whereas I am a big fan of stitched photos get cheaply get extra
resolution in this case sending Colin a print that was made from more
then one image stitched together as an example of your interpolation
programs seems at best misleading.

Clearly evenone was under the assumtion that the photo you send Colin
was from one image from a 20D.

Scott


Colin_D

unread,
Jan 4, 2008, 7:54:21 PM1/4/08
to
Douglas, I hate to have to say this, but I have to revise my opinion of
that print you sent over.

You said at the time, and repeated it above, that 'It was indeed a 20D
image'. i.e. an 8 MP single image from a 20D.

Now I find that it was half of a 24 x 72 inch print STITCHED FROM 20
IMAGES! So the half I got was a stitch of more or less 10 images, just
a tad misleading, don't you think?

Let's say nine images in a 3x3 matrix (to preserve the 3:2 ratio), so,
three images high by three images wide makes each image measure, lessee,
8x12!

Now, an 8x12 image from a 20D should be absolutely pin-sharp at almost
300 ppi. By that standard, the print you sent was not very sharp at
all, in fact it was definitely blurry - as an image from a single frame
it would have been ok, but as a stitch it was not very good at all.

I remember commenting at the time that I could not match the smoothness
and foreground definition with my setup here, and attributed that to
your magic algorithm. Little did I realize that it was stitched, and I
guess you could say that you stitched me up as well.

To keep it more or less seemly here, all I will say is that I am sorely
pissed off at being used to support your 'algorithm' with a
misrepresented print.

If there had been money involved I would have you for fraud.

In utter disgust,

Pete D

unread,
Jan 4, 2008, 8:36:17 PM1/4/08
to

"Colin_D" <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:477ec989$0$26086$8826...@free.teranews.com...

WOW, are his pants ever on fire, along with the whole chest of drawers by
the look!!


D-Mac

unread,
Jan 5, 2008, 2:17:50 AM1/5/08
to

"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:57175d70-1eab-404f...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Scott
--------------------
What a load of cods wallop! Colin is a (retired) professional photographer.
Give him at least the respect that he isn't an idiot when it comes to
photography... Particularly seeing as I sent him a RAW file of the original
image as well. I have no doubt he went over it with a loupe before making
any comments about it.

Who died and appointed you to the throne as spokesperson for the world
anyway?

You have a shocking history almost as bad as Bret's Douglas' of inventing
what isn't written out of my posts to suit your attacks on me. And why?
Because I caught you out cheating with your JPEG Vs RAW forgeries. What's
the problem? Sore loser or just a nasty bastard?

Avery got 24 x 36 picture of a pelican which could hardly have been
stitched. Alan Browne got one (from a 10D) of a vintage car engine. Hardly
stitching material either. Gordon Moate got an identical print - to prevent
Alan from posting lies about it. The only qualifier I made was you had to be
a working Pro and give me a street address.

You could have had one too but you prefer to stay anonymous and fire barbs
from under your rock, don't you? In fact in 2004, 2005 and 2006 I offered
similar size example prints along with the camera original files as
demonstration of my enlargement routine ...to any working photographer in
the world who was interested.

Stupidly I though this would silence the idiots who keep trying to discredit
me over it, without ever having seen an example themselves... A couple of
replies up the most vocal and frequently proven wrong village idiot still
thought he had mileage to gain. Don't become one of the wankers Scott. You
have too much potential to join a rabid pack of fools in a wasted exercise.

Images joined together and then enlarged (as this pano was) then a crop
roughly equalling one frame taken from it, do not constitute a stitched
image print... As you are insinuating. Even though the panorama was
stitched, the crop I took from it was as close to exactly one frame as I
bothered to guesstimate. Sending a camera original file as proof would have
been a little stupid, don't you think? ASK, ASK, ASK Scott, before shooting
off your mouth and making an idiot out of yourself.

Do your sums child. Get a calculator if you run out of fingers. The paper
which the bottom picture was printed on was 24" wide but the image a mere
18" high. The page is 6 feet long. Go figure the join points yourself
instead of behaving like a spoilt brat looking for a bit of revenge.

Douglas

Paul

unread,
Jan 5, 2008, 4:28:20 AM1/5/08
to
Hugin/Enblend works well for me. For low res VR versions see:
www.bech.id.au/photos/pano
(devalvr plugin required, windows only. I will place a link to the
actual panos in the next day or so.)

Colin_D

unread,
Jan 5, 2008, 5:21:29 AM1/5/08
to
Declaration to all readers of this thread:

At no time did Douglas send, nor did I receive, a RAW file of the print
he sent me.

By his own statement, he made a 24x72 inch panorama from twenty stitched
images. He now wants us to believe that the 24x36 print he sent me, the
right-hand half of the pano, was from a single frame? Like, 19 frames
used in the other half?

Douglas appears to have serious reality problems. His word is not to be
trusted.

Scott W

unread,
Jan 5, 2008, 9:28:20 AM1/5/08
to
On Jan 5, 12:21 am, Colin_D <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> D-Mac wrote:
> > "Scott W" <biph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

True, but then we all pretty much knew this when he started making up
people to support him, like Julian Abbot.

As seen in this link
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse_frm/
thread/4aa0ff0daf3fc9a0>

And recently we have him posing as women.

D-Mac does not lie well, but he sure protests well.

Scott


Annika1980

unread,
Jan 5, 2008, 10:14:52 AM1/5/08
to
On Jan 3, 10:30 pm, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The difference between them and me is that I do it for a living, they just
> > dream about doing it.
>
> Sorry, what was the name of that chain of stores again?  Or the
> 'Global Print Centre'?  So many folk are clamouring to try them
> out...  Yet you and your website are both silent on the matter.
>

Did you see at the bottom of his linked page where he now claims to
have a 22MP Mamiya? Can't wait to see some pics from that one! Even
the kite surfers in the background should be sharp as a tack.

Annika1980

unread,
Jan 5, 2008, 10:21:38 AM1/5/08
to
On Jan 5, 2:17 am, "D-Mac" <o...@the.groups> wrote:
>
> You have a shocking history almost as bad as Bret's Douglas' of inventing
> what isn't written out of my posts to suit your attacks on me.

We can always count on D-Mac for even more creative use of the
apostrophe. LOL!

>
> You could have had one too but you prefer to stay anonymous and fire barbs
> from under your rock, don't you?

Scott Wilson is hardly anonymous. Or did you get confused again and
think you were attacking Mark Thomas in this post?

>In fact in 2004, 2005 and 2006 I offered
> similar size example prints along with the camera original files as
> demonstration of my enlargement routine ...to any working photographer in
> the world who was interested.
>

Can you repost that offer from Google? I don't recall the part about
the working photographer, but I could be wrong. I'm due.

Annika1980

unread,
Jan 5, 2008, 10:38:29 AM1/5/08
to
On Jan 4, 3:37 pm, "D-Mac" <o...@the.groups> wrote:
>
> It is in fact one of the best stitching programs out there, but D-Mac
> is very unlikely to have every really used all its features,  D-Mac
> lives life pretty much clueless.
>
> Scott
> ---------------
>
> More hate mail from yet another jealous idiot.
>
> When you make panoramas for a living, 40% of the time, programs like this
> still can't produce an image as good as a skilled operator does by hand.
> Being a successful panorama photographer is not about automation. It's about
> creation and automatic programs simply don't cut the mustard when you need
> them most.
>
> If you actually sold your work, you'd know this but I guess dreaming is
> still your best bet for success, eh Scott.

And if you actually ever used PTGui you'd know that you can save the
file as a PSD with the original layers intact so you can work on them
manually if desired.

You're such a poser, D-Mac! It is hard to say who is the bigger
poser, you or Rita. Rita claims to have all this expensive gear, but
can't post pics of anything other than propane tanks or floating
shoes, while you claim to be a Master of Photography, Printing, Web
Design, Linux, Sailing, International Law, and security software (I
might have missed a few) and you have posted some of the most
laughably horrible wedding pics the web has ever seen. I guess you
can now adding Master of Stitching Software to your fantasy resume.

What I really enjoy is how you always argue for some crappy program or
piece of equipment. You'll tout an old program like Corel Paint over
what is commonly considered the best stitching program out there,
PTGui. Or you'll favor some obscure program or Photoshop plugin and
claim it can do wonders. And I always get a hearty chuckle when you
claim that your Crapasonic P&S outperforms a Canon DSLR. Or was it
the Olympus, or the Fuji this week? Keep shooting with those Sigma
lenses, dude. You can be WalMart while Rita pretends to be Neiman
Marcus.


Scott W

unread,
Jan 5, 2008, 12:07:24 PM1/5/08
to

D-Mac lives in a fantasy world, there is very little he has told us
that we can be at all sure is true.

Does he really have a boat that he goes sailing on? He was going to
go off sailing on it and leave us all behind, but then almost
immediately Julian Abbot showed up, sure D-Mac you were on your boat.

Did he ever own a 5D, I don't remember him ever posting a photo from a
5D.

He keeps making up new people to be, more fantasy.

The whole thing with his enlarged prints has been like a person who
wants to play poker with you, but only if he can use his on deck of
cards. D-Mac has from the start refused to use anyone else's images
to be printed, seems like we might know why now.

But I am sure there are some things that he has told us that are true,
I mean there have to be some of what he said that is true, doesn't
there?

Then when he get caught in a lie he gets way indigent.

Scott

D-Mac

unread,
Jan 6, 2008, 3:23:53 AM1/6/08
to

"Colin_D" <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:477ec989$0$26086$8826...@free.teranews.com...

Not so fast Colin. You seem to be able to read what is not written too. Not
related to Scott are you?

I sent you with that poster, a "mini-disc" with the camera RAW file of the
enlargement in the tube which contained the enlargement itself . FYI, I
took about 90 photos for that Pano job and used 20 to compose the panorama.

Nowhere did I say I used 20 images side-by-side for that job. If you read
the text, you'd realize the "proof" print is just 18" high but six feet
long. Hardly the aspect ratio of a wall.

The right side portion (you got) is a full, single frame of the print I sent
you. If you bother to look at the camera original file I sent you, you'll
see it is indeed a true enlargement of a single frame portion.

The final image (which has never been posted) which I printed as wallpaper
had frames added to the sky above the masts to highlight the cloud
colourations and make the aspect ratio the same as the wall it was destined
for.

The crop you got was within a millimetre or two of the exact image size of
the original camera file in a single frame enlargement. This is one of those
times when discussing something honestly is a total waste of time because
idiots who would rather assume sinister meanings will go off on a tangent
looking for a flame war.

In the event you don't have the RAW file anymore... Let me know and I'll
post it on my web site. You can then measure it and determine if my math in
calculating the location to crop is accurate or not. If that doesn't satisfy
you. send me one of your own images and I'll enlarge it for you. Same
deal... No charge just tell it as you see it.


Douglas


Scott W

unread,
Jan 6, 2008, 9:02:39 AM1/6/08
to
On Jan 5, 10:23 pm, "D-Mac" <o...@the.groups> wrote:

> you. send me one of your own images and I'll enlarge it for you. Same
> deal... No charge just tell it as you see it.

That is the first good idea you have had.

But to save money in both printing the shipping why not do a smaller
print, say a 4x6.

A 20D image when printed to 24x36 inches comes out very close to
100ppi.

Why not let Colin provide a 400x600 pixels image and let others might
wish to also produce a 4x6 inch print from the same 400x 600 pixels
image file?

Scott

Colin_D

unread,
Jan 6, 2008, 3:48:08 PM1/6/08
to
First, there was no minidisc with the print, just a letter. I have no
idea whether you intended to send a disc, or why you would send a disk,
since the subject was the print, and there was at that stage no
discussion about the source image

Second, the right-hand half of the pano you showed a day or so back
appeared to be exactly the same as the print you sent, no added sky that
I could see.

To tell the truth, Doug, I really do not know exactly what images
comprised the print, or where you are coming from here. Thank you for
the offer to enlarge one of my images, but due to the strained
relationship over time, with you abusing me and me abusing you, I do not
feel that I can accept.

I resolved some time ago to refrain from joining in the hostilities
between you and Annika, Mark, and others. and I regret jumping in this
time. It only happened because my name came up in the thread.

Count me out as from now.

Colin_D

unread,
Jan 6, 2008, 3:57:39 PM1/6/08
to
Don't worry about it, Scott. I am not really interested in sending an
image to be printed - see my post above. I am retiring back to the
sideline, where I intend to stay in this ongoing brawl.

Scott W

unread,
Jan 7, 2008, 2:07:00 AM1/7/08
to

I can fully understand.

Scott

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages