nwoods
Expedition Leader
I think there is another important aspect to consider with Panoramic images (sorry, pun intended!). The more effective pano's to view, at least on the web in screen resolutions under 1900px wide, is that photos that end up being much wider than 1900 just get so skinny and small as to loose visual value, impact, and interest.
For example, my origional pano that I posted is 12575 x 1825. Cool! But when presented for the web, it is displayed at 1600x232, and looks too small to be of any interest:
I think the real art of M.Slade's completely engaging images, even of mundane items, is that they are not too wide, and retain a sense of propotion that works well for the screen format we are sharing. So taking a lesson in that, I cropped my pano way way WAY down, to this 1600x650 image, and think it reads much better. As always, the art in the pano is in the framing & composition as much as the subject.
For example, my origional pano that I posted is 12575 x 1825. Cool! But when presented for the web, it is displayed at 1600x232, and looks too small to be of any interest:
I think the real art of M.Slade's completely engaging images, even of mundane items, is that they are not too wide, and retain a sense of propotion that works well for the screen format we are sharing. So taking a lesson in that, I cropped my pano way way WAY down, to this 1600x650 image, and think it reads much better. As always, the art in the pano is in the framing & composition as much as the subject.