I'm making a pause in my full-time travel schedule to rest and plan my future. That gives me time to go through the 45 000 pictures I've accumulated during my 5 years on the road.
Besides sorting out which pictures I'll keep in a set, I also have many panoramic shots to assemble.
When I present my photos, many ask me why I prefer the panoramic format to the regular single-frame ones (4:3 or 3:2). To me the answer is obvious since it matches more the human vision.
When I'm at a wonderful site, my eyes see about 150 degrees wide horizontally and about 40 degrees high vertically... thus yielding an area of roughly 4:1. No matter how I frame my pictures, a single frame photo cannot carry out the whole scenery I have in front of me.
Take for example these two photos taken in the extremely colorful city of Campeche in Mexico.
This single frame is a ratio of 3:2 (6000 x 4000 pixels).
.jpeg)
I took the same photo in panoramic mode, stitching 6 pictures. In this case, the stitching didn't yield a huge ratio because the subject was pretty close... yet it went from a 24 MP photo to a 58 MP one and changes the ratio to 2:1.
.jpg)
I also cropped that 2:1 photo to make it into 3:1 ratio.
.jpg)
In both cases, I much prefer the panoramic shots which seem to immerse the viewer more in the photo than the standard single shot, and represent a bit more what I experienced while taking the picture... and why I decided to take that picture.
What do you think?
Do you like panoramic shots too?
Which crop do you prefer above, the 2:1 or the 3:1?
Follow me as I will post many many more panoramic pictures in a near future.
I like the colors of the picture. I think I like the panoramic view too.
Yes, the colors are spectacular in Campeche.