So why don't I use superwide angle lens? Qucik answer is that I did not bring it in the trip, the widest I have for this Nepal trip for Canon is a moderate 24-105/4L, but I also carried a Phase One P65+ on Hasselblad - which I left in hotel, where in that bag I have a H35/3.5 that is equivalent to 21mm. But the real answer is that I don't usually use superwide for landscape, I do, just not usually. Why did not bring them to being with? The powerful Canon TS-E 17/4L, if you considered a stitched from left-middle-right, you then get a final image that is about 12mm, or a 14mm prime? My approach of landscape image is more panoramic than traditional 4:3 or 2:3 ratio, my preference is more or less the classic 17:6 or even wider - like the one I did for the Kathmandu. I could have use a very wide angle lens but ended up crop just the small middle senction of the capture, that is not my best choice. The digital camera today and the avaialble software makes super panoramic image so easily, explore them, use them, then you would know.This one, seeing the sunrise, we started to move back to the bus to go to our main destination - the village. With a Panosonic GF-1 on my hand (yes, it is always on my hand basically this entire trip), I quickly snap a series of image, handheld, pivot myself to sweep over the landscape. Resized from the oiginal picture of 9,904X2,397 pixels.
This one, still with Panasonic GF-1 with 20/1.7, the panoramic image stitched from 9 captures, resized from the original artwork of 24,665 X 3,579 pixes.
No comments:
Post a Comment