* Wednesday C&C "No Theme" Thread #962 / Revived #182 on 2026 09 23 *

I'm considering comments from Kumsal and Roel here. They have opened an interesting point about viewing images. It is especially relevant to panoramic format.
Perhaps the space around the image alters the way we respond to what is inside the frame of the image? ie., the shape of the wall or page and what else is on the wall or page, may be factors that influence what we feel looks best. Similarly, the distance between the viewer and the image becomes a factor. Looking at a panorama on the average monitor screen is very different to seeing the image big and when the viewer is far enough away to take in more of the composition in the view. These are subjective things. With reference to minniev's shot, here I think I prefer it as she has posted it but I suspect that if I was looking at a large print on an otherwise blank gallery wall (and it might depend on the shape of the wall) I'd prefer a cropped version where the wall was adding space. I don't know.

Back to the image as I'm seeing it on my small laptop screen andt then exploring it with section enlargement.
It's impressionistic and that's what fog does to scenes. A white-out foggy day with a horizontal line of soft detail making a determined stand. Here, I prefer this colour version to what I think a B&W treatment might have given. There are mere hints of colour and that feels right to me along with the fog softened shapes. This isn't empty space. It's a photograph of fog. The line of trees and the reflection help show fog as well as the objects. I'd have preferred a very fine black line around the image as on my screen/viewing it somewhat bleeds into the surrounds.
It's a wonderful , wonderful photo.

I will join the pano parade! Here's just a few that I quickly grabbed off the hard drive. I was fairly addicted years ago (started shooting panos in 2005) but have received some needed medication 😉 and don't do it quite as often nowadays. But sometimes, I'll do a tele-pano for distant details, or it's just a couple of frames stitched in order to get a higher-rez image (then cropped to standard 3:2). Still, it is always a fun technical exercise to process/assemble them (properly) and of course always fun to capture initially. A great hobby. I will go to the beginning and look at the rest of the thread!

Thanks for these cpm. Your images are satisfying in themselves while also demonstrating points about panoramas.
They aren’t just wide images with a grand sweep with lots of details. There is composition to them that works differently to regular formats.
The four of them use centre points in ways that work well  in panoramas but are usually avoided in usual image formats. The eye gets to those areas by different means. I some, objects, usually vertical, dominate by size. Sometimes it is highlights that get the attention. Sometimes both are used.
In the last image, rather than dominating verticals, converging lines from both sides plus the apex of the arc of the bay plus a small area of highlight, give an overall focal point.
In all of them, from the subject area, the scene stretches out for exploration.
I suggest that the second is the least successful because difference in height of the central objects isn’t as pronounced and the overall brightness range is very even. There isn’t the “anchor” to the scene that can be found in the other panoramas.
Of course, panoramas don’t have to use central areas for their composition but I think the most successful have compositional elements that are more than being big pictures and can be different to regular formats.

I respect your view (also as expressed above).
But if one were to crop this image, I think it would be better to have the horizon much nearer to the top.
For some reason the horizon in the middle works for me with VERY MUCH negative space above and below, but less so with the crop.
When cropped, I would almost totally eliminate the sky and just have much more water (we know that the water is reflecting empty grey sky).
The point, I think, is to have as much negative space as possible, in at least ONE part of the image.

Panos are fun 😀

The best I can do while on holiday is to add a few links to another site where I post photos

Iceland

Wurzerlam, Austria

Schneeberg, Austria

Hochkoenig, Austria

The Almafi coast is a great place. We visited Positano about 3 years ago, but I never thought of taking a pano. Your one works well!

The framing with the fence on both sides is good

Looking up

Continuing with the pano theme, vertical panos can be fun too, though I sometimes find them a bit tricky to get perspective looking right.

Like the way you've captured the 'buzz' in this one.

Nice play of the water texture with the rock banding - very gneiss 😁 The touch of green leaves makes a positive contribution. One of your best Chris.

So many ways to look and enjoy.
As Mike says, I think the space around the image will dictate what aspect ratio looks best. I enjoy the negative space in the uncropped version for a standard size print on a square-ish wall. But a supersize print in 16:9 or longer on a long wall would be fantastic. Having just spent quite a few hours exploring art galleries (not something I have the opportunity to do very often) I am reminded that the height of the image on the wall can be a critical factor. I'm only 1.5m tall, and so often I have to deal with reflections and the main focal point being well above eye-height. A large print of the uncropped version would run the risk of having the tree line above eye height, which would be a shame as there's so much delicate detail in there. A pano version would bring that line down towards the viewer.

Thank-you for these insights! They make total sense. I'm a bit more technical than artistic, so I suppose that's why I've tended toward assembling panoramas. But it is nice to hear (from you) that for most part, there is at least SOME redeeming value here from a compositional standpoint! LOL. I'm kind of a "document the scene" type of shooter (unfortunately) but it is always fun to shoot and process nevertheless. Yes, "panoramas and composition" can be kind of like the "military intelligence" oxymoron. Often times, it is one or the other. Sometimes I see a big scene and think... "Yes, that might work!" Sometimes it does! And other times... it just ends-up being a technical exercise. Still, the output is satisfying in its own way... memorable because YOU WERE THERE. :-) Thanks for the comments. Very helpful and encouraging.

Holy smokes Fireplace, you're crazy! :-)

Beautiful panoramas and very well done from a technical viewpoint as well!

That's great! The IQ and the stitching... pretty AMAZING... and this was 2018. And just the scene itself... your memory of it. I also shuffle phone images to my external hard drive every few months, and it is actually FUN to "do backups" (LOL) because you re-live the pictures when you see them.

Very nice - love the balance in the colors and it works well in terms of composition!

Yes, I fully agree. I've experimented quite a bit with those recently:

Wow - these two are wonderful. Lots of layers to the perspective and great colors!

Interesting/cool and a different dimension! You are way beyond me. I haven't even tried focus stacking. How hard is it to isolate the frame that you want "in-focus" -- without getting any bleedover from adjacent bokeh frames? I'm fairly simplistic. Take a series of pictures and stitch them. Usually @ f/8 or f/11 because I am not very artistic, and therefore tend toward max DOF (for some reason) -- probably for documentation purposes. I need to get my head examined. LOL.