[Zig]

Well, boys and girls.
This was a 40-exposure epic, taking about an hour for just the stitching.

I set the exposure for the well-lit grass, which gives "18% grey" in metering terms: this worked out at 1/125sec at f.9
Again, I could go handheld, even though it was windy up at the top of the hill; the I.S. on the 70-200 steadied the hand.
I used the 70mm end: I could have saved mysefl some bother by switching to the 50mm here, as quality would be arguably similar for most output purposes...but I just wanted to say that I'd done it really.

In resolution terms, this baby, at 300ppi, would allow one to have an image 50 inches wide.

Its dimensions in the original are 14, 791 x 5379 pixels: dodging/burning brushes were about 1500 pixels wide: gulp!

[Toad]

Wow!!

[NT73]

When you take images that large, where do you store them. I mean what is the point of making jpegs of them, and losing all the hard earned detail.

[Toad]

Are you planning to print this image? Andy Warhol said "Make it big!". Huge art sells for huge bucks. This one might be a winner, Zig.

[aine-caitlin]

Breathtaking! I've got to try one of these myself.

[Irma]

Very beautiful work Zig, and inspring...

I took another pictures for a pano last weekend, but somehow I didn't measure well and I got a crack in the sky...
Then the top of the trees were not in focus as it was in the next line above.... so they didn't look nice...
I deleted all.. I was very angry because the place was really nice... Hope to make it better next time.

[Zig]

nt: the "point" is, like climbing Mt Everest, doing it because it's there. Storage...that's what my HDDs are for and I've got 800 GB to play with, so nay bother. Actually, if they're dithered to a lower rate, they still hold up better than if they were taken at that rate. It's like recording at 24/96...when reduced to CD quality, it still sounds better. If I extrapolated the logic, I could say it's pointless any of us having more than a 5-MP camera because most of our work ends up on forums. True, most don't end up on a wall..but many do make hard copy. and believe me, they look mighty grand. And it's actually "fun" in a sense, chucking all the frames into PTGui and seeing the blended result...you never quite know what it is you're going to get, and sometimes the software misses the control points(Irma has just had an experience of this ilk): gives a bit of a buzz to the experience. I did a print of a cornfield at 20x8 inches last year for a friend's wall and it still draws comments(and not just, "ooh that's a biggun!")
Have a squint at Max Lyons' site: some of their megapixel sizes are gigantic; they are regularly churning out Gigapixel-size images. I like the exercise and challenge of just doing it, mostly.
Ta for all your comments. Yes Irma, that focus-thing hits me sometimes: mostly when I'm shooting the next frame before waiting for the last one to be processed!
By the way, IF you get a crack in the sky...try using the healing brush tool to import a bit of sky from somewhere else.
I shall probably print one of its sisters, not this one Toad..but again, I can always change my mind!