1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar


Le Galerie de Magasins Perdus by The Gigapanographer Currently Known as "Kilgore661"

Want to add this gigapan to your favorites? Log In or Sign Up now.

Log In now to add this Gigapan to a group gallery.

About This Gigapan

Toggle
Taken by
The Gigapanographer Currently Known as "Kilgore661" The Gigapanographer Currently Known as "Kilgore661"
Explore score
111
Size
0.97 Gigapixels
Views
2228
Date added
Apr 01, 2011
Date taken
Apr 01, 2011
Gear

Gigapan Pro + Canon 7D + 18-55...

Categories
 
Galleries
Competitions
Tags
Description

A little gem of a location in Béziers just down the road from the historic dry cleaners www.gigapan.org/gigapans/74115/
Just around the corner is this very different scene www.gigapan.org/gigapans/73999/ and even more stiking contrast here
www.gigapan.org/gigapans/74363/
Finally, not far away is the big view www.gigapan.org/gigapans/74115/


Gigapan Comments (10)

Toggle Minimize gigapan_comment
  1. The Gigapanographer Currently Known as "Kilgore661"

    The Gigapanographer Currently Known as "Kilgore661" (April 09, 2011, 03:25PM )

    Tom, I find what you say interesting. To me, until very recently, the question has been: does the image contain lots of interesting details, or must you consider the image as a whole to derive enjoyment? :-) Expressed another way, and I appreciate we are getting into the realms of subjectivity here, is there any point in making a large stitched image that does not contain interesting details? (Of course one valid reason is that you want a wide-angle shot and don't own a wide-angle lens, but I'm sure you realise that's not what I'm talking about.) Consider, for example, my recent shots taken at Hay Bluff (tinyurl.com/4yfx5mj Will open in
a new tab or window/). There are some details sure, but not enough for me. I'd say what we see is a lot of green and blue and not much else. The 360 is an interesting shape and both versions are quite nice to look at in GE, but it terms of details they score very low and are therefore "bad" in my opinion. They are not very pretty images either, but even if I had got the light just right and they looked like picture-postcards I'd still say they were pretty pointless. So, for me, detail is the primary raison d'être. Well, I said "until recently". What has started to change my mind is the discovery of the surreal effects obtainable with tone-mapping. You can't apply this to most gigapans (yet) because of the limitations on the tools, but I think the combination of tone-mapping to bring out the details combined with the surreal effect it gives the overall image is a real winner. This has made me shift the balance of my attention towards overall appearance. I suppose there's always a case for making things unexpectedly big to make them surreal or to occasion sensation. Eg the artist who wraps public buildings in plastic, but I think this can only be done sparingly at best.

  2. David Engle

    David Engle (April 09, 2011, 08:37AM )

    Tom, I do not believe that Kilgore or I are talking about your GigaPans ... you have one in the top ten of popularity, which few if any of us will ever reach. Kilgore is on page two and I may still have one in the top one hundred ... maybe. I remember seeing the Iceland panorama you refer to, and it was outstanding. Everyone of us that have U/L a pano to GP has done so because we liked what we created, and wanted others to see what we had accomplished. That is what is so amazing about gigapan.org ... such a variety of differnt locations and different styles, all in the name of art. We live in exciting times :)

  3. Tom Nelson

    Tom Nelson (April 09, 2011, 05:38AM )

    I don't claim my gigapans are capital-a Art but it's possible to do so with stitched panoramas. Luminous Landscape posted a brooding Icelandic landscape done with a GigaPan (and which I couldn'r find on their site when I looked just now). JF Rauzier has done some amazing surrealistic photos using stitched images (but not the GigaPan). The key question, to my mind, is: does the image work as a whole or must you dive into the details to derive enjoyment?

  4. The Gigapanographer Currently Known as "Kilgore661"

    The Gigapanographer Currently Known as "Kilgore661" (April 07, 2011, 02:23PM )

    Glad you like it. Being there was an odd experience. I had been out in the bright sunshine, marching across the town from one "obvious" location to another when I spotted this alley out of the corner of my eye. I went in and the gas lamp thing caught my eye, and as I stood and looked at it and my eyes became accustomed to the gloom, I started to notice the beaten-up shop front and all the old wood. I found that I was nearly transfixed. I didn't really want to break the spell but I had this terrible feeling that if I didn't stop day-dreaming and work really fast, I would lose the light. Or a resident would come out of their front door shouting "Oi! Pervert! Clear off!" :-)

  5. David Engle

    David Engle (April 06, 2011, 05:33PM )

    As we have heard many times before, one can't judge a book by its cover; neither can one judge this GigaPan without looking at it via the Google Earth link ... after doing so, all I can say is WOW!

  6. The Gigapanographer Currently Known as "Kilgore661"

    The Gigapanographer Currently Known as "Kilgore661" (April 06, 2011, 04:39PM )

    Thanks for your thoughts guys. What you both say has resonance for me because I have a desire to document (so nice bright and clear everything please) and, latterly, to be more creative/artisitic (so let's do moody, striking, ambiguous). The latter is a bit of a curse because it means I come into the sphere of artists and photographers and unfortunately that means I come into contact with the subsets of those groups that seem to talk total and utter complete nonsense. I hasten to add that (1) I am not referring to either of you and (2) this is very much an opinion: I am quite happy to believe that it is useful and interesting to ask what the "meaning" of a piece of art is, but I have no direct experience of it being so. I am struggling with two questions here. First, why is not possible to format a damned paragraph using this text widget? Second, is there ever a good reason to make an "arty" gigapan? With respect to the latter, I think one can create a "proper gigapan" - i.e. one that is over say, 1Gpix and has lots of detail - that is at the same time an aesthetically pleasing image. I do not consider myself to part of the group of people skillful enough to make such images, although sometimes I like to think I get lucky :-) However, despite my fervent wish that I did have the skills to make these aesthetically pleasing gigapans, such images are not what I have in mind by "arty". For me, "art" is something that causes an emotional reaction which is not what I get from your images Tom, or yours David. I should immediately say that when I see your work I *do* get a feeling of great pleasure, admiration and gratitude that you should share them with everyone at gigapan.org, but that's not what I am talking about. Or trying to. I want to see images that shock, elate or revolt. Unfortunately I am new to this so when I get those feelings from something I have done, I may not have the wit to understand that the reason for my reaction is that the image is simply technically very bad :-) My question is then, is it possible to create technically competent arty images that *at the same time* contain sufficient detail to warrant being over a gigapixel in size? Boring old-school photographers often say "Why do you want to make it so big? and that is very boring indeed. Of course there are some scenes that don't obviously warrant the gigapixel treatment, unless, I suppose it is the massive redundancy or shocking size that informs the meaning of the work. Oh no I am turning into an art critic - I'd better go make a 10Gpix gigapan quick!

  7. Tom Nelson

    Tom Nelson (April 06, 2011, 05:17AM )

    If dark is your intention then I support your right to make it anything you want. But for me, it's axiomatic that a gigapan should be as explorable as possible. If there are technical means to show detail in the shadows without compromising other goals, I'll do it.

  8. David Engle

    David Engle (April 05, 2011, 06:49PM )

    When I took my class in photography, I had a very difficult professor who at times was so strict (he constantly wanted perfection or something close to it) that other students in class were really getting freaked out due to his comments and attitude demonstrated towards them. He never jumped on me because I put 100 percent into the class and lab prep. In the darkroom one day, someone said that they really enjoyed so-and-so because that professor always had something good to say about a person's photo(s). Since then, I have thought about this in some detail and have come to believe that after we become experienced, we make our own bed and take the consequences whether good or bad. In photography we design the complete photo and we then say that upon presenting it to anyone, that this is my final effort. A case in point for me is www.gigapan.org/gigapans/33050/ I took a great amount of criticism over this panorama because all the action is in the shadows. My plan was to simply take a hand-held panorama of the staircase over Vahalla that leads to a lecture hall in Keck Hall, and as I was taking the last planned photo in the series, I saw in the viewfinder a female student walking towards me and I continued to photograph her as she walked by *fixing her hair* To me, this is an extraordinary panorama because it has a story line, it has something showing the correct exposure (if instead Chloe had the correct exposure, then the other part of the panorama would have been completly wahed out resulting in a worthless effort), which I had planned and there was detail in the shadows, which in itself is the extraordinay component of the panorama. As I write this, I see that the pano now has over 2000 viewcount, which makes me very pleased with the results. It is a panorama that I suffer the nice consequences, and as for me, it is one of my favorites plus it is a 360-degree pano too. As for your 360-degree GigaPan, I see that your current explore score is 141 for Le Galerie de Magasins Perdus ... case closed.

  9. The Gigapanographer Currently Known as "Kilgore661"

    The Gigapanographer Currently Known as "Kilgore661" (April 05, 2011, 01:55PM )

    Hi Tom. Thanks for the honest feedback. To me "gloomy" sounds subjective. I think photos can be gloomy if they want to be :-) If you were to say "too dark" then I'd consider that less subjective and agree. I don't know why you think using RAW would be such a good idea because I always use it for everything :-) Are you in fact saying that you would prefer to see the image brighter over all and with the bit-depth offered by RAW I should be able to brighten it up as much as I want? If so then, yes that's probably true. In fact the whole thing is bracketed at plus/minus 3ev so there is even more range available. The question then becomes how do you lighten the shadows without blowing out the highlights. Its too big for PM so that means using PS and I lack the skills (or at least to do it consistently). But actually, for the Galerie de Magasins Perdu, I wanted it dark, although not quite as dark as it is. I wanted a nice saturated blue sky and the bit around the lamp and the old wooden shop sign clearly visible. The top of the shop is supposed to be the figure and the rest of the image the ground so I didn't want the whole thing bright (or relatively so) like your shot. I saw it as an almost Dickensian London scene so I was definitely aiming for 'muted', 'shabby' and 'fogotten' if not actually gloomy. Maybe, and I am a noob here, you think I could achieve all those things by getting the exposure right? I am always up for learning. I can see the difference between your shot and my theatre shot and yours is better. I will look again at my raw images to see what I can get out of the shadows. I may have seriously underexposed even though I bracketed. I do that sometimes because I am stupid :-)

  10. Tom Nelson

    Tom Nelson (April 05, 2011, 07:12AM )

    Hi Kilgore, This looks awfully gloomy. I'd have exposed for the buildings and let the sky burn out if necessary. Also, I recommend shooting in RAW format if your camera supports it. You can do a lot to open the shadows using your camera's RAW converter or Adobe Camera Raw. Here's an example, which you can compare to your theater pano: gigapan.org/gigapans/60499/Tom

The GigaPan EPIC Series, Purchase an GigaPan EPIC model and receive GigaPan Stitch complimentary

Where in the World is this GigaPan?

Toggle

Member Log In