I’m putting this up for the hell of it and to see if it’s possible on a blog. I’ve been spending a lot of time lately making so-called ‘panorama’ images. All you do is click a bunch of pictures in a relatively straight line making sure there’s a bit of an overlap. Then you can hand them over to Photoshop on your computer. There’s a lot of whirring and shaking and sometimes a wisp of blue smoke and after about five minutes a finished ‘stitched’ together photograph like this one below is spat out. Actually there’d probably be less banging and it would take less time if I used smaller files; at full size my panoramas are about eleven metres long (and 300 dots to the inch). I haven’t tried printing one yet, because I suspect that an eleven-metre-long print is going to cost a packet, and so I want to get it right before I try. There are ways to get a continuous horizontal line along the top and bottom, but I didn’t feel like doing that in the example shown here. Why bother printing pictures so large, you ask. Partly to regain a little bit of the scale that’s missing from a tiny picture and partly because so much more of the recorded detail becomes visible. If you don’t believe it could be that big a deal pop into your local art gallery. I was recently at the National Portrait Gallery in London and really the difference between an eight-by-ten or a screen-sized image and their momentous likenesses, one-inch-diameter warts and all, is as night and day. This picture is of my old friend the Semsvannet, the lake by our house, while it’s frozen and the air is foggy.
Below, is the centre section at a larger scale. I think you’ll agree that the detail is pretty good. The tiny figures and the horses are more than a kilometre away from me and I’m seeing them through a fog. It looks a bit like one of those Dutch snow scenes that Siganus Sutor is always talking about.