{"id":22031,"date":"2026-03-31T08:37:38","date_gmt":"2026-03-31T12:37:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/psnp.info\/p4td_\/?p=22031"},"modified":"2026-03-31T08:37:38","modified_gmt":"2026-03-31T12:37:38","slug":"rachel-carson-panorama","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/psnp.info\/p4td_\/?p=22031","title":{"rendered":"Rachel Carson Panorama"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Rachel Carson NWR, Wells, Maine, March 2026 \u2014 Panoramas are hard to display and hard to view. Our focused zone of attention is only between 30 and 60 degrees. The rest we call peripheral vision. We see it, but we only pay enough attention to it to keep us from waking into walls or off cliffs or to avoid hanging branches and flying birds and debris. So when a panorama forces us to look at even a 100-degree field of view, it makes us just a bit uncomfortable. (Of course, our digital displays are not panorama-friendly either, which is why this one is in a 16×9 box. \ud83d\ude42 I still like them, mostly for the exercise. It is good to expand our vision on occasion. It might make us more aware of walls and cliffs and flying things, but it might also help us to expand our zone of focused attention beyond the norm. That would be a good thing, I think. Who wants to live a narrow life? This is 5 overlaying frames at 24mm equivalent field of view, taken with the Sony a6700 and Sigma 16-300 contemporary, Landscape scene mode, processed in Photomator and stitched together in BimoStitch. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n

Share this:<\/h3>