Photomerge is problematic and NEEDS to be enhanced

[Martin Dedron]

Good morning,

As a photographer I mainly use photoshop for editing.

However, the outputs I get from photomerge are often bad, sometimes ridiculous.

Before entering this topic, we need to acknowledge that :

1. AI and computing powers are more powerful today than ever and yet the results sometimes seem worse than with older versions

2. Photoshop is an expansive product, we monthly pay to have professional outputs, not an outdated feature that leaves us forced to use...

3. Affinity Photo, which assembles pictures a bit slower but at least it does it fine.

Seriously, I pay for Adobe but end up using its competitor for it's just not usable. 

We, photographers, need : 

1. An active comprehension of the geometric lines. 

A panorama is often done with architecture or at least landscapes. It is unbelievable that these types of outcomes happen :

(pictures overlap >>30%)

2. An involved algorithm

I don't know how else to call it. But OFTEN Photoshop says "pictures can't be assembled" with images that clearly can be assembled, I end up assembling them myself. It's simply ridiculous.

3. A drastic UI change

The choices of assembling ways are unclear and outdated. Often the one which seems to work for > 40mm is the last one ("repositionnement", in french) ; auto seems to do it better for wide angles. 

Anyway, there could be a much simpler interface with options such as "geometry is essential" or "central object is the subject". 

4. A HUGE performance patch

Adobe needs to get WORKING on this part of the software, period. It needs to be reworked, tested, to be able to be the best-to-date photography editing soft. isn't it how it's supposed to be? What's the ambition?

Just saying, OpenAI clearly went ahead for "non-genuine imaging". I have Photoshop because I believe in authentic images. But I end up using another software...

It seems to me that the current algorithm just tries to be super fast instead of doing anything usable. Thanks but no : I'd rather wait and have an image I can actually use, instead of a super-quick error message or weird funny garbage I'll just delete in one fifth of a second.

Here are some (genuine) bonuses :

Thanks for understanding.

[Martin Dedron]

another bonus.

[D Fosse]

Photomerge is one of those combos that try to make things simple by combining several functions rolled into one. I never use it.

To have control, split it up into its discrete components. Start by stacking your frames, and the key here is that the one at the bottom of the stack is the reference that the others align to. This single step lets you control how the finished geometry will end up. Add the others in "V"-fashion from the bottom up.

Then run Auto-Align. Given that lens geometry is never perfect, even with lens correction, you may need to nudge individual frames.

Then, finally, run Auto-Blend and make sure it's set to "panorama", not "stacking".

And then there's the obvious, or at least it should be obvious: shoot with care. Mind you - I'm not saying you aren't, but so many come here with carelessly shot and processed sequences that it's a miracle it works at all. Watch out for parallax error! Ideally, you should shoot with a focusing rail that rotates the entire camera/lens assembly around the optical center of the lens. The optical center is where the diaphragm appears to be when you look into the lens from the front. Correct vignetting in advance. And finally - overlap does not include water with waves, drifting clouds etc. Those things should be treated as uncertain areas, excluded from the overlap.

If you want the very best result, when practically possible, shoot a reference frame with a wide angle lens, then change to a longer focal length for the individual frames. Put the wide angle reference on the bottom, scale up, and let that be the guide for the other frames. Delete when done.

[Martin Dedron]

Thank you for your answer.

I understand all this process (and this is how I shoot and edit ; tripod/reference point if not by moving sideways if I shoot art/walls to keep the parallelism) ; however, this is not the point.

The point is that automating those simple tasks is too heavy for a photoshop that tries to do it fast instead of doing it correctly. One one hand you have good images that Photoshop can't deal with ; on the other hand you have its competitors that manage to do it. And yet photoshop is an expansive tool.

It's about time photoshop is more than a faulty operator for merging photographs.

It shouldn't be a burden for it to stack align and blend, especially two years after neural filters were introduced. Those last tools are funny for compositing, but once again, photoshop has the cost of a professional tool, it should offer a professional solution for something as elementary in photography as making a panorama.

[D Fosse]

Well, you still seem to ignore the main point in my post:

Photomerge is a quick-and-dirty "simple mode" for when you're in a hurry. Split it into its three separate components, and I can guarantee you a better result, because you can control it yourself instead of letting an algorithm do it for you.

[Martin Dedron]

I know ; that's what I'm doing when it fails. Which happens way too often and leads meto use other softwares that can nail that mission. It's all a question of time and when you have dozens of panoramas to assemble you don't want to do everything by hand (welcome to 2023... AIs aregenerating space laser ducks in a second, and photoshop can't detect two parallel lines)

[Ivan Zajats]

Voted! I wanted to post a similar request on enhancing this feature.

PTGui is considered the best software for panoramas, so Adobe should take the best features from it.

I used it once or twice, but remember that it's very advanced with some handy manual correction options.

Here in PS we just push the button and get some output. In PTGui you've got a preview & can control the process by setting some points and moving the frames (smth like the Puppet Warp).

So, we need an advanced module for panoramas!

[D Fosse]

Well, that was just my point, wasn't it? Don't just "push the button". Split it up so that you can control it.

But OK, it could always be improved, no argument. My biggest issue is that Auto-Align tends to offset a couple of pixels, so that you may need to nudge into final position at 100%. That shouldn't be necessary.

But no algorithm can correct for parallax error and careless shooting. I do this a lot, and my own experience is that it works very well as long as you take some care in shooting. However, it will not save you if you make mistakes.