I adore the serenity in this piece. Out of all the recently submitted this caught my attention.

Also, what do you use for the stitching?

--

No.

I use the Adobe CS3 Photomerge feature (I am currently using it as a trial).

It's not the best (certainly, Autostitch is more accurate, I find), but it works with 16bit per channel colours and in whatever colour profile I want (generally ProPhotoRGB).
It also doesn't give me a 'flat image', in other words, it gives me the image as layers, so if it does bork somewhere, I can just go in and tweak the layer masks.

--
<sub>Need a Thread Locked?

sineout.com</sub>

Very nicely done @sine-out

--
_{Crudelius est quam mori semper timere mortem}

I'll remember that if I ever try. I've been tempted but no one has been too optimistic recommending a program for it.

--

No.

That's probably because there aren't that many good stitching programs out there.

There is AutoStitch, which is free, but it has the limit that it only works with JPEG files (meaning that it has the limitations that JPEG implies, such as only 8bit per component, and generation loss due to inputting JPEG's and outputting the result as a JPEG). On the other hand, it's very accurate, and it works in two dimensions (meaning, with enough RAM, processing power and time, you could use it to stitch together a 360x180 degree panorama (everything visible from a point).
Still, it's free and it does a very good job given how much it costs.

Next, is Hugin. It's good because it generates the 'anchor point's and lets you adjust them. In theory, it works extremely well, in practice, it does not. Because you generally end up having to alter those anchor points, which can be a pain when dealing with a many image panorama.
To that end, if you want to use a stitching program that does it all for you, then Hugin are not your best option.
Ultimately, I believe it relies on you capturing the panorama correctly before it even gets to the computer (using a tripod, rotating the lens through its nodal point, not changing focus, white balance or exposure in all your shots, and so on), if you don't, then expect to spend an awful lot of time playing with those points to get it working.
Still, it's also free, and it does, at least, afford you a lot of customisation options (something that AutoStitch doesn't offer).

AutoPano Pro, is another good option.
It's not free, but it's probably one of the better options available. It's based on AutoStitch, however, because it's a commercial program (or maybe in spite of that), it has a number of additional features, in particular, it has 16bit per channel support.
It costs €99, but, from the feature set, it's looks to be worth it.

Of course, there is also the Photomerge feature in Photoshop CS2 and CS3.
Frankly, the Photomerge feature in CS2 is a bit crap. It only has 8bit per channel support, it doesn't like any colour space apart from sRGB, and it's not all that accurate.
Photomerge in CS3 is better, it's more accurate and supports higher bit depths and different colour spaces. It's still not got the greatest accuracy, however, any minor issues can be worked out when the image is finished rendering (since photoshop leaves the final render in the form of layers, so you can alter those layers if you want).

If you've no money, then get AutoStitch, if you have some money, then get AutoPano Pro, and if you've got money to burn, get Photoshop CS3. :B

--
<sub>Need a Thread Locked?

sineout.com</sub>

Wow! I downloaded the zip to see what it looked like before it was stitched and you've done a great job of putting it all together and adjusting the levels. It was pretty before but you made it damn near breathtaking.