Learning Landscapes - Gorgeous scene = Huge Headache

[Brownbear]

I'm back to my learning landscape project and here is an image of a truly gorgeous scene that for some reason has evolved into a photo disaster.

I have several versions of this scene from different angles and even a couple with a rainbow in the sky. I exposed for the sky to capture the rainbow (not in this image).

I focused on the tip of the mountain/peninsula hoping for maximum depth of field but for me the photo was about the dramatic sky, hence mostly sky in the image.

Aperture priority ISO 100 SS 1/25 sec Matrix metering Mirror-up with remote release. No exposure bias in this shot.

Unfortunately I forgot that I had a polarizing filter on my lens which created unreal blue patches in the sky. (lesson learned) Top right and bottom left hand corner. In the bottom right hand corner I tried cloning a couple of clouds over the unreal blue only to create unreal clouds. The spots are dust spots. The horizon is uneven. I straightened it a little but because there is so little foreground straightening the image ruins the composition.

I've tried processing both in Lightroom and in Adobe Photoshop (ACR) and have wasted far too much time creating different versions.


Raw image as captured



A processing attempt in LR...

In this version I ran an adjustment brush over the clouds in the middle to darken the exposure, and I ran another adjustment brush over the darker clouds, unreal blue to lighten other clouds. I used curves to increase the midtones and bring out more detail in the clouds, moved the white and black points to adjust to taste. Next I tried cloning in a few clouds to fix the blue spot in the sky on the bottom left hand side and applied an unsharp mask in Elements 9 after downsizing. (unsharp mask also applied in LR to the raw photo)





1. How could I have photographed this scene better?

2. How does one approach post processing such an image without destroying it, or is it just an example of an image of a beautiful scene that is beyond help.

Thank you.

[Mike Buckley]

I think the scene is okay. I doubt that I could ever feel that it's great because I'm rarely a fan of photos of clouds. So, take that into account when you consider my thinking.

You might try increasing the saturation of the yellow tones in the clouds and water for increased drama. Perhaps try pulling more detail out of the palm trees at the bottom and the forest on the hill. Other than that, I'll leave other suggestions up to those who have more experience with this style of photography than me.

I wonder if the biggest issue is that you envisioned this scene so strongly in a particular way that there is nothing you can do to get the image to live up to your hopes. There's not a thing wrong with that.

By the way, the blue skies look very real to me, though I appreciate that they may not look at all like you saw them in reality. Keep in mind though that if you had been wearing polarized sunglasses, they might have looked exactly as shown here. My point: what is reality?

[Brownbear]

The clouds and the morning light were beautiful and I failed to capture what I saw. I'm thinking that perhaps I should've taken the image from the beach (more interesting foreground) instead of from above.

One of my versions was a lighter exposure using the adjustment brush on the forest, etc but it really looked over processed, as does the image I posted here (to me it looks unnatural).

Yes, I had high hopes for this scene. After I receive more feedback I will check out the blue sky, and your editing suggestions again.

Thanks Mike...

I think the scene is okay. I doubt that I could ever feel that it's great because I'm rarely a fan of photos of clouds. So, take that into account when you consider my thinking.

You might try increasing the saturation of the yellow tones in the clouds and water for increased drama. Perhaps try pulling more detail out of the palm trees at the bottom and the forest on the hill. Other than that, I'll leave other suggestions up to those who have more experience with this style of photography than me.

I wonder if the biggest issue is that you envisioned this scene so strongly in a particular way that there is nothing you can do to get the image to live up to your hopes. There's not a thing wrong with that.

By the way, the blue skies look very real to me, though I appreciate that they may not look at all like you saw them in reality. Keep in mind though that if you had been wearing polarized sunglasses, they might have looked exactly as shown here. My point: what is reality?

[Nancy Moran G]

Don't mind me, I am just here taking notes. ;}
Nancy

[Stagecoach]

1. How could I have photographed this scene better?

2. How does one approach post processing such an image without destroying it, or is it just an example of an image of a beautiful scene that is beyond help.

Thank you.

Hi Christina,

The advice I was given a while ago is that there are some scenes that whilst looking truly gorgeous when you are stood there looking down on them they just do not make good images, this 'may' be one of them. Whilst the sky is interesting it does not have enough impact to warrant it being the predominant area of the image.

It may have been possible to take it from a lower angle including more of the foreground (palms on the right)?

As for the processing, you certainly have not destroyed it, there's just different options available.

Mike makes a very valid point about sunglasses, I wear expensive polarised ones all the time and find they make a tremendous difference to the visual impact of a scene you see especially with respect to contrast and colours.

Grahame

[chauncey]

The advice I was given a while ago is that there are some scenes that whilst looking truly gorgeous when you are stood there looking down on them they just do not make good images

I've read that numerous times but...why not.

We have the ability to create HDR images, minute detail, alter tones to fit what we remember seeing, on and on. The BIF images we see herein come across much more dramatically than they do "in real life". The same applies to other genre. Why are landscapes so difficult to capture?

[Brownbear]

Thank you everyone! I'm free and I'm going to move on to another image... This one I will just remember as the beautiful morning it was.

Nancy... Note landscapes are all about the scene at hand, and remember that on cold days you need to carry an extra 2 spare batteries stored somewhere close to your body to keep them warm.

Grahame... From this view point I couldn't include more of the palm trees for this particular scene, unless I included lots of ramshackle houses (and I actually did try that) but for me it was about the sky... I should've headed down to the beach.

PS I will have to buy some of those sunglasses and check out the view.

WM Boyer... I don't know and that is why I'm trying.

Thank you to everyone for your honesty and comments. Truly appreciated.

[Geoff F]

This is basically OK. Possibly a fraction too much land on the left side but nothing to worry about. However, is the horizon level?

The amount of dark foreground is kept to a minimum which is good.

All you can do with sort of scene is to expose for the brightest part of the sky then recover any shadow problems during editing. This has worked OK.

It is one of those images which looks a lot better at full screen size.

If you want a more dramatic scene you might try a little bit of Local Contrast Enhancement but be aware of increasing 'noise'. Also watch for patches of over exposure. I use a layer and mask to control this problem.

Alternatively, I would try an adjustment layer, or a duplicate layer, with the layer blend mode set to Soft Light and a suitable opacity.

But all in all there isn't a lot wrong here.

Clouds can be tricky to photograph well and look natural. I saw a nice scene recently (with which I will begin my 2014 Weekly Photos) but during the few minutes that it took to get my camera everything had changed. And this regularly happens to me with movable clouds!

[Brownbear]

Hi Geoff,

Thank you for sharing. I have taken images of clouds and skies in the past that I like very much but was so disappointed with these and I guess the composition was just a more interesting/nicer looking view. Of course there was also a rainbow in the sky on this morning (:. I will try your suggestions for the sake of learning as I am also working on my post processing skills.

Yes, some clouds likely moved over the rainbow in this shot.

I'm very much looking forward to your 2014 photos... I hope to see lots of landscapes, and some clouds and rainbows. I always learn a lot from your threads. Thank you for that.

This is basically OK. Possibly a fraction too much land on the left side but nothing to worry about. However, is the horizon level?

The amount of dark foreground is kept to a minimum which is good.

All you can do with sort of scene is to expose for the brightest part of the sky then recover any shadow problems during editing. This has worked OK.

It is one of those images which looks a lot better at full screen size.

If you want a more dramatic scene you might try a little bit of Local Contrast Enhancement but be aware of increasing 'noise'. Also watch for patches of over exposure. I use a layer and mask to control this problem.

Alternatively, I would try an adjustment layer, or a duplicate layer, with the layer blend mode set to Soft Light and a suitable opacity.

But all in all there isn't a lot wrong here.

Clouds can be tricky to photograph well and look natural. I saw a nice scene recently (with which I will begin my 2014 Weekly Photos) but during the few minutes that it took to get my camera everything had changed. And this regularly happens to me with movable clouds!

[Shadowman]

Try it with a different lens, see if it makes a difference. The subject here would be the clouds or the effects of light on the water.

[Downrigger]

My two cents:
I think the shot here was down at the beach, maybe with some of that big light reflecting off wet sand or onshore ripples. Big landscapes often do very well with some near foreground (in focus). You have middle distance "foreground". Trite idea, maybe but so's chocolate ice cream and it's still selling.
Also, staying with it shot as is - can you bring up the darks (lighten shadows) so the mid-distance vegetation has some tone instead of a total silouhette? I think it might be better.

[Brownbear]

Hi John... I wish! This was taken a few weeks ago in Mexico so alas it is not possible for me to try this shot again.

Mark...
This image was taken from a roof top a few blocks away from the beach. I've tried your edit but it doesn't work because I have to increase the exposure of the hillside far too much ( +1.5 Exp plus shadows 25%) Noise and all kinds of things going on.



Here is an edit increasing the yellows as suggested by Mike and a soft light filter as suggested by Geoff, a little better but still not good.



And here is another version to which I added a black and white gradient... Looks better but all the beautiful colours are gone.



I think this image is a great example of an image that can't and isn't worth trying to save... Far too much editing needed to make anything of it. I failed to photograph it well in the first place!

Thank you to all. It was a good processing lesson for me, among other things.

[tbob]

Christina: I am really poor at critiquing post processing so I will leave that to the experts on this forum; these are just some landscape shooting thoughts . Take it for what it's worth.

I may be off here but this may be part of the problem. You see these glorious clouds with colour and texture. You shoot the scene. When you get the image out of the camera they are muted and small. Why? Where have those glorious clouds gone?

Almost all my landscapes are shot with a telephoto zoom, 70-200mm and often with a 2X extender so the effective lens is 140 to 400mm. I will rarely use even the 50 mm. I find that most of the prairie and seascape stuff I do needs a telephoto to get what I see in a scene versus what the camera sees. Below 50 mm everything is so small. My feeling is that my mind tends to see small pieces of the landscape not the entire sweep so I need a lens that will allow me to isolate the bits I want to emphasize. But sometimes I need to see the entire sweep, you have to think about what you want and select the lens accordingly

Two examples: this was shot at 28 mm because I needed the clouds and fence to be equal components ; the sweep of the prairie needed to be emphasized



This was shot at 200mm because otherwise the sunrise and mountains were a pathetic little smear of colour on the horizon and my mind saw the floating buoys and sunrise colours on the water as being as important as the colour in the sky so I needed a dramatic sunrise and the foreground. I needed to compress the scene to get that.



Food for thought anyway.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Christina,

One of the useful things these shots we take that are not quite up to our expectations is to use them to learn from and 'play with' to give us an idea of what we can achieve 'or' what we can not achieve with them.

Here's a few minutes work in PSE, aim was to try and make the sky a bit more dramatic. Further work could be done on the foreground.



Just playing before I hit the heat outside with some gardening

Grahame

[Brownbear]

Hi Trevor,

Thank you so much for sharing. The idea of zooming in on a specific part of a landscape scene is indeed very helpful to know about and something that I will try.

I absolutely adore both of these images... Both are truly Magical! Thank you for sharing and for providing me with some inspiration.

Christina: I am really poor at critiquing post processing so I will leave that to the experts on this forum; these are just some landscape shooting thoughts . Take it for what it's worth.

I may be off here but this may be part of the problem. You see these glorious clouds with colour and texture. You shoot the scene. When you get the image out of the camera they are muted and small. Why? Where have those glorious clouds gone?

Almost all my landscapes are shot with a telephoto zoom, 70-200mm and often with a 2X extender so the effective lens is 140 to 400mm. I will rarely use even the 50 mm. I find that most of the prairie and seascape stuff I do needs a telephoto to get what I see in a scene versus what the camera sees. Below 50 mm everything is so small. My feeling is that my mind tends to see small pieces of the landscape not the entire sweep so I need a lens that will allow me to isolate the bits I want to emphasize. But sometimes I need to see the entire sweep, you have to think about what you want and select the lens accordingly

Two examples: this was shot at 28 mm because I needed the clouds and fence to be equal components ; the sweep of the prairie needed to be emphasized



This was shot at 200mm because otherwise the sunrise and mountains were a pathetic little smear of colour on the horizon and my mind saw the floating buoys and sunrise colours on the water as being as important as the colour in the sky so I needed a dramatic sunrise and the foreground. I needed to compress the scene to get that.



Food for thought anyway.

[Brownbear]

Thank you Grahame... Yes, these images have been a very good lesson in post processing for me.. While playing I noticed how much destruction the curves tool can create.

Your version is much better. Thank you for sharing. I'm also working on my post-processing skills and this year I will learn to do so to the best of my ability.

Here's hoping you find a praying mantis in your garden.

Hi Christina,

One of the useful things these shots we take that are not quite up to our expectations is to use them to learn from and 'play with' to give us an idea of what we can achieve 'or' what we can not achieve with them.

Here's a few minutes work in PSE, aim was to try and make the sky a bit more dramatic. Further work could be done on the foreground.



Just playing before I hit the heat outside with some gardening

Grahame

[tbob]

Christina you caught my drift in my post despite my clumsy explanation. I just want to add that in the seascape/cloudscape example I "saw" the sunrise/water reflection and it dominated the scene. In actuality it was a tiny component of the scene and if I had used wider angle lens it would have been a truly pathetic rendition. True to reality, but then reality is overrated as a way of dealing with the world.

[Brownbear]

Yes, I did and beautifully. Thank you.

I do have a mountain top sunrise that I took that I thought was kind of strange because I zoomed in on it but I will revisit that image and post later (if it is not, too bad) and the next landscape I take will be zoomed in.

Thank you.

Christina you caught my drift in my post despite my clumsy explanation. I just want to add that in the seascape/cloudscape example I "saw" the sunrise/water reflection and it dominated the scene. In actuality it was a tiny component of the scene and if I had used wider angle lens it would have been a truly pathetic rendition. True to reality, but then reality is overrated as a way of dealing with the world.

[Manfred M]

Christina - I think that this a classic case of our eyes / brain seeing things differently than a camera records them. Your senses saw a wonderful vista, complete with sounds, smells and colours. The camera just saw the scene as it was.

Think about the basic rules of composition; the subject, rule of thirds, use of lines, s-curves, etc. the next time you try shooting a landscape. These can help you create a compelling image. Post processing can enhance good composition; but it cannot help you unless the underlying material is something you can work with. Your initial image may not be all that exciting, but if you have made a good capture, you can bring out the best in it.

[pnodrog]

Hi Christina I have done another variation a bit like Grahame's above but a bit warmer and there are 100's of other possibilities and it will depend on you as to which best portrays the mood. When you have a base of trees it pays to include a bit more at the bottom so that after any adjustments for leveling the horizon or other cropping still leaves a continuous base to the photo.

Due to the small size of the file I worked on it is a bit noisy/grainy and I did not correct for what appears to be an undue curve in the horizon.