Learning Landscapes - Mountain View Sunrise

[Brownbear]

A couple of zoomed-in to the point of interest landscape images as suggested to me in a previous thread...

These first two images, photographed on the spur of the moment when the sunrise caught my eye. I was photographing white terns in flight so my camera was set to (and yes, I forgot to change my settings)

Manual SS 1/2000 F10 ISO 320 Exp Comp -.3, with a 300 mm lens, hand held.

However, I did think about the composition in terms of the rules of thirds, and the lines of the mountain leading to the light of the sunrise. And I think the colours came out close to the scene but not as rich as in real life.

I clipped the sun a bit just behind the mountain tip, so I used the brush in Lightroom to decrease the highlights in this area.

Set 1

Uncropped

1.

Cropped (same scene different image)

2.


Set 2

In this second set I planned for these shots so my camera was set to

Aperture Priority ISO 100 F11 SS 1/100 and 1/125 second. Tripod, mirror up and shutter release. Note: these were taken with my old tripod (not very stable) and seem to lack sharpness.

I focused on the mountain peaks and I also thought that the lines of the mountains, and the trees up to the mountain peaks would lead the eye to the mountain peaks.


I'm disappointed in this set for the lack of sharpness and colour (perhaps the light was just not very nice that morning) Processed in Lightroom with different vibrancy, white and black points.

1 A (Added a levels adjustment in Elements)



2 A



I would appreciate feedback on the composition these images, the light in the first set, and the poor colour in the 2nd set.

[Bobobird]

Nice images is all I am qualified to say.

[Mike Buckley]

Photo 2 is by far the best for me. Nice color and sharp where the trees meet the sky. Those trees aren't as sharp in the first one and sharpness at the edges is critically important for silhouettes. Try cropping on the left of the second one for a perhaps more appealing composition.

The light and haze are culprits in the second pair of images. Someone who works with this kind of image may be able to improve them but I tried and didn't get anything much better. I even tried my typical haze-reduction technique but to no avail.

Convert Photo 3 to black and white, work with the curve, crop to eliminate most of the sky and you can definitely make a keeper, though not an award-winner.

[Brownbear]

Thank you for your feedback Mike. I find it interesting that the first set totally un-plannned or prepared for are better. I guess it is just the beautiful light. And thank you for pointing out the line of the trees. I will keep this in mind for future. I did try that crop but being uncertain went back to the original. Thank you for sharing, and thank you for trying.

Also wonderful to know about the light and haze. I don't like this set at all and I live close enough that I can revisit and try again. In terms of the composition of the last two shots, does it work?

Photo 2 is by far the best for me. Nice color and sharp where the trees meet the sky. Those trees aren't as sharp in the first one and sharpness at the edges is critically important for silhouettes. Try cropping on the left of the second one for a perhaps more appealing composition.

The light and haze are culprits in the second pair of images. Someone who works with this kind of image may be able to improve them but I tried and didn't get anything much better. I even tried my typical haze-reduction technique but to no avail.

Convert Photo 3 to black and white, work with the curve, crop to eliminate most of the sky and you can definitely make a keeper, though not an award-winner.

[Donald]

In terms of the composition of the last two shots, does it work?

I would say the first one does, but not so much the second. Why?

I feel that in the first one you've given the mountains a bit more space. The second one feels a bit claustrophobic. Hope that makes some sort of sense.

I think Mike has provided a very good analysis and constructive criticism and I have nothing to add to that. That second sunrise image is an absolute beauty. Well done.

[Brownbear]

Hi Donald,

Thank you for the feedback. Yes, that makes sense and I will try this scene again with more space! (and better light)

Yes, indeed he has, as he always does. Thank you.

I would say the first one does, but not so much the second. Why?

I feel that in the first one you've given the mountains a bit more space. The second one feels a bit claustrophobic. Hope that makes some sort of sense.

I think Mike has provided a very good analysis and constructive criticism and I have nothing to add to that. That second sunrise image is an absolute beauty. Well done.

[Old Veteran]

The photos look like good ones that can be made better using your computer. The two quotes concerning photos "taken by the photo" and the other, "a photo is never taken, it's only given." I always thought of good photos as being found. Those beautiful moments are happening every day all year. Being in the right spot at the right time will let you find those great shots.-
Bob Speicher

[Mike Buckley]

Christina: I agree with Donald about the composition of the second set.

I forgot to mention that the first photo includes a foreground tree that is bothersome. I mention it only because it would have been easy to remove by cloning if the rest of the image had worked.

Bob: I like your concept about "finding" good photos because it puts the responsibility on the photographer. Though I like the two quotes in my automated signature, photography is probably a mix of finding, taking and giving.

[Downrigger]

I love mountain images, Christina. A worthy undertaking. Here's some uneducated opinion.

I think it is tough to make long lens photos of mountains interesting, and more than sort of documentary, unless one can take advantage of some interesting light interplay, weather effects, or astrophotgraphic interactions (e.g moonrise or milky way over peaks)

More often...

Mountain shots that work for me are those that allow the mountains to express what they affect around them, to tell their story. Sometimes one can show them making or affecting weather, but more often I like those compositions that employ depth of field to demonstrate relations with interesting structures (cultivation, villages, water bodies, wildlife, rivers, meadows) in the mid or near range, that allows contextualization of the mountains' character and impact (mass, height, grandeur, forbiddingness) A meadow of flowers below peaks and glaciers is generally going to be more interesting than just peaks and glaciers (and so forth).

[Brownbear]

Thank you to all.

Bob, one of my goals for this year is to improve my post-processing skills, so later today I am going to try and do a B&W edit as Mike has suggested, and see how I do. I've also taken some photos here at sunset and I've learned that the light is far nicer here at sunset than at sunrise, so I plan to visit and try again at sunset.

Mike, thanks for sharing your thoughts about the tree. While processing I played dodging in a few shots and I wasn't sure if the hint of a tree added interest or a distraction.

Mark, thank you for sharing. I think your reply is just beautiful! Yes, the sky was kind of blah even though it was blue. I also took some wider angle shots and I will take a look at these again and see if I can find a half-decent one to post. In this set my goal was to learn what makes a close in shot work or not, because in my last landscape image I went for the overall picture, and although the scene was beautiful my picture wasn't. But at least I have a better idea of what to look for in both types of landscapes.

[Kaye Leggett]

Hi Christina. I love the sunrise photos - you've really captured the colour well. For composition I prefer the first - I'm think thats to do with the way westerners have been taught to read left to right, also the trees work better in the first

[Brownbear]

Hi Kaye,

Thank you for your feedback. Truly appreciated. I will save the sunrise photos (silhouettes) and work on them with different crops.

Mike

Here is the sunrise photo with your suggested crop. I like it better but I'm not sure why.



Now for the bad news.. Here is my B&W conversion attempt which I think turned out really bad. I exported the photo from LR and in Elements I selected just the mountain (minus the snow part) and played with curves to try and bring out the green in the trees, and then I converted to B&W using the Landscape preset but adjusted to taste. And I added a Gradient filteer (B&W). While working on the photo for so long I noticed that the trees just are not sharp enough, and my B&W is pretty sad looking. I've changed animals to B&W before and they seem to look fine but perhaps that is because I know what they should look like, and with this image I was lost. However, I'm sure I learned something even if it is only to say that I can't see in B&W.



Aside... In these and other photos at full size I can see a line along the edges of the trees where I selectively sharpened just the mountain, to avoid sharpening the sky, water, clouds, etc... This drives me crazy... and perhaps it is better to sharpen the entire photo?

Thank you.

[Brownbear]

Hi Mark,

Here are some whole pictures of the scene.

From the same morning, sunrise



And from a week later, sunset. I think these are better because of the light.

This one I sharpened with Colin's technique.

Sunset

1.



2.



3.



4.



I think I like 1 & 3 the best... Which ones do you prefer, if any, and why?

Thank you.

I love mountain images, Christina. A worthy undertaking. Here's some uneducated opinion.

I think it is tough to make long lens photos of mountains interesting, and more than sort of documentary, unless one can take advantage of some interesting light interplay, weather effects, or astrophotgraphic interactions (e.g moonrise or milky way over peaks)

More often...

Mountain shots that work for me are those that allow the mountains to express what they affect around them, to tell their story. Sometimes one can show them making or affecting weather, but more often I like those compositions that employ depth of field to demonstrate relations with interesting structures (cultivation, villages, water bodies, wildlife, rivers, meadows) in the mid or near range, that allows contextualization of the mountains' character and impact (mass, height, grandeur, forbiddingness) A meadow of flowers below peaks and glaciers is generally going to be more interesting than just peaks and glaciers (and so forth).

[NorthernFocus]

Hi, Christina. Nos.1 and 3 of the second set are nice. Fog, mountains, and water in the same scene can be magical. I can feel the mood. But I'm useless on this topic as far as offering advice. Out of hundreds of mountain images I've taken over the years, I've captured one or two accidental keepers

I think what I personally struggle with is that my eyes/mind are taking in the majesty of the scene in broad terms. And I have trouble identifying exactly what aspect of the scene generates that impression. When I look at your images here, I can see myself having that struggle at that location. The overall scene is no doubt magical. Capturing that magic within the limits of the camera's view is a challenge.

[Brownbear]

Hi Dan,

Thank you for the feedback. Truly appreciated, and it is nice to know that I'm not alone. I think I see and want to capture the entire vista but I can't figure out how to do it, especially seen in #2 and #4, and many others not shared.

It is a beautiful place.

[nimitzbenedicto]

I like it better but I'm not sure why.



Aside... In these and other photos at full size I can see a line along the edges of the trees where I selectively sharpened just the mountain, to avoid sharpening the sky, water, clouds, etc... This drives me crazy... and perhaps it is better to sharpen the entire photo?

Thank you.

paging Dr. Sigmund F.

[Shadowman]

In the 1st and 2nd image try to add a bit more fill light or just let the mountains go near black, I say near black because the palm or branches in front (#1) is the darkest portion of your image.