Learning Landscapes - Mountain Views (truly)

[Brownbear]

The sun finally came out a week of pouring rain (less haze) and following are a few shots from this morning. Photographed during sunrise but the light was just so/so. (I slept in and missed the pre sunrise light)

This time around I have chosen to share a few photos with different compositions as improving my landscape compositions is what I am working on now.

#1



#2




#3 (yes, another attempt at the larger view)




Thank you.

[NorthernFocus]

Hey, Christina. Purely as a viewer, I like the first two due to having more detail to look at. Compositionally those to are much of a muchness IMO but I like the first one due to the more interesting clouds and the bit of fog among the trees that highlights some of the tree detail. I also like the extra layer provided by the hill in right side of frame on the first shot. For what it's worth...

[Stagecoach]

Hi Christina,

I have to admit I'm not sure about these scenes, they appear lacking in something but I can't put my finger on it. I find No 1 & 3 more interesting.

Perhaps it's the PP work and there's a way of giving them a bit more punch, I look forward to hearing others views on these.

Grahame

[AB26]

Christina,

I am going to be very frank. Please do not take my comment personally.

I have no idea what you have done in PP. The images lack sharpness, exposure is way off and WB is way too “cool”. Look at 3 & 4, it is way too blue.

Having said that, I am not going to leave you there. Take a tip from an old fool: Set your camera to full Auto, Shoot in JPEG and post images SOOC. Be sure to have all settings on normal/natural or whatever is factory default.
A Nikon D7100 should give you much better rendition of the scenes, than the posted images.

When I was in the army, busy doing map reading training, an old Major taught us one thing: ”When you are lost, do not start walking in circles. Find the highest point you can see, go sit under a tree and smoke a cigarette. Once you are calm and you got yourself back together, open your map and start from scratch to plot your position on the map.” A lesson that applies to many things in life.

It is time for you to sit under a tree and “regroup”. Find your way out of the labyrinth by going back to basics.

Kind Regards,
Andre.

[Stagecoach]

Christina,

Having read Andre's comment a thought came to me, there's low cloud in the view, were you also possibly in the clouds?

I say this because I took some mountain views from up high with similar low cloud to yours in places and although I did not realise it the cloud certainly made my images flat and I'm convinced I was stood in some of it.

Grahame

[Shadowman]

Now those are mountain views and well composed. Regarding the images, 3 and 4 are really focusing on the valley rather than the mountain but it does give a different view of the scene you witnessed. You have a lot of leading lines to work with, try to make them stand out in post-processing. I think these images are worth the effort of additional editing.



Just a levels adjustment and a bit of contrast. I can delete if you prefer your own version.

[Mike Buckley]

Christina,

I think it would help you and others if you would explain which one is your favorite and why. Also explain the characteristics you like and dislike of the entire group. Last, explain which of these you consider keepers, if any.

Aside from that, I've looked at your series twice and don't feel that I have anything to offer. That's because your intention is to receive comments about composition. Yet I can't separate composition itself from all of the other elements such as the light that you acknowledge is so-so. I'm not sure it's even okay light, especially for someone concentrating on making landscape photos.

[ClaudioG]

Hi Christina. I'm going to the drakensberg soon and to the coast . I will be trying my hand at some landscape. It will however be the first time i lift a camera to this genre. So, gonna put my hand2 cents in that prob has no value anyway . For some reason i like # 3. For me...I'd like to see what happens if you bring the pink inthe clouds a little more, and maybe crop some of the sky out a little more. From what I've read so far in some books thoughhas made me sure of one thing. I will NOT post anything that isn't dawn or dusk image. From one thing i understand is that the eye must roam. And the pink in the clouds in #3 made me stay on the image a little more.

The light in that image is also not as harsh. I like it..maybe just a little more tweaking.
Btw... i was told by a friend, shoot raw and jpeg and set one of your settings for landscapes to +1 contrast and set +1 sharpness.

Your image will obviously be jpeg on your lcd so you can see if you happy right away. I mean... raw and jpeg ok for landscape, you won't be taking toooo many shots

[ClaudioG]

Hi Christina. I'm going to the drakensberg soon and to the coast . I will be trying my hand at some landscape. It will however be the first time i lift a camera to this genre. So, gonna put my hand2 cents in that prob has no value anyway . For some reason i like # 3. For me...I'd like to see what happens if you bring the pink inthe clouds a little more, and maybe crop some of the sky out a little more. From what I've read so far in some books thoughhas made me sure of one thing. I will NOT post anything that isn't dawn or dusk image. From one thing i understand is that the eye must roam. And the pink in the clouds in #3 made me stay on the image a little more.

The light in that image is also not as harsh. I like it..maybe just a little more tweaking.
Btw... i was told by a friend, shoot raw and jpeg and set one of your settings for landscapes to +1 contrast and set +1 sharpness.

Your image will obviously be jpeg on your lcd so you can see if you happy right away. I mean... raw and jpeg ok for landscape, you won't be taking toooo many shots

[Mike Buckley]

From one thing i understand is that the eye must roam.

Did you mean must or must not?

[Brownbear]

Thank you to all for taking the time to comment and offer input.

Dan

Thank you for taking the time, truly appreciated. The clouds, fog/mist is what attracted me to the scene.

Grahame

Yes, it is very likely that clouds were above me. I processed from raw in Lightroom, likely decreasing the exposure to bring out the detail in the clouds, added clarity and sharpening to just the mountains/trees, perhaps lightening the shadows with the curves tool, and perhaps the midtones, too. Increased the white point because clouds are white. Didn't touch the black point because there is no black in the scene. Added a little vibrance.

Andre,

I appreciate your taking the time and your frankness. The images seem sharp to me. I used Live View and manual focus (auto focus wouldn't work), mirror up and remote release. The exposures as taken were a good balance between the darker mountains and lighter sky (in terms of the histogram) I'm learning to post process from raw and my post processing skills do need work. I used Auto WB set a little warmer to reflect the time of day but I may have changed the WB while processing - I couldn't figure out what WB best represented the scene.

Yes, I likely need to sit under a tree for a while. Perhaps I will eat a box of chocolates (a bit healthier) The next time around I will set my camera to include jpegs set as suggested. I will try a couple of auto shots the next time around to see what they look like, but in general auto will is not going to work for me as I do have a vision in my mind with my settings, albeit it is not coming out in my landscapes. The next time around I will post the images SOOC.

John,

Thank you for taking the time to share your edit. Truly appreciated. I can see the difference it makes but the scene was a lot lighter and more ethereal. I think I have a preference for low contrast scenes but I can't figure how to do it well.

Claudio,

Thank you for sharing. This view point is close enough for me to get to by dawn so I will try again. It is beginning to get light earlier in the day and because I don't have a car and the buses don't run that early, I'm limited to short hikes to viewpoints. ie; hiking alone through trails in the dark to be somewhere at dawn or dusk is not always possible. I will revisit the 3rd image because that is the image that I wanted to turn out.

[Mike Buckley]

The clouds, fog/mist is what attracted me to the scene

It's easy to be attracted to certain elements in a three-dimensional scene because our brain isolates them from the rest of the scene. However, when we view a two-dimensional photo, our brain doesn't isolate those elements from the other elements in the photograph. A good example is a gorgeous sunset with a hoard of electricity wires in the way; it makes a great three-dimensional scene (because our brain ignores the wires) but rarely a great two-dimensional photo (because our brain doesn't ignore the wires) unless the wires themselves are the subject.

It's understandable that you are still learning the impact of those very different situations. So, keep working at that concept because you'll never gain even a reasonable command of landscape photography, much less master it, until you can see a three-dimensional scene and know why it won't work as a two-dimensional photo. Even when we don't know in advance that a particular scene won't work as a photo, it's important to recognize once we see the photo that indeed it didn't work.

It's a terribly sad irony that we must be emotional about a scene to be motivated to photograph it, yet we must be entirely unemotional about the very same scene to be able to determine why it won't work as a photo. Sometimes life just isn't fair and this is one of those times.

I think I have a preference for low contrast scenes but I can't figure how to do it well.

The easiest way is to start with a low-contrast scene. None of these images are lit with low contrast light.

hiking alone through trails in the dark to be somewhere at dawn or dusk is not always possible.

Or safe, especially for a female hiking alone and in the dark.

[Brownbear]

Hi Mike,

The images that I think turned out the best are the 1st two likely because I can see the detail of the trees and the clouds, especially in the 2nd image.

The image that I like best is the 3rd image because of the overall scene, and the beautiful vista of the mountain point in the center which is also where the light was truly beautiful. (blue sky, wispy clouds over the snow covered mountains) For some reason the 1st two images which I took following advice on landscapes to zoom in on the point of interest, and they seem to have turned out better.

I don't care for the 4th and 5th image. I simply took them for a more zoomed in view of the mountain for the trees and the patterns. And also for the definite lines created by the trees helped by the points of contrast along the tree lines.

ie; I'm trying different landscape compositions, that are less big picture than the 3rd image which is my usual attempted landscape which doesn't seem to be working.

Please do share your thoughts on anything. When I speak of composition I'm also thinking of the light drawing and holding your eye, and also the contrasty points. That was my intent with the first three images, especially so with the 3rd image.

I like the leading lines and triangles of the different mountains which lead to the center point - the snow covered mountains and bit of blue sky. I also think that the wispy clouds and blue sky should hold the eye there. I tried to think of the shapes while photographing but this is a new thought process for me. I like the overall scene, the soft colours and the clouds. When composing I also tried to think of points of contrast (different tree lines)

At dawn I could capture the blue light behind the mountains but only as a dark silhouette of the mountain. So although the light in the sky would be prettier at dawn then at sunrise I don't think it would be light enough to see the scene.

Perhaps #1 could be a keeper but I want #3 to be the keeper.

Thank you.

[ClaudioG]

Did you mean must or must not?

Apologies, I'm writing on tablet, i meant must not. So the clouds tend to hold the eye a little longer.

[Brownbear]

Thank you.

Any tips on how can I learn to see a three dimensional scene and know that it will not work as a two dimensional photo?

Early morning light is soft... The sky is a soft blue, the snow is white and there is no black in the image. The only high contrast area to seems to be the difference between the dark trees and the sky.

It's easy to be attracted to certain elements in a three-dimensional scene because our brain isolates them from the rest of the scene. However, when we view a two-dimensional photo, our brain doesn't isolate those elements from the other elements in the photograph.

It's understandable that you are still learning the impact of those very different situations. So, keep working at that concept because you'll never gain even a reasonable command of landscape photography, much less master it, until you can see a three-dimensional scene and know why it won't work as a two-dimensional photo.



The easiest way is to start with a low-contrast scene. None of these images are lit with low contrast light.



Or safe, especially for a female hiking alone and in the dark.

[Polar01]

Christina I think that you have a good image there, however as you say you are still learning your PP skills. I took you first shot and added a little pop to it as I think it was lacking some. I did these in Adobe Camera Raw, so you can do the same in LR. First I added a gradient ending just below the far ridge line on the left hand side of the image lowering the exposure by .4 of a stop, also made the image a little cooler in the area of the gradient. Now the histogram was not fully to the right or left, added a little black so it move farther left until just a couple of clipped areas showed on image, then pulled histogram to right by moving white slider. Last I played with the yellow colour slider, try this if you have fog or low cloud in an image you will be surprised by the change you can create. Just these very small changes can add a lot of I will call it pop to a image that maybe somewhat flat.

Cheers: Allan

[Mike Buckley]

Christina,

Please read my previous post again with my apologies. I added hopefully helpful information after you posted your response to it.

Now, back to your posts...

On the one hand, you mention that you like the first two photos the best for one reason and that you like the third image the best for a very different reason. Try to develop the confidence to be able pick the one single image that you like the best. Doing so helps you determine what is most important to you. Photography is almost always about making do with the compromises at hand, so it's important to know which compromise is the most acceptable. Waffling is not allowed.

About the criteria of a low-contrast image: I doubt that we could arrive at a clear-cut list of criteria that applies in all situations especially that all of us could agree upon. Even so, I'll explain why none of these images are low-contrast in my mind.

For me, there are two primary types of contrast -- the type that addresses the softness or hardness of a shadow and the type that addresses the difference in luminosity between adjacent tonalities. Regarding the first primary type, if the shadow is hard (well defined), that is a characteristic of a high-contrast scene. If the shadow is soft (not well defined), that is a characteristic of a low-contrast scene. Regarding the second primary type, if there is a strong, prevalent line in which the luminosity on the two sides of the line are very different (as in the case in all of your photos), that alone makes the photo at least a medium-contrast photo. If that difference in luminosity is great enough, it could be a high-contrast image even when there are no true white or black tones.

While you are correct that there are few true blacks or whites (if any) in these images, that fact alone is not the only criterion in my mind for a low contrast image. The authors of Science: Light and Magic apparently agree with me, as the following is from page 23:

"The contrast of the light is only one of the influences on the contrast of a photograph. If you are an experienced photographer, you know that you can find high contrast in an image with low-contrast light and vice versa. Contrast is also determined by subject matter, composition, exposure and development."

I wonder if the first sentence in that quote explains part of the reason you and I at least for now see your images differently with regard to the amount of contrast. I wonder if you're thinking of the amount of contrast in the light, especially because you were at the scene, whereas I'm thinking of the amount of contrast in the photo. The two can be very different, especially if there is a strong prevalent line in the photo with contrasting tonalities on either side of the line.

Also, you mentioned that early morning light is soft, referring to soft blues, white tones and the lack of black tones. When photographers (correctly in my mind) describe the softness of light, they are not referring to the luminosity or the color of the light. Instead, they are referring primarily to the definition (hardness and softness) of the shadows. As an example, it's quite easy to make a photo using only pastel tones and hard light. Read the stuff in Light: Science and Magic about all of that on pages 16 -23.

You mentioned that the fourth and fifth images aren't keepers. That being the case, I think it will help you in the future to explain that when posting images that aren't keepers and to also explain why you are posting them. Otherwise, don't post them. That's because, lacking an explanation, most people will probably think you believe they are keepers, which is ineffective communication leading to even more ineffective communication.

You also asked for tips about how to recognize that a particular three-dimensional scene will not work as a two-dimensional photo. To be fair, that's probably the single biggest problem all photographers have and certainly my biggest problem. Otherwise, we wouldn't choose to show others only 1% to 5% of our photos.

Even so, those of us who attend to the situation do get better at it over time. Maybe the best way is to first recognize that a particular photo doesn't work, as in the example of the two photos that you determined are not keepers. Then identify the characteristics that were compelling in the scene that aren't sufficiently compelling in the photo or are perhaps overridden by other characteristics of the photo. Then determine why that's so. Having done all of that, remember what you determined the next time you are at a scene that has similar characteristics.

All of that requires eliminating all of the emotion when we're at the scene and when we're remembering the scene while viewing the photos. That perhaps is my best recommendation: remove the emotion and be extremely critical in the most objective way we can possibly muster.

Lots of stuff to consider! (Discussing this stuff helps solidify my thinking about recognizing the qualities of light, which is what photography is all about.) Hope this helps!

[Mike Buckley]

Now that I've seen Allan's nice treatment of the image, I just have to mention the contrast. Christina thought it was a low-contrast scene and she wanted to make a low-contrast photo. Yet Allen's version exploits the medium contrast in my mind by increasing it to high contrast.

I think the lesson to be learned is to accurately assess whether an image is high, medium or low contrast. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that it's generally easier for the typical enthusiast to change a photo from lower to higher contrast than vice versa, at least when the change is made to the degree in Allan's treatment.

[Brownbear]

Thank you Allan. Truly appreciate. I will try this tomorrow or Saturday the latest.

Christina I think that you have a good image there, however as you say you are still learning your PP skills. I took you first shot and added a little pop to it as I think it was lacking some. I did these in Adobe Camera Raw, so you can do the same in LR. First I added a gradient ending just below the far ridge line on the left hand side of the image lowering the exposure by .4 of a stop, also made the image a little cooler in the area of the gradient. Now the histogram was not fully to the right or left, added a little black so it move farther left until just a couple of clipped areas showed on image, then pulled histogram to right by moving white slider. Last I played with the yellow colour slider, try this if you have fog or low cloud in an image you will be surprised by the change you can create. Just these very small changes can add a lot of I will call it pop to a image that maybe somewhat flat.

Cheers: Allan

[Brownbear]

Hi Mike,

Thank you so much for this. Truly appreciated and very helpful! I will be printing it for review. I'm reading parts of Magic Science and Light, plus the books Mountain Light plus the Art of Photography so my comprehension of light, contrast, tones, softness luminosity is a work in progress. Your detailed explanation is very informative and something that I will have to read a few times.

I figured that the title of these threads Learning Landscapes should be clear. ie; a learning project so obviously of lessor quality. Whenever I like a photo I do say so. (like the pier image) These I think are an improvement in terms of composition but don't live up to my expectations. For future posts I will be more specific.

Yes, tons to consider and learn. Separating the emotions/sense of being of the scene is hard for me to do but I will work on it. Thank you for sharing.

Truly appreciated as always. Thank you for taking the time to help.

Christina,

Please read my previous post again with my apologies. I added hopefully helpful information after you posted your response to it.

Now, back to your posts...

On the one hand, you mention that you like the first two photos the best for one reason and that you like the third image the best for a very different reason. Try to develop the confidence to be able pick the one single image that you like the best. Doing so helps you determine what is most important to you. Photography is almost always about making do with the compromises at hand, so it's important to know which compromise is the most acceptable. Waffling is not allowed.

About the criteria of a low-contrast image: I doubt that we could arrive at a clear-cut list of criteria that applies in all situations especially that all of us could agree upon. Even so, I'll explain why none of these images are low-contrast in my mind.

For me, there are two primary types of contrast -- the type that addresses the softness or hardness of a shadow and the type that addresses the difference in luminosity between adjacent tonalities. Regarding the first primary type, if the shadow is hard (well defined), that is a characteristic of a high-contrast scene. If the shadow is soft (not well defined), that is a characteristic of a low-contrast scene. Regarding the second primary type, if there is a strong, prevalent line in which the luminosity on the two sides of the line are very different (as in the case in all of your photos), that alone makes the photo at least a medium-contrast photo. If that difference in luminosity is great enough, it could be a high-contrast image even when there are no true white or black tones.

While you are correct that there are few true blacks or whites (if any) in these images, that fact alone is not the only criterion in my mind for a low contrast image. The authors of Science: Light and Magic apparently agree with me, as the following is from page 23:

"The contrast of the light is only one of the influences on the contrast of a photograph. If you are an experienced photographer, you know that you can find high contrast in an image with low-contrast light and vice versa. Contrast is also determined by subject matter, composition, exposure and development."

I wonder if the first sentence in that quote explains part of the reason you and I at least for now see your images differently with regard to the amount of contrast. I wonder if you're thinking of the amount of contrast in the light, especially because you were at the scene, whereas I'm thinking of the amount of contrast in the photo. The two can be very different, especially if there is a strong prevalent line in the photo with contrasting tonalities on either side of the line.

Also, you mentioned that early morning light is soft, referring to soft blues, white tones and the lack of black tones. When photographers (correctly in my mind) describe the softness of light, they are not referring to the luminosity or the color of the light. Instead, they are referring primarily to the definition (hardness and softness) of the shadows. As an example, it's quite easy to make a photo using only pastel tones and hard light. Read the stuff in Light: Science and Magic about all of that on pages 16 -23.

You mentioned that the fourth and fifth images aren't keepers. That being the case, I think it will help you in the future to explain that when posting images that aren't keepers and to also explain why you are posting them. Otherwise, don't post them. That's because, lacking an explanation, most people will probably think you believe they are keepers, which is ineffective communication leading to even more ineffective communication.

You also asked for tips about how to recognize that a particular three-dimensional scene will not work as a two-dimensional photo. To be fair, that's probably the single biggest problem all photographers have and certainly my biggest problem. Otherwise, we wouldn't choose to show others only 1% to 5% of our photos.

Even so, those of us who attend to the situation do get better at it over time. Maybe the best way is to first recognize that a particular photo doesn't work, as in the example of the two photos that you determined are not keepers. Then identify the characteristics that were compelling in the scene that aren't sufficiently compelling in the photo or are perhaps overridden by other characteristics of the photo. Then determine why that's so. Having done all of that, remember what you determined the next time you are at a scene that has similar characteristics.

All of that requires eliminating all of the emotion when we're at the scene and when we're remembering the scene while viewing the photos. That perhaps is my best recommendation: remove the emotion and be extremely critical in the most objective way we can possibly muster.

Lots of stuff to consider! (Discussing this stuff helps solidify my thinking about recognizing the qualities of light, which is what photography is all about.) Hope this helps!