Learning Landscapes - Silvery Sea

[Brownbear]

Continuing on my quest to improve my landscape images....

In this particular scene it was the beauty of the clouds and the light in the sky and the silvery colour of the ocean that captured my attention. I like these images and think they are keepers with some doubt because the very sunlight that captured my attention also makes for a somewhat harsh reflection (highlights?) on the ocean... But the sunlight was diffused by the clouds and those highlights lead the eye to the horizon and the sky?

Since my processing skills are sometimes iffy, especially in landscapes. Here is the jpeg straight out of the camera, sharpened for downsizing

1. SOOC



Processed from Raw... and dare I say it but I think I did a better job than the camera which sharpens everything in the photo and moves the black and white points to the maximum place? So this time I around I like my processing better than the cameras, albeit I did hit the auto button in LR and adjust to my liking from there.

1.

#2

With more sea



#3

With more sky



With respect to culling images from a set I seem to be having a difficult time doing this with landscapes. For example in this scene I had two visions of the scene... One with mostly the silvery sea, and one with mostly the beautiful sky. Therefore I photographed both versions, from different angles, and also with different clouds of differing appeal and in the vertical format... I would be most appreciative of knowing things to look for in landscape images such as this ie; factors that would make you hit the delete button, even if it is to say that you would delete all of these images because of the harsh light on the water.

C&C appreciated as always. Thank you.

[Mike Buckley]

I like the combination of the grey and yellow tones. It's not a look I'm used to seeing and it's very attractive.

For me, the first image is by far the best because the sky, which dominates the image, has the best composition of clouds and light throughout the sky. However, the issue of the light on the water noted below really nags at me. I keep wanting to crop at the bottom to remove the water and to crop ever so slightly at the top to eliminate the brightest light in the sky. That renders the pastel yellow light in the sky the subject reasonably well framed by the clouds. After having done that, that would be my one keeper.

Perhaps the most important thing is to explain what you planned the subject to be in each image. I can't tell what the subject is in any of the images.

About the beam of bright light on the sea: In #1, it leads the eye almost out of the frame to an area of the sky that you probably don't consider the subject. In #2, it leads the eye to an important area of the sky. However, the right side of the sky is really interesting and the left side isn't. The same is true for #3 though the left side is a little more interesting.

When making seascapes, it's critically important to keep the horizon level. In the first one, the horizon is high in the middle and low on both sides with a very slight tilt to the right. Your lens probably caused the distortion that made the horizon high in the middle. Your post-processing software probably has a manual function that allows you to correct the distortion and may provide an adjustment that automatically corrects it when you have that adjustment enabled.

The horizon in the third one leans to the right. Once you straighten it, you will be able to easily determine whether the distortion mentioned above also exists in that one.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but the sea is not attractive enough to me to hold my interest. An overdone but highly effective technique is to capture a composition that includes a buoy, ship, boat or something perhaps as a silhouette in the area of bright light. Doing so adds interest and provides scale.

The first photo includes two very tiny objects on the horizon to the left of the bright light. I would remove those two items because they are potentially a distraction and too small to have any positive impact on the scene.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Christina, I like #1 and #3 more in your processed images because they have more sky and less sea.IMO it would have been better if there had been some objects like some boats in the sea ,IMO it looks empty like this.I like the colours in the sea and in the clouds very much and the shape of the clouds are very nice too.Your horizon doesn't seem straight,it is a kind of curving.I don't know why?I don't find the light on the water very harsh and I like it,but technically may be some people won't like it in CIC.Let's see what the other members will say

[bnnrcn]

Hi Mike ,may I ask if distortion in the horizon is just because of using a wide angle lens or it is because holding the wide angle lens downwards while shooting.

[Geoff F]

For me, Christina, #3 has just the right ratio of sea to sky.

These sun on a silvery sea shots are so difficult to get correct. So many of my attempts have been ditched.

When the sun is slightly diffused by some light cloud it works better for me, harsh sunshine is usually a failure.

With regard to editing sea scenes. I always shoot Raw then when it comes to sharpening I often find that different amounts are required for the clouds, or any land, compared to the sea.

Over sharpened sea can look artificial. So I always sharpen on a duplicate layer and add a mask which can be edited to reduce the sharpening effect on any areas like waves which are looking too 'hard edged'.

[Mike Buckley]

if distortion in the horizon is just because of using a wide angle lens or it is because holding the wide angle lens downwards while shooting.

That's definitely not caused by pointing the wide angle lens downward (or upward).

All lenses, regardless of the focal length, are subject to creating some distortion with lesser quality lenses creating more of it more often. The distortion is often not noticeable unless there are strong horizontal lines such as a strong horizon of a seascape with no islands interrupting the strength of the line.

There are two kinds of distortion -- barrel distortion and pincushion distortion. One kind will make the horizon higher in the middle and the other kind will always make it lower. I never remember which kind makes it higher or lower.

[Geoff F]

Let's just put it down to the curvature of the earth!

[Mike Buckley]

Let's just put it down to the curvature of the earth!

Or drinking too much wine.

[Brownbear]

Thank you Mike, Binnur and Geoff for your helpful feedback and analysis

Mike,

The subject was both the sky and the water... the sky because it was beautiful and the water because it was silver but now that I have decided that the sun beam is too bright the subject is the sky.

Your analysis is very helpful to me. The next opportunity that I have to try and capture a shot like this I will be more prepared.

Thank you for pointing out the distortion and the horizon. I have found that tool and fixed it. The horizon was distorted in all the images.

Binnur

Most of these images were photographed at a focal length of 22- 55 mm. Thanks for pointing out the curve. I like the image empty but I like sea and sky...

Geoff,

Thank you for sharing. I was hoping that the clouds would make the light diffuse. I also took some images at sunset but of course the ocean is not silver.

I wasn't sure if I should've sharpened these at all since they are all clouds and sky.

I've decided that these are not keepers but I will go through the images and see if I have any where the light is less harsh on the ocean and leads to the most interesting part of the sky.

Thank you to all. This has been very helpful to me.

[Mike Buckley]

The subject was both the sky and the water... the sky because it was beautiful and the water because it was silver

That's exactly the same answer my wife would have provided when she first started capturing images. She now knows that answer is not allowed.

Let's assume for the moment that the sky is your primary area of interest. When the sky has so many elements in it that are both this contrasty and of such a wide tonal range (as opposed to a sky that is so plain that its compositional role is to provide negative space), your composition will be far more effective if it leads the eye to a particular part of the sky.

Another way of looking at it is that we wouldn't allow you to get away with telling us at this point in your learning curve that the subject of a landscape is the land; you would have to be more specific. Also true when photographing skies.

The sooner you more specifically determine the part of the image that you want to attract the viewer's eye, the sooner you will build your composition around that element. And the sooner your "scapes" will improve, whether they are landscapes, seascapes or cityscapes.

[Saorsa]

I tried two things with the image. The first was to increase the saturation which brings out more of the color in the sky.



Then, after saturation, I removed all the color.



I think this makes for more gradation in the monochrome image when converted.

[Brownbear]

Mike,

Not allowed... not my favourite saying!

Seriously, thank you. Yes I can see that I need to decide on one subject (only) and that when I was photographing the scene that I was not looking at my leading lines with enough specificity and I will do so in future. (albeit I have a backlog of landscapes so it may take a while until we see that improvement)

Here is another version of the first image where the sunlight is not so bright on the water. I also burned that spot along the water line very lightly. The reflection in the water does not lead to the the most interesting part of the sky but it does lead to the sky. However the sunbeams do, and the clouds frame the sky... Does this work better in terms of leading lines or are they still too weak? This one will be my new place-maker for future tries. (Simply because I love the colours)



And here is a version where the sky was definitely the subject but I don't care for this one, likely because of the dark mood of the menacing cloud and also because I didn't include enough water in the foreground.




Brian,

Thank you for taking the time to show me your edits. I like both with a preference for the black and white. They also show me that the bright spot can't be fixed. All that said, the next time around I will be better prepared for photographing a scene like this, and your edits show me the potential of the image. Thank you for that.

Geoff,

In these two edits I used an un-sharp mask layer and sharpened just a wee bit of the clouds, ie; just the edges...

Thank you to all, it is time for me to move forward and onto other images for my landscape project.

[Mike Buckley]

You probably won't like learning that, for me, the very last one, the menacing vertical image, is at such a higher level than any of the others. It's the only one of the group that the viewer immediately identifies the subject, which makes the image so much easier to view. I still don't like the bright part of the sea leading the eye outside of the frame but I would mitigate that during post-processing.

(albeit I have a backlog of landscapes so it may take a while until we see that improvement)

I don't want to appear overly harsh, but I have to ask: why would you continue to consider landscapes that are lacking such a fundamental aspect of composition? I ask because I don't understand the value of reviewing them as a learning experience once you have recognized that weakness in them. A landscape with a weak composition is a weak landscape.

The reflection in the water does not lead to the the most interesting part of the sky but it does lead to the sky. However the sunbeams do, and the clouds frame the sky... Does this work better in terms of leading lines or are they still too weak?

It's not that they are too weak. There are other issues...

You mentioned that the reflection leads to the sky. Keep in mind that all reflections in seascapes that include no land lead to the sky. That's because the only thing above the water is the sky. So, it's not good enough that the reflection leads to the sky; it has to lead to the ideal portion of the sky. In this case, I would want it to lead to the relatively plain, yellowest area of the sky because, for me, that is the subject. (In your vertical image, the reflection should lead toward the menacing cloud because that is the subject. Instead, it pulls the eye away from the subject.)

I don't understand what you mean when you mention that the sunbeams lead to the sky. I see no sunbeams. If I did, they would be part of the sky. I'm totally confused.

The clouds don't frame the sky for the same reasons the buttons on a shirt don't frame the shirt. The clouds are an integral part of the sky and the buttons are an integral part of the shirt.

Moral of the story: Break down the various parts of a scene into elements. Think about the terms accurately. Build your composition accordingly. As an example, I would say that the clouds frame the relatively plain yellow area of the sky.

The next time you anticipate photographing the sky as the primary part of the scene, put your camera down. Evaluate the various elements of the sky. Decide which element is going to be your subject. Decide how to at least approximately compose the scene to lead the viewer's eye to the subject. Don't lift your camera to your eye until you do that.

And here is a version where the sky was definitely the subject but I don't care for this one, likely because of the dark mood of the menacing cloud and also because I didn't include enough water in the foreground.

For me, the sky is definitely NOT the subject; the menacing cloud, which is just one part of the sky, is the subject.

The more I think about this, unless you photograph the sky as an abstract, the sky as a totality can't possibly be the subject. If the sky has detail, certain details will always be the subject. If the sky has no detail, it will be negative space and, thus, not the subject. So, never think of the sky as the subject. Instead, develop the discipline to focus on a particular part of the sky.

I think you have plenty of water in the foreground. The water isn't particularly interesting and the only characteristics that it adds to the image are the elements of scale (the waves are small) and distance (the water is the only foreground part of the image and helps provide a three-dimensional look). So, to include more water would probably be devoting a larger portion of the image to something that provides no additional information.

[Brownbear]

Hi Mike,

Thank you as always... See my answers below in bold italic.

You probably won't like learning that, for me, the very last one, the menacing vertical image, is at such a higher level than any of the others. It's the only one of the group that the viewer immediately identifies the subject, which makes the image so much easier to view. I still don't like the bright part of the sea leading the eye outside of the frame but I would mitigate that during post-processing.

Thank you for explaining why you like this particular image. For me the other image #1 is far more beautiful because of the colours of the sky and the cloud and the overall mood... However, I'm glad that you let me know as it is showing me the importance of a distinct subject versus a beautiful scene. And to be careful with bright parts that draw the eye.





I don't want to appear overly harsh, but I have to ask: why would you continue to consider landscapes that are lacking such a fundamental aspect of composition? I ask because I don't understand the value of reviewing them as a learning experience once you have recognized that weakness in them. A landscape with a weak composition is a weak landscape.

Likely because I am learning about the importance aspects of landscapes through my mistakes. That said, not harsh at all, and indeed I see your point and I will delete any that don't have an obvious subject. I'm still not so sure about what comprises good leading lines as they seem so open to artistic interpretation but I will do my best.


It's not that they are too weak. There are other issues...

You mentioned that the reflection leads to the sky. Keep in mind that all reflections in seascapes that include no land lead to the sky. That's because the only thing above the water is the sky. So, it's not good enough that the reflection leads to the sky; it has to lead to the ideal portion of the sky. In this case, I would want it to lead to the relatively plain, yellowest area of the sky because, for me, that is the subject. (In your vertical image, the reflection should lead toward the menacing cloud because that is the subject. Instead, it pulls the eye away from the subject.)

Thank you for taking the time to explain why.

I don't understand what you mean when you mention that the sunbeams lead to the sky. I see no sunbeams. If I did, they would be part of the sky. I'm totally confused.

The rays of light coming through the clouds on the upper right hand corner. (more easily seen in the full size image)

The clouds don't frame the sky for the same reasons the buttons on a shirt don't frame the shirt. The clouds are an integral part of the sky and the buttons are an integral part of the shirt.



Moral of the story: Break down the various parts of a scene into elements. Think about the terms accurately. Build your composition accordingly. As an example, I would say that the clouds frame the relatively plain yellow area of the sky.

The next time you anticipate photographing the sky as the primary part of the scene, put your camera down. Evaluate the various elements of the sky. Decide which element is going to be your subject. Decide how to at least approximately compose the scene to lead the viewer's eye to the subject. Don't lift your camera to your eye until you do that.

Will do... Thank you as always.



For me, the sky is definitely NOT the subject; the menacing cloud, which is just one part of the sky, is the subject.

The more I think about this, unless you photograph the sky as an abstract, the sky as a totality can't possibly be the subject. If the sky has detail, certain details will always be the subject. If the sky has no detail, it will be negative space and, thus, not the subject. So, never think of the sky as the subject. Instead, develop the discipline to focus on a particular part of the sky.

Very helpful analysis. Thank you.

I think you have plenty of water in the foreground. The water isn't particularly interesting and the only characteristics that it adds to the image are the elements of scale (the waves are small) and distance (the water is the only foreground part of the image and helps provide a three-dimensional look). So, to include more water would probably be devoting a larger portion of the image to something that provides no additional information.

Mike, Thank you for your help, as always. Hopefully others are learning from my learning landscape threads, too.

[Shadowman]

Very nice series.

[TonyW]

I like this very much and I agree with Mike that #1 is the best, and the original is better than all subsequent suggestions. The colours to my eyes are just right. The clouds are interesting and the shaft of light suggested by the bright patch in the sky and it's reflection in the water adds an interesting element to the composition. I like the contrast between the bright patch on the water and the darker parts.

How high were you when you took the picture? Do you think the distance across the horizon could be as much as, say, 30 miles?

It would be interesting to test the lens with a line known to be straight. Pincushion distortion like this I thought would be unusual.

[Mike Buckley]

Christina,

I wonder if you are placing too much emphasis on the compositional element of leading lines. Many great landscapes have no leading lines. Some do. Some don't.

I'm also seeing a consistent thread through your posts indicating that color and mood are important to you. You should know that my take on landscape photography is that a landscape with great color, great mood and a weak composition is a weak landscape. Feel free to agree with me or not.

As one example, I see lots of sunsets with great color and mood throughout the year. I wouldn't even think of photographing more than 1% of them because I'm not in a position to also make a good, much less a great composition (compositions that either avoid trees, power lines, buildings, highways, etc. or compositions that include those elements as vital parts of the image).

As another example, look through Galen Rowell's Mountain Light. Let me know if you think one of the images in the book has a weak composition and let me know which page number it's on. If you can't find one, is it nothing other than a coincidence that every single photo in a book titled Mountain Light, not Mountain Composition, has a really strong composition? No, of course not.

Landscape photography is all about composition because composition includes the details of color and mood. A landscape with great color and mood but a weak composition is a landscape where at least the color if not also the mood are weakly positioned in the image.

[Brownbear]

Thank you John and Tony...

Tony, note that Mike prefers the menacing cloud image, the very one that I don't like but that I have learned something important from which is to make sure my landscape images have a strong definite subject, ideally with strong leading lines. That said, it is nice to hear that you like the same colours and sky that appealed to me so strongly which was simply the beauty of the scene, and something I have to learn not to sway me away from the basics of a composition.

I was on a large ferry about 10-15 meters high. I have no idea of the distance to the horizon but 30 miles sounds reasonable. I will make a note to myself to try and photograph something straight and see if it turns out straight. I suspect the lens is fine as I haven't noticed this problem before, albeit I haven't photographed a lot of landscapes, so I can't be sure.

Mike... I want you to know that I am most appreciative of your frank feedback and very helpful advice to help me improve. I am learning, albeit at a snails pace but it is slowly but surely sinking in. I also am most appreciative of how your feedback always includes an explanation and how to improve - immensely helpful! Hopefully I will be showing some improvements given a little more time and practice... Your feedback is also improving my culling skills.

[Mike Buckley]

I suspect the lens is fine

I also suspect that the lens is fine. However, I know the lens is not perfect.

Lenses routinely distort images. That explains why software includes distortion correction capabilities. That explains why labs that test lenses for critical reviews test them for distortion.

Most styles of photography don't reveal distortion caused by lenses. Distortion is really difficult to detect unless there are strong, straight, vertical or horizontal lines in the image.

Don't assume your lens is perfect. It's not. If it was, the horizon wouldn't be higher in the middle than on the ends. Instead, simply be aware of its imperfection. Look for its impact on images and take the 10 seconds needed to correct the results when you see evidence of the imperfection.

[Brownbear]

Yes, lately it is very likely that I am thinking of leading lines too much. Good to know that they are not essential to every landscape. Thank you for sharing.

Yes. As landscapes are different for me and even though I'm struggling with composition. I agree and thank you for helping me see this.

I will take a look at the book tonight and if I see such an image I will let you know... If you don't hear back from me, well you know.

Christina,

I wonder if you are placing too much emphasis on the compositional element of leading lines. Many great landscapes have no leading lines. Some do. Some don't.

I'm also seeing a consistent thread through your posts indicating that color and mood are important to you. You should know that my take on landscape photography is that a landscape with great color, great mood and a weak composition is a weak landscape. Feel free to agree with me or not.

As one example, I see lots of sunsets with great color and mood throughout the year. I wouldn't even think of photographing more than 1% of them because I'm not in a position to also make a good, much less a great composition (compositions that either avoid trees, power lines, buildings, highways, etc. or compositions that include those elements as vital parts of the image).

As another example, look through Galen Rowell's Mountain Light. Let me know if you think one of the images in the book has a weak composition and let me know which page number it's on. If you can't find one, is it nothing other than a coincidence that every single photo in a book titled Mountain Light, not Mountain Composition, has a really strong composition? No, of course not.

Landscape photography is all about composition because composition includes the details of color and mood. A landscape with great color and mood but a weak composition is a landscape where at least the color if not also the mood are weakly positioned in the image.