What can I improve?

[William W]

. . . I am hoping for some insight into how I can improve my photography. . . to be absolutely clear, I am not interested in knowing how I can place higher in competitions, but how I can capture exciting nature and landscape scenery more effectively. . .
I am asking three different things:
1. Is there anything I am not getting right technically (lighting, noise, focus, etc.)
2. Is there anything I am missing artistically (composition, colors, subjects, etc.)
3. Are there things I am already doing right?

Thank you for answering my questions and thank you for your patience in waiting for my reply .

*

Answers:

#3. There are many things that you are doing right: asking meaningful questions is one of those things. I choose not to list all the things that you are doing right, reading on, many should be self-evident.

#2. I choose, at this time, not to critique on artistic matters. My answer to #1 touches on some Artistic Elements, though.

*

#1. At the outset Image #1 caught my attention.

There were two reasons why it caught my attention -
> firstly because it was beautiful light on a scene which was composed well
> secondly because there seemed to be at least one big error in capturing that light

To be very clear: the following is a critique on the MAKING of the Photograph Image #1. This is NOT commentary about the POST PRODUCTION, although there is mention in passing and as an adjunct to the MAKING of the image.

To be very clear: you have been kind enough to allow access to the CR2 File. That access allows close forensic analysis and subsequent detailed technical critique; as you read through I encourage you to continually note the first point that made “There are many things that you are doing right”

*

Exposure:

The image upon first viewing appeared to exhibit attributes of the capture being (a good bit) underexposed.

There is a lot of muddiness in the shadow side of those distant mountains, I expect you might have tried to drag up some detail in PP, but that was probably was fruitless to because it was too far down as the exposure of the shadow area was inadequate. Added to that it looks like there was some haze in that area (likely water vapour and fine dust).

After you posted the shooting details AND I opened the CR2 file and checked the Metering Mode that you used, I still could not explain to myself why . . .

My underexposure theory drove me nuts most of Monday (and today as I write) and then I noticed in the EXIF that you had applied -1⅓ EC (Exposure Compensation).

Did you know that you did that?

I think that was a (BIG) technical error.

*

The CPL Filter:

(Yes that’s a very good quality filter – I do not doubt its value and performance)

I refer to the darkER blue area of sky camera right – it just appears “wrong” to my eye. I continued to look at the Focal Length – 70mm – and that seemed fairly safe to use a CPL for such an expanse of blue sky. Then I noticed that you applied negative vignette in PP, so that really got me thinking so much that I plonked my Lens with a CPL on one of my 5D Series and I waited until yesterday's afternoon’s side light and I took a picture or the sky at about the Sun/Camera aspect of your shot.

Sure enough with the CPL at Full Polarization there was that tell-tale dark blue/ light blue patches in the sky. . . what a surprise: I would never have guessed that. Yesterday, I would have bet a Mars Bar that FL = 70mm was telephoto enough to be safe to use with a CPL Filter in any Sun/Camera Aspect relationship. (there is more about my test shot below).

*

More on using a Filter:

Notwithstanding the assessment that the image presents as being underexposed, it also appears that there is a small amount of Veiling Flare present in the area of the shadows of the mountains which could be caused by internal reflections from the CPL.

By itself or in combination with any atmospheric haze present, Veiling Flare often will show in the image as the appearance of a slightly milky sheen or translucent coating. This was one of the reasons I asked about the use of Lens Hood and a Filter.

The Lens Hood on a Zoom Lens is at its most efficient at the Wide End of the Focal Length, so, at FL = 70mm when using a 70 to 200 we would feel safe enough AND you were not shooting directly into a light source AND you were using a good quality CPL – BUT - I have seen stranger things happen - AND – those cloud were a very good reflector.

Although I am ever so slightly less confident in my technical appraisal of the use of the CPL compared to my analysis of the Exposure, it is my conclusion that using a CPL for this shot was a technical error.

*

Shutter Speed:

Previously mentioned.

I found NO evidence of SUBJECT MOVEMENT in the trees in the middle ground, but there was a slight blur, which could be SUBJECT MOVEMENT in the grass in the foreground. I conclude SUBJECT MOVEMENT as the likely cause because the blur appears isolated and with MIRROR UP and REMOTE RELEASE if the camera were bumped there should be more evenly spread blur.

*

My test shots:

I note the EXIF of your shot reveals EVALUATIVE METERING.

As I mentioned I was quite amazed at what appears to be CPL banding on the sky. As I also mentioned I made a test shot in conditions as best I could to mimic your shooting scenario.

For this test shot I used EVALUATIVE METERING and the Camera in Av Mode with my zoom set at 70mm on an EOS 5D MkII. I also took the opportunity to make an EXPOSURE comparative by pulling the first shot with the EC = (-1⅓) Stops.

Here are my test shots. Both are JPEGS SOOC with the JPEG in camera processing set to neutral.



Firstly I note CPL banding at the top corners (especially noticeable on the bottom, the correctly exposed image), this appears NOT to be an optical vignette as is evidenced by the LACK of vignette in the bottom corners of that image.

Secondly I note the (general) appearance of the result of EC = (-1⅛) Stops with the camera in Av Mode and using Evaluative Metering and the similarities with your CR2 file of your image.

*

What did I see in your image?:

I saw the beautiful LIGHT. That’s what got me.

I saw three SUBJECTS - Foreground (Grass); Middle-ground (Trees); Background (Mountains) all backed by a Pallet (Sky), each of which was LIT beautifully.

I don’t think that you gave yourself the best opportunity to make the best possible Final Image to suit your ARTISTIC VISION, because there were technical errors at the MAKING of the shot (exposure being the big one).

Below is a comparison. It is NOT an artistic interpretation of the image. It is NOT a guide for Post Production. What it is, is a ROUGH FACSIMILE of what I would aspire to get as the CR2 file from which I could then work in the Digital Darkroom to achieve the Artistic Vision of the image.

Basically:
> a reasonable facsimile of the EXPOSURE is increased by 1.25 Stops
> a reasonable facsimile of the Veiling Flare and or Atmospheric haze removed
> a reasonable facsimile of the CPL Banding removed
> Dynamic Range compressed to suit Screen Viewing



*

Final note on exposure:

I suggest you research: (DR) Dynamic Range of DSLR’s.

If you don't already know, you’ve got a truckload of DR in your EOS 6D. You’ve also got HEADROOM.

But - if you do not know (intimately) HOW your TTL Meter works, then I suggest that you take the time and apply the effort to learn.

If you don’t know the DIFFERENCES of HOW each of the METERING MODES work then I suggest that learn that too.

-

In a nutshell, (and only applicable to this one shot in question) – the EVALUATIVE Mode is reasonably conservative in that particular lighting scenario, so it would have biased toward NOT blowing any of the (relatively small area of) white highlights reflected off the clouds at the expense of the (large area) of the shadow are of the mountains. As a Camera Technician / Camera Operator you need to know these things if you are using the TTL Meter as your exposure guide.

So (me) knowing that information about Canon’s EVALUATIVE METERING: and IF I had chosen to use Av Mode to shoot that scene; and if I chosen to only make one shot . . . then I would have been inclined to set EC = + something. The “something” would be what I had established as the HEADROOM for the EOS 6D for that type of lighting scenario (a guess would be about +⅓~+⅔).

In this recent thread, you might find Post#24 and Post#40 useful.

*

(more) Advice:

I think that Landscape Works falls into two broad categories, with a bit of grey in between:
> firstly the shot that appears and one just has to make it, THEN, almost at that instant;
> secondly the shot that one plans and then makes.

I do some of the former and very, VERY few of the latter. The latter is a technique for which I am not suited, I admire those who travel that path. it’s like Macro, for example I can sit and admire Dan Kortez’s work and understand and appreciate the skill and the technique, I know the theory, but I am not just not suited to do that. I have a Macro Lens (actually two) and I carry one of them mostly all the time and when I see something (small) that interests me I make a picture of it, hardly ever using Flash, mostly hand held and at an excruciatingly high ISO to get an adequate DoF without any camera wobble – and I am very happy with that. I approach Landscape Photography much the same way, although I am more inclined to visit the same scene on more than one occasion, than to play endlessly with the same flower or bug.

The point to that story is I think the most important FIRST STEP to you to become better at Landscape Work is to understand the above: for you to know what type of Landscape shot it is, that you are about to make and what type of Landscape shots you want to make.

If it is a shot which is more toward “I need it now” – then the technical procedure that I apply would always, ALWAYS, is: Exposure Bracket.

Also, if I thought to use a CPL (which I don’t like doing all that much for Landscape work, because a long time ago I have been caught by banding on the sky - AND – I as a general rule for any DAYLIGHT Shooting I take ALL FILTERS OFF, when they are not absolutely necessary to use), I would have bracketed a set with the CPL on and another with the CPL off.

If the shot is more towards “planned” then, what you have produced above, is just one of many working models: you will be back out there at different times of day (and night) selecting: the best light; atmospheric conditions; weather; and etc – and you’ll be making more experimental shots to assist you in the Final Vision of your planned shot.

WW

[rpcrowe]

Here's my take on your query...

Sunsets and mountain shots are (unfortunately) very common and an image needs to have something special to stand out from the rest of images of this type.

IMO, it was difficult for me to recognize the birds in the nest. I would suggest that an image with the nest filling the shot might be more interesting.

[TaylorM]

Huge thank you for the in depth analysis Bill! The level of technicality is perfect for what I needed at my level of understanding. You've given me a lot of exceptional information and things I can work on right now to improve. I have been mostly self taught using articles from various sources around the web. I am sure there has been a lot of mis-information or information I didn't fully understand as a result.

I am sure I am going to have more questions as I read and understand what you've written. Over the next few weeks I think proper exposure will be my main focus of research and practice. I've added your analysis to my journal and will be experimenting on the topics you brought up. Briefly looking through the pictures on my hard-drive, I can see that most are very underexposed.

I do have one quick question for you right now. Where did you learn so much about how the camera works? Do you have an educational background in photography?

[TaylorM]

I forgot to answer your question:

...you had applied -1⅓ EC (Exposure Compensation).

Did you know that you did that?

Yes, I did that consciously as I set up the shot. I had read somewhere that you want to expose as light as you can without blowing out any part of your scene. The EC set to -1⅓ set the exposure so the clouds were not blown out. I have found I can pull some of the detail out of the shadows but that those areas are usually noisy and low in contrast. I have never fully understood the metering modes, It sounds like that would be a great place to start.

Thanks again,
Taylor

[William W]

. . . The level of technicality is perfect for what I needed at my level of understanding.

Good. I am glad, for you that I targeted the information at the correct level and intensity.

*

(ASIDE)

I have been mostly self taught using articles from various sources around the web. I am sure there has been a lot of mis-information or information I didn't fully understand as a result.

There is much misinformation on the web and often it is regurgitated. I have spoken at length on this topic to professional and experienced Educators, because I and also my Wife and my younger Daughter each has an individual and particular interest in this topic: there is a constant, general theme, that, as a result of the www fewer High School Students are taught (or made) to learn how to research information attributing First and Second Sources and to then how to interrogate and ratify those Sources, proficiently and correctly. That is a general comment only.

*

I do have one quick question for you right now. Where did you learn so much about how the camera works? Do you have an educational background in photography?

I am not sure if that is a general question about me or a specific question about how I know about your Canon 6D and Canon DSLR’s generally.

The first answer:
My “About Me” here at CiC is reasonably broad in information about me and is reasonably up to date.

More background detail is here.

If you have a specific question perhaps asking via PM would be best.

*

Regarding my knowledge of Canon DSLR:

I cut-over our Studio in 2004 from Film (Nikon 135Format; Mamyia 645 and Pentax 6x7) to four kits of Canon DSLR.

I had used a Canon 20D for six months prior, in every possible way, learning every detail and nuance – and then I knew that I knew enough but not all: but we bought the Canon gear anyway and started to use it: with my basic knowledge we learned more.

I became close friends with an amazing Wedding and Events Photographer, Nadine Ohara. She and I shared information for several years as she and I (co-incidentally) cut over to DSLR from Film almost at the same time and we both were using 20D (later 30D & 40D) and 5D cameras and Dedicated Canon Flash Units.

We both had been shooting Film for many years. I owe much of my technical knowledge regarding Canon DSLR to Nadine’s conversations and commentaries.

I continue to learn (especially about CPL Filters!)

*

I forgot to answer your question:

...you had applied -1⅓ EC (Exposure Compensation).

Did you know that you did that?

Yes, I did that consciously as I set up the shot. I had read somewhere that you want to expose as light as you can without blowing out any part of your scene. The EC set to -1⅓ set the exposure so the clouds were not blown out. I have found I can pull some of the detail out of the shadows but that those areas are usually noisy and low in contrast. I have never fully understood the metering modes, It sounds like that would be a great place to start.

Thanks for answering.

Exposing To The Right (ETTR) is a good concept.

In EVALUATIVE Metering Mode and Av Camera Mode that particular mass of cloud would never have blown out with the EC set at “0” - your meter would simply not have allowed it. That stated, now think about “Headroom” and what you could push and still recover or what amount of cloud you’d be willing lose, just a little speck here and there. . . anyway that’s all kind of redundant if we’d bracketed the shot – hey? . . .

But - yes learn about those Metering Modes – self taught is good – take photos and analysis them – you seem to me to be very good at that.

BTW, I very much like that you keep a Journal.

*

Thanks again

And you are most welcome.

WW

[dragon76]

I recently discovered the mini competitions and entered three to see how people liked my work. I was surprised at how low my photos were ranked:

Like other forms of art, photography is very subjective. Even if your image is technically perfect, it may not be appealing enough to your audience & you would not get their votes.

I know that my rankings are not too bad but I feel like I am missing something and that I may be able to improve some aspect of my photography in order to create more compelling photographs. Just to be absolutely clear, I am not interested in knowing how I can place higher in competitions, but how I can capture exciting nature and landscape scenery more effectively.

So, to wrap things up I am asking three different things:
1. Is there anything I am not getting right technically (lighting, noise, focus, etc.)
2. Is there anything I am missing artistically (composition, colors, subjects, etc.)
3. Are there things I am already doing right?

TaylorM

What you're going through is normal in this inspirational stage of your photography journey. Just take your time, keep shooting & post your image here for advice & comments & the rest will come in time. IMHO, CIC is the best forum to learn & grow as forum moderators have profound knowledge & provide concise advice & explanation. Keep those images & revisit them in a year or 2 from now and you will see. It was a very humbling experience for me.

[Shanghai Steve]

Hi Taylor
You're getting lots of great advice here but I think just as important is not to get too hung up on playing the popularity game. It is very easy to chase that sort of gratification/satisfaction and end up forgetting about what you want to do or are able to do. We have all seen images that have blown our mind and we should all remember to be grateful for the good shots we do get. It can be very inspiring to know you are makng progress and that is great, but remember to have your own opinion. If you look at the work of another photographer and don't know why you like it so much that is a great place to start, but if you don't like an image, don't let someone else tell you you must. It sounds strange, but I have had to learn how to see properly in my short photographic journey. The retouchings supplied by the members are fairly representative of what I'd cal "Poster Photography", i.e. slightly un-natural, very pleasing images which brighten up one's day. Fair enough. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, it encapsulates a particular quandarry of photography, particularly landscape photography, which is the need, not to take an actual photograph of a hill, tree or whatever, but to create a deliberate artifice which represents the soul of the hill or tree, to make a statement about the feelings which such an object inspires in the photographer, to communicate that to the viewer. Of course, most of the time even the best photographers think "Oh, that looks nice! I'll turn this slider up to 11!"

[William W]

. . . The retouchings supplied by the members are fairly representative of what I'd cal "Poster Photography", i.e. slightly un-natural, very pleasing images which brighten up one's day. Fair enough. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, it encapsulates a particular quandarry of photography, particularly landscape photography, which is the need, not to take an actual photograph of a hill, tree or whatever, but to create a deliberate artifice which represents the soul of the hill or tree, to make a statement about the feelings which such an object inspires in the photographer, to communicate that to the viewer. Of course, most of the time even the best photographers think "Oh, that looks nice! I'll turn this slider up to 11!"

Incorrect.

In Post #21 there is one ‘retouching’ of the original image and in Post #21 it is clearly stated what the ‘retouching' represents.

For clarity and also archival accuracy of this thread:

1. the ‘retouching' in Post #21 does NOT and can NOT represent: 'poster photography'

2. the ‘retouching' in Post #21 does NOT and can NOT represent: 'a particular quandarry [sic] of photography’.

*

In post #21, the premise and representation the ‘retouching’ of the original image was clearly stated and is reiterated here (my bold now for emphasis):

To be very clear: the following is a critique on the MAKING of the Photograph Image #1. This is NOT commentary about the POST PRODUCTION. . .

Further and referring to commentary on the making of the image:

To be very clear: you have been kind enough to allow access to the CR2 File. That access allows close forensic analysis and subsequent detailed technical critique [of the making of the image] . . .

And specifically, the 'retouching' is defined, here:

Below is a comparison. It is NOT an artistic interpretation of the image. It is NOT a guide for Post Production. What it is, is a ROUGH FACSIMILE of what I would aspire to get as the CR2 file from which I could then work in the Digital Darkroom to achieve the Artistic Vision of the image.

WW

[dragon76]

Hi Taylor
The retouchings supplied by the members are fairly representative of what I'd cal "Poster Photography", i.e. slightly un-natural, very pleasing images which brighten up one's day.

This reminds me of a conversation which I had with a mate awhile back when we were critiquing our high end audio systems while listening to Van Morrison. At one point he told me that Van Morrison's voice did not sound realistic and natural and I asked if he has heard VM sang with just his bare voice in his living room before.....

Dean