Woodland pics

[steve40]

I was just thinking, while reviewing some of the above images. How HDR, might improve the woodland shots a lot. You would be able to control the shadow, and highlight content to a precision degree. But just leave off the surreal tone mapping so commonly done, to ruin a good HDR image. Think so ???.

Next time I get the chance, I think I will give it a try and see.

[FrankMi]

Hi Steve, how are you defining HDR? For this question, let's ignore the Painterly and Grunge artistic renderings of HDR. Many people consider HDR to be the process of taking multiple exposures on a tripod and combining them in software to enhance the details in the highlights and shadows that would otherwise be lost. Using this approach in woodlands shots would require a little or no wind environment and to really make the process worthwhile, a fairly contrasty scene.

Under these circumstances, I agree that HDR processing can help to authentically reproduce the image and I use it whenever it is practical to do so. But what about the circumstances where multiple exposures on a tripod are not possible (or practical)? Your thoughts?

[steve40]

I have had some success with multiple hand-held shots, and using Photomatrix, which has a small amount of alignment correction. I no longer use photomatrix, but now use PS Elements 9 which has an improved HDR operation over the past versions. But I don't know whether there is any alignment correction.

On my hikes I always carried a smaller portable tripod, but I realize many do not. Coming from years of 35mm, it just seems like I am naked without a tripod hanging somewhere.

The particular tripod I am talking about is a QSX Digipro 100, sold by Ritz and made by Sunpak. It only weighs around a pound, and stores in a 14" stuff-sack, nor very hard or heavy to take along. Ritz no longer sells this tripod, but Sunpak still does, albeit with a different model number.

And there is always that tree limb, stump, or rock for steadiness. I had an inadequate camera for the job at the Smithsonian Institute, with me in Washington. It could not handle high ISO without excess noise, so I used stair rails, table tops, area dividers, or anything else I could find for a tripod. They won't even let you carry a monopod in there.

[Geoff F]

I think there are a couple of issues to consider here, Malcolm.

With some reflection shots the reflection appears to be fighting with the 'real scene' for the viewers attention and it all ends in a confused mess, particularly where the 'dry' areas are rather complicated or confused to start with. This is where some reduction in brightness and sharpness of the reflection can improve the overall perception of a scene.

Scenes which work well usually have a clear distinction between water and dry land. And this applies to other forms of reflection.

But I have taken other shots with a simpler overall scene and a sharp reflection has worked well; although there is often a 'neutral' band between the real life and reflection.

I have seen photos which just consisted of a reflection and it worked well. But all too often this idea just looks like bad focus unless there is some sort of reference point.

I don't think there are any hard and fast rules here. Just a case of experiment and ditch what doesn't work - which applies to a lot of photography.

And with regard to HDR helping or hindering the image. Many of my shots have selective adjustments using adjustment layers and masks which produces a sort of HDR effect from one single shot. Not true HDR but it can go a long way to increasing the acceptable dynamic range of a single shot.

Some of your shots here are a little lacking in 'acceptable brightness width' where you have highlights which are verging on over exposure while the shadows are a little dark. Layers and masks can help to even out these extremes from the one shot.

That example of mine was actually a composite of two shots but in this case I used two different focusing points to increase the depth of field which had been lacking from my previous attempts.

Then I adjusted the brightness levels on three different layers, with masks, to widen the overall brightness range without getting blown highlights or overly deep shadows.

But taking multiple shots of landscapes, or many other outdoor scenes, can be problematic due to subject movement. For example, wind movement of leaves, etc.

[FrankMi]

Hi Steve, I use Photomatix for HDR and particularly for single-shot and hand-held HDR processing. I spend a lot of time in Photoshop when I have contrasty images trying to get the most out if the details with minimum noise. Although some folks would call that HDR processing, I think of it as just good digital darkroom technique. HDR processing tends to get a bad rap but for me the techniques are valid. For example, I sometimes shoot multiple duplicates to achieve noise reduction, multiple exposures for detail enhancement, multiple focus point for depth of field enhancements, and multiple images points for panoramic images. I try to visalize scenes where I can use more than one of these techniques to get realistic images that are impossible by simply clicking the shutter.

I'd love to see some of your photos and learn from your techniques!

[steve40]

I’ll agree HDR has received a bad wrap. Mostly because of excessive Tone Mapping, which really goes against the idea behind multiple image layering, to achieve a better range of exposure. There are times trying to take several shots in succession, is difficult if not near to impossible. Windy conditions, and running water being two of those conditions. I could probably find a way to cope with the water issue, but wind is a horse of a different color.

There is the trick of importing a JPG image into PS Camera Raw, to make a more contrasty B&W conversion. I just might try this with some landscape shots, and see what the outcome is. You have some options there, not normally available in the basic processor.

They say landscape photography is the acid test of photographers, I must agree.

FrankMi, I have a son-in-law that lives right across the river from you in Rock Hill. In fact back in 1996 - 98; I worked with him, we laid all the utilities at the new Grammar School in Fort Mill; nice little town. I get back down that way every so often to see my daughter and son-in-law, but its been a few years now since I have.

[Malcgeorge]

I am amazed at the discussion that has developed from my initial thread. Being new to digital photography (although not to film) I am way behind you on post-processing. It is something I have yet to grapple with in any serious way, so your discussion around these issues is fascinating. I obviously have a good bit to pick up and learn.

[Donald]

You'll see I've added the landscapes and nature tag onto this thread (down near the bottom on the left).

This is just the sort of excellent discussion and debate that needs to be tagged so that it's readily available to people in the future.

[PRSearls]

Allow me to add my thoughts. Lighting is very tricky in the woods which can easily have an a brightness range beyond what most digital sensors can capture. Using a polarizer and shooting with side light can be very effective. In my view, the most important thing is to not blow out (overexpose) the highlights. Careful metering and/or bracketing is helpful here (little luck doesn't hurt either). Here is a recent capture, a two-shot pano off a tripod, mirror lockup, with a polarizer. I was lucky that there was little wind when I shot this at f/11, 1/4th second, ISO 100, Canon 1Ds 3, Sigma 50mm DG HSM. - Paul -

[Malcgeorge]

Thanks Paul for your input. In days gone by I used to use a polarising filter quite often, but I must admit I have got out of the habit since I started using a digital camera. I will give it a try.

[joewatt]

I've had lots+ of experience taking what I thought were gorgeous scenes, only to find the the photos are boring - as have many others I'm sure. What I've decided about that, but not yet proven to my own satisfaction, is that I have to figure out what it is about the scene that attracts me, and then figure out how to make a photograph that captures that essence - angle, exposure, focal length, etc.

Having said that, here are a couple of photos. The first includes reflections on a lake, with no clear subject, using the rule of thirds:


and the next, of an amazing cotton field, which I tried to make interesting by getting close, with shallow DOF:



Hope these aren't too big!

[PRSearls]

Joe, I know exactly what you are talking about. I think all photographers go through this as they progress in the "art" of photography. Dissatisfaction with one's work suggests you are growing. As we become more critical of our images, our number of keepers decline but their quality increases.

Almost anyone can take a technically proficient photo with all the automation in today's cameras. Unfortunately, many of these are boring to look at. Learning this "art" takes time and a reference to good or fine photography. A careful examination of lighting, point of view, composition of elements, etc. are all ingredients that captures one's eye and leads it to the the subject and often an emotional response.

There is no shortcut through this process; careful observation and practice is required along with a disciplined approach to shooting (so you don't overlook something). I am still going through this myself. For me, slowing down and examining the scene or subject (if possible) helps me see and avoid problems I may have to address in post processing. Everyone has a different style and approach to their photography so what works for me may not for you and others... it's very personal. Good luck and keep at it.

- Paul -

[FrankMi]

FrankMi, I have a son-in-law that lives right across the river from you in Rock Hill. In fact back in 1996 - 98; I worked with him, we laid all the utilities at the new Grammar School in Fort Mill; nice little town. I get back down that way every so often to see my daughter and son-in-law, but its been a few years now since I have.

I don't know how this reply slipped off the radar without me seeing it. Thank you for the comment. Does your son-in-law shoot as well?

[rpcrowe]

Something elso to remember is that we usually need a point of interest in any image. That can either be a specific area of part or an image (such as the trail in the first image posted or a distinctive rock or tree) or a repeating pattern that can also be a point of interest.

However, often an image of a mass of trees holds no great interest for the viewer...

[FrankMi]

Hi Steve, as Richard points out, images need a point of interest, usually a prominent subject that the eye is drawn to. The frustrating part of woodland pictures is that it is often very difficult to identify the subject and having an interesting subject is an important part of 'almost' every image we take.

If we don't see a subject in the viewfinder, why are we taking the photograph? I have avoided pressing the shutter on a good many woodlands shots because there was no discernible 'point of interest'. It is the shots we take without a subject that give the most difficulty with post processing as well, and for good reason. Hope this helps.

[joewatt]

Hi Steve, as Richard points out, images need a point of interest, usually a prominent subject that the eye is drawn to. The frustrating part of woodland pictures is that it is often very difficult to identify the subject and having an interesting subject is an important part of 'almost' every image we take.

My years of experience taking boring pictures has taught me what I likely would have been taught in the first ten minutes of any formal photo course I might have taken, concerning having a subject.

So, referring to the photo of a lake, above, which I submitted a couple of days ago, to my eye at the time the "subject" was the "X" formed by the sides of the lake and their reflections. I deliberately included just a suggestion of foreground in the lower right, although I can't say exactly why. Of course were it not for the fall colors I may not have even noticed the scene at all. May I have some feedback about my idea in this photo as well as its execution?

Thanks --

[Donald]

May I have some feedback about my idea in this photo as well as its execution?

I think one of the challenges of trying this sort of image, or indeed any sort of landscape, is to learn and remember that whilst we are on location we are experiencing the whole environment. Our senses are assailed by the joy of the moment, the smells, the noises, the warmth (or cold) of the place, the pleasure of being in that environment.

And that 'sense' of being in that place is not confined to the rectangle that we and others will then view. We're experiencing all that is around us. So, getting that 'sense' of what we're experiencing into that rectangle is the skill for which we strive.

That's why we need to put so much work into our compositions. And it is why, I think, so many people end up feeling frustrated and wondering why that magnificent image that they captured just doesn't look right one they're back home and looking at it. Because it hasn't captured the context, the mood. That's why a lot of my comments about other images I see on here refer to mood and/or atmosphere. Capture that, and you're well on the way to success.

[FrankMi]

May I have some feedback about my idea in this photo as well as its execution?

Hi Joe,

Point of Interest: When I look at this image, my eye first notices the largest block of color tone, the reflection of the rather bland sky, next I see the reflection of the trees on the lower left and I follow the image clockwise until I get back to the reflection of the water. There really isn't a place for the eye to stop and explore until I realize that this might be a river and I might be able to continue further. But wait, with the foliage in the lower right corner I must be on the land, not in a boat so I have gone as far as I can.

Sound abstract? Perhaps it is, but how your eye explores an image, where it comes to rest, and what captures our attention to make us want to explore more translates into how long we look at an image (and how soon we lose interest and are ready to move on). It is usually that 'point of interest' (subject or pattern) that keeps us exploring the color palette, texture and details.

Emotion: Whenever we look at am image, we are not just seeing the water, trees, and sky, as in this image. We are subconsciously remembering all the sights, sounds, smells, and feelings we had when we experienced similar views. This is why a well-executed image can change our emotion to sadness, joy, feeling cold or warm, or recall the aroma of a fresh baked apple pie. The more effectively we can elicit those emotions, the more successful our images will be.

Detail: When you experienced this view, you may have been struck by the profusion of brilliant colors in the leaves as your eye darted from leaf to leaf. In the image, however, the leaves all blend together into a pattern of dull colors that just don’t look the same. Why? Because you are able to focus your attention on a single leaf or group of leaves, all with the same color. Once you back away and take in the entire scene, all of these colors are combined and subdued. For me, this is one of the reasons I find shooting fall leaves so difficult. I can’t include the entire scene and still retain the brilliance of the colors I see. If I want to experience the colors the way I see them, I have to move in close enough so that they stand out in the image.

I know I have been long-winded, but I lack the skills to be succinct when trying to convey these kinds of thoughts. I hope, however that this helps you sharpen your composure skills.

[darekk]

Emotion: Whenever we look at am image, we are not just seeing (...)

This is why inbred skills are perhaps more important then lerned knowledge. Emotions and instinctive sense of beauty are crucial. Some people have it more, others less.
But in nature photography picture can be seen also as a trophy of bloodless hunting with the camera. This is another, alternative point of view. And therefore awful incorrect picture of rare species can be more precious then meeting all rules picture of ordinary species. And much more difficult to capture then landscape, sometimes needing deep knowlege and experience. Some of landscapes can be also considered as a trophy.

Regarding those pictures - second one could have smaller depth of field (F - number if possible), first one less water or more detail in the front. I am not expert, but it seems that it contains to much empty space. However the color of leaves is beatiful.

[Viana]

The human mind innately knows good design and composition. The “rule of thirds” or golden mean, golden section, golden ratio, an irrational mathematical constant: 1.6180— is how the human body and much of the universe is composed. Artists, mathematicians, scientists, designers have used the ratio for millennia. Mother Nature uses the ratio in growth proportions from plants to animals to primates and homo sapiens.


Not everyone tunes into that knowledge. However, most people know what pleases and what does not, even if they do not know why. As Donald said, since we experience the environment with all of our senses, the challenge is to convey those feelings via a two dimensional image. The sense of place is key.