Learning Landscapes - Please post your BIG picture dramatic landscape images

[Mike Buckley]

a way of storing the whole thread instead of marking as helpful part by part?

Return to the first post in the thread and bookmark it in your browser.

[Otavio]

Hi, Christina. Here are some images that came to my mind. I hope they meet your expectations. All taken with a Nikkor 18-55mm. Regards,

[bnnrcn]

Thank you Mike..

Return to the first post in the thread and bookmark it in your browser.

[jcuknz]

Since I know nothing about taking landscape photographs when looking at them I apply the same principles as I do to any photograph and I note seeing the examples posted here that most are following the same rules and those that don't are simply dull snapshots, bad dull photographs, some which need cropping to be better. Of the latter all are competantly taken 'record' shots but do not in my book come into the category of a 'landscape'.

As far an panoramic compilations are concerned you can get yourself a specific programme for the purpose if you wish but once you have a 'proper' editing programme such as Paint Shop Pro, Adobe Elements [ recent versions], or Adobe Photoshop you have the tool to do it. True a stitch programme will do it all for you with varying degress of satisfaction [ I have three which came with three different makes of cameras I bought, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic but only use Canonstitch for a 'quick and nasty' job very occasionally] As with any editing it is an appreciation of the tools the programme has available to you and what 'looks right' as you use them. Good tools are complicated and take time, years perhaps of practice, to be used effectively.

You simply need a programme with layers and the knowledge of its tools. I find with PSP it has given me things like being able to reduce the density of a layer to partly see the one below a help in registration of hand-held panos .... 99.9% of my panos are handheld ...I did try a tripod a couple of times but it was a PITB .... mind you if you want to do complicated panos you need the gear but for the average simple left-to-right pano all you need is your brain aware of the requirements and how to edit up later.

It basically comes down to 'do you have it' or you don't as a photographer as opposed to a technician.

[tbob]

Christina My contributions and self analysis of why a large vista works in these images. Any comments and assessments of strengths or weakness welcome from anyone. Both are designed to give a feeling for the huge size of the landscape

The first, a view looking north from the top of Mount Mauganui in New Zealand. I think this works because the lines are strong and allow the viewer to make a loop along the vegetation in the foreground, follow the bright sand then the dark shoreline in the background. With successive loops there are smaller elements in the picture to pick up and dwell on. The vegetation in the foreground is not overpowering, yet is large enough to give a sense of scale. The vegetation, although not a great element, is in focus enough for the viewer to see the plants well and not strain. The white sand gives a strong diagonal line that is a dynamic element. It is also a simple image with only a few elements in large blocks.



The second is my new favorite barn. This works because of the strong sky ,strong foreground and the immensity of the prairie (land and sky) relative to the barn. Again the lines in the stubble and the sky work to move the viewer around the image. And, as in the first image, strong diagonal lines this time in the sky and stubble. And, once again, it is a simple image with only a few elements

[outwithmycamera]

Regarding Mikes comment about Rob's image:

"Consider cropping the bottom to be just below the line of trees and shrubs. You were probably thinking that the sheep add considerable interest but they're too few and too small in my mind."

I would disagree here, I might crop the first sheep out as it is truncated anyway, but not much more than that - I really like this as is. I actually do think the foreground here adds visual interest, depth, and a counterpoint to the middle ground and far background that make this image work. I think the point for Christina is that there are no hard and fast rules to make this sort of thing 'work' and that given four photographers you will likely end up with 5 opinions about what is best.

[Mike Buckley]

there are no hard and fast rules to make this sort of thing 'work' and that given four photographers you will likely end up with 5 opinions about what is best.

Absolutely!

[Colin Southern]

All joking aside (especially your very bad joke ), your photo demonstrates exactly the point I was trying to make for Rob. Your photo includes sheep but with far less foreground than in his image. Your composition enhances the layers (foreground including the sheep, the stone wall, the hills in the background and the sky). If you had used vastly more foreground as he did, you probably also could have included more sheep but probably to the detriment of such a wonderful composition.

Hmmm. Maybe, maybe not.

Often I find that simply changing the aspect ratio of an image to give the appearance of being more "panoramic" compensates a lot for what folks might initially feel a crop is warranted for. In the case of Rob's image, I'd probably at least crop off the 1/2 sheep at the bottom (the 1/2 sheep, not 1/2 the sheep), but as for the rest of it, I'd probably just see how it looked stretched first.

Cropping the sheep as you suggest would lower the sky line, which is already lower than mine, and would take the balance away from the rule-of-thirds. So I'm not saying "don't try it", but personally I'd "panaramaise" it first and go from there.

eg

[Brownbear]

First off thank you to everyone for contributing to this thread and for all your helpful replies.

Otavio, those are absolutely gorgeous! Tevor, ditto! I love that new barn image and I'm so glad you posted it as it shows me a way to include a dramatic sky.

Richard... I just went through my problem images and picked a scene that is not too far from me, that I would like to try again. I photographed this scene from the left side, right side, just in the middle (mountains) and lying low with grass in the front. The challenge is that their is a wire fence to keep people out as it is a water reserve, so getting low means the fence stays in the image.

Going through my problem images taught me that they almost all of them have a dramatic sky in them which takes up most of the image and doesn't fit with the rule of thirds...

Here is an image of the overall scene which should be beautiful but doesn't work and just looks blah. Here I focused on the mountain peaks in the center of the image thinking all the lines of the mountains and clouds should lead you to that focal point. Processed in LR, lightened up the mountains and trees, and cloned out some dead branches in the bottom right hand corner (part of the top of the fence)


So the next time I try this scene how should I approach it?

Aperture Priority F 18 SS 1/10 sec ISO 100 Tripod, mirror up and remote release.




Thank you.

PS the lines in the clouds should also lead to the mountain peaks in the center...

[Sponge]

Would this one qualify for what you are thinking of Christina?

Nice one Frank, that island looks familiar

[Polar01]

Here is mine taken last December in Death Valley of Dante's View. What makes it for me is the colour in the sky and on the far mountain range just as the sun is coming up, oh and the view is not bad either.

Cheers: Allan

[chipbutty]

Thanks Colin but I took that one in the afternoon

[Colin Southern]

Hmmm. Maybe, maybe not.

Often I find that simply changing the aspect ratio of an image to give the appearance of being more "panoramic" compensates a lot for what folks might initially feel a crop is warranted for. In the case of Rob's image, I'd probably at least crop off the 1/2 sheep at the bottom (the 1/2 sheep, not 1/2 the sheep), but as for the rest of it, I'd probably just see how it looked stretched first.

Cropping the sheep as you suggest would lower the sky line, which is already lower than mine, and would take the balance away from the rule-of-thirds. So I'm not saying "don't try it", but personally I'd "panaramaise" it first and go from there.

eg

Although, having just said all that, there's also a case to answer sometimes about avoiding distractors like sheep and excessive foreground ...

[IzzieK]

What I do Binnur, when it is a tip that I can learn from, I copy and paste the message/s in my word processor so that I have something to work on later on. I also have a folder of little tips which I write by hand and pick and choose from those short tips so I can pick on that piece of paper which will relate to my shooting plan for the day. For an example, in the morning I wanted to just stay home and shoot hummingbirds. I have a handwritten piece of paper which tells me the shutter speed and aperture tips for shooting hummingbirds that I can easily pick up. This saves me from going to the internet and accessing a particular message that contains those tips.

Thank you for starting such a thread Chiristina...and thanks everybody for joining and replying,it has been very very useful:-)is this a way of storing the whole thread instead of marking as helpful part by part?

[Mike Buckley]

Christina,

I don't think your image looks at all "blah."

However, I do think you can make it more interesting. For me, most of the sky doesn't have the leading lines that you apparently hoped for (that element is not necessary for my enjoyment). So, try cropping to eliminate about half of it, retaining the part that does have strong leading lines.

More important to me, try applying Local Contrast Enhancement to the forest, increased contrast in the mid tones separately in both forests and also the sky, and a touch more warmth to the forest on the right.

Just a few ideas that you might like.

[Colin Southern]

So the next time I try this scene how should I approach it?

If it were me, I'd (1) shoot it wider so that the "grand-majesty" of the cloud formation would be put in a better perspective with regards to it's surroundings, and (2) Shoot at a better time of day; shots like this during sunlight hours are usually "meh" in my opinion (I've got a collection of them too).

Probably something in the foreground would help too.

[Brownbear]

Thanks Mike, but it looks even more blah to me after seeing all these images.

I don't have much time over the next few days, but I will work on this on Sunday or Monday the latest and see if I can make it better. Truly appreciated. And thank you for putting your edit suggestions into words that I can see.

Yes, I can see now that the triangle of the clouds doesn't exactly lead to the mountain peaks but at the time... LOL

Christina,

I don't think your image looks at all "blah."

However, I do think you can make it more interesting. For me, most of the sky doesn't have the leading lines that you apparently hoped for (that element is not necessary for my enjoyment). So, try cropping to eliminate about half of it, retaining the part that does have strong leading lines.

More important to me, try applying Local Contrast Enhancement to the forest, increased mid tones separately in both forests and also the sky, and a touch more warmth to the forest on the right.

Just a few ideas that you might like.

[Colin Southern]

Thanks Colin but I took that one in the afternoon

They'll never know

[Brownbear]

Thank you for advising Colin. I will try.

This particular image was taken at sunset, golden hour... the light was gorgeous... why can't this be seen by my image?

If it were me, I'd (1) shoot it wider so that the "grand-majesty" of the cloud formation would be put in a better perspective with regards to it's surroundings, and (2) Shoot at a better time of day; shots like this during sunlight hours are usually "meh" in my opinion (I've got a collection of them too).

Probably something in the foreground would help too.

[Colin Southern]

Thank you for advising Colin. I will try.

This particular image was taken at sunset, golden hour... the light was gorgeous... why can't this be seen by my image?

Looks like the sun was still out. For the best colour you have to wait for it to hook under the cloud, but with cloud like this it often just doesn't happen.

Don't think for a moment that you can get a winner "on demand" with shots like this; I've got lots of shots like this that "just don't fly".