Learning Landscapes - Mountains & Mist & Industrial Machinery

[Brownbear]

Thank you Mike. Helpful to know about the composition and focus point (and the LCD reminder)

In reviewing the tree images I've decided I like John's 1st and 2nd images best, and even the black and white one... Our edits look so different, so I see that I'm just going to have to keep working on my post processing. (and my landscapes but I think I have a good one coming up, somewhere )

[Mike Buckley]

I realize that you're currently hesitant to use Live View to check for sharpness before releasing the shutter. However, using it beforehand reveals the same sharpness information as reviewing the captured image afterward.

[ajohnw]

The trees plus mist is good. I suspect you would need tone mapping to bring out any more shape in the mist - if there is any more there. If your package has layers there is a video on youtube showing how tone mapping is done that way. It's for the GIMP but will still explain the principle. The variations are obtained by playing with the contrast etc of the layer that causes the changes. Trying to find one on Adobe products would be rather difficult but there is one that is more sensible relating to producing black and white images but it uses PS. Tone mapping can be subtle. In that respect I think the Rawtherapee shot I posted is borderline. The idea should be to try and get close to what the eye could see.

I like the rock - water - city - clouds shot but on sky colours I wonder if you have a white balance problem. The camera will generally get that nearly right in auto white balance but it wont be as good as our brain. I could see a slight cast in this one so if not as you want it's best to do a spot white balance on something which is pure grey / white in the shot that hasn't clipped. In this case the clouds but click in several different places and choose the "best". This really should be done during raw development - early on in other words.

People are inclined to forget that they can focus manually using the viewfinder especially on relatively close subjects such as the end of the rocks jutting out into your shot. It's important to set the dioptre adjustment on the viewfinder correctly. Easiest way is to AF on something the camera can't get wrong and then carefully adjust it while trying to keep your eyes relaxed and focused on infinity/the far distance. That aspect can be difficult. One way is to look into the distance and then the same view plus something closer through the viewfinder alternately but when you are out using the camera, looking around and not thinking about it you may find another tweak is needed. Mike's comment on live view is true but only if a magnified live view is used. Ideally sufficient to boost the pixel count on the camera screen to the detail level the sensor sees or close to that. So say it was a 1mp screen and a 24mp sensor - 24x. I have used my mirrorless EM-5 this way a number of times. Going on that 12x can be dubious given the numbers I have used. I/2 way between the two should be ok but might show slight fuzz at 100% resolution.

A good depth of field calculator to play around with is here

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

You might notice it uses a circle of confusion figure, This is the out of focus limit for detail and assume that the image will be finally viewed at 10x8. It's usually going to be fine for shots that are going to be posted on the web. Just use it to get the general idea, a feel for it and to realise that there will always be more "in focus" behind the point the camera is focused to than in front of it. In quotes because a camera will only focus to one specific point. The circle of confusion sets how much out of focus the image can be.

Now you have curves under your belt perhaps it's time to look at levels. This maps the tones in the image into the colour space that is being used using 3 pointer, black, mid tones and extreme highlights. Black can be used to set a black point and the highlight one to set the white point. In this video the tonal range is being stretched, often the case. The other slider sets mid grey. The video is for the GIMP which doesn't matter as levels are levels. Auto levels can be useful too and if the results don't suit undo it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNoBjAaC0kU

Layer style tone mapping is demonstrated here rather well. It's for the GIMP but Adobe products will have similar features. Maybe some one can translate it to Adobease. Unlike Adobe product demo's of this it offers complete control. Most Adobe ones show instant gratification or slight changes to the basic setting for that. This explain why many shots look as they do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMlKVDjJFfY

John
-

[Brownbear]

Hi John,

As always thank you for your detail analysis, helpful advice and feedback, and links to help me learn.

I recently signed up for the Creative Cloud so I have Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom, and also Adobe Elements so I believe I have all the programs I need. Right now I'm trying to learn how to take better landscape images and also learn post processing, while still focusing on improving my wildlife shots. Every time I find a problem photo or take a new landscape photo (well perhaps one or two of many taken) I post it and then I try and post process it following the helpful advice given (it is my way of forcing myself to learn to process my own images, and I'm missing my jpegs, a lot)

I'm still learning curves and WB, and sharpening, and I'm just beginning to learn layers and how to reduce noise without destroying an image. I will watch the Levels video today but the Tone Mapping I will save for a month from now. I will make myself a reminder to do so in a months time... ie; if I view it now it will likely be information overload (for me)

Live View.... For some reason I'm finding this exceedingly awkward, slow and complicated. After Mike's reminder I tried it again last night on some objects in our home. First off when I place the eye piece on the view finder I can't see my camera settings and I find it hard to see the image in the viewfinder. There are a lot of focus options to choose from and I tried manual focus just because it is the least complicated but honestly when I focus manually and zoom in on the shot I can't see that the focus is sharper than the normal way of photographing an image but I can see that I wish to adjust my settings but this doesn't seem to be possible while in Live View mode so I have to exit Live View mode and change the settings and try again. I will keep reading up on it and trying it out but right now I am finding it exceedingly awkward. I expect that it is something that I will struggle with for a while but I will keep trying.

I will revisit the image with the clouds, and try processing it again. I have a few shots and hopefully one will be sharper.

A BIG thank you, to you!

[Clive Kirby]

Christina
I like your second post of the misty trees. I think you've got the amount of sky about right.
regards
Clive

[Brownbear]

Hi John,

Following are my edits following your guidelines to the best of my ability. (the utube on levels and curves was simple to understand and helpful)

I adjusted the white balance and levels, and the black point, and sharpened the buildings selectively. It may be a bit too blue?






Thank you for your help.

The trees plus mist is good. I suspect you would need tone mapping to bring out any more shape in the mist - if there is any more there. If your package has layers there is a video on youtube showing how tone mapping is done that way. It's for the GIMP but will still explain the principle. The variations are obtained by playing with the contrast etc of the layer that causes the changes. Trying to find one on Adobe products would be rather difficult but there is one that is more sensible relating to producing black and white images but it uses PS. Tone mapping can be subtle. In that respect I think the Rawtherapee shot I posted is borderline. The idea should be to try and get close to what the eye could see.

I like the rock - water - city - clouds shot but on sky colours I wonder if you have a white balance problem. The camera will generally get that nearly right in auto white balance but it wont be as good as our brain. I could see a slight cast in this one so if not as you want it's best to do a spot white balance on something which is pure grey / white in the shot that hasn't clipped. In this case the clouds but click in several different places and choose the "best". This really should be done during raw development - early on in other words.

People are inclined to forget that they can focus manually using the viewfinder especially on relatively close subjects such as the end of the rocks jutting out into your shot. It's important to set the dioptre adjustment on the viewfinder correctly. Easiest way is to AF on something the camera can't get wrong and then carefully adjust it while trying to keep your eyes relaxed and focused on infinity/the far distance. That aspect can be difficult. One way is to look into the distance and then the same view plus something closer through the viewfinder alternately but when you are out using the camera, looking around and not thinking about it you may find another tweak is needed. Mike's comment on live view is true but only if a magnified live view is used. Ideally sufficient to boost the pixel count on the camera screen to the detail level the sensor sees or close to that. So say it was a 1mp screen and a 24mp sensor - 24x. I have used my mirrorless EM-5 this way a number of times. Going on that 12x can be dubious given the numbers I have used. I/2 way between the two should be ok but might show slight fuzz at 100% resolution.

A good depth of field calculator to play around with is here

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

You might notice it uses a circle of confusion figure, This is the out of focus limit for detail and assume that the image will be finally viewed at 10x8. It's usually going to be fine for shots that are going to be posted on the web. Just use it to get the general idea, a feel for it and to realise that there will always be more "in focus" behind the point the camera is focused to than in front of it. In quotes because a camera will only focus to one specific point. The circle of confusion sets how much out of focus the image can be.

Now you have curves under your belt perhaps it's time to look at levels. This maps the tones in the image into the colour space that is being used using 3 pointer, black, mid tones and extreme highlights. Black can be used to set a black point and the highlight one to set the white point. In this video the tonal range is being stretched, often the case. The other slider sets mid grey. The video is for the GIMP which doesn't matter as levels are levels. Auto levels can be useful too and if the results don't suit undo it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNoBjAaC0kU

Layer style tone mapping is demonstrated here rather well. It's for the GIMP but Adobe products will have similar features. Maybe some one can translate it to Adobease. Unlike Adobe product demo's of this it offers complete control. Most Adobe ones show instant gratification or slight changes to the basic setting for that. This explain why many shots look as they do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMlKVDjJFfY

John
-

[AndrewMcD]

Hi John,

Following are my edits following your guidelines to the best of my ability. (the utube on levels and curves was simple to understand and helpful)

I adjusted the white balance and levels, and the black point, and sharpened the buildings selectively. It may be a bit too blue?






Thank you for your help.

I agree, this version looks too blue. I thought the first version of this image is terrific. Continuing to enjoy and learn from your Learning Landscapes series as I struggle to do the same....though I am seriously envious of the landscapes you have to learn with!
Andrew

[jcuknz]

If you compare the last one, which shows you can do it if you try, with the rest of your landscapes over the past few weeks you will understanbd why I find them all rather dull flat and uninteresting, merely record shots, though obviously some people find them great from comments.

There are a couple of things that can make a photograph interesting ... interesting lighting and composition giving depth to a flat image ... giving an impression of 3d in a 2d medium.
Another image which brought home to me that a pre-occupation and looking for RoT in every image is a mistake, on this forum and when I passed by the one comment lamented the central placing ... I also saw another photo which had my son's house central with a great starfilled sky behind ... no RoT but it looked great. Apparently a visiting pro took it and gave him a copy.

[Brownbear]

Thank you for your feedback and encouragement. I'm finding that photographing landscapes is very challenging, so your feedback will be helpful for me to keep in mind for my next try. What is RoT?

If you compare the last one, which shows you can do it if you try, with the rest of your landscapes over the past few weeks you will understanbd why I find them all rather dull flat and uninteresting, merely record shots, though obviously some people find them great from comments.

There are a couple of things that can make a photograph interesting ... interesting lighting and composition giving depth to a flat image ... giving an impression of 3d in a 2d medium.
Another image which brought home to me that a pre-occupation and looking for RoT in every image is a mistake, on this forum and when I passed by the one comment lamented the central placing ... I also saw another photo which had my son's house central with a great starfilled sky behind ... no RoT but it looked great. Apparently a visiting pro took it and gave him a copy.

[AndrewMcD]

I think RoT is referring to Rule Of Thirds.

[Mike Buckley]

The characteristic about the last image is that the light leads the viewer's eye to the buildings at the point as much as the rocks do the same. Well done!

It's in that context of manipulating the light to lead the viewer's eye that I mention that the bright buildings on the right side of the frame tend to pull my eye away from the center of the image. Consider darkening those buildings just a bit.

[Brownbear]

Thank you Mike... I can see that now and I will do, just that tomorrow.

The characteristic about the last image is that the light leads the viewer's eye to the buildings at the point as much as the rocks do the same. Well done!

It's in that context of manipulating the light to lead the viewer's eye that I mention that the bright buildings on the right side of the frame tend to pull my eye away from the center of the image. Consider darkening those buildings just a bit.

[jcuknz]

I thought after posting my last that a link to a photographer who I respect for just about everything he does and these are only thumbnails from an exhibition he held recent but they illustrate what is good landscape work.
John Hart
http://greenislandgallery.files.word...heet-3-web.jpg

In particular I'm thinking of Cold Front which I suspect was taken from his house beside the sea. Have not seen him in over two years so no chance to query that Apart from that one I doubt if he just went out to shoot 'landscape' becuase that was the thought of the moment. You need to visualise the scene from a compositional point of view and then be there when the light is 'right' ... or perhaps be quick enough with your gear to have time to shoot what you see in passing.

As for what aperture to use, admittedly I have been using bridge and MFT mainly since digital arrived, but at the size we view things on the web having the far distance sharp is nice but hardly likely to be noticed or important. Better to open up a bit and have the faster shutter speed/ lower ISO and use the lens at its sweet spot. I did close down to f/22 for today's spider becuase I happened to remember to do so but normally my aperture remains at about f/5.6 > f/8 ... perhaps I should use f/11 when at full zoom as maximum then is f/5.8 ... I really don't know

[Stagecoach]

As for what aperture to use, admittedly I have been using bridge and MFT mainly since digital arrived, but at the size we view things on the web having the far distance sharp is nice but hardly likely to be noticed or important. Better to open up a bit and have the faster shutter speed/ lower ISO and use the lens at its sweet spot. I did close down to f/22 for today's spider becuase I happened to remember to do so but normally my aperture remains at about f/5.6 > f/8 ... perhaps I should use f/11 when at full zoom as maximum then is f/5.8 ... I really don't know

John,

I read an article by a photographer a while ago whose work was based upon the aim that subject in the distance should be sharper than subject in the scene that is closer. The principle behind this was that our eyes and brains more easily recognise subject closer to us because it is larger and by boosting the sharpness of distance objects gave the scene greater impact.

I would not agree the concept for all situations and scenes but an interesting read, which unfortunately I can not find the link to at present.

Grahame

[ajohnw]

Hi John,

Following are my edits following your guidelines to the best of my ability. (the utube on levels and curves was simple to understand and helpful)

I adjusted the white balance and levels, and the black point, and sharpened the buildings selectively. It may be a bit too blue?






Thank you for your help.

The blues look about right to me Christina but that really is up to you. I would say the slight mistiness in the sky is about right. Over all I feel that it's more or less right. It might best be described as a cloudscape. Rather than follow photographic pundits I tend to look at paintings. The pundits can add something - maybe but to me the artists are the masters. Looked at that way the horizon at around a 1/3 is the correct place. That in itself will make people look into an image. High lighting the buildings will help with that too. The next thing is distractions. You have one the rocks. An artist would place something in the foreground but would paint in a subtle sketchy way. Out of focus might be one way of looking at it. That mimics the way our eyes work. In this case if we looked at the scene we would be looking at the horizon more or less and the rocks would be there but only as we see things with peripheral vision. The same would apply to any near detail even the water in this case.

To be honest what to do about these aspects bugs me. The foreground can be darkened, blurred etc but it wouldn't work in this shot as the darkened tones would be completely out of sync with the rest. Same with many other landscapes. This thread has convinced me that some foreground with features at some level is needed. Much like Colin's advice with super wide angle shots, shoot low down and place something interesting in the foreground. In other words the foreground of landscapes need some serious thought. This shot gave me one. The tones in the rock are stronger than the rest of the shot so tone it down. I had a poor attempt. I brushed a very low contrast curve onto the rocks along with some blur. Also wanted to drop the saturation but I need to tell the Fotoxx man off about that. It wouldn't. The result



I feel it's still too prominent. Desaturation might help with that. While nosing around on youtube I came across an interesting idea about spotting prominent unwanted features. Reduce to near postage stamp size and note what bits stand out. Try other sizes too. It's a good idea as when working on a shot it's difficult to remain objective. To really see what I have done to this one I would have to leave it alone for a few hours and then bring it up and try and note my instant impressions. Where did I look etc and what did I notice - when you ask others to judge though they will start looking analytically especially so called rules. To get an idea of variation on horizons for instance try googling Constable's paintings, horizons are all over the place. He was heavily into clouds. Actually there does seem to be some rules after a fashion, around top and bottom thirds or around the mid point. The detail he includes is interesting too - many on here would use the word distractions. Some times the distractions are the main feature.

Great shot basically Christina. PP always takes a while to pick up. I used curves, contrast, brightening and sharpening on shots from compacts for years before my recent interests. Compacts usually give good cloud exposures but any even moderate shadow comes up way too dark. The next thing for me is better control of colour. I think that will take a while.

John
-

[Brownbear]

Hi Photo Nut,

Thank you for sharing. His work is gorgeous!

I plan my trips and I'm always out at sunrise or sunset, albeit the light does not always cooperate and/or I fail to capture its' beauty. Landscapes are new to me, and these are learning images. I'm working on visualizing the scene and my compositions, and posting so/so images so I can learn from others and improve... This will likely take some time.

I thought after posting my last that a link to a photographer who I respect for just about everything he does and these are only thumbnails from an exhibition he held recent but they illustrate what is good landscape work.
John Hart
http://greenislandgallery.files.word...heet-3-web.jpg

In particular I'm thinking of Cold Front which I suspect was taken from his house beside the sea. Have not seen him in over two years so no chance to query that Apart from that one I doubt if he just went out to shoot 'landscape' becuase that was the thought of the moment. You need to visualise the scene from a compositional point of view and then be there when the light is 'right' ... or perhaps be quick enough with your gear to have time to shoot what you see in passing.

As for what aperture to use, admittedly I have been using bridge and MFT mainly since digital arrived, but at the size we view things on the web having the far distance sharp is nice but hardly likely to be noticed or important. Better to open up a bit and have the faster shutter speed/ lower ISO and use the lens at its sweet spot. I did close down to f/22 for today's spider becuase I happened to remember to do so but normally my aperture remains at about f/5.6 > f/8 ... perhaps I should use f/11 when at full zoom as maximum then is f/5.8 ... I really don't know

[Brownbear]

John,

Thank you, as always for your detailed analysis and advice. It is nice to hear that my post processing skills are coming along.

I can see how one might think of the rocks as a distraction, and also as a leading line (as I envisioned at the time) I did take a few shots without the rocks but for some reason I'm not as fond of them, likely because they include less cloud and more highrises...

Mike...

Here is my edit darkening the buildings on the far right hand side... Thank you for point this out and showing me how to see little details.



Thank you to everyone for your help and feedback. Truly appreciated.