Learning Landscapes - Early Morning

[Brownbear]

More images of the Sunshine Coast in B.C. Early morning a little bit after sunrise.

This set of images I like but of course the scenery was beautiful. Processed in Lightroom using whites, blacks, curves, vibrancy. Sharpened in Adobe Photoshop

The same view photographed with different compositions. I would especially appreciate feedback on the compositions and any preferences. I was going to crop the sky out of the 2nd image but then I left it thinking that the top cloud was pretty and that it framed the photo... ?

1.



2.


3.



Thank you.

[ShaneS]

I think #3 is the best of the bunch in terms of composition Christina. For me it has more visual appeal with the break in the foreground islands. Do you have any with more water than sky? I'm thinking that the clouds, while pretty aren't adding a lot to these images and it would be interesting to see some with the horizon a bit higher.

I think that the snow covered peaks in all three could use a bit more contrast as I think they are getting a bit lost against that lovely clear blue sky.

As you know I am am still working on my landscapes so please take my suggestions with a grain of salt. I will be interested to read the opinions of others and happy to be contradicted if that means we can both learn something in the process

[ajohnw]

In my view 3 is easily the best Christina. Plenty of interest and a some where around 1/2 landscape. A shot to look at as a whole.

Contrast is a bit lacking in the mountains. I wonder if this one came out a little over exposed as the over all lighting doesn't look right to me. I feel the lake and trees should be a bit darker as they are in partial shadow. Easily fixed by locating the tree tones on the curve and dragging down a touch and then more contrast can be added to the mountains by shifting the end of the white inwards a little but keeping it at the same height. The dark patch in the tree line is strong and a little distracting. Rather than trying to brighten it up it would be best to weakly clone some of the far right shadowy trees over it. Cloning tools are usually easy to use and have a transparency setting. Set that to say 30% and brush a little bit into the dark area to just show a bit of detail there.

Don't know. Subtle changes and the results look like this.



More contrast could be added to the mountains locally where they are a little flat if needed. The horizontal shadow to the left could be toned down too - cloning or maybe brightening locally. Brightening sometimes gives too much colour change. These are compositional aspects. It's best to try and get some colour / detail in deeper shadows, Not always possible. I'm looking at it in terms of trying to achieve what you could probably see by eye within the limitations of the camera.

Looking at in analytically maybe the clouds are a bit strong but I don't feel cropping them off would help the shot. Playing with clouds isn't one of my favourites and I usually try to avoid it. 1st ever attempt at toning them down. I selected a rectangle enclosing all of them plus a bit and applied a curve. Black end up a lot and white end down a little and then adjusted the blend width. Done out curiosity and because too prominent comments might crop up again.

Be interested to know what Colin thinks about this shot and variations and how he would cope. The toning down would probably benefit from a little local work on the sky around the blend line.



John
-

[Shadowman]

All equally nice, however the position of the shaded area of trees and how the tree line is broken in the third adds more vitality to the scene, it helps move my eyes throughout the scene.

[bnnrcn]

I find the composition stronger in the 3rd one Chiristina,unfortunatelly I can not advice anything to you about PP because I haven't got any experience on it.I agree with John's advice about Colin because he is an expert on PP.Cropping clouds in the 3rd image could be nice as well if you had a shot with more sea:-)

[Brownbear]

Thank you to all. I will revisit these scenes today and try the processing suggestions.

John (Shadowman), I'm finding your new type of advising comments very helpful.

Shane, I truly appreciate that you are taking the time to comment and I find your comments very helpful. I took several versions of the scene at hand so I will look for one with more water, etc.


John, I really appreciate the specificity of your feedback and post processing tips. I believe I did the opposite of what you have recommended, so I will try all of your suggestions. I likely darkened those clouds to bring out the details but I can now see that they are heavy, and yes it is hard to do anything to clouds and perhaps they are best untouched.

Binnur, that you like the 3rd composition best is helpful for me to know. I'm still trying to figure out what I like or not. For example I would've thought that the 1st image was preferred because it is more zoomed in on the point of interest, yet that is not the case...

Thank you to all.

[rpcrowe]

I often like to crop out a lot of foreground and sky in many landscapes leaving a pano-looking image. IMO, the spit of land and the mountains are really the primary subjects of interest. I never worry about conforming to the "standard" dimensions of an image (5x7, 8x10 and so on). I crop to where I think it looks best. However, since cropping is such a personal thing, you and others may not agree with my crop. The nice thing about digital photography is that we can try all sorts of edits at no cost.

I would crop the additional images about the same way...

The sparse clouds in sky were really too high to add much to the original image. It would have been nice if the mountains had been backed up by billowy white clouds but, they were not. So I just darkened the sky a bit...



I tried to work on the dark shadows at the center of the trees but, there was just not anything left in the posted image to work with. However, I suspect, if this image had been shot in RAW, there would have been enough information to lighten that shadow area slightly. The reason I'd like that area a bit lighter is that it competes for my attention with the rest of the image.

NOTE: often changes made to posted images are not of the quality that would be achieved if the original images, especially RAW images, were worked in...

[Digital]

Christina, I would like to see your images SOOC before any PP.



Bruce

[FrankMi]

Hi Christina, I want to be helpful without sounding negative so these comments will hopefully help you to see the possibilities of this beautiful geography.

Large expanses of space with little detail in them can work extremely well in unique circumstances but in most situations you are better off to keep the ratio of these featureless areas to areas with interesting elements relatively low as Richard has done in his example.

What holds the second image back for me is that there are four 'bands' (sky, mountains, forest, and sea) that are almost identical for the entire width of the image and the blandest band takes up half of the entire image. By contrast, in the third image the break in the forest islands adds interest and gives the viewer more to explore. In addition, the viewer may picture themselves going past the lighthouse and through that channel to explore what is behind the island.

In my view, perhaps the best scene you have here is the bottom left 2/3's of the third image in closer to a 2:1 aspect ratio rather than the 4:3 aspect ratio as it is now.

You appear to be shooting in a 4:3 aspect ratio, but you may find that other aspect ratios in your camera are also available. If you want to stick to the current shooting aspect ratio, you may want to visualize what aspect ratio you want the final image have and compose the shot accordingly. For example, Donald often composes his shots for a square (1:1) aspect ratio at shooting time and may add just a bit more space to allow for minor cropping and image leveling options during post processing.

I need to stop rambling on but hopefully I am making some sense!

[Brownbear]

Richard,

Thank you for showing me your edit and explaining your thought process. I understand that the image is limited by being a jpeg and of a small size and I also think that you did a wonderful job of it. I like your crop.

I haven't gotten around to trying to process these again, but I will. Very helpful.

Frank,

Thank you for taking the time. Explaining the image in terms of bands is very helpful, as is the aspect ratio. I have never tried changing this setting on my camera but I can see how it would help me compose the scene in terms of the areas of interest.. ie; 4 x 3 doesn't seem to be working for my landscapes and I'm about to ready to give up. If I set my camera to 16 x 9 or 2 x 1, will the image size still be the same in terms of pixels? If yes, I will give it a try the next time I photograph a mountain scene. Yes, it makes sense and is helpful as it provides me with a different point of view of how to frame a landscape image. Thank you for taking the time.

[Brownbear]

Christina, I would like to see your images SOOC before any PP.



Bruce

Hi Bruce,

Here they are including the dust spot... (As an aside I finally mustered up the courage to use my Artic brush for the first time (purchased a year ago) and it zapped most of the dust spots! (and my camera is still working)

These are the raw images, resized to 1200 pixels and sharpened with an unsharp mask of .3 pixels at 50% to offset making the images smaller. I photographed these with a warm auto white balance because they were taken during the golden hour but I'm not sure if the warm tones of the blue water are right

1.


2.


3.


And a couple of others SOOC which I'm thinking have better compositions because I zoomed in more on the mountains and islands. I was thinking that I should try post processing one of these instead of the ones I posted.

4.



5.

[bnnrcn]

I think#4 is the best of all Christina.

[FrankMi]

Explaining the image in terms of bands is very helpful, as is the aspect ratio. I have never tried changing this setting on my camera but I can see how it would help me compose the scene in terms of the areas of interest.. ie; 4 x 3 doesn't seem to be working for my landscapes and I'm about to ready to give up. If I set my camera to 16 x 9 or 2 x 1, will the image size still be the same in terms of pixels?

When I look up the specs on your D7100, it looks like it supports 3:2 and 16:9 aspect ratios. Usually the wider aspect ratio used less of the 24mp sensor but it really doesn't change anything if in processing you crop a 3:2 image to 16:9 as you use (or lose) the same amount of sensor either way.

You can use the 16:9 setting to get a feel for what would be included in the scene but you may not want to go to 16:9 for every landscape shot. It might be better off just continuing to shoot at 3:2 an plan to crop some off the top and/or bottom during processing when you compose your shot.

[Mike Buckley]

If the images were mine, I would crop all of them at the bottom to eliminate all but a small amount of water and at the top to eliminate all but a small amount of sky. The information in the parts that would be eliminated don't add anything to the images for me. I would then determine if they are worth spending time to post-process them.

None of these images are particularly compelling to me and aren't as nice as so many of your other images. I wonder if you're getting caught up in nice but not fantastic light, the three-dimensional aspect of being there that doesn't carry over into a two-dimensional photograph, and the idea of seeing gorgeous mountains rising above the trees when the mountains are so distant that they have little contrast (interest) and lots of haze.

To sum it up, you recently mentioned how difficult it is to not photograph a scene that is enjoyable. You also mentioned that having photographed such a scene, you have a difficult time determining that the results aren't keepers. We've all been there and done that but you might want to devote thought to making the culling process extremely rigorous as a particularly important part of your photography. Tough to do initially but unbelievably rewarding once you get the hang of it.

[ajohnw]

While talking about bands, cropping and aspect ratio. This might be of interest. As I see the original it's a nice picture but if viewed "photographically" there are problems with the original. Too much water in the front. To strong clouds against the tone of the main aspect of the picture. The water could be cropped down but I feel it would probably put things in the wrong place and the clouds are useful as they take up some space, nothings worse in some cases than a blank sky. Take both out and the shot ends up as a thin strip - nvg. I think there are some dangers involved in discussing composition on a shot like this as some one could finish up taking no pictures at all. However it is possible to solve these problems to a large extent - quickly done as usual and a bit radical. Only problem is that there weren't any really any sever problems with the original shot.



Copy pasted the cloud area down, resized and cropped to the gold ration with the strongest tone on the 1/3, balanced up the edges with the crop and toned down the water contrast,brightness,blur and a bit of a brightness ramp. Also some sharpening on trees and mountains to gain micro contrast. Would like to have killed the water a bit more but don't feel that is really possible.

I feel that within limits a viewer now has no option other than to take in the scene - and that's the idea of landscapes. If some one likes it or not that's an entirely different matter. I feel Chirstina is looking for a formulae and there isn't one really. Gold ratios and 1/3's can help but it's all about tonal distribution as well which was a little off on the original. The main thing really is if the shooter like the shot. If it's got to be sold some one else has to as well.

I used to watch art tutorials on cable.

John
-

[Mike Buckley]

4 x 3 doesn't seem to be working for my landscapes and I'm about to ready to give up.

If you're thinking that these images started out as 4 x 3, they didn't. They're 6 x 4 (the same as 3 x 2).

6 x 4 makes a great aspect ratio for landscape images so long as there is interesting information throughout the frame. Consider that that aspect ratio is what all the famous photographers shooting slide film on their 35mm camera were limited to using. It worked fine for them and it can for you too if the subject matter is appropriate for it. (Notice John's example where he moved the clouds so their revised location is a better fit with the aspect ratio he chose.) If not, pick subject matter that does work for it or use a different aspect ratio.

[Saorsa]

I don't think that changing the aspect ratio does anything about resolution, etc. It is really there as a convenience for those who will be forced to used that aspect ratio for display, for example a TV news photographer or a photo essayist who will have a slide show on display for some time.

[Mike Buckley]

they were taken during the golden hour

The golden hour of the day is certainly nice but not necessarily deserving of a photo. Keep in mind that the light will appear different depending on the position of the lens relative to the position of the sun. Perhaps there was other scenery that would have been nicer to photograph during the golden hour due to your position relative to the position of the sun.

[Brownbear]

Mike, John and Saorsa... Thank you for your advice, feedback and pointers.

Mike, I think your right somehow I've become fixated on photographing mountain scenes during the golden hour. It's not working and it has turned into a month long exercise on post-processing for me, very much needed and I've learned a lot but I think I need a little break from landscapes. Perhaps I will just photograph landscapes whenever I see a scene that I fancy when I'm out taking photos of wildlife etc and see what evolves, even if it means progressing at a slower rate. By the way, I can see the haze whereas I couldn't before... thank you for that.

Following are my processed images... In trying to crop and focus in on the point of interest I can see that I was too far from the mountains which means I have to crop too much and/or I'm trying to photograph scenes that are too large for my ability. In post processing I followed all the tips offered but I couldn't manage to brighten the shadows on the mountains with any finesse.

Edit 1 (with the problem shadow)



The uncropped version which shows where I tried to lighten the clouds, as per John's advice






The one I like best which shows me I needed to be closer, ie; poor quality but I like the scene



John, Mike and Richard... Thank you so much for all your post-processing tips. I really feel like I've learned a lot about post processing this month and it is due to your feedback and patience.

PS Richard... I now understand what you mean about focusing in on part of a scene. Thank you to Frank for helping me with that.

[Mike Buckley]

Christina,

You have a tendency to present several photographs of the same scene in a thread. I believe it would help you to select just the very best photo of a scene and decide whether it represents your better work so far or at least your best work of that specific scene. If not, there should be a specific reason that you post it with an acknowledgement that you consider the particular image part of a learning process rather than an example of your better work.

I mention this because I'm concerned that you're perhaps not developing the discipline to know what is and is not your better if not your best work. That's the most important discipline if you plan to continue to improve.