Learning Landscapes - Early Morning

[Mike Buckley]

It's not working and it has turned into a month long exercise on post-processing for me

If the basics of capturing the scene such as composition and light are not up to par, no amount of post-processing will overcome those failures. We all capture images whose basics don't work. That's true 90% of the time for me and I know that because I don't post-process at least 90% of the images that I capture.

So, my recommendation is that you post-process only the images that start out as keepers with regard to the basics. None of the images in this thread measure up to that criterion in my opinion, which is in stark contrast to many other images that you have presented.

[Brownbear]

Hi Mike,

Thank you for advising. Yes, these landscapes are a learning process for me and when I look at all the landscape versions I have of a scene (with this thread being a great example) I'm having great difficulty choosing one scene over another, and that is why I post several... ie; hoping that the input from others will help me learn to analyze what is lacking in the image and what is good about the image. For some reason I'm not seeing that yet.

However, I am beginning to see it better as a result of all the feedback I have received, viewing others landscape images and just reading about landscape photography.

I agree that that discipline is an important thing to learn and I will continue to work on it. Thank you, as always.

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.

[Brownbear]

Hi Mike,

As always I appreciate your honest feedback.

I liked the overall scene, and it took this thread for me to see that what I saw as beautiful vista (overall) with pretty water, blue sky and fluffy clouds - did not add to the composition.

Will do

Thank you.

If the basics of capturing the scene such as composition and light are not up to par, no amount of post-processing will overcome those failures. We all capture images whose basics don't work. That's true 90% of the time for me and I know that because I don't post-process at least 90% of the images that I capture.

So, my recommendation is that you post-process only the images that start out as keepers with regard to the basics. None of the images in this thread measure up to that criterion in my opinion, which is in stark contrast to many other images that you have presented.

[Mike Buckley]

hoping that the input from others will help me learn to analyze what is lacking in the image and what is good about the image. For some reason I'm not seeing that yet.

Review the images of the master photographers whose images have consistently passed the test of time measured at least in decades. If you don't know who they are, take the time to learn about them. Assess the characteristics of their images and compare them to yours and others presented here. In other words, determine what you like and then ask how to make your images look that way if they don't look that way.

[Brownbear]

Great advice. Will do.

Review the images of the master photographers whose images have consistently passed the test of time measured at least in decades. If you don't know who they are, take the time to learn about them. Assess the characteristics of their images and compare them to yours and others presented here. In other words, determine what you like and then ask how to make your images look that way if they don't look that way.

[FrankMi]

Yes, these landscapes are a learning process for me and when I look at all the landscape versions I have of a scene (with this thread being a great example) I'm having great difficulty choosing one scene over another, and that is why I post several... ie; hoping that the input from others will help me learn to analyze what is lacking in the image and what is good about the image. For some reason I'm not seeing that yet.

Edit: Looks like Mike beat me to it.

Hi Christina, you are not alone. A lot of folks have difficulty determining how to prioritize there own shots until they get better at determining what it is about a particular scene that appeals to them. And it this issue transcends all kinds of images, not just landscapes.

There is a simple exercise you can use to help you get a grip on this dilemma. If you are interested in landscapes, for example, find the best landscapes you can, those that really appeal to you. Then get out your pad and note what it is about the first one that you like. It may be the leading lines or perhaps it is the colors or the contrast or the primary subject (mountains, lakes, etc.) in the scene that you connect with. Jot down what ever it is about that landscape that attracts you. Do this for ten or more of your favorite landscapes.

Then sit down and compare your notes. What attributes did you list the most times? Think about those attributes because those are the things you will want to strive for in your images. These are your favorite attributes (at least for now).

Rate your own 'set' of landscape images by that list and you will know which are your best and why. Then when you pick the best to present for C&C, you will also know exactly what it is you want to ask questions about and improve.

[Brownbear]

Thank you for sharing Frank... Will do.

[ajohnw]

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.

There is another message in these shots you have posted Christina and that is cropping. There is nothing wrong with shooting more than you think you want or cropping out an image that you like. Personally though I wouldn't go more strip like than 3x2. There is 16x9 and other cinema formats as well. The people who come up with them aren't daft - but I do wonder of late if some wide screen formats are aimed at being different to telly and have commercial aspects like the shape of 27in monitors. Some one mentioned 35mm format style. Actually a lot of that was printed 5x4. If you google ansel adams photographs a lot will come up. As I understand it like others he used a variety of imperial film formats.. You will generally find aspect ratios of 5x4, square and gold and similar. There's bound to be some exceptions most notably portrait rather than landscape style. Hardly surprising really because you will find the same in paintings.

Then google landscape photographs and famous landscape photographers and look at images again. You will see the same thing as with Ansel Adams - a lot of PP. People forget that a fair number of PP steps came directly from film and have been replaced by software. It's a fact lots of things can be done on film and even more on plate film.

The PP comes about because currently photo's can't match the eye. Some theorists reckon 12bit colour even falls short and we are stuck with less on PC screens and prints(?). I feel there is a bit of a problem still even with say 14bit colour. Prints and screens are way way smaller than the apparent field of view of our eyes which adapt to what ever we directly look at and even retain what we have looked at in an odd sort of way. PP will be needed what ever mainly to overcome areas that are too dark and then to at least create something like the general tone levels that were seen. You might find some post cards of scenes such as the ones shot here. You'll find that the tone aspect is usually overdone. People do like these otherwise they wouldn't be sold. Look at them analytically. Some will seem better than others. Clouds may have been painted in.

When you get interested in out of focus backgrounds, positioning etc there are all sorts of things that can be looked at analytically. Films, adds and even lots of things on the TV. These people often do really know what they are doing and want viewers to look at something specific or even scenes at times. Don't let who's speaking distract you. Paintings are different. They generally don't stretch tones and light variations are painted out to some degree. Interesting though. If many people looked at them as they do on here they would use the word distractions. The reason for them is simple. They aren't immediately apparent, the scene is but if there was nothing else to notice later it would be boring. They make a lot of use of sketchy detail at times too also light fading into the distance and a number of other things. No harm in looking at them.

You could also look at the final voting on the images posted in competitions on here. I sometimes get a few votes but usually post them because I feel I have got it as it was. When I look and vote I am very critical of over sharpening and some black and white processing but the later seems to have improved of late. The entries are worth studying. It's a pity more people don't vote really. You will need to ask yourself if those that win are the way you want to go at times.

Another one which you probably look at from time to time is holiday brochures.

Books. Ok but they can only say so much and much of what they do say often wont be apparent in decent shots. One aspect that might be mentioned that would give a different aspect to the shots posted here is camera height. In this case it might have added foreground. That might or might not help. I've found your threads interesting as that aspect crops up a lot. Actually I have just bought some rather old Nikon glass partly for this area. In 35mm terms it covers around 40mm to 125mm which is more than realistic eye view range. 50mm whole view, around 80-100mm or so for detailed eye view. :-) Much like the lens range the famous older photographers mostly used.

I stumbled on a photo gallery the year before last. Maybe 100 odd prints of a variety of subjects priced up to several hundred quid. Lots in some cases. More famous names cost more. My over all impression of the shots was post cardy to various degrees. Obvious PP was more or less absent and when things went that way it was still subtle. I don't recollect seeing one single shot of just a door or just so called interesting shapes.

On PP this link might help with sharpening. Micro contrast is a nice way of looking at final sharpening.

http://jcornuz.wordpress.com/2007/11...-unsharp-mask/

There are some other general pages that might be of use there as well.

Then there is National Geographic and such like. Their competitions are different but this version used a script that emulated what they did do to shots and probably still do as well. It leaves problems that would need curing, sky to white above the mountains and the shadows manly. Water? I just used default settings.



Confusing isn't it. Largely down to people wanting a set of rules. Personally I feel photographers photography is in a bad place at the moment largely for the same reason. Plus of course admiring PP. Seems NG ban people from their photo competitions if they don't follow their PP rules. Sounds like a great idea to me. It might get some art back.

John
-

[Brownbear]

Hi John,

As always thank you for your advice and also for sharing, providing new insights and for including resources to refer to. I do view and vote on the competitions albeit I haven't done much of that during the past month.

Aside... In hindsight I think being on a boat limits ones compositions too much...

Thank you.

[rpcrowe]

Christina,

I hope you don't feel hammered by the feedback. It seems as if most of the comments were constructive rather than being negative. I have several comments that might be of benefit for future landscapes (for you, me or anyone). I hope that I have not repeated anything offered previously. Please bear with me if I have!

1. A wide focal length is not, IMO, necessarily the best choice for many landscapes because of the expanse of foreground and sky that a short focal length will include. These are quite often redundant and hold little interest for the viewer. I personally would rather shoot with a longer focal length and select interesting portions of the entire image. If you desire greater left to right coverage, a several frame panorama might provide a more interesting image. See tripod tip below!

2. If you don't already own one, I would look into getting a good quality circular polarizing filter. Given a correct angle of the sun, the CPL will enhance most landscapes by darkening the sky and cutting haze. Darkening the sky will reduce the exposure ratio between the bright sky and foreground and will also accentuate any clouds in the sky. The CPL can eliminate or reduce haze by cutting the reflections from any water or dust particles in the air. If I only owned one filter for digital photography, it would be a CPL. Again, I have to emphasize that the angle of the sun is all important when using a CPL...

3. Begin shooting in RAW if you are not doing so already. RAW will give you better editing capabilities than shooting in JPEG. You also can generally shoot in auto white balance and adjust the color of your image in post processing...

4. Always shoot with a lens hood. I don't see anything in the above images that would be improved with a hood (you may very well have been shooting with one) but, I just thought that I might throw this in with the rest of the tips...

Finally. if you don't have a good tripod, think about getting one an learning to effectively use it. A tripod is one of the best tools for a landscape photographer. Among other advantages, a tripod will allow panorama stitching and also HDR compositing (if you shoot with two of more varying exposures). It is amazing the quality a kit lens shot at f/8 or f/11, mounted on a tripod will produce. A tripod and shooting at a medium aperture, really levels the playing field between kit quality lenses and top-quality glass...

These are not only pointers for you. They are pointers that I would offer anyone interested in landscape photography...

[Brownbear]

Thank you.

I have found all the feedback to be positive and most helpful. Of course digesting all the information feels a little bit overwhelming but that's normal.

I shoot in raw, recently purchased a quality tripod and a polarizer (to help me with my landscapes)... I didn't use the polarizer this time around because of the large expanse of sky. It's round so I presume it is a circular polarizer? I often forget to use the lens hood but I will be more diligent about its use in the future.

Thank you for all the great tips, which I'm sure others will learn from, too.

Christina,

I hope you don't feel hammered by the feedback. It seems as if most of the comments were constructive rather than being negative. I have several comments that might be of benefit for future landscapes (for you, me or anyone). I hope that I have not repeated anything offered previously. Please bear with me if I have!

1. A wide focal length is not, IMO, necessarily the best choice for many landscapes because of the expanse of foreground and sky that a short focal length will include. These are quite often redundant and hold little interest for the viewer. I personally would rather shoot with a longer focal length and select interesting portions of the entire image. If you desire greater left to right coverage, a several frame panorama might provide a more interesting image. See tripod tip below!

2. If you don't already own one, I would look into getting a good quality circular polarizing filter. Given a correct angle of the sun, the CPL will enhance most landscapes by darkening the sky and cutting haze. Darkening the sky will reduce the exposure ratio between the bright sky and foreground and will also accentuate any clouds in the sky. The CPL can eliminate or reduce haze by cutting the reflections from any water or dust particles in the air. If I only owned one filter for digital photography, it would be a CPL. Again, I have to emphasize that the angle of the sun is all important when using a CPL...

3. Begin shooting in RAW if you are not doing so already. RAW will give you better editing capabilities than shooting in JPEG. You also can generally shoot in auto white balance and adjust the color of your image in post processing...

4. Always shoot with a lens hood. I don't see anything in the above images that would be improved with a hood (you may very well have been shooting with one) but, I just thought that I might throw this in with the rest of the tips...

Finally. if you don't have a good tripod, think about getting one an learning to effectively use it. A tripod is one of the best tools for a landscape photographer. Among other advantages, a tripod will allow panorama stitching and also HDR compositing (if you shoot with two of more varying exposures). It is amazing the quality a kit lens shot at f/8 or f/11, mounted on a tripod will produce. A tripod and shooting at a medium aperture, really levels the playing field between kit quality lenses and top-quality glass...

These are not only pointers for you. They are pointers that I would offer anyone interested in landscape photography...

[Wavelength]

very nice images...i like them

[rpcrowe]

Hi Christina...

The term "Circular Polarizer" doesn't mean that the polarizer is round.

I won't get into the scientific terminology but there are two types of polarizers: Linear and Circular. The names have nothing to do with the shape of the filter but rather the way in which the filter polarizes light.

Suffice it to say that circular polarizers are needed with just about any camera that has a through-the-lens metering system, or autofocus. Linear polarized light can impact both the auto focus and the exposure metering of today's cameras.

Linear polarizers were good for older (most often pre 1970's) cameras but, you need a circular polarizer for today's cameras. Most of today's cameras auto focus and exposure metering systems use semi-silvered mirrors to siphon off some of the light coming though the lens. If that light is linearly polarized it renders either the metering or the autofocus ineffective.