Learning Landscapes - Another try at a mountain scene

[Mike Buckley]

I focused on the reflection of the clouds because the were just a few feet in front of me (my foreground) figuring if I focused on the clouds everything would be in sharp focus beyond the first cloud.

First, if I were concerned about keeping everything in focus, I would not focus on the closest object but would focus on something one-third to one-half of the way into the scene. Once you get used to understanding the relationship between focal length, aperture and distance between the camera and various parts of the scene, you will know that you probably could have focused on anything in that scene using the largest aperture and still kept everything in focus. That comes only with experience or an incredible memory of data in depth of field tables.

Second, the clouds in the foreground are a reflection. As a result, you weren't focusing on the closest object in the scene in the context of the optics of your lens; you were unknowingly focusing on the most distant object. That's because the distance between the camera and a reflection in terms of the optics is the distance of the camera to the source object plus the distance of the source object to its reflection.

Regarding your thinking that Galen Rowell is not a master photographer, I would agree that that is not yet true. However, given the test of a few more decades of time, I suspect that he will be considered by most people to be a master. A lot of people felt that way when he was still alive, though I believe we should never anoint anyone with such praise until at least a few decades after the artist has died. (He and his wife died very young in an airplane crash a few weeks before I was to attend a presentation by his wife at National Geographic headquarters.)

I also would not consider Bruce Dale a master photographer for similar reasoning.

[Mike Buckley]

I forgot to say that I tried something like -4 exposure compensation and that didn't work either, so that is why I tried to see if I could figure out something different to outsmart my camera.

You were probably either accidentally changing some other setting or not concentrating on the right side of your histogram. I have shot lots of scenes such as this and never ever needed more than -1 1/2 exposure compensation to control the bright tones.

Using a neutral density filter, whether graduated or not, would not have helped. Remember that a neutral density filter darkens everything, not just the bright tones. Your concern was that your dark tones were already being clipped.

[Brownbear]

I missed one of your points... If I switch to manual and use the smallest possible aperture (still on a tripod with iso set at 100), and keep increasing the shutter speed (allowing for less light) until I see a half decent exposure reading, and then dial in exposure compensation to lower the bright tones ... To me that makes sense but of course it didn't work?

That's understandable. However, that has nothing to do with the aperture setting and should not have influenced your choice of aperture in any photo that you made thereafter.

The problem is that the scene had dark and light tones that went beyond the capabilities of your sensor to capture all of them. When that happens, use your exposure compensation to keep the brightest tones so they do not extend beyond the right side of the histogram. Then live with whatever that does to your darkest tones. Either that or put the camera away and enjoy the scene.

[Brownbear]

I'm pretty sure that I was very careful with my camera settings but I guess I will just have to try again, or you will have to fly down and demonstrate. I suppose it is possible that I was frustrated and hit some setting will give it another try. I always check my histogram and it was clipped on the right side.

You were probably either accidentally changing some other setting or not concentrating on the right side of your histogram. I have shot lots of scenes such as this and never ever needed more than -1 1/2 exposure compensation to control the bright tones.

[rpcrowe]

If this were my image, I might think of a few differences...

1. Crop a bit off top and bottom which will give more emphasis on the three facets of your image the clouds, he mountains, boats and the reflections of the clouds in the water.

2. Darken the sky and perhaps add a touch of blue to accentuate the clouds in the sky. I could have been more careful in doing this but, this was a quickie edit...

3. Darken the water a bit to accentuate the reflections of the clouds.

4. Add some contrast (structure) to the mountains and the trees along the shore.

5. Select the white boat and reduce the brightness a bit. This is difficult because that boat is blown out. Perhaps you could save some detail when working with your RAW file.

Something like this...



The triangle at image left made by the headland,boats and their reflections acts as leading lines to direct the viewer's attention to the distant mountains and shore.

The triangle formed by the clouds in the sky and the reflections of the clouds in the water are also leading lines...

The extra contrast (structure) lends additional interest. At least that is the way I am thinking.

This is how I would have worked with the image if it were mine, but it's not so I will happily remove the edited version of your image if you so desire...

[Digital]

Christina, it is difficult to concentrate on a good composition when you are struggling to learn the nuances of your particular camera.


Bruce

[Stagecoach]

Hi Christina,

Composition

Love it as it is. I also think there are other options within this scene to explore.

Lighting and time if day

This scene will of course receive different lighting at other times of the day which 'may' be preferable but the fact that you have tackled it with this light is admirable and has to be an important step within the learning curve.

Exposure

Whatever method and camera mode you use to determine exposure for this scene I would have considered the priority not to clip the whites as already mentioned. White boat hulls are troublesome.

This would have been a good scene to undertake some DoF experience tests by focusing on the far boat masts at the centre headland and trying different apertures and comparing results.

Grahame

[Brownbear]

Hi Mike,

I'm going to have to sign off soon but I will check back tomorrow. Thank you as always.

1. I recall reading somewhere that with a wide angle lens focusing on and object in the near foreground works the same but of course it is all new to me so it's time for me to hit the books again. (and yes topics will include the relationship between....)

2. Sounds like Calculus 101 with a little magic thrown in to confuse things. Thank you. I will have to read this a couple of times to figure it out.

3. I'm truly sorry to hear that Galen Rowell has passed. Thank you for the reference to his book (which I plan to buy) His work is beautiful and inspiring to me and that works for me as a Master Photographer's work to review. And the same goes for Bruce Dale.

Thank you.

First, if I were concerned about keeping everything in focus, I would not focus on the closest object but would focus on something one-third to one-half of the way into the scene. Once you get used to understanding the relationship between focal length, aperture and distance between the camera and various parts of the scene, you will know that you probably could have focused on anything in that scene using the largest aperture and still kept everything in focus. That comes only with experience or an incredible memory of data in depth of field tables.

Second, the clouds in the foreground are a reflection. As a result, you weren't focusing on the closest object in the scene in the context of the optics of your lens; you were unknowingly focusing on the most distant object. That's because the distance between the camera and a reflection in terms of the optics is the distance of the camera to the source object plus the distance of the source object to its reflection.

Regarding your thinking that Galen Rowell is not a master photographer, I would agree that that is not yet true. However, given the test of a few more decades of time, I suspect that he will be considered by most people to be a master. A lot of people felt that way when he was still alive, though I believe we should never anoint anyone with such praise until at least a few decades after the artist has died. (He and his wife died very young in an airplane crash a few weeks before I was to attend a presentation by his wife at National Geographic headquarters.)

I also would not consider Bruce Dale a master photographer for similar reasoning.

[Mike Buckley]

You have worked with such diligence and frankness about your photography that I'm going to be very open and frank regarding your comments about this particular scene at the risk of being overly blunt.

Composition - Of interest are the beautiful mountains...(apologies for the haze on the mountains)

You need to decide that the mountains are either beautiful or deserving of an apology. If it's the latter, don't photograph them. Keep in mind that most people will consider hazy mountains in this particular setting deserving of an apology.

the light should lead your eye to the mountains.

You're saying that the light should lead me to the hazy mountains that you have apologized for. This makes no sense when constructing a composition.

I can see that the boat in the immediate front is bright and draws the eye - how could I work around this the next time I try this shot, if I do?

If you want the light to lead you to somewhere other than is currently happening, choose a different composition. When we try to do battle with the physics of light and the human emotional reaction it, the light always wins the battle.

clipped boats and black mountains and I couldn't figure it out in aperture priority or manual mode

It's great that you're now recognizing the issue. Your next step is to realize that you can't do anything about it so long as you're willing to use only one capture.

Personally, I can't tell what the subject is supposed to be in this scene. It's particularly bothersome that the top left one-fourth of the scene is really boring.

Hope this helps!

[Brownbear]

Mike... As always thank you for your advice and help. I appreciate your honesty even when it is to tell me that hazy mountains ruin the image and that I should've culled from my mind before photographing. I didn't see the haze until after the fact. Aside... it was the clipping on the right side that I was trying to avoid on the other side of this scene. And I thought that a graduated ND filter would let light in on the bottom half, but good to know.

Karm... Thank you for sharing. If I photograph this scene again (assuming the mountains are haze free) I will try that view point.

Richard... Thank you for your edit. Always appreciated. The boat is not clipped in the raw file... I especially feel good to hear that what I envisioned as leading lines are also seen by you as such.

Bruce.. Yes, I'm still learning the advanced features of my camera, and working on it.

Grahame... Thank you for your feedback on the composition. I will experiment with DOF and lighting.

I will try again in a couple of weeks, perhaps this scene or a scene within it or a different scene.

Thank you to all. Truly appreciated.

[Mike Buckley]

I thought that a graduated ND filter would let light in on the bottom half

Analyze the scene. You mentioned the bright light on the boat. How would you use a graduated filter to darken the boats that wouldn't also darken either the trees above them or the water below them?

[Mike Buckley]

This is how I would have worked with the image if it were mine

You clearly did an excellent job, Richard.

However, your post-processing skills understandably exceed Christina's. Additionally, her concern was about composition and she even mentioned that this image would not be a keeper apparently for other reasons that she alluded to.

In that context, would you consider this image a keeper even after your wonderful post-processing improvements?

[rpcrowe]

Yes, I would keep this image. The composition has, IMO, been altered by the cropping. It might not be up there among my top favorites... However, it would be a keeper for me. If I shot it, I would probably have done a several shot pano with a longer focal length lens and the camera in the portrait position.

The longer focal length lens would compress the distances between the foreground and background and would, IMO, very likely result in a more dynamic image.

Regarding, Post processing. Using NIK software, a person doesn't need the technical post processing skills that one needs when working with Photoshop. I have been getting lazy lately since I can do things so quickly and so easily with NIK. However, I think it is the destination you arrive at in photography rather than the vehicle that takes you there...

IMO, it is pretty difficult to get involved with the highly technical side of photography and at the same time be working towards developing skills with composition.

But, then again, I have severe problems walking and chewing gum at the same time.

I would recommend a starting photographer to put the camera on "Programmed" exposure and also shoot in Auto Exposure Bracketing mode. That way, really the only thing that the photographer needs to concentrate on is composition. One of the three or so exposures from the bracketed trio should be pretty much be right on the money.

Using Canon cameras (I don't know about other brands) you can select AEB and burst mode. The camera will shoot three shots (with your selection of bracketing amount) and then stop until the next time the shutter button is pressed. I do wish that Canon would increase the bracketing to five shots but, Canon is more interested in making many of their cameras into morphodite still/video cameras that to produce still cameras with the best capabilities.

The Canon (again, I don't know about other brands) gives you the choice in what order the three bracketed shots are recorded. The default order is for the shot at the meter reading to be recorded first. This is because, that may be the closest to the correct exposure.

However for training in exposure, I would recommend the option of the under the meter reading shot being recorded first, followed by the shot at the meter reading and then by the over the meter reading shot. This will give record a trio of shots of increasing exposure.

Your histogram will be shown in Camera RAW (or many other editing programs) and you will be able to see where the different exposures place you on the histogram and you will always know that the middle shot is at the meter reading.

It is very easy for a person to review the shots and to learn when to trust the meter implicitly and when to add or subtract exposure. It is really, IMO, a great learning process.

There is another way to learn the relationship between shutter speed and aperture. Have the camera in "programmed" exposure mode and shoot series of three to five shots, adjusting the f/stop for each shot. Again, I only know Canon gear and only shoot with xxD or my 7D cameras. Rotating the main dial on my cameras, when in programmed mode, will change the f/stop. It is very easy to do so since the main dial is right next to the shutter button and I use my index finger to modify the f/stop. The programmed exposure mode will compensate the shutter speed to provide identical exposure levels.

Given a series of shots at different f/stops and shutter speeds will allow the new photographer to experiment with the relationship between f/stop and shutter speed without any shot being a total loss.

[deetheturk]

Hi Christina,landscape is something i have done little of,but i like this image for its beauty,so well done!

[bnnrcn]

Hi,Christina..I agree with Richard's post #25 and as far as I know most of what he suggests can be done with a polarising filter..Polarising filters are useful when you shoot in harsh light conditions particularly in the middle of day.But they don't work well with very wide angle lenses.I like your composition,I don't know if you have a polarising filter,but it might be a good idea to read about it ,then you can decide if it helps or not.ND filter is something different,I also advice you to read about it.An ND filter doesn't darken anything,it reduces the light coming into your lens and it makes your exposure time longer.An ND filter is usually used to make water flat and silky.It is also used to have a longer exposure time with large apertures ,because in the middle of a summer day sometimes you get more than 1/4000 with a large aperture and if you want to shoot a portrait,you have problem.ND is very different from Grad.ND filters.Grad.ND filters are used to balance the exposure difference between air and land..I appreciate your efforts for learning landscapes Tutorials in CIC about filters are very good.I have got a polarising filter and a 10 stop ND filter.I'm planning to buy a 3 stop GND as well.Although there is PP,I find filters very useful for photography.

[Mike Buckley]

An ND filter doesn't darken anything,it reduces the light coming into your lens and it makes your exposure time longer.

To clarify that, the filter does indeed darken the image and it does so by reducing the light entering the lens. That explains why either the camera must automatically compensate for the reduced light or the photographer must do so manually.

Polarising filters are useful when you shoot in harsh light conditions particularly in the middle of day.

They can be useful that time of day but they don't affect the harsh quality of light, at least not the way I think of harsh quality.

They can affect the blue tone of the sky but the amount of effect varies according to the time of day and the relationship between the position of the sun and lens. They have the most effect when the sun is low in the sky and the lens is pointed at a 90-degree angle to the sun. They have the least effect when the sun is at the highest in the sky and/or the lens is pointed directly toward or away from the sun.

They can reduce glare on non-metallic objects any time of the day. The more diffuse the light, the less effect they have.

[AB26]

Christina,
Something you might consider trying: Camera set to More Vivid, enhance contrast in camera and set WB to 6800K +.
Shoot late afternoon and early morning.

[Brownbear]

Hi Mike,

I neglected to mention that the scene on the other side also included a very bright sky. I believe I could have managed a decent exposure that didn't clip the sail boat but not the sky, and that a graduated filter would have helped and even more so at sunrise or sunset.

I have also read your reply to Binnur and thank you for expanding on the details of the use of filters. I can see that they introduce other factors to consider.

Binnur... Thank you for sharing. I'm not familiar with the use of filters so your explanation is helpful. I will check out the tutorials. Appreciated.

Analyze the scene. You mentioned the bright light on the boat. How would you use a graduated filter to darken the boats that wouldn't also darken either the trees above them or the water below them?

[Mike Buckley]

I neglected to mention that the scene on the other side also included a very bright sky. I believe I could have managed a decent exposure that didn't clip the sail boat but not the sky, and that a graduated filter would have helped and even more so at sunrise or sunset.

Correct. Using a graduated neutral density filter to control the sky could work reasonably well with this scene, especially if the area that you want to control is above the highest part of the horizon. The main problem with using such a filter in a mountainous area is that the horizon is not flat. So, when you use it to darken a part of the sky that is near the lowest part of the horizon, you also darken the land that is higher.

I don't know if the effect would have been better at sunrise and sunset, as I'm having difficulty thinking that through.

[Wavelength]

This is what I have to say.... i like it