Learning Landscapes - Silvery Sea

[Mike Buckley]

Your signature says that it's a 28-200mm lens. Your most recent post says that it's 18-200. Your previous post that mentioned it says that it's 24-200. You sure do have a lot of lenses that are approximately the same.

Seriously, your zoom lens will exhibit various degrees of barrel and pincushion distortion at various focal lengths. Regardless, don't worry about it; just fix the results during post-processing in the relatively few situations they become an issue.

[Geoff F]

I recently downloaded an update on lens corrections for ACR Raw conversion and have found that with some lenses this option does indeed make a noticeable improvement.

[Brownbear]

Thank you for sharing Geoff. I've also noticed that the lens correction button lightens some of my images... Something else to learn.

PS
Mike... the lens is 18-200 mm, exactly (and I've fixed it in my signature)

[nimitzbenedicto]

HI Christina,

How are you.

Seems like I'm having a hard time looking for the main point of interest in these images.

Perhaps, technically, they are spot on.

HTH

[AndrewMcD]

Christina,
I too use LR5. I too have noted that there is some change in exposure when making use of the lens correction feature. My interpretation is that in the process of removing the barrel or pincushion distortion it was also removing vignette produced by the lens.
I too have found this thread valuable; most notably Mike's points regarding a subject of focus in the landscape, an area where I need improvement.
Andrew

[Brownbear]

Hi Victor,

I'm very well except for the enormous challenge of photographing a decent landscape. That said I've received lots of great feedback so hopefully with a little more time I will show some improvement.

Yes, indeed I've learned that a main point of interest seems to be missing in these images. For me it was just the beautiful sky, the light and the silvery sea. And I will be working on just that for my future images.

Thank you for taking the time to comment and reinforce the importance of a subject.

HI Christina,

How are you.

Seems like I'm having a hard time looking for the main point of interest in these images.

Perhaps, technically, they are spot on.

HTH

[dabhand]

Christina - there's a B and H video - Insights Into the Art and Craft of Landscape Photography - at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATFShS-LTsM you may find helpful.

steve

[Brownbear]

Hi Andrew,

Your interpretation makes sense to me.

Very nice to know. Thank you for sharing.

Christina,
I too use LR5. I too have noted that there is some change in exposure when making use of the lens correction feature. My interpretation is that in the process of removing the barrel or pincushion distortion it was also removing vignette produced by the lens.
I too have found this thread valuable; most notably Mike's points regarding a subject of focus in the landscape, an area where I need improvement.
Andrew

[Mike Buckley]

Yes, indeed I've learned that a main point of interest seems to be missing in these images. For me it was just the beautiful sky, the light and the silvery sea.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, the beautiful sky, light and sea is all we need to really enjoy a scene and perhaps remember it forever. Indeed, we should relish those moments. However, those elements on their own don't make a good photo. That's mostly explained by the psychological difference between viewing hundreds of square miles/kilometers in three dimensions and viewing an 8 x 10 photo in only two dimensions.

[Brownbear]

I'm not dead yet... Thank you for taking the time to reinforce the subject matter.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, the beautiful sky, light and sea is all we need to really enjoy a scene and perhaps remember it forever. Indeed, we should relish those moments. However, those elements on their own don't make a good photo. That's mostly explained by the psychological difference between viewing hundreds of square miles/kilometers in three dimensions and viewing an 8 x 10 photo in only two dimensions.

[ajohnw]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, the beautiful sky, light and sea is all we need to really enjoy a scene and perhaps remember it forever. Indeed, we should relish those moments. However, those elements on their own don't make a good photo. That's mostly explained by the psychological difference between viewing hundreds of square miles/kilometers in three dimensions and viewing an 8 x 10 photo in only two dimensions.

Forgiving me for saying this Mike but I recollect that you said you had given up shooting landscapes? No can do. If so I am not surprised. Sounds like many more will too. They haven't the habit of re arranging themselves.

Mind you Christina could cut out one of her eagles and size and paste it into the shot or a boat or a number of other things. Then people might feel it had a point of interest but really in this case the whole image is the point of interest.

John
-

[Mike Buckley]

Forgiving me for saying this Mike but I recollect that you said you had given up shooting landscapes?

No need to ask for forgiveness, John. You are apparently confusing me with someone else.

Even so, it doesn't matter what I shoot. As an example, I never do sports photography. That doesn't mean I don't know what makes a great sports shot.

in this case the whole image is the point of interest

I disagree. In my mind, each of these images has different points of interest that pull and tug each other. As a result, neither the whole nor any particular area has a commanding point of interest.

[Downrigger]

I agree with everyone that thinks they're pretty and everyone who's looking for a subject.

The subjectless but nonetheless pacific quality and mellow tones with simple lines suggests to me they would be great on the wall of a meditation studio, or psychiatrist's office specifically because they haven't a defined subject or story. They don't engage interest, as successful landscapes do, but they do foster a still mind if you spend some time with them.