Learning Landscapes - Sunlit Trees

[Brownbear]

In the following two images I tried out my 300 mm lens for a landscape, something about the sunlight on the trees and the lines and the patterns formed by the trees appealed to me.

Aperture Priority

F 7.1 SS 1/10 exposure bias +.67 ISO 100 Focal Length 300 mm

Why I had the exposure bias set at +.67 I can't recall but it doesn't make sense. I was exposing for the trees but I was also trying my best not to clip the sky. The tree in the bottom left hand corner is supposed to be a surprise but I'm not certain that it is strong enough element to be called a surprise.




Manual

F 13 SS 1/13 exposure bias -1.3. ISO 100 Focal Length 300 mm




I like these images however, I suspect they do not work because of the super bright sky with no details but more so because I was photographing the scene from above...

However, I think such a scene might work well if I could of included the ground and the tree trunks in the first line of trees or if I?

Thank you.

[Mike Buckley]

This is one of many ideal uses of a telephoto lens for making landscapes. If you can find a scene with more appealing light and four, five or even more undulating layers of forestry instead of three, you could create a magical photo.

[Brownbear]

Thanks for sharing Mike... Even though the photo is a bit odd there is something I like about it, and perhaps more layers and nicer light will be just the thing. It was taken during the golden hour but for some reason the light is not always special during that hour... I had some photos of mountains at sunset with pink clouds hovering over the peaks. The scene was so gorgeous but alas my images were not, so I deleted them all... And will try again another day.

Aside... Do I need the bases of the trees and some ground for an image like this to work?

This is one of many ideal uses of a telephoto lens for making landscapes. If you can find a scene with more appealing light and four, five or even more undulating layers of forestry instead of three, you could create a magical photo.

[nimitzbenedicto]

Hi Christina,

Perhaps , some cropping of the top so the viewer won't get distracted by the sky. Just enough to pull the viewer to the compression of the tree tops.

HTH

[Brownbear]

Hi Victor,

I agree that the sky should be cropped. However, as this is a learning exercise for me I wanted to see if the varying degrees of brightness in the image worked or not, ie; all the brightness up top pulls your eye from the trees. (and also the idea of just the patterns and lines formed by the trees)

However, I'm not going to spend time editing these, as I don't think that these particular images are worth the effort. Here, I am try to learn from these to see if the concept of the composition works, or not, so when I try a similar image I will do better the next time around. Hopefully capturing the varying degrees of light but with the sky less bright.

Thank you, as always.

Hi Christina,

Perhaps , some cropping of the top so the viewer won't get distracted by the sky. Just enough to pull the viewer to the compression of the tree tops.

HTH

[JBW]

Hi C, would adding abit of localized sharpening give the surprise tree that little bit more pop?

[Stagecoach]

Hi Christina,

I like them and can see exactly what you were trying to achieve. No 2 works best for me but then I like the horizon line of No 1 dipping under the layer, confusion as always.

During the past week I have also taken a number of images of tree lines and sky and have also had a play with merging bracketed exposures and am going to start a thread asking a couple of questions regarding addressing scenes with minimal mid tones.

As for exposure compensation on No 1 and it's 'sense' if you were in aperture priority made an EV change and then did not recompose exactly the same this may be the answer. I have recently got to learn that with the matrix metering on my camera metering with the horizon central and locking is giving pretty consistent good results when I then re-compose as necessary.

If they were mine I would spend a bit of time with PP to see what can be done just for the knowledge it will give you for the future.

Grahame

[TonyW]

To me these are interesting atmospheric images that are probably much more impressive when seen for real. I wonder whether more liberties with white balance, saturation, etc, would be in order. I think you are in agreement with me that colours are often overdone, but this could possibly be an exception.

[Mike Buckley]

You don't need to include the base of the trees to make this style work. This style emphasizes the various layers, which requires including as many layers of tree tops as possible. That in turn requires eliminating the base and often the middle area of the front layer of trees. I've seen lots of photos made in this style and I don't remember any of them including the base of the trees.

[ClaudioG]

Hi Christina, I'm on holiday at moment but stil keep an eye out for your landscape thread as I'm all new to this to. May i ask, which format do you shoot? I find at moment using raw and jpeg is my best option as I'm quickly seeing what my results are in jpeg on screen. So i adjust wb and so on on what I'm trying to get out of the scene. I also set a separate picture control with plus 1 contrast, plus on sharpen and plus one saturation depending if i want deeper colours. I won't lie, I'm all new to this, but have fun and try new things. Also whsts really helping through advice from this site is look through your viewfinder bfor you set on tripod. I promise this is number 1 on my list, even at midday when I'm not taking an image i still have camera with me to different compositions. Btw, please excuse grammar and no paragraphs, I'm useless when using my wife's tablet.

I'm prob way off on this post anyway, but bracket your shots, there is nothing wrong with it. I'm told by many pros to do it,

[bnnrcn]

I like them Christina,If you crop the sky in #1 it works fine.Because you say you will go and shoot again for better results ,all I can say is that trying again and again is the best way for learning for all of us

[Brownbear]

Thank you to everyone for taking the time to comment, and your helpful advice.

Brian... On my next try I will try your tip on localized sharpening/contrast.

Grahame...

Thank you for sharing. I usually use matrix metering but switched to spot metering for some of these shots simply because I was struggling with the exposure. With respect to on the horizon central do you mean that you are metering off of the line, where the trees meet the sky before framing the image?


I did try various PP, mostly with WB, auto making the WB a little cooler than it was, sunlight making the sky orange (too orange), etc. I will have to try bracketing again - it just feels very awkward to me.

I'm very much looking forward to your thread. If you pass by any mountains during your photo shoots, I would love to see some of your images. None of my mountain images are turning out as I wish. (:

Tony...

Yes, just like my mountains. I did play with the WB settings but the images didn't come out the way I envisioned. I am going to try again using more rows of trees and less sky.

Mike...
Thank you for advising. Truly appreciated. I will try this the next time around.

Claudio...

I'm going to try bracketing one day, again soon. It is something I have to learn to be comfortable with. I used Live View, so I could see the image in the view finder while photographing it.

A few months ago I switched to raw only, from raw and jpeg. Setting everything in my camera to neutral because I think it provides a better representation of the true histogram to allow me to avoid clipping. Then a couple of weeks ago I switched back to jpegs and raw because of my struggles with post processing, ie jpegs looking better than my processed raw files. But because I need to develop my own vision, and conquer post-processing I have just recently switched back to raw only. (Also for reasons of less files on my computer to delete and a truer histogram.)


Aside... I would appreciate it if someone would step in to advice - if I have misinterpreted the use of neutral settings and the histogram when photographing raw only.



Binnur...

Thank you. I like the overall look/idea of these images, but something is not quite right about them, so yes, I am going to try again, following Mike's suggestion. When I do, I will post the results.

[Mike Buckley]

Christina,

If I understand your thinking correctly, there is no "true" histogram for the same reason that there is no "true" image. You use certain controls on your camera and in your post-processing software to make the image you want to make. In each step throughout that process, you can (should) review the histogram to determine the distribution of tones (luminosity values) in the image.

For all practical purposes (emphasize that first phrase!), it really doesn't matter which Picture Control you use when capturing a RAW file. That's because you can so easily change it when post-processing it. Changing it during post-processing won't affect the distribution of tones (clipping and the like) so much that you can't compensate for any unwanted effects that arise because of the change. I use the Standard Picture Control only because as a matter of convenience I find that more often than not I don't need to change it to achieve the look I want. If you find that using the Neutral Picture Control more often than not needs no change to achieve the look that you want, continue using it.

[Brownbear]

Thank you for sharing and advising. As always, truly appreciated.

Perhaps I have misinterpreted some advice and/or something I read about viewing a true histogram? I was under the impression that if ones camera is set to jpeg and raw, the histogram you see is the jpegs processed histogram which means the clipping you see or don't see represents the jpeg image instead of the true raw image? hence neutral gives the true picture of the histogram if one chooses to photograph raw only?

I was under the impression that every time you change the histogram of an image with post processing you decrease the quality of the image... ? In which case if I wanted a vivid landscape I would be best to set my camera to capture the vivid landscape (in raw) to lessen the effects of decreased quality by my trying to create a vivid image with post processing? Now I have thoroughly confused myself!

Christina,

If I understand your thinking correctly, there is no "true" histogram for the same reason that there is no "true" image. You use certain controls on your camera and in your post-processing software to make the image you want to make. In each step throughout that process, you can (should) review the histogram to determine the distribution of tones (luminosity values) in the image.

For all practical purposes (emphasize that first phrase!), it really doesn't matter which Picture Control you use when capturing a RAW file. That's because you can so easily change it when post-processing it. Changing it during post-processing won't affect the distribution of tones (clipping and the like) so much that you can't compensate for any unwanted effects that arise because of the change. I use the Standard Picture Control only because as a matter of convenience I find that more often than not I don't need to change it to achieve the look I want. If you find that using the Neutral Picture Control more often than not needs no change to achieve the look that you want, continue using it.

[Brownbear]

I forgot to ask about the in camera curves settings for ones image if photographing raw only. If I set the contrast curve for low, does this also provide a truer picture of the histogram viewed (to adjust for any clipping in the red, blue and green channels) in the LCD when checking one's exposure?

And if I wish to photograph a low contrast image, is it not better in terms of image quality to set ones camera for a low contrast curve, or a high contrast curve if this is the desired type of image, instead of doing so in post processing?

[Mike Buckley]

When you see the stuff that people write on the Internet, in magazines and the like that is totally accurate in theory, you still need to keep in mind that, depending on the topic, it may have absolutely no practical value and thus can be misleading. Now that we have that context established...

neutral gives the true picture of the histogram if one chooses to photograph raw only?

Not true. The Neutral Picture Control, just like all of the various Picture Control settings, is nothing other than the manufacturer's combination of settings to produce a certain style with regard to contrast, saturation and the like throughout the distribution of tones. Again, there is no "true" histogram because there is no "true" image; there is the image that you make, whether that is an altered or unaltered version of the image captured using whatever Picture Control you selected.

My guess is that some people are perhaps accurately saying that Nikon's Neutral Picture Control captures the image as the sensor would capture it with no other alterations. I really don't know if that's accurate but I do know that for all practical reasons it really does not matter. You can change the Picture Control along with other characteristics during post-processing without incurring any ill effects, practically speaking.

I was under the impression that every time you change the histogram of an image with post processing you decrease the quality of the image... ?

I've never heard that. Even if it is true, it is not true for practical purposes.

Always remember that a lot of the stuff you read fails to take into account the practical implications. The people who overly emphasize this stuff would tell you that removing the print of a family member from your wallet causes the print to deteriorate each time. Indeed, you get oil from your fingers on the print each time you hold it. Each time you expose it to the moisture and other contaminates in the air, it degrades. Each time you return it to your wallet, you might ever so slightly alter the paper or chemicals on the surface of the paper. Even though such deterioration happens each time you remove and return the print to your wallet, you might have to do that 100 times before any noticeable change can be seen. The same kind of thing is almost always true when evaluating the practical helpfulness of the so-called do's and dont's of digital photography.

[Mike Buckley]

I forgot to ask about the in camera curves settings for ones image if photographing raw only. If I set the contrast curve for low, does this also provide a truer picture of the histogram viewed (to adjust for any clipping in the red, blue and green channels) in the LCD when checking one's exposure?

And if I wish to photograph a low contrast image, is it not better in terms of image quality to set ones camera for a low contrast curve, or a high contrast curve if this is the desired type of image, instead of doing so in post processing?

Hopefully all of that is answered in my previous post.

[Mike Buckley]

The more I think about it, Christina, it's really sad that you are being subjected to so much garbage on the Internet. It's garbage because its importance is being overly stated and, as a result, because your attempt to digest the fundamentally unhelpful information, as accurate in theory as it may be, has become an obstacle to your success.

I strongly recommend (again) that you master one thing at a time. That means using one Picture Control setting all the time, one exposure method all the time, one focus method all the time, and the like. Master that combination of settings while improving your composition and post-processing skills. Once you've accomplished that, venture into other realms, mastering one aspect before moving on to the other aspect.

It's so clear that you have made great progress and I can only imagine the progress you would have made if you hadn't constantly been zigging here and zagging there. For goodness sake, pick something and stick to it. Constantly switching back and forth between the various modes, between shooting RAW only or RAW+JPEG, and the like is causing you unnecessary confusion that is very evident in your posts.

Not a fact; my opinion. On the other hand, I don't remember anyone ever recommending that you constantly zig zag to get you further along your way up the learning curve. Lots of people in the forum have recommended that you stick with a particular aspect until you have mastered it.

[Digital]

Christina, I totally agree with Mike. IMHO you are trying to learn everything about photography at once. You will never accomplish this. There is to much information out there for anyone person to absorb. It it my suggestion that you enjoy the mission at this point in your career.


Bruce

[Brownbear]

Thank you Mike... For answering my questions so thoroughly and eloquently. Truly appreciated, and I'm certain that many others will learn from your answers.

I will cut down on my zig-zagging, significantly.