Learning Landscapes - Set Two

[Brownbear]

C&C truly appreciated.

This image seems to have had the potential to be very pretty but there is something odd about it that I can't put my finger on. I focused on the mountains near the horizon... Is it soft because of my choice of aperture? Or is it just an odd composition? Or?

I dodged the foreground, and likely burned other parts but at this moment I can't remember. I sharpened more than I usually do and would appreciate honest feedback on my post processing.

Foggy scene from a mountain top...

#1

SS 1/60 F20 iso 320




SS 160 F14 iso 320

#2 (darker dreamier version)




#3 (lighter version)




Thank you.

[tbob]

#1 seems overall too bright. Try reducing the exposure overall. The main intent would be to reduce only slightly the brightness of the fog over English Bay and the Salish Sea. Also getr a bit more separation in tome between the mountains on Vancouver Island and the sky.

Of the last two I prefer the last (the darker looks more like smog to me) and the same advice applies to darkening the image

I think all three photos in the series (including the prior post) are quite good as composed. Keep it up

[FootLoose]

I like the subject, Christina. I would try to bring out more detail in the cloud -- maybe with contrast or clarity...

[Manfred M]

Christina - When I look at any image my first question is "what is the subject". If I can't figure that out, it is time to move on and answer the question photographically. There is simply too much sky and too little to focus on.

[Mike Buckley]

In addition to what Manfred mentioned, I can't figure out what the intended mood of any of the photos is.

[dje]

Hi Christina

I think #1 has some potential with more "specialised" editing, to bring out the detail in the clouds and mountains more, and also possibly a more panoramic crop (ie some off the top and bottom). I would be happy to have a go at it with the raw file if you were prepared to make it available but couldn't do so until later in the week when I return home to my "proper computer".

Dave

[jcuknz]

I noted that #1 fully occupies the base line of the histogram when I looked with curves, my favourite tool I guess.
So I shifted the left end of the line in quite a way which almost turned the foreground to black so I partly erased the curve with a 50% tool taking the line of the fog as its edge.

In trying to reduce the blue in the sky which appeared with its greater density I added yellow but didn't like what it did to the sky so cancelled that but had noticed a little bit of yellow made the foreground look better but I don't remember what Vancouver foliage looks like and well remember what the colour grader did to a film for my work and made the greens 'English' and not New Zealand and that is it.
But as a photograph, and I know nothing about landscape work, it maybe an interesting record of an event but is seriously lacking in anything to lift it into the interesting photo cat. I don't see that landscape is any different to any other photo and the idea is to show a three dimensional subject in a two dimensional medium and the usual rules/gimmics whatever you want to call them apply. I know others have different ideas but that is my basis for taking or judging.

Did you go up the ski-lift gondola to get these? My interest the afternoon I did [1996] was the carvings and I was shooting MF B&W But the negative got scratched, possibly in developing in Charleston SC.


edit ... Photo #2 seems to respond to the first part of #1's treatment and as posted it was occupying only the centre area of the histogram.

[escaladieu]

C&C truly appreciated.

This image seems to have had the potential to be very pretty but there is something odd about it that I can't put my finger on. I focused on the mountains near the horizon... Is it soft because of my choice of aperture? Or is it just an odd composition? Or?

I dodged the foreground, and likely burned other parts but at this moment I can't remember. I sharpened more than I usually do and would appreciate honest feedback on my post processing.

Foggy scene from a mountain top...

#1

SS 1/60 F20 iso 320




SS 160 F14 iso 320

#2 (darker dreamier version)




#3 (lighter version)




Thank you.

They look a bit blue to me - if you shot 'em in Raw try warming them up a bit - try 5500K as a starting point.
I tried to PP one of them - attached - I moved the black point left, changed the WB (to some effect but the WB is baked into the JPG) & added some clarity to bring up the mist. Bit of sharpening as well.
Your shutter speed may be too low if you are hand holding - F20 may be softening your image due to diffraction - on a crop sensor F8 may be a better choice - still enough DOF

[dubaiphil]

Christina - this is one of those examples where the scene as a whole is lost due to the focal length chosen.

You often see threads appearing where a photographer is asking which wideangle lens to buy for landscapes. There is no set focal range for landscapes, and without something in the foreground to anchor, give the image some depth and interest you end up with lots of small details, their distance exaggerated by the focal length.

Personally in this sort of situation, depending on visibility and air pollution, I'd try to use a longer lens to isolate details and pull subjects out of the wider view.

[Otavio]

They look a bit blue to me - if you shot 'em in Raw try warming them up a bit - try 5500K as a starting point.
I tried to PP one of them - attached - I moved the black point left, changed the WB (to some effect but the WB is baked into the JPG) & added some clarity to bring up the mist. Bit of sharpening as well.
Your shutter speed may be too low if you are hand holding - F20 may be softening your image due to diffraction - on a crop sensor F8 may be a better choice - still enough DOF

Hi, Christina. Before writing anything, I was reading the posts and I found out that my comments would be pretty much what Jeff mentioned. I fully agree with him, actually!

So, I would suggest you to drive your attention to these main points:

1 - F20 - It can soften your image, due to diffraction, especially when using budget/kit lenses (remember my comments about this, from yesterday, and the thread "long exposure", that I sent you the link).
2 - WB - They were really a bit blue. So, you can easily correct this in your raw editor.

Cheers,

[Mike Buckley]

Nobody has written more clearly about diffraction than Colin and I completely agree with him that much too much is made of it. You probably won't see the effects of diffraction unless you are viewing a really large print so close that you're probably too close to it.

Having said that, when we can use the mid-range apertures, we should. Those apertures tend to make the sharpest images, which has nothing to do with diffraction. Small apertures sometimes require higher ISO values than would otherwise be needed, so we shouldn't use the smallest ones unless they are necessary. When they are necessary, we should feel very happy to use them. As Colin mentions, he is happy to use f/32.

[Brownbear]

Wow! Thank you to everyone for the helpful and informative replies.

Because I am working on my post-processing skills I will take one or two of these images (or perhaps an alternative for the mostly fog over water shot with some foreground in it) and try the suggested edits and post in a day or two.

Trevor and Greg... thank you for advising on brightness and separation and contrast. With respect to contrast I didn't touch this very much (I think) because I was trying to keep the feel of the low contrast fog, but I can see how it might help with separation.

Manfred and Mike... I suppose in my mind the fog was the subject matter but I can see that it may not be a strong enough subject and from this day on I will keep a defined subject in my head. Mike I was trying for dreamy and beautiful, and will try once more in my next edits. I do have another shot where a bridge is the subject and I will post that in a new thread on another day.


Dave Ellis... I would be happy to send you the raw file, if I can figure out how to do so... I will try it in a PM. A week or two or a month is fine... I'm most appreciative as it will help me with my post processing skills.

Photo Nut...

Thank you for taking the time to demonstrate an edit. I will play with the curves tool in LR and try to find a balance between separation and dreamy fog. I hiked up a trail called the Grind but the Gondola is still there as are the beautiful carvings. Alas, our foggy spell is over but on the very next one I am going to take the Gondola up to catch the sunset (too dark to hike up for the sunrise, and the Gondola is not open that early)

Jeff...

Yes, I thought they were too, blue... I will try your WB suggestion and moving the black point. I did not use a tripod (too much to carry when hiking) but I did use a ledge to stabilize my camera.

Thank you for taking the time to demonstrate an edit. I like your version as it is close to the true view, so I will try for something like your edit. Truly appreciated.

Phil...
Thank you for the tips on the foreground and lens... I do have some shots with foreground in them so I will edit one of these.

Otavio and Mike...

Thank you for sharing, very helpful. I will read Colin's tutorials on diffraction.

A BIG thank you to all!

[Dusty]

Christina learning to do it right is not easy work as people think but we get there in the end.
http://fstoppers.com/what-is-lens-di...on-dslr-camera
Dave.

[Brownbear]

Dave, Thank you for the link. Informative and easy to understand.

Phil, I forgot to say that I can see why a longer lens would come in handy. I think the next time the opportunity for a foggy vista arises I will simply go to a bridge where I can be closer to the mountains for a stronger and clearer subject.

Greg, Thank you for seeing the same dreamy clouds... I might save one shot and place a horse running across the clouds

Dave, I've played with the edits trying to come to something close to yours and while I did not quite manage it I learned a lot. I think I will have to buy one of those gradient filters because it is just too hard to select around mountains and trees with finesse. Thank you for your offer of an edit but after working on these I have decided that I don't care for them at all. So perhaps when I manage a landscape that I really like I will ask you to help me with it. I've learned enough from this attempt.

Trevor... the funny spot was the fog dissipating and dust spots.

I don't care for either of my edits but I did learn to burn to make the clouds stand out (also selective use of a curve)




So let this thread die a quick death.. I will move onto another landscape.. Thank you to all. I've learned a lot about post processing and landscapes.