Learning Landscapes - Another try at a dramatic sky

[Brownbear]

Even though I just learned that perhaps I should not include so much sky and cloud in my images (doesn't fit with the rule of thirds), I couldn't resist photographing this sky, and I think these work because the clouds are so beautiful but I would appreciate knowing if they don't work. Perhaps I'm just a little bit too fixated on clouds?

The images include shapes, texture, and tone but I'm not so sure about the lines of the clouds working or not, ie, all the attention is on the clouds.

F 22 & F20 SS 160 ISO 100 & 180 (auto iso set to 400 as these were hand held) Exposure Comp -.67

Processed in Lightroom, lifting the midtones of the clouds with the curves tool and adjusting the white and black points a wee bit, and increasing vibrancy a little. I didn't sharpen these in Lightroom because they seem to be all water and sky, but I did apply an unsharp mask of .3 at 100 in Adobe Photoshop after downsizing.

1.



Same image but slightly different composition to include more water, and one with a darker black point.

2A



3A


I didn't have a polarizer on my lens but the sky still seems to be varying shades of blue, and I suppose that is because of the way the sunlight was falling...

After this I will stay away from images with so much cloud and sky.

[Donald]

Even though I just learned that perhaps I should not include so much sky and cloud in my images (doesn't fit with the rule of thirds),

1. It isn't really a rule, just a guide.
2. Rules are made to be broken.

I think you composed these in exactly the right way. For me that first one in particular beautifully conveys a sense of scale and that is because of the 'big sky'. Apart from the sun flare at the left that I'm not so keen on, I think that's a good one.

After this I will stay away from images with so much cloud and sky.

No, no, no, no!

[Brownbear]

Thank you for the feedback and advice. Truly appreciated.

I have some without the sun flare but chose this one because I thought it look like a pretty star sun... Do you find it distracting? Or just not pretty?

1. It isn't really a rule, just a guide.
2. Rules are made to be broken.

I think you composed these in exactly the right way. For me that first one in particular beautifully conveys a sense of scale and that is because of the 'big sky'. Apart from the sun flare at the left that I'm not so keen on, I think that's a good one.

After this I will stay away from images with so much cloud and sky.

No, no, no, no!

[Mike Buckley]

auto iso set to 400

We have no idea what you mean by that. Is ISO 400 the maximum ISO that you configured? If so, you need to explain that.

I didn't have a polarizer on my lens but the sky still seems to be varying shades of blue, and I suppose that is because of the way the sunlight was falling...

Probably correct. Even so, if you're going to take the time to provide EXIF information, include the very helpful focal length.

After this I will stay away from images with so much cloud and sky.

Why in the world would you make that decision?

[IzzieK]

Why would stay away from clouds shots...??? These are beautiful ones. I like #1 for its perspective; #2 and 3 for the composition itself....besides I love cloud formations. When I was young-er I used to try to find faces and animals and fairies amongst them...and letters! and numbers. A lot of possibilities.

[Brownbear]

Hi Mike,

Yes, I should've stated that I set my camera to auto iso with the iso set to a maximum of 400.

Also my exposure bias was - 1.33 not -.67
(I must have been viewing the data for another image)

The focal length for the horizontal view was 15 mm and for the vertical view 10 mm. Why and how is knowing the focal length important/helpful?

I suppose in part because the last landscape image I posted in my learning landscape project had too much sky, I came away with the impression that it had too much sky in it (and also because I'm learning from you and I recall you saying at some time or the other that so many clouds were not interesting) and also because it is hard to follow the rule of thirds and have something of interest in each third... However I do adore skies and on this day I thought the clouds were especially beautiful so I thought I would try and give it another try.

We have no idea what you mean by that. Is ISO 400 the maximum ISO that you configured? If so, you need to explain that.



Probably correct. Even so, if you're going to take the time to provide EXIF information, include the very helpful focal length.



Why in the world would you make that decision?

[Brownbear]

Hi Isabel,

I was thinking of my last image which had too much sky in it, and having something of interest in each 1/3 of the photo. I love clouds too, and I still enjoy seeing things in the clouds.

Thank you for your feedback on the composition.

Why would stay away from clouds shots...??? These are beautiful ones. I like #1 for its perspective; #2 and 3 for the composition itself....besides I love cloud formations. When I was young-er I used to try to find faces and animals and fairies amongst them...and letters! and numbers. A lot of possibilities.

[Mike Buckley]

Why and how is knowing the focal length important/helpful?

The unappealing change in the tones of the sky that are directly caused by the use of a polarizer tend to occur when using a focal length of about 28mm and shorter. It doesn't occur when using longer focal lengths.

I suppose in part because the last landscape image I posted in my learning landscape project had too much sky, I came away with the impression that it had too much sky in it (and also because I'm learning from you and I recall you saying at some time or the other that so many clouds were not interesting) and also because it is hard to follow the rule of thirds and have something of interest in each third

1) Just because one particular image has too much sky doesn't mean the same would apply to all images.

2) I can't imagine writing that a sky can have too many clouds. Forget the idea completely at least until you come upon whatever I wrote that made you think that. Don't take any time looking for such a comment because doing so would probably be a waste of time.

3) I get the impression that you're trying too hard to follow the rule of thirds. Like all rules, it's a guide, not a rule. Moreover, it's a great guide when it works and a lousy guide when it doesn't. As an example, I use my variation on the rule of thirds that I call the rule of fourths or the rule of fifths every often as much as the rule of thirds. Very, very few of my images apply the rule of thirds, fourths or fifths.

[ajohnw]

I think those clouds are pretty good Christina. Nowt wrong with any of them. It's all a matter of taste which varies. In fact it's interesting that varying amounts of water can be included.

The deep blue / light blue sky is down to flair from the sun on the left. Rather hard to do anything about that other than shooting well away from the sun. A lens hood can allow shots to be taken closer to the sun but I doubt if that would work out on this one.

I messed one up for you. Black point on the boat = ,more contrast in the clouds and a hefty whack of tone mapping = yet more just to show what these do.



If you use this sites image upload rather than the one you are using exif info will be available. Most prefer that.

John
-

[Brownbear]

Thanks Mike... 1-3 Wonderful to know. Thank you for sharing.

I'm 110% sure that I did not have a polarizer on my lens because I removed them from my lens a few days ago. I took these photos yesterday, and double checked the above... I was very surprised to see the varying tones of blue. It sounds like it is best to use a focal length above 28 mm whenever a sky is involved?

The unappealing change in the tones of the sky that are directly caused by the use of a polarizer tend to occur when using a focal length of about 28mm and shorter. It doesn't occur when using longer focal lengths.



1) Just because one particular image has too much sky doesn't mean the same would apply to all images.

2) I can't imagine writing that a sky can have too many clouds. Forget the idea completely at least until you come upon whatever I wrote that made you think that. Don't take any time looking for such a comment because doing so would probably be a waste of time.

3) I get the impression that you're trying too hard to follow the rule of thirds. Like all rules, it's a guide, not a rule. Moreover, it's a great guide when it works and a lousy guide when it doesn't. As an example, I use my variation on the rule of thirds that I call the rule of fourths or the rule of fifths every often as much as the rule of thirds. Very, very few of my images apply the rule of thirds, fourths or fifths.

[Brownbear]

Thank you John. Very helpful to know.

I see that you enhanced all my dust spots Yes, I think that the site I use to upload photos strips the exif data and that is why I always try to remember to share it.

Thank you.

I think those clouds are pretty good Christina. Nowt wrong with any of them. It's all a matter of taste which varies. In fact it's interesting that varying amounts of water can be included.

The deep blue / light blue sky is down to flair from the sun on the left. Rather hard to do anything about that other than shooting well away from the sun. A lens hood can allow shots to be taken closer to the sun but I doubt if that would work out on this one.

I messed one up for you. Black point on the boat = ,more contrast in the clouds and a hefty whack of tone mapping = yet more just to show what these do.



If you use this sites image upload rather than the one you are using exif info will be available. Most prefer that.

John
-

[Mike Buckley]

It sounds like it is best to use a focal length above 28 mm whenever a sky is involved?

Not at all. It depends on where the sun is and isn't and the type of photograph you are attempting to make.

Consider that you don't like that some of the skies in this thread have a tonal range from very light blue to dark blue. If you don't want that, photograph a different part of the sky.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Christina,

Clouds are great, we do not photograph them enough. Very simply if this image did not have the dramatic sky it would have little of interest to make you look at it more than once.

Grahame

[Nancy Moran G]

From the newb in the corner....I like 3 as the blue of the sky draws my eye down into the photo along with the shape of the white clouds.
Looks like a nice day for photos.
Nancy

[Kyle]

I agree with Nancy. They are all great photos but I like the third one best. The dark blue in the sky really adds to the photo.

[Kaye Leggett]

They're good- don't be so hard on yourself. I particularly like the 1st as the big sky to me seems best in landscape orientation. I also like the way the in the first the colour graduates from bottom left to top right

[terrib]

Christina, I don't recall the last thread that you refer to where people said you had too much sky. I think the important thing to remember is "What is Your Subject?" Perhaps in the last photo, you subject was being diminished or people were being distracted from it by the sky. If the sky is your subject which in these photographs, they appear to be, then a lot of dramatic sky works. And it works to have other things in the shot to give that big sky a sense of scale.

I like the first composition best because it shows off the subject except I don't like the sun flare because it detracts from the subject by drawing the eye and also washing out the color. Starbursts can be appealing but remember that the sun here is not the subject and so it is distracting.

[Brownbear]

Thank you to everyone for your helpful feedback and advice.

PS Terri, your feedback is especially helpful. Thank you.

[Sponge]

1. It isn't really a rule, just a guide.
2. Rules are made to be broken.

I think you composed these in exactly the right way. For me that first one in particular beautifully conveys a sense of scale and that is because of the 'big sky'. Apart from the sun flare at the left that I'm not so keen on, I think that's a good one.


No, no, no, no!

+1

Don't get too hung up on the rule of thirds and with interesting cloud formations even less. Have a look at this time-lapse video* of Wyoming landscapes and a little over half way through there are a bunch of storm sequences with almost all sky and no land.

*Warning! This video is so good IMO that it can not only be inspiring but also discouraging, i.e. "I'll most likely never get photos like THAT!"

[deetheturk]

Christina,i love them,well done you!