Long Question about problem.. is it digital or film or me?

</p>

this is a long one so stick with me. and Hopefully this isn't the

wrong forum for this.

</p>

 

A problem I have run into. I have a large list of places I like and

want to

photograph that are landscapes for the most part. but I have a problem

with the

capture because while I have gone back to several places several times

and with

different lighting situations (all good IMO) and tried to capture

images.. they just didn't work.

</p>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3807440-lg.jpg"></center>

</p>

in this example I used my 20d and a 28-135mm lens at f/8 (i think)

exposed correctly.

I am unsatisfied with the results because of the splotchy, look of the

foliage.. it looks

like an oil painting maybe.

</p>

many of these scenes that I like that aren't well rendered

through my 20d and sometimes film, are colorful highly detailed or

just highly

detailed images with lots of leaves in trees, or grass in fields.

(probably nothing

great to look at for most people anyway but still something I want to

master).

</p>

photos taken with my 20d inevitably do not look 'good' to me. I just

can't

seem to capture my idea of a clean picture of these scenes. but I

don't think it is

all the camera; part

of it may be just lack of experience on my part or the wrong vision or

idea of capture

but a bigger part I fear is (I think) the fact that it is digital, I

have tried

recently (this last weekend) some more MF film because in the past I

remember

film having done a good job.

</p>

The results in my memory from film, were still better the few times

that I have

done these images on film . but even then I think I remember problems

with grass

in fields looking too digitized when I scanned the image in.

</p>

so maybe It is time I try LF, the largest I have is 6x7; maybe that would

help me capture that detail I want from a scene but maybe detail isn't

what it needs?

 

</p>

the other possibility I think may be the fact that a highly detailed

image on a

monitor in digital form will never look good. so maybe I should just

accept this and

just print these images?

</p>

on the other hand (I mentioned this first) my lack of experience may

be the problem.

maybe it just can't be done and I have to change my view. maybe you

can never take pictures

of a forested hillside in the sun because the leaves are just too

glossy and the millions

of specular highlights just add to the chaos that results. many times

I know I am only

in a place for a certain time, and don't have the leisure to come back

to that place

at that 'perfect' time so I try my best to make a photo of something

that is beautiful

anyway. but I still fail to capture it to my satifaction (like the

image above)..

</p>

If you have ideas, please feel free to comment. Maybe some of you more

experienced landscape

photographers can offer me some pointers.

My personal feeling is that there is no single system or medium that is best for all circumstances. It is up to you, as the artist, to select your tools to best accomplish your goal...sometimes that will be digital and sometimes that will be film. It is foolhardy to try to make one camera system your one and only choice.

 

You wouldn't pick a top fuel dragster to move your house and you wouldn't enter an 18-wheeler truck in a cross country rally...each of these vehicles has specific strengths that make them better choices in different circumstances.

 

Always leave yourself options and don't dismiss an appropriate answer just because it may not be 'trendy'. There is a lot of pressure now for people to 'Go digital' as if there is no longer a film option...you MUST be 100% digital or you are no longer 'cool'. Well, the sensible approach is to just be a 'photographer' and not just a 'digital photographer' or a 'film photographer'. You pick different lenses because you want (or need) to achieve a specific effect...you can do the same with photographic media. In the end, it is up to you.

'I have a problem with the capture because while I have gone back to several places several times and with different lighting situations (all good IMO) and tried to capture images.. they just didn't work.'

 

Tell me about it! If you find the answer let me know.

 

Two comments: The scene you have chosen is enormously detail rich, and may be stretching that Canon somewhat. I think a lot of photographers would say that medium or large format would be more appropriate for that scene. Further, a lot of the detail in the scene is leaves on trees. And they move, even in the lightest breeze. What was your shutter speed? Ansel Adams was always complaining about having to wait an age or two for the wind to drop. He only ever seems to have taken one plate with him and was always threatened with a wait which would have made it an out of date plate.

You will certainly get more detail (provided there is no wind) with medium or large format film. However, a good landscape photograph is not about resolving each leaf in detail. Having a point of interest, foreground, midground and background are essential elements in most cases. This scene is tranquil, but not particularly colorful, and there is nothing to draw the eye into the picture. The bit of lifeless sky detracts rather than adds to the image. There is no sense of depth, hence the "oil painting" effect - a backdrop with no subject.

 

This is probably a stream, rather than a lake. Streams come from somewhere and go somewhere. The stream itself can be a compositional element that "leads" the eye. The reflection in the calm surface can show symmetry with the elements being reflected. The tree in the foreground could be rendered in silhouette, and used for more bracketing rather than as a distracting element to the side.

 

What about the scene makes you interested in taking a photograph? How would you describe it in (few) words? How would you translate those words so that someone else will see what you see?

 

In technical terms, a polarizer will definitely add saturation to the foliage. Each leaf reflects a bit of the sky, which adds a white or blue overtone to the image. This can be nearly eliminated with a polarizer (which is the best use of that device, IMO). With care, you can retain the reflectivity of the water, or render it black - whatever works.

If you want to stick with the 20D, I would shoot a prime lens, with a polarizer and shoot raw and process to a tiff.

 

Otherwise Skip all the BS and go for a lightweight 4x5 with full movements and a good tripod. Add to that a Binocular viewer, a Nikon 90mm F8 and a sharp normal lens around 135 and 150.

 

Its time consuming, but worth it. Please keep in mind that this is not one of my sharpest shots.

 

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/image/36256345

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/image/36256346

 

The downside is there are just not that many great LF scanners out there. I ended up with a drum scanner. If you like 6x7 you could go with a Nikon 8000 or 9000 for that.

 

Try some E100G, or VS film. E100G is a little flat, but a sat bump fixes that. VS is a lot more vivid.

 

Here is an EPP100 8x10 shot. Its a huge PIA to shoot (8x10 that is), and it has 4x the area of 4x5 but it will give you an idea of what this film looks like.

 

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/image/49116192/large

it was a fast exposure (maybe 1/250th or 1/125th of a second). and there was little or no wind. the day wasn't the ideal time (around 3:00pm). and the water is down becuase of the late time of year. the scene was only mildy colorful in real life but I didn't want to attempt to make it similar on the monitor becuase it will enhance the flaws (I played with this image a bit already).

 

this image isn't a great example of any kind of work. the trees are a little narrow on this part of the river. but this image did offer a good example of how the trees start to look splotchy. and too much contrast or shrarpening in the foliage makes it look worse. I have other images that offer a good story but I don't like as much because they are framed with trees. or grass.

 

Edward ..btw, there is a focal point. if you look just above the water line and about a third of the way from the left of the image you will see a heron... it is the taller dark spot that cuts in front of the grass. :) find waldo. it is times like that that I wish I had a 400mm lens.

 

however my main concern is.. what would make grass and trees look good? I can't do it.. which is why if you look at my portfolio you will find lots of closeups,, and the like.. not a lot of environmental shots.

I will try the polarizing filter .. on MF and try some more on the 20d. (I already shoot with E100VS with my RB). one thing I had tried was sharpening the image but a drawback of trying to sharpen the foliage is a lot of white specular spots appear. but without a sharpening the image does look flat.. so maybe a polarizing filter would help a lot.

Some of the best advice, in clear, plain, simple terms I have ever read here from Edward:<p>

 

<i>Edward Ingold , oct 17, 2005; 12:36 p.m.<br>

You will certainly get more detail (provided there is no wind) with medium or large format film. However, a good landscape photograph is not about resolving each leaf in detail. Having a point of interest, foreground, midground and background are essential elements in most cases. This scene is tranquil, but not particularly colorful, and there is nothing to draw the eye into the picture. The bit of lifeless sky detracts rather than adds to the image. There is no sense of depth, hence the "oil painting" effect - a backdrop with no subject. <br>

This is probably a stream, rather than a lake. Streams come from somewhere and go somewhere. The stream itself can be a compositional element that "leads" the eye. The reflection in the calm surface can show symmetry with the elements being reflected. The tree in the foreground could be rendered in silhouette, and used for more bracketing rather than as a distracting element to the side.

<p>

What about the scene makes you interested in taking a photograph? How would you describe it in (few) words? How would you translate those words so that someone else will see what you see?

<p>

In technical terms, a polarizer will definitely add saturation to the foliage. Each leaf reflects a bit of the sky, which adds a white or blue overtone to the image. This can be nearly eliminated with a polarizer (which is the best use of that device, IMO). With care, you can retain the reflectivity of the water, or render it black - whatever works.</i>

<p>

Well said Edward.<br>

My adds: Up your 20D's IS0 to 400 and use a faster shutter speed at f/8. Do some post-processing at home (e.g., saturation) and use a polarizer! I assume you are shooting in RAW so you have complete control when you get home.

I'd experiment with a polarizer and/or a cloudy day.

As you have 6x7 give it a try. You might also try some prime lenses with your 20d.

The 28-135 IS isn't the sharpest lens. Get a 17-40/4L and you'll see much more detail, sharpness, and contrast.

 

It's also a matter of post-processing to get the look you want. Check out this: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=18203.

 

Also, you might consider the new Canon 5D, which offers much higher resolution and the images/colors look very film-like.

So many good answers I'm kinda nervous to comment...I like the picture and Edwards answer was phenominal. Composition really does make the scene. However once it is composed eliminating that washed out look might help. I would try to under expose by 2/3 or a full stop. I almost always underexpose by 1/3 or more its a habit for me now. It may give you some more latitude in post processing too. Check out Capture One also. I've recovered images shot in raw with that that I thought were gone. There is a trial version so you can just check it out and try the Compensation sliders for exposure, contrast, and color compensation.

 

Just my .02

Your 20D is certainly more than capable of capturing that scene with great clarity, sharpness and tones. You can check out my landscape folder. I moved from a Mamiya 645 to my 20D system, and I love it.

All the old rules still stand; alway's shoot with a tripod; alway's use a remote release. Sometimes I lock up the mirror.

Most of my shot's were taken with a 17-40 F4L. Maybe it's time to retire your len's if your not pleased with the images you are getting.

 

Good luck

Hi Byron, Here's my .02 cents: 1) Use a polarizer with shots like these - it'll help "punch" the colors. 2) Sometimes a "Warming Polarizer" works even better for shots like these 3) Prior to posting on the web it'll look better if you first convert to the sRGB color space 4) Here's a (somewhat cheesy) trick for "Instant Velvia" in Photoshop: Simply duplicate the layer and change the blend mode to "multiply" and adjust opacity to taste (Please pardon my borrowing your photo to demonstrate!) 5) There's good advice here about composing a shot that draws the eye in with a good foreground, middleground and background composition... but hey; sometimes I'll just take pictures of colorful trees too! Good luck!<div></div>

Byron - I seem to have the same problem with my dRebel 350. What was said above about composition, etc. definitely applies. But even so, I like to see sharp detail in my landscape photographs. I've been happier with my MF 6x7 scanned on a Nikon 9000 than I am with my digital. With my digital, I tend to get very splotchy colors in the distant trees, etc. However, on my last outing, I took a few shoots with my digital that turned out fairly good. I'm not sure if it was my post processing or if I used a better technique in capturing the photo. I do have a decent lens. I also used mirror lock up, and used a mid-range aperture. I'm not sure what my point is ;) - Other than just when I was starting to be convinced that I didn't like my Canon dRebel for anything except snapshots, I got a few shots that look pretty good when printed. (I've only printed an 8X10 so far.)

I think there are several components to your question:

 

1. Detail: the bigger the better, be it digital or film.

2. Technique: to get the detail, you need proper technique. Learn the tools, get help from filters or post-processing. Use a tripod, to ensure you get the most from your lenses.

3. Vision: learn to wait for good light, that goes with the specific subject, that will give it "that" extra factor of interest.

With digital I find that a lot depends on post processing technique. There is a way to sharpen in Photoshop without causing highlight halos... using the blending properties of a sharpened duplicate layer to only show the mid ranges. I find this very effective for landscape shots or photos with intricate detail that seems to be lost when I shoot digital. It allows you to use unsharp mask more aggressively to achieve sharpness without that "over sharpened" look.

 

I'll fire up Photoshop and see if I can post again with details.

Please note... I would not recommmend this as an alternative to good technique when taking the photograph. As others have mentioned good technique is still important.

 

I am using CS2 on a PC... "right clicks" and "alt" etc will vary on a Mac

 

Ok here goes...

 

===

 

* Open your image.

 

* Have the layer palette open.

 

* Right click the background [image] layer in the layer palette and duplicate it.

 

*I usually name the new layer something like "sharpened"

 

* Use the Unsharp Mask filter to sharpen this new layer [you can be quite agressive to the point of those horrible halos appearing].

 

* Once applied, then right click that duplicate "sharpened" layer again in the layers palette and select blending options. Near the bottom of the dialogue box that opens in the "Blend if" section you will see two black to white gradient stripes. Using the one called "this layer" bring the arrow at the black end up to about 80, then hold down the alt key and click the arrow you have just moved. This will split it in two. Bring the left half back down to about 30. Then pull the arrow at the white end down to about 170. Again, hold down the alt key and click the arrow to split it. Then move the right hand half of the arrow up to about 205.

 

* Click ok.

 

===

 

What you now have is the sharpened layer only showing through the mid ranges and fading in sharpness as it goes in to the highlights eliminating the halos. The sharpening is also fading towards the darker end, hopefully causing less sharpening of any noise that might be present in the lower end. You also have the ability to fade that layer slightly if it looks too sharp, or to use a layer mask to mask out certain areas that you don't want sharpened.

 

As with all techniques, the values and increments vary depending on image size / resolution and content. Hopefuly this is a start point for something you might find useful.

what you have to remember is that our eyes see a lot more image area than any lens, except for a fisheye. what we remember about a particular scene, and whate we capture with our camera are completely different. while you may remember all the colorful foliage, a large deep blue sky, and sparkling water, the camera only -remembers- a finite portion of the scene. plus, as we scan an area with our eyes, our brain automatically gives us the correct focus and exposure to view it correctly. a camera can only be set to one exposure setting. also, if you look at all the classic landscapes from the past, you will notice that there are large focal points that aren't as detail oriented as foliage. for example: a mountain, waterfall, or even a stream. also, they were for the most part shot with large format, since a 4x5 or 8x10 sheet of film can capture a much larger amount of information than an aps sized sensor or even 24x36mm piece of film.

 

adrian