Jump to content

Tips on getting my photos to the next level


Recommended Posts

Hello! I've been shooting landscape and nature photos for about 3 years and have definitely seen an improvement in my skills with schooling and practice.

 

However, lately I feel my photos give off an "amateurish" look. I do use an entry level dslr but have invested in lenses such as 35 1.8 and an ultra wide angle from tamron. I have been told time and time again that it's the person behind the camera that counts, not the equipment.

 

I guess the question i am asking is what can I do to really get that WOW factor and get my photography to a proffesional level? What changes did you make to help you achieve this as well? Below is a link to my Flickr page.

 

scott stevens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd start by being more descriptive, with yourself and with us. You've used words like "amateurish," "WOW factor," and "professional level," but none of those really describe either visually or emotionally what you want out of your own photos. What would a wow factor mean to you? What makes you say, "Wow," when you see others' photos? Is "Wow" enough for you? Remember, sometimes a wow is just an initial reaction, but fleeting. Do you care if something stays with you and even grows on you slowly and what would that be like?

 

Whenever someone tells me they want to be "good" at something, I react by thinking, well that's just a start. Making a "good" photo simply often means making photos that look like other photos that you know to be good, but it doesn't really personalize it much. If you want to simply imitate what you already find "good," look carefully at the photos of people you think are good and do your best to study and mimic them. How rewarding would that be, though? Study the use of light, color, perspective, depth of field, notice textures, how they use the edge of the frame, how they use negative space and spatial relationships in their landscapes. Read up on how they did it, what processes they used.

 

Look carefully at your own work and critique yourself, in as explicit terms as you can. Are your photos interesting in terms of their use of light. If not, how can you improve them? Which ones do you like because of their light? Could you have improved others by learning from the ones you think are better? What about your angles? Do you like predictable, straightforward angles or might you prefer off kilter, more strange angles? What kind of energy is your perspective providing? Are you getting low enough to the ground at times to give your foregrounds some energy and presence? Do you consider framing your landscapes at times through tree branches or with foreground tall grasses? Are you going out in all times of day and challenging yourself sometimes to work with very difficult light as opposed to light you find more easy?

 

Importantly, is there a project you might consider that would inspire you? Something a little personal and maybe a little unique or different? Barren landscapes? Solo tree on a landscape? Landscape with old barn? Landscapes with crops and maybe even farmworkers worker on the land? Landscapes being watered? Rural churches on the land? Landscapes that show ecological degeneration? Landscapes in transition? Landscapes ruined by electrical plants? Landscapes that provide homes for particular animals?

 

The best thing I can think of to improve your photography is to challenge yourself and be honest with yourself. I think you will also get much better advice if you get specific and personal about your work when communicating about what you think it's missing.

  • Like 1
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just did a quick view of your flickr photostream and to be honest, I do not see any one image (in and of itself) that's glaringly 'amateurish,' whatever that means. What I do see is a little 'monotony' when looking at the entire photostream, especially wrt the landscapes with the panoramic crops with a somewhat bare foreground. Other than that, the individual images seem fine, especially the ones with something interesting the foreground.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

they don't look bad to me at all. technically very sound. I guess I'd say you should look at photos of photographers you admire in that genre and analyze what about their work that makes it special to you. I can't possibly guess what "wow factor" etc, means to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take: your images are technically excellent as far as exposure goes. And they look nice and even in tone. The problem is that they are not deliberate enough. There are too many elements in many of your shots, and in some, you haven't taken enough care to get a crisp composition.

 

This shot is 25% exciting, 75% boring: Untitled Why? The foreground has no detail, and the sky has too many clouds. The stars are ruined by CA (which should be removable, mostly, in the RAW converter). But the shot is nice to look at in some way, although it would not make it into the NatGeo.

 

If the light isn't right, you have to wait for it, or try again. Same with this one: Untitled Great light in the background, but the foreground is blah.

 

You should have gone in much, much tighter here. I don't have to explain: Untitled

 

This one is really nice - if only you had a model on the road: Untitled

 

This one has lovely tones and a serene mood, and is almost perfect, but the composition needs refining. Note that there are no clouds in the sky: Untitled

 

You cropped in too tightly, your are apparently off-centre, and it feels like an okay snapshot, as opposed to a photograph: Untitled

 

This one is good enough to be a stock photo, but could still be refined: Untitled

 

This shot of the red barn is not as interesting as you think it is: Untitled

 

This rainbow is very pretty - not much wrong here, if at all: Rainbow in Fairplay CO

 

You shoot too wide in many of your compositions. There are also too many elements in the photos, and sometimes there is no point of interest, like here: Untitled

 

And sometimes you shoot when there is nothing worth shooting: Rolling hills near Fairplay,CO

 

I hope that I have been of some help. Keep in mind that I have laid eyes on a lot of A+ photos in my life, and I know where to find them. I also pay attention to design, as opposed to art alone, and so I have a very strict view of aesthetics - and rightly so. I often preach standards which I myself cannot always attain. If I have been harsh, it's because being nice won't do you any favours. I have seen worse photos receive more praise (despite my protestations to the rest of the audience), so you're on your way to being excellent. Just keep going. :-)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the question i am asking is what can I do to really get that WOW factor and get my photography to a professional level? What changes did you make to help you achieve this as well?

 

The changes I made is that I look around where I live and carefully focus on scenes that would make an interesting image, not a professional level image whatever that looks like. Professional implies one is making money with their photography and the chance of that ever happening is increasingly becoming slim to none.

 

I suggest you photograph what interests you and avoid being driven by a preconceived and obscure notion of "professionalism". You can either find interesting subjects or find subjects to view from an interesting POV. Take mental notes of what interests you about a scene you're wanting to photograph and try to remember and honor what you saw during post processing and avoid the same over dramatized look that smacks of pandering to a graphic novel audience.

 

When you stylize a subject in post such as a landscape, you'ld be surprised how strange, unique and different it can look by just being true to what you saw meaning no crushed shadows to black in foliage, bring out the differences in contrast of hazy background vs a clear foreground, soft shaded shadows vs harsh bright light. Subjects in shadow rarely have a lot of clarity. All this is adding nuances you may not have noticed at the time of capture but can imbue an image with that certain presence. The more details you remember, the more unique and nuanced the final results.

 

Quite a few of your images have a sense of repetitiveness in subject and look as if you're maintaining consistency for the production of a calendar which is the mark of professionalism but is the destroyer of the unique and nuanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

links dont show differently from the rest of the text in the posts on PN.

i found it though.

 

id say thats a very impressive portfolio. nothing amaturish about it.

 

heres a pat on the back for ya... you made me look.

  • Like 1
The more you say, the less people listen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it is, the photos in your Flickr stream don't look bad by any stretch of imagination. And for sure it's not the equipment that counts.

 

Post-processing can give an extra step up, though the real art of good postprocessing is being subtle. Colours in a number of your photos are relatively muted, while many seem to favour more saturated colours, and many perceive those more saturated colours as "more pop" - frankly, I prefer more tame colours so there is no right and wrong. But you might want to try lifting shadows a bit, and enhancing constrast in the midtones (i.e. clarity slider in Adobe). In this respect - cloudy skies are difficult since they tend to create rather flat lighting, and having good light is step 1.

 

With regard to good light, it takes time and patience to get to know an area, and know the light (at what time of day, which season does a specific part of the area look best?). Studying the subject ultimately makes the difference as it forces you to think the photo through, and plan it. So walking the same route in the same area a thousand times can be more useful (for that one great landscape) than visting many different areas. That said, of course, there is also some sacrifice in that, as walking the same route always might get boring.

 

Dare to do something different. Wide angle long exposure time shots can be lovely, but they're being done a lot and start to become a cliché. The whole idea that landscape work is f/16, tripod and wide angle is a limited and limiting view. Break rules. Explore, find the quirky things, try the unexpected. You will end up with a lot of crappy photos in the process most likely, but it's a big step towards finding your own voice. (Fred's post makes this point a lot better than I ever could)

 

Your photos tend to have solid compositions, but at the same time a rather "classic" approach. While there is zero wrong with that, you may want to ask yourself there: what do you want others to see and experience? Most of your photos bring me a sense of relaxation and calm, and as such are very pleasant to look at, but not involving or exiting. Again, no right or wrong here, but something to consider for yourself.

 

Anyway, just my $0,02; I'm not a landscape expert by any means, so read the above as what I try force myself to do :-).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take: your images are technically excellent as far as exposure goes. And they look nice and even in tone. The problem is that they are not deliberate enough. There are too many elements in many of your shots, and in some, you haven't taken enough care to get a crisp composition.

 

This shot is 25% exciting, 75% boring: Untitled Why? The foreground has no detail, and the sky has too many clouds. The stars are ruined by CA (which should be removable, mostly, in the RAW converter). But the shot is nice to look at in some way, although it would not make it into the NatGeo.

 

If the light isn't right, you have to wait for it, or try again. Same with this one: Untitled Great light in the background, but the foreground is blah.

 

You should have gone in much, much tighter here. I don't have to explain: Untitled

 

This one is really nice - if only you had a model on the road: Untitled

 

This one has lovely tones and a serene mood, and is almost perfect, but the composition needs refining. Note that there are no clouds in the sky: Untitled

 

You cropped in too tightly, your are apparently off-centre, and it feels like an okay snapshot, as opposed to a photograph: Untitled

 

This one is good enough to be a stock photo, but could still be refined: Untitled

 

This shot of the red barn is not as interesting as you think it is: Untitled

 

This rainbow is very pretty - not much wrong here, if at all: Rainbow in Fairplay CO

 

You shoot too wide in many of your compositions. There are also too many elements in the photos, and sometimes there is no point of interest, like here: Untitled

 

And sometimes you shoot when there is nothing worth shooting: Rolling hills near Fairplay,CO

 

I hope that I have been of some help. Keep in mind that I have laid eyes on a lot of A+ photos in my life, and I know where to find them. I also pay attention to design, as opposed to art alone, and so I have a very strict view of aesthetics - and rightly so. I often preach standards which I myself cannot always attain. If I have been harsh, it's because being nice won't do you any favours. I have seen worse photos receive more praise (despite my protestations to the rest of the audience), so you're on your way to being excellent. Just keep going. :)

 

 

Thanks for taking a look! Admittedly I do compose more of my photos traditionally and maybe lack of foreground or clear subject is what is bothering me. I think next time i shoot I'll try a longer lense to get more detailed landscapes. I've had the desire to bring a model to some of my locations too, to create dramatic environmental portraits. And being real in your critique is what I need to hear, I'm so used to getting the whole "wow your photos look so pretty" from the non photo types. Thanks again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with your portfolio. The real thing that separates the "professionals" from the rest is that (with landscapes) they may plan their photos in advance and treat it like a job rather than a hobby. When I look at your portfolio, I see the same thing I see with mine, which is that you take your kit with you when you go somewhere and take nice shots when they arise and you happen to be there. This is a pleasant way to do photography. A professional landscaper will probably plan ahead to get the best time of year and the "best" light, and may well have researched the spot and taken multiple shots of the same subject many times before and knows what he/she is looking for. Also, the more places you go, the more "great views" you will see, so there is a virtue in variety. The trouble with this is being driven enough to be that kind of a photographer. There is also, of course, the fundamental question as to whether this will really produce images that are, ultimately, more rewarding; but they may be more saleable, if that’s what you want. Whether it would support a career is another thing too. Also, don't be afraid to edit out the also-rans (too many goats!). A smaller collection of great shots is a better advertisement than diluting the good shots with duplicates or lesser versions of similar things. From a personal viewpoint, and this is purely my point of view. Most pictures of the American West seem to have been done to death, and there will probably be much better pictures than yours out there by people who have been lucky, have been obsessive, or have got there first. So to get a reaction other than "that's really pretty, or "Zion is a great place" etc. etc.) will be hard to achieve.
  • Like 3
Robin Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some inspiring landscapes I'ld suggest you check out "The Hudson River School"... Hudson River School - Wikipedia

 

I just saw this covered on a PBS's "Civilizations" episode outlining how our global culture morphed from the Renaissance driven paintings with religious motifs with the landscape as the insignificant backdrop into making the landscape the actual subject of interest. At least it shows how artists back then saw what was interesting about undeveloped wilderness.

 

That link has some amazing looking landscapes where some of the artists used a camera to capture and project onto canvas to act as a blueprint guide to paint on top of, a process Norman Rockwell implemented for his Saturday Evening Posts paintings to make them look almost photographic.

 

This one's my favorite... Hudson River School - Wikipedia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator Note:

 

The OP posted the same question in another forum (here), which has now been closed.

For the sake of convenience and continuity, Leslie Reid's response to that other thread appears here, below:

 

*

 

First, I’m hoping I never attain a level of skill I’m satisfied with because then I’d have to give up the exhilaration and challenge of trying to achieve it. So consider these to be ideas from someone traveling the same road as you, who also hasn’t reached their desired destination.

 

1. One of things that has helped my photography the most is a background in watercolor painting, because in that medium one must pre-think all the compositional elements in the image before beginning to create the image, and that means that one needs to have a very clear idea of what effect one is trying to achieve. As a result, I’m examining all parts of the image in my mind before I even take out the camera, and I’m making very conscious decisions about what aspects of the scene are most critical and am modifying the point of view and composition and exposure to emphasize those aspects.

 

2. When I started seriously working on improving my photography, I gave myself a challenge: each week for 6 months I needed to shoot 7 photos that I liked well enough to post online. That got me out with a camera every day, and really provoked me to see the photographic potential around me.

 

3. I worked hard to wrap my mind around the potentials that Photoshop and Lightroom provide, and once I’d climbed the steepest part of the learning curve, I’ve been thoroughly enjoying post-processing as a creative tool in its own right. A major aid to this learning process was participating in Photonet’s weekly post-processing challenge.

 

4. I often mentally visualize scenes in black and white before settling in on a composition, and I often convert images to black and white, even if they don’t end up staying there—that’s been a major aid to improving my compositions.

 

5. I live in an area that has some iconic views that get photographed a lot. When I’m in need of a challenge, I’ll go to one of those sites and spend a few hours with the goal of making photos I’ve never seen before. The equivalent in the Bay Area might be: can you photograph the Golden Gate Bridge in a way that you’ve never seen done before? That translates into a more general goal I aim for: I don’t want to make photos that people have seen before. I rarely fully achieve that, but it sure is fun when I do.

 

6. Another “game” I play when I need a challenge is to take a scene or object and photograph it in as many entirely different ways as I can think of—that gets back to the goal of making images that no one has seen before.

 

7. A modification of that game is to take a random object—like a salt shaker, for example—and to figure out a way to make a really interesting photograph of it.

 

8. Yet another game I often indulge in is to go for a walk with my camera with the intention of just finding something interesting to photograph—on several days I never made it off my front porch, and it once took me two hours to walk from my back porch to my back fence, a distance of about 50 yd.

 

9. I participated for a long time on Photonet’s critique forum, both as a critiquee and as a critiquer. At that time, there weren’t a lot of substantive critiques offered, but it turns out that giving a critique to someone else may actually teach you more about how to achieve your photographic goals than receiving critiques from others. This is because when you stick your neck out and critique someone else’s work, you need to spend a lot of time with their image, figuring out what it is that made you react to it like you did (positive or negative), and then figuring out how the image might be modified to better achieve what you’re guessing is the photographer’s goal.

 

10. In a lot of respects, it doesn’t really matter what the photographic subject is, since the skills and artistry gained from shooting in one genre are largely transferrable to whatever photographic genre one prefers to work in. So I tried everything I could—I even shot events, street, and stage during that 6 months of 7 photos a week [i realize that wouldn’t seem strange to a lot of photographers who specialize in such genres, but I’m an introvert, so there was a certain amount of agony involved]. In each case, I learned techniques that were instantly applicable to my preferred genres, and I had a lot of fun trying new things.

 

I suppose the most important thing to me is that the process of challenging myself, learning, and trying new things is a heck of a lot of fun, and maybe that’s the best goal of all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the type of shots I saw on your flickr page, you should ditch the entry level DSLR and buy a large format film camera (or at least a medium format camera), along with a sturdy tripod. You need big negatives for that sort of landscape work, especially if you want large prints. Which means you should learn to develop your own film (at least) unless you do a lot of colour work, and preferably learn how to make large darkroom prints as well. The investment in time and materials will be huge, but so will the quality level increase :]

 

Go out and look at some good photography in your area, talk to some of the people, and decide what you like. That will be a good place to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a few suggestions:

 

1.) Shoot RAW files if you're not doing so already

2.) Familiarize yourself with hyperfocal distance shooting for your landscapes

3.) Try to incorporate interesting foreground elements and leading lines in your landscape images (these will tend to "pull" the viewer into your image)

4.) Don't overdo the post-processing...a properly composed and exposed image should need very little in the way of post-processing beyond a tweak here and there

5.) If you live in an area that goes through seasonal changes (i.e. NOT most of Texas) try to shoot a favorite scene at different times of the year for a different look and for a change of pace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott, not bad. You're making progress. I don't have specific recommendation other than, keep shooting... at lot. If mastery comes at 8000-hours, where are you in relation to that? I suspect that you're a few thousand hours short. Just keep shooting, shooting, and shooting, while comparing your work to others. You'll progress. Be patient.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at other photos, go to museums, look at books, etc.

When you see a photo, picture, painting, drawing, etc that HITS you, sit down and try to think WHY.

There is something in that image that has struck a nerve.

And take LOTS of notes, including drawings/pictures of what it is that has caught your eye.

 

When you go out into the field, bring your notebook with you, and read your notes.

It might clue you in to do something that you might otherwise not do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what can I do to really get that WOW factor and get my photography to a proffesional level? What changes did you make to help you achieve this as well?

Shopping list:

  • Bigger trash can
  • Alarm clock & organizer-, shot planning- / sun prediction apps.

To do: Socialize with some image sensitive folks and learn i.e. practice & discuss(!) post processing "the punch"* into your B&W. My laptop screen might be far off, but look at your sailboat under bridge The desirable amount of contrast is there in the lower right corner or between the boat and environment but the majority of the image is a bucket of gray in gray, puked into my face.

AFAIK the old masters(' lab rats) frequently dodged & burned the heck into their images and / or re-printed them differently after a while, for reasons they could justify. You have color channels to work with, so: Play around!

 

Super wides should come with the Capa quote on a huge warning label all over their upper lens barrel... (No need to print one out, you look young enough to live with an imagined one.)

 

The B&W punch I mentioned: Do an image search "Salgado", compare those thumb nail results to your own stuff and figure out how to close the gap. - I am "just" talking about contrast distribution, for example.

 

Another aspect of the issue: Your "lady at wire mesh fence" suffers(!) from too dark eyes. In my quaint wet darkroom I learned Printing for the eyes. Psychologists measured "Spectators are most interested in the eyes, in a picture." Subconsciously our brains expect(!) the eyes to show some "white". Either you go for the easy approach of just globally tweaking your exposure to gain that white, or you bring lighting to help capturing it or you should better cheat & dodge those eyes, to remain white. - Right now I say: "Nice portrait, of that fence".

I have been told time and time again that it's the person behind the camera that counts, not the equipment.
I can't call that a lie but perceive it as a description of the visible tip of the iceberg; i.e: At the end of the day that person who counts should spend about 66% of the time post processing and or arranging the light for the pictures. Kodak are dead. I guess they did not build your "entry level DSLR" & hardware, so get "you press the button, we do the rest" out of your mind and work that mouse too.

 

Your Flickr is quite solid. - I envy you for your goats & critters shooting opportunities and some of the landscape sights and don't in any way claim to be ahead of you.

My reply here is tailored towards you. - I am absolutely not preaching to become a "Photoshoptographer", who fixes everything & the kitchen sink in post. But some basic darkroom like work makes a huge difference with B&W.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...