Thoughts on my first serious attempt at landscape photography

Hi all,

This is a low resolution version of Stumpy Meadows Reservoir at sunset, Eldorado National Forest, CA. The sun is behind me to camera left. I shot this in RAW and processed in Capture One Pro 12. Processing wise I did lens correction, minor bump in exposure, added saturation, recovered highlights in the clouds, recovered shadows in the tree-line to regain detail and gain some distant layering, and a touch of clarity and structure overall.

Composition wise I decided the stick on the lower right was important (not entirely sure why but I like it), wanted to balance the tiny eagles nest on the middle right with the tree-line on the left, and waited for the clouds on the upper right to be just right to balance the open space sky on the left. The light didn't last long, and shortly after this shot the fluffy clouds in the middle didn't last either. It took a while to walk around to find a composition I liked. This is one of about 50 shots.

I'd appreciate any constructive critiques as this is my first serious attempt at landscape photography, and I'm not confident in what I'm doing or how I'm doing it. I usually do studio product photography with monolights and modifiers, but I was on vacation and wanted to give this a go.

Many thanks Ludmilla, very encouraging!

What is 'PP software'? I haven't seen that term before. Post processing software?

Hi all,

 

This is a low resolution version of Stumpy Meadows Reservoir at sunset, Eldorado National Forest, CA. The sun is behind me to camera left. I shot this in RAW and processed in Capture One Pro 12. Processing wise I did lens correction, minor bump in exposure, added saturation, recovered highlights in the clouds, recovered shadows in the tree-line to regain detail and gain some distant layering, and a touch of clarity and structure overall.

 

Composition wise I decided the stick on the lower right was important (not entirely sure why but I like it), wanted to balance the tiny eagles nest on the middle right with the tree-line on the left, and waited for the clouds on the upper right to be just right to balance the open space sky on the left. The light didn't last long, and shortly after this shot the fluffy clouds in the middle didn't last either. It took a while to walk around to find a composition I liked. This is one of about 50 shots.

 

I'd appreciate any constructive critiques as this is my first serious attempt at landscape photography, and I'm not confident in what I'm doing or how I'm doing it. I usually do studio product photography with monolights and modifiers, but I was on vacation and wanted to give this a go.

 

[ATTACH=full]1306975[/ATTACH]

Brian, although I agree with Ludmilla's observations, I have one further thought. As I'm sure you are aware, landscape photos are numerous to the point that looking at them can become boring. Your photo's inclusion of the stick and the eagle's nest adds interest. Well done!

It's a lovely photo of a peaceful, tranquil scene, nicely rendered.

Things I notice that I think are worth pointing out. See what you think:

The stick is fine, though it will probably bother some people. That's a very personal call. I happen to like it. But I could certainly see someone wanting it cloned or cropped out.

The water furthest from us toward the shoreline loses its texture and is quite a solid gray and the line separating it from the reflections is fairly strong. Obviously, this may be somewhat how it was at the time, but to me it's translating a bit odd in the photo. Some post processing to that area could make it feel a bit more organic.

The mound over to the right edge, beyond the stick, is catching quite a bit of light and pulling my eye a little. Not a strong negative, mind you, but something to think about.

The tallest hills in the background feel a little over-saturated to me. While the orange in the sky feels ok, the red on the hills feels a bit unnatural.

The saturation of the reflections in the water feels the same if not stronger than the saturation of the sky.

The trees on the left are appropriately dark and in shadow, but a little post processing work there might create a little more variance, so it doesn't seem so solid and might feel a bit softer.

Again, I think overall it works and is a grand first effort. There are just some details and nuances that could be attended to that might add to the depth and experience of the photo.

Brian, this is a very nice and worthy effort. Here are my thoughts:

1. I don't mind the saturated colors. The treatment given provides a satisfying, pastel-like tone and texture, which confirms the sunset as the unstated subject.

2. Speaking of subjects, this image lacks an explicit statement of subject. There are a number of engaging features, but only the sky/clouds and water are really major elements. This is not a criticism of a negative, necessarily, but more an observation. For my own work, I like to try and give the viewer something specific and individually engaging to hook him/her into the image. This might be a natural feature, like a tree or rock, or a receding real or implied path, a person or animal, or some such.

3. I can't check the EXIF data on this computer, but it appears to have been captured with a fairly wide lens. In this case the wide lens emphasizes the "negative space" of the water. I think I would like more of something in the foreground to draw my eyes more deeply into the image, so I'm more likely to find good stuff like the nest.

4. The composition causes the far shoreline to form a near-horizontal line across the middle of the image. This serves to emphasize and exacerbate the sense of the water as negative versus everything else in top half of the image. It leaves me feeling out of balance, as if the water were an unbridgeable barrier to further exploration.

5. The concept of the stick and its reflection is good. It's placement is OK, but it could have been used, perhaps, as a more powerful and engaging element. A lower camera position, shifted to the right, might have brought the stick into play in adding a sense of intermediate depth, as well as a more powerful foreground element.

Again, these are only my own, personal perceptions, and should be taken with a very large grain of salt relative to your desires and intentions for the image. I do find your photo pleasant in a calm, placid way. This is a very good start.

Brian, although I agree with Ludmilla's observations, I have one further thought. As I'm sure you are aware, landscape photos are numerous to the point that looking at them can become boring. Your photo's inclusion of the stick and the eagle's nest adds interest. Well done!

Thank you michaellinder!

It's a lovely photo of a peaceful, tranquil scene, nicely rendered.

 

Things I notice that I think are worth pointing out. See what you think:

 

The stick is fine, though it will probably bother some people. That's a very personal call. I happen to like it. But I could certainly see someone wanting it cloned or cropped out.

 

The water furthest from us toward the shoreline loses its texture and is quite a solid gray and the line separating it from the reflections is fairly strong. Obviously, this may be somewhat how it was at the time, but to me it's translating a bit odd in the photo. Some post processing to that area could make it feel a bit more organic.

 

The mound over to the right edge, beyond the stick, is catching quite a bit of light and pulling my eye a little. Not a strong negative, mind you, but something to think about.

 

The tallest hills in the background feel a little over-saturated to me. While the orange in the sky feels ok, the red on the hills feels a bit unnatural.

 

The saturation of the reflections in the water feels the same if not stronger than the saturation of the sky.

 

The trees on the left are appropriately dark and in shadow, but a little post processing work there might create a little more variance, so it doesn't seem so solid and might feel a bit softer.

 

Again, I think overall it works and is a grand first effort. There are just some details and nuances that could be attended to that might add to the depth and experience of the photo.

Thank you samstevens!

I somehow didn't notice the water furthest from the shoreline until you mentioned it. That is how it looked to my eye while taking the shot, I don't think I'll leave my circular polarizer at home to save space on a flight again as it may have cut this reflection.

The full resolution image is a little sharper and more defined in the shadow details on the left, I'll play with it and see if I can strike a better balance.

Brian, this is a very nice and worthy effort. Here are my thoughts:

1. I don't mind the saturated colors. The treatment given provides a satisfying, pastel-like tone and texture, which confirms the sunset as the unstated subject.

2. Speaking of subjects, this image lacks an explicit statement of subject. There are a number of engaging features, but only the sky/clouds and water are really major elements. This is not a criticism of a negative, necessarily, but more an observation. For my own work, I like to try and give the viewer something specific and individually engaging to hook him/her into the image. This might be a natural feature, like a tree or rock, or a receding real or implied path, a person or animal, or some such.

3. I can't check the EXIF data on this computer, but it appears to have been captured with a fairly wide lens. In this case the wide lens emphasizes the "negative space" of the water. I think I would like more of something in the foreground to draw my eyes more deeply into the image, so I'm more likely to find good stuff like the nest.

4. The composition causes the far shoreline to form a near-horizontal line across the middle of the image. This serves to emphasize and exacerbate the sense of the water as negative versus everything else in top half of the image. It leaves me feeling out of balance, as if the water were an unbridgeable barrier to further exploration.

5. The concept of the stick and its reflection is good. It's placement is OK, but it could have been used, perhaps, as a more powerful and engaging element. A lower camera position, shifted to the right, might have brought the stick into play in adding a sense of intermediate depth, as well as a more powerful foreground element.

Again, these are only my own, personal perceptions, and should be taken with a very large grain of salt relative to your desires and intentions for the image. I do find your photo pleasant in a calm, placid way. This is a very good start.

Thank you DavidTriplett!

1. Thank you. This final image isn't too far off what I remember live, perhaps a touch more enhanced. In post I had to pull myself back from over saturation lol, I'm specifically trying to avoid that look but also didn't want it flat.

2. Thank you for this, totally agree and actually thought of this but was running out of time after starting a family camp fire and running out to find this spot. I was quickly trying to find something in the foreground to anchor the image, so... plan B was the stick! :-) With more experience I hope to get better at this but it was a little hurried.

3. This was shot with at 50mm lens.

4. I only see this now after the fact, great stuff ty.

5. Completely read part of my mind there, I was looking for a way to get lower to the water but was on the edge of a very steep hill. The stick was a little of a happy accident. In hindsight I would have realized the potential of the stick and the issue with the waterline. Curses for leaving my circular polarizer at home!

Brian, this is a very nice and worthy effort. Here are my thoughts:

...

2. Speaking of subjects, this image lacks an explicit statement of subject. There are a number of engaging features, but only the sky/clouds and water are really major elements. This is not a criticism of a negative, necessarily, but more an observation. For my own work, I like to try and give the viewer something specific and individually engaging to hook him/her into the image. This might be a natural feature, like a tree or rock, or a receding real or implied path, a person or animal, or some such.

...

The next morning I shot this, the only two people up that early was this fisherman and me :-).

The next morning I shot this,

This one has more story potential than the first, but with far fewer elements. I think it deserves some attention...:)

This one has more story potential than the first, but with far fewer elements. I think it deserves some attention...:)

How do you feel about the fisherman in boat motion blur?

With respect to the first: I am not a very good landscape photographer, so take this with a grain of salt, but I have a few suggestions that might help.

Re David's comment about not having a subject: I think the subject ought to be the band of land in the middle. A little bit of postprocessing could make this stand out a little more. I didn't do a careful job, but I did a quick edit to illustrate this. I made several changes, using a mask and brush to apply them only to the band of land:

-- I dodged the trees on both sides to bring out a bit of detail.

--I increased contrast, only for the land area.

-- I sharpened the land area very modestly with smart sharpen in Photoshop

I also cropped a small amount, top and bottom.

The changes are small, but I think they are apparent.

Are these directions that would help, in your view?

A landscape photo may turn out not to have or need a subject. The scene itself, or the photo itself, might turn out to be what matters. I referred to this as tranquil and peaceful precisely because it has no “subject” grounding or focusing me. I guess I’m ok with that. I sort of assumed that was the kind of picture I was looking at ... scene, mood, atmosphere.

Now, if the photographer didn’t want this and feels he missed due to a lack of hook or anchor via a discrete subject, then, yes, that could be a disappointment. But plenty of landscapes are about other things besides boulders in the water or land in the distance and just impress upon us the scene and a feeling of calm.

Here's a JOEL MEYEROWITZ LANDSCAPE, a different photo to be sure, but one that maybe suggests the direction Brian's photo is leaning rather than something more subject-oriented. Notice also the breaking of the so-called "rule" of thirds. Again, Meyerowitz's photo lends itself a lot more to bisecting the frame vertically but it's a rule made to be broken in very important and not necessarily so rare cases.

I do think, after reading some of the other comments and looking again, Brian's image may be a bit foreground and water heavy, though understand that keeping the stick went into that. It's a first landscape photo, and one that shows Brian's potential and is very much worth learning from.

The scene itself, or the photo itself, might turn out to be what matters.

Well said, Sam. Sometimes everything in the frame is the subject.

I think the comparison to Meyerowitz is quite apt. However, the power in the referenced image is in its simplicity of form combined with striking colors. While sea and clouds are the palette, it is form and color which make the image, much like an impressionist painting. Brian's image lacks this essential simplicity and clarity, but the comparison is useful in evaluating and suggesting possibilities and opportunities.

How do you feel about the fisherman in boat motion blur?

I assume the posted image has been down-sized to fit PN's criteria, so I'm unsure of what will or won't work. The blur could be problematic. In such cases I want to avoid blur completely, or accentuate it as an clearly intentional element. In this case the blur is simply an artifact of the exposure conditions. I'd be very tempted to PP the image so as to make the boat and fisherman a clearly rendered, near-black or black profile, and then render the rest of the elements to emphasize the early morning color. You'll just have to see what you can pull out of the RAW data, but it is hopeful.

Lots of comments so far, but.- to me - this photo looks just fine as it is.

Mike

Many thanks Ludmilla, very encouraging!

 

What is 'PP software'? I haven't seen that term before. Post processing software?

I am only commenting here as you seemed to ask for advice :)

You've done a great job capturing the emotion and time of day here. Well done.

But, I think you are showing too much in the frame, from your vantage point. So you might consider a crop as I've done below.

Also, your post production editing seems to lack some of the drama that this scene calls for. So I've added a little bit in my example.

Please note also, that I wanted to bring out the highlights and contrast of the water ripples on the far side of the lake, but, unfortunately, you've done something in your post processing that has clipped the detail out of this area of the image, and then darkened this part of the lake into a flat, gray, mass. You might want to take another stab from your original file in Photoshop and see if you can bring out this detail.

In general, you've shown your abilities as a photographer, now it's time to take your Photoshop skills to the next level. To paraphrase Ansel Adams, "The capture is the score, Photoshop is the performance".

I'm sorry, but it seems to me link's reworking zaps it of its softness and grace in the service of what feels like forced and false drama. What was once a lovely pastel has become a menacing lake which I half expect Chuckie to rise from. :)

:) Sometimes that happens in a lake. Chucky, I mean :)

Of course my post was just something to consider. And no photographer should let mine, or anyone else's taste dictate their own!

I'm only going to talk about the first.

The stick is fine, but it's keeping your from a stronger crop, IMO. I'd do a 2-to-1 crop, emphasizing the expanse and the eagles' nest on the right. The extra negative space needed to keep the stick in subtracts power from the overall image, in my opinion.

Is there a slight fog? Something is bothering me about the details. I'd expect more in a landscape shot. Can you link us to the Original size. I want to pixel-peep to try to figure out what's bothering me.

This is a lovely scene with a nicely balanced composition, but the image reminds me of my own difficulties in pulling off a landscape photograph. In my way of seeing this, there is too much at too great a distance to really be engaging. I suppose one could argue (as has been done, I think) that it is about subtleties and subtle it is. It's also quite serene, and you've captured the serenity completely. Yet somehow, If I were to come across this in any other place, I'd probably admire it for a second and move on.

Now let me say that I'm certainly no landscape photographer, this is an area where I've had real challenges- so maybe I'm off base with my opinions. I think it's nice but the critical or primary elements feel too far away for me to connect to them.

The compusition it too symmetrical to me and it lacks golden cut rule (or thirds). Being somewhat empty, it is technically very good.

Ruslan, maybe I'm missing the point. However, I don't see a centered composition which would run contrary to the rule of thirds. I'm one of those photogs who finds it's ok to breach the rule when the circumstances may call for it.

The next morning I shot this, the only two people up that early was this fisherman and me :).

 

[ATTACH=full]1307048[/ATTACH]

Actually, Brian, I really like this image. To me, the silhouetted boat and fisherman complement the silhouetted trees quite well. Aside from the obvious story involving fishing, it also contains an implicit one concerning solitude.