Jump to content

Beginner


jiwooseok

Recommended Posts

Hello All,

I just came back from Wyoming. I took some photos, and I would love to receive some constructive criticisms.

Could you folks please help me on this? It was very smoky that day. I tried to dehaze the photo and ended up with the weird looking sky.

NIKON D7500 Focal Length: 240/10 Shutter Speed Value: 7965784/1000000 Exposure Time: 1/250 Aperture Value: 4.0 F-Number: 4.0 ISO Speed Ratings: 50 18622952-lg.jpg

Edited by William Michael
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would crop off a lot of the weed etc from the bottom of the picture. It's out of focus, bright and distracting especially the reflection at bottom left. This would make the figure, which is hardly noticeable at first, a little more prominent.

 

With plenty of light there's no point shooting a landscape at F/4, which may not be where the lens performs best, and has caused the limited depth of field. I would shoot this at F/8 or most likely F/11.

 

It would be interesting to see the original shot before de-hazing how was this done, by the way?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello All,

I just came back from Wyoming. I took some photos, and I would love to receive some constructive criticisms.

 

Why choose F/4? It seems you were using the 24 to 120F/4 zoom: F/4 is using that lens wide open.

Why choose ISO50, the D7500 works fine at ISO200?

Something seems odd - it's a sunny day (with smoke as you mention), but there are hard shadows, I'd be expecting you'd be pulling shots at around F/8~F/11 @ 1/250s @ISO250 to enable you to hold all the detail in the highlights.

Could you folks please help me on this? It was very smoky that day. I tried to dehaze the photo and ended up with the weird looking sky. . .

 

There are post production artifacts around the tops of the mountains in the sky: for detailed analysis an image of BEFORE the post production to de-haze the sky would be a good idea, please.

 

WW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also like to see the original. Living in California, as devastating and awful as the fires have been, they’ve afforded some incredible and unusual skies and lighting. Some opportunities for once-in-a-lifetime photos. That may not be the case here but I’d love to see what you started with.

 

What I notice in this shot is a kind of universally equivalent dynamism and somewhat implied flatness. I think that comes in part from the equal weight of the water and mountain, the fact that my eye isn’t led in a direction, and the evenness in tone and light throughout. This might actually make for an interesting approach and I wonder if a more smoky, somewhat surreal sky wouldn’t add an element that supports it.

  • Like 2

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would crop off a lot of the weed etc from the bottom of the picture. It's out of focus, bright and distracting especially the reflection at bottom left. This would make the figure, which is hardly noticeable at first, a little more prominent.

 

With plenty of light there's no point shooting a landscape at F/4, which may not be where the lens performs best, and has caused the limited depth of field. I would shoot this at F/8 or most likely F/11.

 

It would be interesting to see the original shot before de-hazing how was this done, by the way?

Here is the original version

18623589-lg.jpg

Edited by William Michael
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting the original.

 

I like the sky with that smoky feeling but would have to play around with the left-hand portion of the sky where it gets into the stranger color feel. I think your processing on the one you worked on goes a bit far, a little too dense and overly fabricated to my taste. Look at the shadows, for example, on the mountains. In the original, though too lightly exposed, they do indeed look like shadows. On your processed photo, they look a bit more like saturated blue blotches. And while there are some nice abstract possibilities in the water and reflections, I think your processed version goes in the direction of the supernatural. I love, in the original, that I can gently make out the imposition of the mountain's reflection. That gets gobbled up in the processed version and the water reflections have less differentiation of what's going on. The little triangular patch of blue sky in the foreground reflection, to me, is marvelous, if it remains well integrated with the rest of the processing. Many will find it a distraction, and I understand that, but I think it can be used in a way that adds a missing puzzle piece sort of feeling without being overly distracting. The original has a more expansive feeling to it, more open, more welcoming, etc. It does need processing, of course, but I think a lighter touch with the maintenance of fine distinctions and the subtlety of the reflected patterns would create an image that would speak to me. I think the lone figure is a bit problematic in being present but in a very in-between state, neither blending in well nor providing a distinct presence of its own. Again, might be worked with and it might just have to blend in more and be a little Easter egg for those who find it.

  • Like 4

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi @jiwooseok, With very few exceptions (that I sometimes come across by accident on other photosites), I personally don't have much interest in the 'amateur landscape photography' genre. But I really like this photo!

 

For me, it stands out from the very large crowd of 'stunning landscape photos'. Mainly because my immediate preconception - as usual - was ''Oh look, yet another stunning Landscape photo: a beautiful natural scene captured well, with slight oversaturation of color." By this, I don't in any way wish to demean 'landscape photographers'. Just that just that this reaction applies to so many of the most popular photos at (for example) 500px.

 

Only then did start to notice some of the details in your photo. I really like the way you included the ''blue triangle' bottom left. Somehow it seemed to me to be a ''playful' detail to include in the frame/crop. It breaks up the thick mass of green on the bottom half of the photo wonderfully!

 

Then I noticed the very small figure (my guess is a woman) standing on a rock at the edge of the lake. Another interesting detail and the makings of a 'story' (who is she, why is she there, what would be feeling and think about then and there, etc). So I like this 'human element' in the photo. My 'invented story' is the relative insignificance of one lived life (with all its subjective needs/concerns, ambitions, pursuits, struggles, successes, failures, tragedies, etc.) in the context of such absolute and timeless natural majesty. By comparison human seem like 'fruit flies' who buzz around for a few decades.

 

Then I noticed (and liked) the way that the mountain (the rock and trees) are just 'semi-reflected' in the lake. So the lake shows two finely interwoven textures and base colors.

 

To sum up, it's unusual for me to come across a landscape photo with such 'depth' (noticing new things in the photo that aren't part of the landscape). And that has a human element that invites the viewer te create his/her own story about her presence (she's not dressed as an obvious hiker/camper).

 

Sure, I should probably look at more landscape photos more critically. But of those I do see, this one stands out for me. Congratulations and thanks for sharing and inviting 'critiques'.

 

As always, reviewing photos posted for critique helps me constantly learn more about:

- what I (personally) value in photography

- my personally 'process' of looking at and reviewing photos

 

My own learning 'takeaways' from this review confirm and make clearer to me that:

- I like photos that invite viewers to invent their own 'story' about the scene or people/things in it

- I like photos that have some 'depth' (multiple layers) in the sense that the closer (and longer) I look at the photo, new meaning, details or photographic qualities reveal themselves,

- I was pleasantly surprised to discover that I quickly started to view this photo almost as an abstract composition of large 'shapes', each with its own form, base color and texture. I suspect the 'blue triangle' triggered this off.

 

Mike

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi @jiwooseok, ... I personally don't have much interest in the 'amateur landscape photography' genre. But I really like this photo!

 

...

 

Mike, I don't get why you're generally not attracted to landscapes, but you are to this one. All the elements; reflection, mid-frame figure, close material in focus, etc. are all there, BUT I see nothing at all special. The person in the scene seems contrived. The sky has no interesting clouds.

 

You know that I'm in Colorado, so I'm certain that at least 1000-pictures like this were taken today, within 100-miles of my desk. To me this image says, "I went to the usual place, not at the best time of day and took this picture to document it." It's okay for a vanity book to show you mother and the wife and kids, but it's not special. IME, the "special" landscape shots usually happen when you go back, over and over, year after year, in all weather conditions and one day, the light, reflections, sky, mountains, etc. all come aglow at once and you capture it in a bottle. This was an ordinary day, caught better than average.

 

I think Sam's advice gently hit it on the head, but this image will never make it on any wall, accept maybe the photographer's mother's.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the original version much more than the edited version here. With so much of the foreground in the photo, and the way the "treated" photo was treated, al that foreground stuff becomes (to my eye) too much. While the intent was no doubt to capture the glory of the mountain, however, by my way of seeing this shot, it's as much or more about the foreground.

 

That said, I don't like the way the reflections muddle the foreground. I'm more in the camp of dcstep, in that I don't love this shot- but feel like the untreated original is stronger than the edited version, if for no other reason, it gives the eye someplace to go. Honestly, a crop at or near the refection of the person standing would go a long way in cleaning this up, IMO.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit surprised by the sky color in the left corner of the original - which the heavy-handed processing made much worse.

but would have to play around with the left-hand portion of the sky where it gets into the stranger color feel.

Tried that - this is the result I came up with to tame that sky color (done in ACR by modifying acqua and blue hues, saturation and luminance). Was tempted to decrease the haze from the smoke but to lazy to mask out the sky to protect it. Besides removing the haze takes away from the image. I also tried a 16:9 panoramic crop but actually missed the triangle of blue sky reflection in the foreground then.2129922445_18623589-lgcopy.thumb.jpg.538ca4bbf7e09223bc4e508d93917358.jpg Color is mostly restricted to the front and right of the image - creating a bit of a jumbled mess and drowning out the figure - which is why I was tempted to take the color out of the equation completely:

1482391610_18623589-lgbw.thumb.jpg.32291b199af98d6608dac93c9cc93fe2.jpg

I think it cleans up the image nicely. It would be easy to replace that boring sky with one that has a few clouds in it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of those images that would benefit, perhaps, with use of a polarizing filter. It would minimize much of the reflection in the water, and would darken and de-haze the sky without unduly impacting the rest of the image. I find the partial reflection distracting, whereas a more complete reflection of the mountain and sky would be more meaningful to my eye. This image also suffers from the time of day. The high-angle light is quite flat, particularly when filtered through the smoky skies. As Mike notes, a nice photo, but the opportunity appears to have had much more potential than was realized in this particular image.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I look at the original, I'm mostly mindful of the exposure, and not just because of the way the sky looks. @jiwooseok, how did you figure and decide on your exposure here?

To be honest, I was just looking at the camera meter to be exposed evenly. The exposure bar was in the middle. I hope what I'm saying is understandable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, I don't get why you're generally not attracted to landscapes, but you are to this one. All the elements; reflection, mid-frame figure, close material in focus, etc. are all there, BUT I see nothing at all special. The person in the scene seems contrived. The sky has no interesting clouds.

 

You know that I'm in Colorado, so I'm certain that at least 1000-pictures like this were taken today, within 100-miles of my desk. To me this image says, "I went to the usual place, not at the best time of day and took this picture to document it." It's okay for a vanity book to show you mother and the wife and kids, but it's not special. IME, the "special" landscape shots usually happen when you go back, over and over, year after year, in all weather conditions and one day, the light, reflections, sky, mountains, etc. all come aglow at once and you capture it in a bottle. This was an ordinary day, caught better than average.

 

I think Sam's advice gently hit it on the head, but this image will never make it on any wall, accept maybe the photographer's mother's.

I just wanted to get some advice from experts like you and Mike. I know my photo sucks. But you don't need to talk down like that. I just needed to know what I could do better that's all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of those images that would benefit, perhaps, with use of a polarizing filter. It would minimize much of the reflection in the water, and would darken and de-haze the sky without unduly impacting the rest of the image. I find the partial reflection distracting, whereas a more complete reflection of the mountain and sky would be more meaningful to my eye. This image also suffers from the time of day. The high-angle light is quite flat, particularly when filtered through the smoky skies. As Mike notes, a nice photo, but the opportunity appears to have had much more potential than was realized in this particular image.

Thank you! Well noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, I was just looking at the camera meter to be exposed evenly. The exposure bar was in the middle. I hope what I'm saying is understandable.

The reading you got may depend on whether your camera was set to spot metering or evaluative metering. Especially with landscape photography, I will often take spot readings of both the sky and some of the darker areas and then adjust accordingly, meaning I sometimes have to average or weight my exposure in order not to get the kind of sky exposure you got. As a matter of fact, given the way you processed, you could have exposed less/darker than the way you did, which would have preserved the sky and put the mountain and reflections more in the direction you eventually went. In digital shooting, I often expose for the highlights (the sky in this case) and retrieve shadow detail in post. Once I’ve blown out a sky, there's not a whole lot that can be done without extra work.

  • Like 2

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To jiwooseok: When one posts an image and requests critique, it's important that you be prepared to accept all manner of comments, even those that might seem hurtful at first blush. Please understand, those of us who have been on this site and forum for a while have been asked for feedback from beginners literally hundreds, if not thousands of times. It is vexing to be asked, again (and again and again...) for critiques of banal, insipid, boring, and thoughtless photos, particularly when it seems apparent the poster has not spent any time reviewing the images and discussions that came before. If one had done so, there'd be little point in posting worthless drivel. And everyone's time and anxiety would be saved. Most of the experienced people here learned their craft long before the Internet and online forums, and had to do so by reading, practice, and a little formal education. It is, frankly, a bit preposterous for a newcomer to throw up what might be, at best, a fair snapshot from his last vacation and then to ask others spend their time telling how to make it "better". There are days and weeks and months and years worth of books and online resources that one can use to evaluate and improve one's own photography.

 

People on Photo.Net are amazingly willing to share their knowledge and expertise with willing learners. I've been both the beneficiary of and a contributor to this dialogue. I'm not sure my advice provided above is even useful to you, since it presupposes a level of understanding yet to be achieved. That doesn't make it thoughtless, just useless. My most considered advice is that a rank beginner spend time diligently learning the ropes and comparing his work to that of photographers he admires. Once he's reached a level where he can talk meaningfully about his own work he will be in a far better position to have others discuss it as well.

 

I agree with Dave Stephens in many things photographic. One is that it takes more than just skill and a good camera to make a good picture. It takes time, thought, an artistic eye, preparation, and a conjunction of events. I've made hundreds, if not thousands of banal, uninteresting, if "pretty" landscapes like this one:

1795219333_SampleCanyonlands-200926-9212.jpg.76f6f045fc64f595e7506cf3e15f1fef.jpg

 

It took decades of practice and preparation (and many, many trips to Canyonlands NP) to both recognize and capture this award winning image:

1970903507_FavoriteLandscape-200516.thumb.jpg.5aa419037c7c5e76b9de3b5c645fc11f.jpg

(The old adage of "F:8 and be there." still applies.) None of us here can tell you how to make your images what you want them to be. We can share insights, technical data, and some hilarious anecdotes, but we can't substitute for your being an active and engaged learner who pursues his passion with or without us. Bring us images you think are your best work (and be able to tell us why) and then we might be able to help you find ways to improve. I think, ultimately, that is what @dcstep is getting at, and I couldn't agree more. Good luck, keep trying, and have fun with photography. We want to help you improve, so please bring us something we can sink our teeth into.

 

(Anybody who want's to take a shot at me for this reply, please do so via PM. Let's not hijack the OP's thread any more than we've already done.)

Edited by DavidTriplett
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll respond in public, thanks.

 

I couldn't disagree more with associating jiwooseok's photo with the following characterization ...

It is vexing to be asked, again (and again and again...) for critiques of banal, insipid, boring, and thoughtless photos, particularly when it seems apparent the poster has not spent any time reviewing the images and discussions that came before. If one had done so, there'd be little point in posting worthless drivel. And everyone's time and anxiety would be saved. ... It is, frankly, a bit preposterous for a newcomer to throw up what might be, at best, a fair snapshot from his last vacation and then to ask others spend their time telling how to make it "better".

Wow!

 

First of all, I'm not agreeing that it's simply a snapshot from the OP's last vacation. Certainly no more or less than yours are! But, even if it were, is there something wrong with a beginner wanting to take better vacation snapshots? No, of course there isn't! I remember back to my early days, when my vacations served as great practice for what would eventually come. Bah, humbug!

 

What I think is "a bit preposterous" is spending as much time as you did critiquing this photo and then complaining about spending your time on it. If you don't want to spend time on it ... DON'T! Neither the OP nor anyone else forced you or directly asked you to comment.

 

@jiwooseok, I don't find your photo any more banal, insipid, boring, or thoughtless than what many people here consider great landscape shots, frankly, often the same old same old ad nauseam. Please keep asking questions, keep being willing to learn while speaking your mind, and keep seeing the way you want to see, even while trying to improve that way of seeing. There are those of us who will be happy to respond, to encourage you, and who don't waste our time on things we feel are a waste of time.

  • Like 2

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jiwooseok asks for a critique and gets a lecture on why he should not have posted & then the punchline "It took decades of practice and preparation (and many, many trips to Canyonlands NP) to both recognize and capture this award winning image:"

All this after earlier giving you some solid advice to consider "This is one of those images that would benefit, perhaps, with use of a polarizing filter. It would minimize much of the reflection in the water, and would darken and de-haze the sky without unduly impacting the rest of the image."-DavidTriplett

 

jiwooseok,My advice to start would be to dedicate some time to learning to use and interpret your metering. then experiment with departing from what your meter suggests.. Sam's contribution is an good example of deciding to use the meter to make an informed decision of not shooting at the exposure given by the meter. It's a long learning curve but simple enough once you have the basics down. For that I think reading helps you know what you should be looking for. For the hard to grasp and for just bouncing it around PN can often be very helpful.

I don't photograph these kind of straight nature shots anymore. I do have urban locations, subjects, scenes, concepts.. etc that are on my list to return to & photograph when the time/light are aligned to my liking. This location may be like that for you in the future... If you are unable to revisit then you should be aware that there are other options available in post processing that may help you enjoy this photo more.

Edited by inoneeye

n e y e

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator Note:

 

Calm. Please.

 

If the OP digs deep then s/he will see there is some value in the intent and content of all of the preceding commentaries - and will choose which resonates.

 

Noted also, that it was 'critique' asked for by the OP and it only occasional, if ever, that critique extends to presenting examples of one's personal work.

 

Nonetheless, this forum is focused on the critique of the image presented and whilst robust rebuff and debate of others' critiques is encouraged: those points have been now made, so let's move on.

 

Thank you.

 

William

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey first of all, thank you for posting here. It takes some guts to throw oneself to the wolves. Do yourself a favor, tho and make an effort to remove emotion from the equation- yours AND others'. Because there's probably something you can glean even from what might appear to be bashing, or negative approach to your photo. Read everything carefully. Even the harshest response to your shot almost certainly has something positive to gain from it.

 

Right, then. Moving on. If I may offer one other "route" or suggestion for @jwooseok...

 

just for a minute, while you continue to learn how to operate you camera manually and learn its metering capabilities, it could be worth while to occasionally set your camera to auto. If you have a sharp memory OR make notes about each photo, you can go back and look at what the camera thinks it should be doing in each scene- by reading the EXIF data for each image.

 

Meanwhile one other side benefit of this is also that you can practice & develop your skills at composition. I'd also suggest you shoot more and shoot often. Take your camera with you everywhere and keep an eye open for things that interest you. Reading photography books and by that I mean looking at photos by photographers you personally admire, is also a great way to figure out which way you want your own photography to go.

 

Developing your own style may or may not come, and if it does it'll be after many many photos are shot. I'm of the opinion that landscapes are among the very most difficult shots to pull off. Most end up a lot like your shot- lovely, indeed, but "just" another photo of a mountain/lake/scene. If landscapes are where you see yourself going, then study every landscape photographer you possibly can. Don't copy their stuff straight down the line but make some effort to blend what you see into something of your own. IF you're shooting a place that has absolutely been photographed to death, make an honest effort NOT to shoot that same old photo. Actively seek out some angle that does not match the millions of shots on line. OR dial it in and shoot some details, take snippet shots instead of trying to get "that" shot that everyone else already has.

 

But really- shoot shoot shoot. You're shooting digital, yes? Slam the heck out of it. Don't just spray & pray tho- seek out shots, study composition, learn your camera's metering and other capabilities. And be patient. You'll get it but maybe not tonight.

  • Like 3
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...