Looking for photography advice on Rocky Mountain pictures!

Looking for some general photography advice based on a few photos from a recent trip to the Rocky Mountains in Colorado! Thank you!

Tough. They vary quite a bit. My favorite is the third, with the prairie grass in the foreground and mountains in the BG. I'd brighten the whole thing a bit.

I don't like the ones with the dead bushes in the foreground, but like the one with the downed tree and a really nice gnarled on the left. I'd crop that 2:1,, to make the gnarled wood a bigger part.

All need some attention to saturation, EV and color. They're kind of flat. None of them really show the majesty of a 14,000-foot peak.

I don't want to process them for you. That one with the gnarled wood, I would have gotten closer to that, in my FG and then had infinity DOF. There was a really interesting piece of wood and you didn't emphasize it at all.

Tough. They vary quite a bit. My favorite is the third, with the prairie grass in the foreground and mountains in the BG. I'd brighten the whole thing a bit.

 

I don't like the ones with the dead bushes in the foreground, but like the one with the downed tree and a really nice gnarled on the left. I'd crop that 2:1,, to make the gnarled wood a bigger part.

 

All need some attention to saturation, EV and color. They're kind of flat. None of them really show the majesty of a 14,000-foot peak.

 

I don't want to process them for you. That one with the gnarled wood, I would have gotten closer to that, in my FG and then had infinity DOF. There was a really interesting piece of wood and you didn't emphasize it at all.

I've gotten such mixed results on that grass in front one, though I generally really like those types of shots, so I tried to pull it off the best I could!

I weirdly don't like that gnarled downed tree, and kind of wish it wasn't in the shot and the grass was more empty, but I've had multiple people say the same thing as you, and it makes sense.

My personal preference is tending to dislike a lot of DOF shots, unless they're of a person or animal, or maybe a flower or something.

...

 

My personal preference is tending to dislike a lot of DOF shots, unless they're of a person or animal, or maybe a flower or something.

Yeah, without a serious point of interest, they're like all those long-exposure smooth waterfall images, just another one, because we can do it. It needs a strong FG and BG to pull it off.

The flat, non-directional light on the foregrounds is hurting you.

Is there something I could have done to make the photo better, or is it just the fact of it being a more overcast day in the photos not giving me the greatest light?

It's useful to ask yourself-

1) What's my main subject?

2) Is there some way to focus the most attention on that subject?

3) Does other stuff add or detract, or worse, distract? If the stuff is interesting, should I shoot that instead?

4) Am I getting in a rut with viewing angle or focal length?

5) Can I create more sense of depth by limiting DOF and allowing some blur?

6) Can I increase depth by framing the image with nearby branches or other objects?

7) Can I make the image work better by keeping the point of interest out of the center?

8) Do I want to shoot for some special effect like monochrome or HDR?

IMO, flat light is fine, often preferable. Optimize the contrast and saturation in post processing. Shoot a lot; memory is near free.

Is there something I could have done to make the photo better,

You struck on a key question. Generally, my own answer for my own photos is that there’s rarely a case where I could not have done something better or could not still do something better in post but it’s often the case where I can improve a photo but not make it a keeper. I usually know know the keepers and they’re fewer than the misses.

I like the fact that you’re approaching these with the foreground in mind and think there could be some interest in that. Keep trying. Yes, lighting is crucial so consider time of day. Also consider that working with less than optimal lighting can be a good challenge and lead to good things. Perspective, focus, style, angle will all work along with the lighting.

It's useful to ask yourself-

1) What's my main subject?

2) Is there some way to focus the most attention on that subject?

3) Does other stuff add or detract, or worse, distract? If the stuff is interesting, should I shoot that instead?

4) Am I getting in a rut with viewing angle or focal length?

5) Can I create more sense of depth by limiting DOF and allowing some blur?

6) Can I increase depth by framing the image with nearby branches or other objects?

7) Can I make the image work better by keeping the point of interest out of the center?

8) Do I want to shoot for some special effect like monochrome or HDR?

 

IMO, flat light is fine, often preferable. Optimize the contrast and saturation in post processing. Shoot a lot; memory is near free.

Kinda of just want to answer these for myself right now, and maybe that will give you a better idea of where my head is at, or reveal places I need to be thinking differently in!

1. The mountains were the main subject of most all the photos.

2. I kind of didn't want to "fill the frame" with the mountains, and have them be more distant, to represent what they looked like if you were standing in the same spot I was.

3. So this is where I'd say that I kind of wish the grasses were just empty in some of the shots, but with the shots still framed the same way they are. I don't mind that the mountains would be small with a empty field in front. Maybe it's wrong of me, but I kind of want to rebel against the advice that there needs to be something interesting in the foreground. I think that takes away from the mountains in the background.

4. Probably could have spent more time on angle and focal length.

5. With landscapes, I tend to want everything in focus, and that's why I stuck with the kit 18-55mm lens.

6. So I tried to do that in some of the photos, but probably not as effectively as I could have!

7. Perhaps, I might have gone too center-happy with some of the photos.

8. Not really, I tend to hate most HDR photography I see.

I definitely could probably have spent more time editing the photos in Photoshop, I tend to maybe be too conservative in saturating photos, cause I don't want it to start looking to unrealistic, or different than what it looked like in real life. And yes I definitely agree on taking lots of shots, I have two 256GB cards that I bought back when they cost $300 each!

Additional question based on this image I found.

So I'd say the right image in the attached picture is very similar to the shot I took.

Why is it better (if it is)? Cause they look very similar to me as far as what the shot is of.

There are lots of questions in the thread, but I'll address only one. I won't get into having a clear subject, etc. Leaving aside which of the two you are comparing is better, the two are very different. Yours has limited tonal range and limited contrast. The other one is at the other extreme--badly overprocessed, for my taste, and unnatural. As a starting point, look at the histograms from the two photos, excluding the sky in both cases.

Yours:

Theirs:

The limited tonal range in your gives it a flat, somewhat drab appearance. I won't do a full edit, but to start, if you just lighten the shadows to bring out some detail in the mountains and impose a curve to get more contrast, you get this:

I don't do landscapes (unless the light strikes me) so I have little knowledge or experience. It's great that you ask for feedback it's the best way to learn and improve!

@paddler4's response is important in getting the best out of your photos. You can't do much about an overcast sky but you you can (in PP) tweak the dynamic range in a photo should you wish to.

In your comparison of two photos the right one (to me) has a much greater sense of drama/presence/majesty. The lighting is more dramatic, the shadows are deeper, the contrasts are greater, etc. This may not always be want you want as a photographer but this is how it comes across to me. By comparison, the left photo is duller with less contrast and less interesting.

In terms of composition, a basic rule (which I usually don't follow ;)) is to include a foreground, middleground and background. These are just a couple of suggestions for you to consider and experiment with. The most important thing is that your photos express your experience on the day!

In terms of composition, photos 02, 04 and 08 are IMHO OK. The third one, 05, is excellent! Mainly because it's clear that you deliberately composed that shot, which makes it a great photo!

What can you do in PP in terms of composition to bump up the other the other three shots from good to excellent? IMHO::

- Photo 02: the foreground is not clear. I suggest cropping left, right and bottom. A few trees are enough. The light brown trees deserve more attention.

- Photo 04: crop left and top (and perhaps a tiny bit at the bottom). The bare bush bottom left shou IMHO stand on its own

- Photo 08 - crop (a lot) bottom and right (and top if necessary). This photo is - to me - 'static' in the sense that there are 2 equidistant trees in the 'middle ground'. Tghe foreground is OK but a bit far away and vague. Cropping right/bottom would bring the foreground closer and remove the right tree.

Please don't take my word for it, just try it out.

Mike

Regarding your comparison, comment #10:

The reference image has layers, it has light and dark (hightlights and shadows), clear color variations, foreground interest (shrubs), a sky with variations (blue and clouds), and there are shape variances.

Your image puts the mountains so far back that nothing is really distinct. the dead trees aren't large enough to be interesting, and the sky is so gray that it loses interest. What you have is 3 bands of consistency. You could (as suggested) work in post to make each of those come to life. At the very least your tonal range should be expanded. Adding contrast and perhaps a touch of clarity to the sky will help to define the clouds. I don't think much can be done with the mountains due to their distance.

You say the two shots are similar, but they're not, aside from color palette. Study this. Then go study how to post-process landscape shots. Research composition. Learn about dodging and burning.

Above all, learn to make us feel what you felt when you saw the scene.

There are lots of questions in the thread, but I'll address only one. I won't get into having a clear subject, etc. Leaving aside which of the two you are comparing is better, the two are very different. Yours has limited tonal range and limited contrast. The other one is at the other extreme--badly overprocessed, for my taste, and unnatural. As a starting point, look at the histograms from the two photos, excluding the sky in both cases.

 

Yours:

 

 

Theirs:

 

 

The limited tonal range in your gives it a flat, somewhat drab appearance. I won't do a full edit, but to start, if you just lighten the shadows to bring out some detail in the mountains and impose a curve to get more contrast, you get this:

 

I appreciate all the info! I think composition is where I'm struggling the most though, I'm good with editing in Photoshop and all that, I actually re-edited that same photo and it came out similar-ish to yours. (Though I accidentally deleted the RAW file, much to my dismay). And I would agree that the one on the right is slightly too over-edited.

I don't do landscapes (unless the light strikes me) so I have little knowledge or experience. It's great that you ask for feedback it's the best way to learn and improve!

@paddler4's response is important in getting the best out of your photos. You can't do much about an overcast sky but you you can (in PP) tweak the dynamic range in a photo should you wish to.

 

In your comparison of two photos the right one (to me) has a much greater sense of drama/presence/majesty. The lighting is more dramatic, the shadows are deeper, the contrasts are greater, etc. This may not always be want you want as a photographer but this is how it comes across to me. By comparison, the left photo is duller with less contrast and less interesting.

 

In terms of composition, a basic rule (which I usually don't follow ;)) is to include a foreground, middleground and background. These are just a couple of suggestions for you to consider and experiment with. The most important thing is that your photos express your experience on the day!

 

In terms of composition, photos 02, 04 and 08 are IMHO OK. The third one, 05, is excellent! Mainly because it's clear that you deliberately composed that shot, which makes it a great photo!

What can you do in PP in terms of composition to bump up the other the other three shots from good to excellent? IMHO::

- Photo 02: the foreground is not clear. I suggest cropping left, right and bottom. A few trees are enough. The light brown trees deserve more attention.

- Photo 04: crop left and top (and perhaps a tiny bit at the bottom). The bare bush bottom left shou IMHO stand on its own

- Photo 08 - crop (a lot) bottom and right (and top if necessary). This photo is - to me - 'static' in the sense that there are 2 equidistant trees in the 'middle ground'. Tghe foreground is OK but a bit far away and vague. Cropping right/bottom would bring the foreground closer and remove the right tree.

 

Please don't take my word for it, just try it out.

 

Mike

Really appreciate your input! I've gotten mixed reception on pic 05, but yeah I probably put the most effort into taking that one if I remember correctly!

I did an edit on pic 04 (see attached), where I tried to give more attention to the bottom left bush as an object of interest in the foreground and brightened the colors and all that. Let me know your thoughts!

Regarding your comparison, comment #10:

 

The reference image has layers, it has light and dark (hightlights and shadows), clear color variations, foreground interest (shrubs), a sky with variations (blue and clouds), and there are shape variances.

Your image puts the mountains so far back that nothing is really distinct. the dead trees aren't large enough to be interesting, and the sky is so gray that it loses interest. What you have is 3 bands of consistency. You could (as suggested) work in post to make each of those come to life. At the very least your tonal range should be expanded. Adding contrast and perhaps a touch of clarity to the sky will help to define the clouds. I don't think much can be done with the mountains due to their distance.

 

You say the two shots are similar, but they're not, aside from color palette. Study this. Then go study how to post-process landscape shots. Research composition. Learn about dodging and burning.

 

Above all, learn to make us feel what you felt when you saw the scene.

So my thinking would be that the shrubs in the reference image carry the same weight (and approximate size) as the dead branches in my shot as far as foreground objects, so I guess I'm having compositional trouble understanding why mine is not as good in that specific aspect.

I definitely could do more editing on the photo, I didn't spend all that much time editing it, but I thankfully am good in that regard, just needing some work on the photography side of things!

So my thinking would be that the shrubs in the reference image carry the same weight (and approximate size) as the dead branches in my shot as far as foreground objects, so I guess I'm having compositional trouble understanding why mine is not as good in that specific aspect.

Two comments:

The reference image has round, green things on a field of gold. I don't see anything comporable in yours. Stop looking at what you think is there, and look at texture, shape, color, size, definition. (Hint: the dead shrubs in your image have almost zero interest, aside from the left-most, near one.)

Better yet, turn the images upside down, and keep them there to do your analysis. Remove the context / paradigm from your visual and analyze what is really there. Not what you think is there.

Two comments:

 

The reference image has round, green things on a field of gold. I don't see anything comporable in yours. Stop looking at what you think is there, and look at texture, shape, color, size, definition. (Hint: the dead shrubs in your image have almost zero interest, aside from the left-most, near one.)

 

Better yet, turn the images upside down, and keep them there to do your analysis. Remove the context / paradigm from your visual and analyze what is really there. Not what you think is there.

So my argument would be that the bottom left most interesting dead shrub carries enough weight to make the foreground interesting, since it gives you a little preview of what the other ones farther away might look like up close. Also I think just the green shrubs vs. dead shrubs kind of comes down to personal taste/subjectivity.

I rotated the images upside down, and ended up liking the grass in my photo more... so maybe I'm moving backwards lol

I definitely appreciate your comments though, hope I'm not putting off too argumentative of a tone!

This looks (IMHO) much better! MUCH more vibrant, MUCH more color contrast (yellow/blue) and a MUCH more interesting photo. I generally don't like word 'punch' applied to photos (in the sense of 'pumping them up) but in this case, I think your PP has made a great improvement without making the photo seem unreal.

Should you want to, you could even crop out a thin sliver bottom/left.

Congrats!

Mike

Really appreciate your input! I've gotten mixed reception on pic 05, but yeah I probably put the most effort into taking that one if I remember correctly!

 

I did an edit on pic 04 (see attached), where I tried to give more attention to the bottom left bush as an object of interest in the foreground and brightened the colors and all that. Let me know your thoughts!

 

[ATTACH=full]1315998[/ATTACH]

Above all, learn to make us feel what you felt when you saw the scene.

Or make us feel nothing like what you felt when you saw the scene, especially if you felt smelly, sweaty, nauseous, and thirsty because you hiked a long way to the scene. Then again, getting us to feel those things might be a great accomplishment and even tougher than awestruck. Get us to feel something and if you want it to be what you felt, do that. But if it’s something different than what you were feeling that you think the photo has more in tune with, go for that. Photos don’t have to be in a one-to-one correspondence with how you were feeling. They’re capable of projecting other feelings as well. That’s part of their magic.

Or make us feel nothing like what you felt when you saw the scene, especially if you felt smelly, sweaty, nauseous, and thirsty because you hiked a long way to the scene. Then again, getting us to feel those things might be a great accomplishment and even tougher than awestruck.

Okay, that's both legitimate and pretty funny. :-D

Ah, OK... None of these shots trip my trigger. That's not to diminish your style of shooting or your desire to capture your moments in what I'm sure is a beautiful location on what I'm also sure was a fantastic vacation or experience. I guess, by my way of seeing these, the primary subject matter is too far away, and there's nothing super captivating in the fore or middle ground to really make this images awesome. Not being overly good at landscape photography myself, I more often then not end up with quite similar shots and then wonder what I did wrong, where the fail is in my system, technique, etc.

One challenge in a place like this is, there are already probably loads and loads of photos of much the exact same stuff, shot from the same locations. Knowing that, I usually try to figure out how to get something that everyone else hasn't already done to death. Sometimes that means ignoring the "bigger picture" and zeroing down on some smaller detail. Or it might mean going the extra mile (n this case, actual miles) to gain a perspective not normally seen or shot.

OTOH, the advantage, perhaps, of the fact of something being photographed to death, can also be that there are possibly a good number of creatively framed (or post pressed) images of your exact shots- superb and similar shots from the same places as where you were- if you were to dig deep enough to find any, perhaps you could use them as a learning tool to see how others have handled the situation?

For your images, as has already been suggested, some creative cropping and other post work could bring these to life. While that is completely and 100% legit, I always go back to something one of my many photographer friends told me a while back: "It is always best to get the shot right in camera FIRST".

Good advice to be sure, but it's not always easy.

Keep shooting your heart out, and thanks for being brave enough to submit these to this crew. Hope I've not beaten you up too badly.

One of the most important things in photography is to follow the light and when you don't have any to give you inspiration it makes it tough to get really interesting images, especially in landscape situations.

Just try to get your exposure right and post-processing is key. Can't do a ton about a dreary day though, unless you want to do hours of Photoshop work.

Can't do a ton about a dreary day though, unless you want to do hours of Photoshop work.

Or unless you want to convey authentic feelings or display authentic visions of dreariness!

I’m late to this party, but to me the downside of these shots is that they are not compositions that show us, and make an observation about, the subject. If the mountains are supposed to be the subject and they’re 10% of the frame, while half the frame is brown grass that isn’t doing much for you, you don’t have a successful shot. Even if you have some color saturation.

To the OP: if that shot on the right in the comparison you posted is something you admire, what’s successful about it? To my eye it’s still not a perfect composition, but because it’s taken from somewhere where the mountain looms above and your eye moves UP the mountain you start to get the feel of this large feature. The mountain dwarfs the foreground evergreens, and the contrast in colors sets out apart.

My advice is to go to a location like that and explore, move around and find spots to shoot from where you can get an experience of the mountain instead of just seeing that it’s there. Get a composition where the subject is the most visually significant thing in the frame and if the light isn’t what you need to get the image you want, think about how to get the light.

Mentally visualize the sun direction and the color of light you’ll get at that time of day. Would waiting 10 minutes for clouds to pass do the trick? (Some very successful landscape photos have happened in lighting where the sun is just coming from behind a cloud.) Maybe you need to come back close to sunset or the next morning.