Rip this photo apart

[jemal.yarbrough]

I consider this one of my best photos with heavy post processing. I'm still

learning CS3 (don't use half of it) and only pp this using the tools in the raw

converter program. Please be harsh and let me know how I can get better.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackfist2k2/2455496907/" title="Banning

California by Jemal Y., on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2049/2455496907_6802a1b918.jpg" width="500"

height="335" alt="Banning California" /></a><p>

 

The Albinar lens did really well, I was surprised by the sharpness at 100%. I

just got another lens that has a much closer macro focusing at 28mm. I'll

eventually put some photos from it up but I'm still trying to process the 187

photos I took last weekend...<p>

I guess I should let you know what I fixed. The lower third to middle of the

photo was fine in terms of colors and what not, but the mountains and sky were

all washed out (I guess from the distance and it being a bright day). So I

tried to give some color and definition to the mountain range and to bring back

the blue to the sky, while balancing it against the nice foreground colors.<P>

I'm really struggling with photography. Most of my photos seem mundane. I'm

still trying to capture what I see instead of trying to make art out of what I

see or to see things differently. Anyone with a camera and willingness to stop

on the side of the road could have taken this same shot.

[jgredline]

Jemal,

Post up a larger image. It is hard to tell from this little one.

[jemal.yarbrough]

here is large. <P>

click the picture and you will go to flickr and there you can get the original size photo which is much larger. In it you will see much more blur and color fringing (i think).<P>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackfist2k2/2455496907/" title="Banning California by Jemal Y., on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2049/2455496907_6802a1b918_b.jpg" width="1024" height="686" alt="Banning California" /></a>

[eyepasha]

Jemal, practice makes perfect. I have two constructive critiques to offer:

1. To me, this seems under exposed, with loss of detail in the foliage and mountain range. You might have brought the foreground grass up to a middle range even if this required a graduated filter or merged exposured in PS.

2. To my eye the composition is a little wonky only because the main road is not horizontally aligned and I think the horizon is off axis. Aligning it would also bring in a more dynamic sweep of the foreground to the right, sweeping up, and the mountain range sweep down the back to the left, creating a counter clockwise swirl of sorts.

[dogbert]

"Most of my photos seem mundane."

 

The key to great landscape photography is great and natural light. This only happens infrequently and many days not at all. Post processing of a shot taken under flat, middle of the day light will never make a great shot.

[jemal.yarbrough]

This was shot at maybe 3:30 p.m. or 4p.m. I never considered what the lines of the road or the horizon would do to the composition. Another learning point.

[shots worth sharing]

The mountain is looming presence but there's not a lot of definition there--sort of like a painting where the paint has been applied in heavy strokes. It pushes the eye to the center where there is detail to work on. I think it would help if there were more contrast in color &/or tone between the mid-distance center and the foreground at the bottom of the frame--if the the foreground were a bit darker, richer it would give the valley floor more pop.

 

Keep in mind I'm still working on my 1st cup of coffee here--I may have an entirely different opinion when I wake up ;>)

[mountainvisions]

Ok, are we going for realistic or artistic? (you noted you are going for realistic)

 

If we are going for realistic the sky looks bad. and the overall image seems a little dull. or as dave puts it lacking definition (which I agree).

 

overall it's very soft, low contrast.

 

I actually love the location, I love the foreground (great use of it). And I like the "looming presense" of the mountain range.

 

I'm not sure you need to align the road vertical. Actually it might make it seem TOO contrived and dead on. The angular nature of the road does lead the eye an it doesn't do so in a forced way. However, Pauls note about straightening the road to increase the sweep of the foreground does resonate with me. Had you moved your shooting location to make the road dead vertical the foreground would extend/sweep further into the scene. This would have been good, but I'm not sure it's needed for perfection.

 

And what Geoff said is probably the most useful thing of all. Good light makes lanscapes. If your shooting in harsh light you can do so with the objective of converting to black and white. But for color photography the light needs to be pretty close to perfect for a perfect photograph. This shot doesn't lend well to black and white IMO.

 

 

Where is this?

[xpiotiavos]

i actually really like the shot overall. a couple of thoughts for next time you're there:<P>1. wait for a better time of day. lighting is everything in photography, which translates to time-of-day is everything in landscape photography. closer to sunrise or sunset will do wonders for your photos. also make sure that you don't have clouds casting a shadow on a certain part of the frame, which is (i think) what's causing the lack of detail in the mountains.<P>2. perhaps include either more or less of the foreground. to me, the combination of grass/brush in the left foreground combined with the very cool looking rocks in the left foreground make the composition look somewhat less intentional.

[xpiotiavos]

<i>and now, if anyone was wondering what that post was SUPPOSED to look like...</i><P>i actually really like the shot overall. a couple of thoughts for next time you're there:<P>1. wait for a better time of day. lighting is everything in photography, which translates to time-of-day is everything in landscape photography. closer to sunrise or sunset will do wonders for your photos. also make sure that you don't have clouds casting a shadow on a certain part of the frame, which is (i think) what's causing the lack of detail in the mountains.<P>2. perhaps include either more or less of the foreground. to me, the combination of grass/brush in the left foreground combined with the very cool looking rocks in the left foreground make the composition look somewhat less intentional.

[sfcole]

Jemal,

I don't see anything wrong with the photo (though with this range of

foreground/background and details it's easy for others to criticize and nitpick endlessly). I

guess I just don't see anything interesting or unusual to begin with. It looks too much like

a record shot of sa hiker who wanted to remember they made it to the top. Either it's

lacking a good subject, or the middle-frame detail of the urban area is too mundane for

me. Unfortunately, the urban clutter detracts from both the foreground grass and the

mountain background. It's really hard to get past the parking lots and middle schools and

empty lots. Actually, the more I look at the scene, the more depressed I become by how

ugly the American urban west can be.

Scott

[andrewg_ny]

Landscape is tricky, but I can see why you liked this one enough to pick it out and play with. What looks *amazing* when you're there often looks rather ordinary when you're looking at your photos at home. The foreground here is fairly attractive, and the sprawl at the foot of the more distant mountains is reasonably interesting. I tend to agree with Adam that perhaps a bit more or a bit less foreground would be better as it seems kind of awkward compared to the amount of sky. One reason that B&W can work for mediocre lighting is that people are so used to seeing white blown-out skies that you may be able to get away with exposing for the terrain. Why this may not work all that great for this photo is that there isn't a whole lot of contrast or definition in the distant mountains due to the distance/atmosphere and lighting.

 

Just a thought. What do you think of a vertical crop? If I'm dividing into 10 vertical bands, keep sections 4-9 so that the vertical/diagonal road is near the bottom left corner (removing the left ~30%) and you take off the last ~10% on the right. Here is a quick attempt with a few other small tweaks (not sure if they're better or not--not using my regular software or computer).<div></div>

[andrewg_ny]

One other thing--this is also a type of image that can benefit significantly from extra-sharp quality and being printed large--IF you can see good details. I can imagine walking up to this picture hanging on a wall if it was printed three or four feet tall and captured with a large or medium format camera and I could pick out details on the houses and cars. For me this kind of thing can highlight the man-made square patterns with roads, boundaries, buildings, etc.

[roseberry guitars]

Many years ago I signed up for a mail order photography course. The course as a total was, unfortunately, found to be lacking save for one small tidbit of information. For those who might have taken the same class the following may be recognizable.

 

KNOW - FOCUS - SIMPLIFY

 

Know your subject, know what it is that drew you to the scene in front of you, know what it is that made you want to record it, know your reaction to it, know what you want to convey to yourself and others about that scene...to me this is the most important of the three. Without "knowing" the other two make no sense.

 

Focus your attention to that "what", focus your viewers attention to that "what"...this is accomplished by the use of many artistic "tricks" such as, the golden mean, lines, repetition, colors, shapes and on and on.

 

Simplify the scene so there is no doubt what that "what" is... Eliminate all that is not supportive to what you are trying to convey. Eliminate that which is competing with the subject for attention, eliminate distractions etc.

 

Unfortunately, I don't always follow this little formula, often just happily snapping away but when I do I find the interest in photos improve exponentially to the amount of thought I give to each step.

 

You asked for a critique and I don't consider myself qualified to give one but I can give my reaction to your above photo. You say that you find many of your photos "mundane". I cannot entirely agree with you on this but I will say I do not "know" exactly what it is that is the subject of this photo. The foreground hill is interesting, it looks as though the wind might be blowing fairly hard making beautiful patterns in the dry grass and small shrubs, But it's a hill like untold others. The town has bits and pieces of interest, a baseball diamond, rather sparse population etc. But a town like so many others nestled between hills and mountains. And the mountains look interesting with what appears to be low lying foggy areas, snowy tops...but a mountain range like so many others. On the surface there is nothing really special here.

 

BUT IT IS special so the challenge is to make me as a viewer feel the "special" of the place. That is done by KNOWing what is special about it to you, FOCUSing on that "special" and SIMPLIFYing the scene to make that "special" stand out so that I, with only one cup of coffee in me this morning, cannot miss it.

 

As with so many things, it's basics that really count in photography. And this little formula is about as basic as it gets. Master this and one would be well on their way to being called a "Master" photographer. I'm saying this as much or more for my benefit as anything. I should listen to myself more often.

 

And for my next rant..."If your photos are boring [or mundane] you're not close enough". Robert Capa. Have to save that for another day.

[jgredline]

Time to chime in.

I think the overall image is quite good, but not spectacular.

I really think Andrew in unto something with his crop. If it had more sky and perhaps a little teeny bit more foreground, it would be an even nicer image. I say this because the clouds look terrific. So by going to a portrait style, it would also allow you to zoom in or get closer to your subject. As Scott pointed out, it is hard to tell what the subject is.

[michael_kuhne]

A very nice scenic overlook. To me the elements in the photo don't quite look natural, however. Perhaps something is overdone in post processing. It has an almost paint-by-the-numbers look about it.

[andrewg_ny]

I'm sure my edits to the already-downsized-for-web image made the sharpness worse as I rotated (to straighten the horizontal road) & re-compressed it--I think I see a little more detail in Jemal's original above. I agree that it is starting to have a rather painterly look to it though.

[monochromekx]

Well, Jemal, let me chime in as a rank amateur who cannot yet offer technical or artistic advice - but - I was drawn to the shot and studied what you recorded before I thought about this comment. Maybe that is not an artistic response, but if that was your purpose it worked for me.<p>studying and modeling the mineral mining and railroad empires of the late 19th C. western US is another of my hobbies, so I was immediately drawn to the railroad cars in the center of the valley. This looks like a William Henry Jackson composition, and that is a compliment.<p>I know from reading that a landscape should have a foreground, a middle-ground and a background; that each should tell its own story but that they should complement each other, and that light matters. You certainly have the foreground - and it tells a story. You have the background and it tells a story.<p>To ME, because of my interest, the middle-ground tells a story, but that is to me and other nuts who have 200 B&W picture books on SW Colorado and CA in the 1880's (Banning, CA is an old mining town).<p>I might have tried this shot with a 24mm (I actually have one), but I really would have been interested to see a shot with a long telephoto, perhaps from a more oblique angle on the mountains if there was a different overlook, to compress the center area some. I might have tried to get down into town and contrast the puny efforts of man and railroad against the (relative) majesty of the mountains, from a lower angle.<p>How I would do that is beyond my skill right now, but those are my thoughts.

[jemal.yarbrough]

Thanks everyone. Your comments led to me asking the question "why this shot" all day yesterday when out shooting. When I took the above picture, I didn't think about what I wanted the viewer to see beyond the jaw dropping scene before me. So it doesn't have a central focus because of that. The other issue is that I was spot metering and since the sun was so bright, I metered the gray road then focused on the shot because of the distance. I think this may have caused the sky to be white instead of blue. So in post processing the raw file, I tweaked it a lot to make the sky and white clouds stand out.

 

In terms of shooting location, let me tell you it was all shot based on turn out locations on this two lane road. At times it was very windy, and I think I was shooting at f2.8 or maybe f4 the entire time.

 

I have several photos from this trip, but I've held off on posting them because the grand views that I saw didn't really translate through.

[mcmanamey]

I know I'm slow to jump in here, but I'm going to toss in regarding Andrews vertical

cropping....

 

it gives a LOT more tension to the picture, and I think I may actually like it more. The

foreground definitely leads to the middle-ground, and in a very fast way - the angles

and the very little foreground make me feel like I'm about to fall off the cliff (but I'm also

a heights scaredy-cat).

 

The main road in town leads out to the mountains, and the mountains, gee. They're

mountains. They grab the attention. I'd just like to see more sky in the vertical crop.

More or less foreground would depend on how much tension you want to convey.