ruffsnap

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!

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!

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!

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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