Landscape critique please
Discussion
Ever since jumping on the slippery slope that is (very) amateur photography, I've stuck almost exclusively to motorsport and airshows - both a big interest for me and my two lads, regardless of the photography angle.
However, I've been amazed by some of the landscape shots in the "random photos" thread, so I thought I'd have a crack.
I watched the weather forecast last night and worked out that North Wales would be sunny and very calm this morning, so I decided to try some reflections shots. A 4:00am start from the Midlands saw me at Lake Vyrnwy before sunrise. I was really disheartened to see a very ripply surface as I drove across the dam, but I remembered reading a post that said that just as the sun rises, the natural air movement from water to land (or vice-versa) stops and everything goes very calm.
Sure enough, about half an hour after the sun hit the slopes, it all went very calm and the water ended up extremely flat
My kit is fine (D810 with either a Nikkor 16-35 VR or a Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VRII) - therefore, anything that's less than spot-on can only be my technique, composition, or post-processing. For what its worth, the majority of the day was tripod-mounted, running at f18-f22, with low ISO and about 0.5 to 1.5 seconds. Some would have been 1/10 sec or faster when the sun came out strongly. Also note - no post-processing at all on #5 & #6
So - constructive criticism very welcome on all aspects (hope the Thumbsnap doesn't crucify these too much - I might upload to Flickr as well)
However, I've been amazed by some of the landscape shots in the "random photos" thread, so I thought I'd have a crack.
I watched the weather forecast last night and worked out that North Wales would be sunny and very calm this morning, so I decided to try some reflections shots. A 4:00am start from the Midlands saw me at Lake Vyrnwy before sunrise. I was really disheartened to see a very ripply surface as I drove across the dam, but I remembered reading a post that said that just as the sun rises, the natural air movement from water to land (or vice-versa) stops and everything goes very calm.
Sure enough, about half an hour after the sun hit the slopes, it all went very calm and the water ended up extremely flat
My kit is fine (D810 with either a Nikkor 16-35 VR or a Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VRII) - therefore, anything that's less than spot-on can only be my technique, composition, or post-processing. For what its worth, the majority of the day was tripod-mounted, running at f18-f22, with low ISO and about 0.5 to 1.5 seconds. Some would have been 1/10 sec or faster when the sun came out strongly. Also note - no post-processing at all on #5 & #6
So - constructive criticism very welcome on all aspects (hope the Thumbsnap doesn't crucify these too much - I might upload to Flickr as well)
Adobe Lightroom will help get rid of some of the darker areas, by boosting shadows and lowering highlights.
Other software is available
Good work getting up that early - few of us are that daft!
Here's a 10 second Lightroom edit of one (forgive the rush and the cheek!)
Other software is available
Good work getting up that early - few of us are that daft!
Here's a 10 second Lightroom edit of one (forgive the rush and the cheek!)
Edited by GetCarter on Monday 29th August 18:05
GetCarter said:
Good work getting up that early - few of us are that daft!
Here's a 10 second Lightroom edit of one (forgive the rush and the cheek!)
It was nice driving into Wales with no traffic at silly o'clock, but I'm flagging a bit now....Here's a 10 second Lightroom edit of one (forgive the rush and the cheek!)
No problem with you playing around with an image - I use Lightroom 6, but I'm very much a novice - still getting to grips with the basics of the Develop tab, but it'll come with time. The main thing I struggle with at the moment is shots where only part of the image is under or over-developed - for example the spired pump house, against the dark trees, but with a really bright sky. Is it just a case of being extremely careful with the Adjustment Brush? Which is the best way to work - bring down an over-exposed sky, or bring up an under-exposed area?
Nigel_O said:
It was nice driving into Wales with no traffic at silly o'clock, but I'm flagging a bit now....
No problem with you playing around with an image - I use Lightroom 6, but I'm very much a novice - still getting to grips with the basics of the Develop tab, but it'll come with time. The main thing I struggle with at the moment is shots where only part of the image is under or over-developed - for example the spired pump house, against the dark trees, but with a really bright sky. Is it just a case of being extremely careful with the Adjustment Brush? Which is the best way to work - bring down an over-exposed sky, or bring up an under-exposed area?
I always expose for the sky - you can bring back detail from dark areas, but never find detail in burnt out whites. If in doubt (and I do it all the time) I exposure bracket. Belt and braces.No problem with you playing around with an image - I use Lightroom 6, but I'm very much a novice - still getting to grips with the basics of the Develop tab, but it'll come with time. The main thing I struggle with at the moment is shots where only part of the image is under or over-developed - for example the spired pump house, against the dark trees, but with a really bright sky. Is it just a case of being extremely careful with the Adjustment Brush? Which is the best way to work - bring down an over-exposed sky, or bring up an under-exposed area?
As for the pump house... check out 'dehaze' in LR - it will sort you!
ETA - as long as you are shooting RAW.
Edited by GetCarter on Monday 29th August 19:19
Nice work 
1,2,6 are very promising but as above a bit of processing would help - in my view of course but it's personal taste
I also had a go at one of them in Photoshop as below, hope you don't mind. Basically cropped in a bit and put the horizon on the upper third (not a rule but a good guideline!) lifted the shadows, added contrast and cloned out a couple of spots
1,2,6 are very promising but as above a bit of processing would help - in my view of course but it's personal taste
I also had a go at one of them in Photoshop as below, hope you don't mind. Basically cropped in a bit and put the horizon on the upper third (not a rule but a good guideline!) lifted the shadows, added contrast and cloned out a couple of spots
GetCarter said:
I always expose for the sky - you can bring back detail from dark areas, but never find detail in burnt out whites. If in doubt (and I do it all the time) I exposure bracket. Belt and braces.
As for the pump house... check out 'dehaze' in LR - it will sort you!
ETA - as long as you are shooting RAW.
Thanks - it looks like this is what I've done today - sky is fine(ish) but the heavily wooded area behind the pump house is way too darkAs for the pump house... check out 'dehaze' in LR - it will sort you!
ETA - as long as you are shooting RAW.
I don't have 'Dehaze' in LR6 - apparently its only in CC (which I understand is a monthly subscription?) - shame - it sounds like its exactly what I need for the hazy shot of the pump house
EDIT - turns out its a "straining tower" - its where the water is extracted from the reservoir, strained of any flotsam and jetsam before it flows to Merseyside. Either way, its still hazy.....
Edited by Nigel_O on Monday 29th August 20:43
DibblyDobbler said:
Nice work
1,2,6 are very promising but as above a bit of processing would help - in my view of course but it's personal taste
Thanks - I was wondering about the "thirds rule" - I tried having the waterline at 1/3 or 2/3 of the image, but I felt that it either ended up with too much sky or too much lake.1,2,6 are very promising but as above a bit of processing would help - in my view of course but it's personal taste
I've only cropped one or two of the images I've taken today - composition is clearly one of the skills I've yet to even start on, never mind get decent with....
PS - what is it about 1,2 & 6 that show the promise, and what is it about the others that don't? - This will help me understand better what differentiates a decent shot from an ordinary one
Edited by Nigel_O on Monday 29th August 20:52
Nigel_O said:
the "thirds rule"
I hate this complete nonsense. Compositions either work or don't.ETA (again), you may love or hate my photos, but I generally ignore the 2/3 rule, and just try and frame the best way I can.
http://www.stevecarter.com/faves/myfaves.htm
I'll have a proper look through later but..
With modern slr's esp the D810 you have plenty of resolution to crop and at least 4 stops of shadow recovery. As Steve says shoot for the highlites and push the rest in post.
My general landscape plan is
research the area beforehand
get there early
spend time soaking in the location/atmosphere and walking around a lot checking out compositions
Decide whats important to the scene - whats the main subject, whats secondary, and especially what to exclude. Often good landscapes are as much about what you leave out than in, so simplify (compositionally)
I shoot wide more often than not so that means finding a big main subject and abusing foreground elements, getting close etc.
This is well worth a read through:
http://www.shutterevolve.com/32-shooting-planning-...
With modern slr's esp the D810 you have plenty of resolution to crop and at least 4 stops of shadow recovery. As Steve says shoot for the highlites and push the rest in post.
My general landscape plan is
research the area beforehand
get there early
spend time soaking in the location/atmosphere and walking around a lot checking out compositions
Decide whats important to the scene - whats the main subject, whats secondary, and especially what to exclude. Often good landscapes are as much about what you leave out than in, so simplify (compositionally)
I shoot wide more often than not so that means finding a big main subject and abusing foreground elements, getting close etc.
This is well worth a read through:
http://www.shutterevolve.com/32-shooting-planning-...
Ok first image
Has the makings of something sweet.
red - foreground foliage in upper frame - distracting. Its not there being a feature, its just blocking the view. Either make something a part of the image or compose it out.
Yellow - empty space thats not adding anything to the image
Green - possibly interesting foreground grass in the lake, get low and close.
pinky peach colour - main composition and leading lines to the 'hero' , this works really well, without the distractions and space, and a little more aggressive processing it'd be a great shot.
Depending on cloud movement etc its also a good candidate for a long exposure.
Brilliant! - Exactly the sort of feedback I was hoping for! Thanks to everyone for their input so far - its very much appreciated.
There's only so much I can self-teach, so it means a lot to get some thoughts from the experts.
Signing off now, as the 4:00am start is taking its toll, but I've had a really enjoyable day and I'll be back with more. I just wished I lived somewhere closer to the kind of scenery I've seen today, but I guess there's good photos on lots of less spectacular areas of the country.
For what its worth, I'm just five minutes from Cannock Chase, so maybe I don't need to go very far for some nice shots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannock_Chase
There's only so much I can self-teach, so it means a lot to get some thoughts from the experts.
Signing off now, as the 4:00am start is taking its toll, but I've had a really enjoyable day and I'll be back with more. I just wished I lived somewhere closer to the kind of scenery I've seen today, but I guess there's good photos on lots of less spectacular areas of the country.
For what its worth, I'm just five minutes from Cannock Chase, so maybe I don't need to go very far for some nice shots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannock_Chase
Nigel_O said:
For what its worth, I'm just five minutes from Cannock Chase, so maybe I don't need to go very far for some nice shots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannock_Chase
A quick google image search:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannock_Chase
https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Cannock+Chase&am...
Shows that has plenty of potential for good shots.
Seriously abuse local spots to try out comps and get great light, 5 min away you can get there quickly make sure you develop a list of spots that can work in what conditions you find.
Another advantage of local spots is you can review your images at home and refine the comps over time.
These are very nice, and the note about the water flattening out just after sunrise is an interesting one I hadn't read before. Not sure I could be getting up at 4am to get a shot, so my landscapes may well suffer. And very interesting reading the detailed critiques and suggestions, thanks to all for that, very helpful to the rest of us as well.
Nigel_O said:
what is it about 1,2 & 6 that show the promise, and what is it about the others that don't? - This will help me understand better what differentiates a decent shot from an ordinary one
These ones have the good basic ingredients - eg sky, water, reflections, and a clear subject - eg 7 is quite cluttered. It's personal taste of course so absolutely go with what pleases you. I personally think simple uncluttered compositions work best And another couple for your CC please. Both are edited in LR
F22, 35mm, ISO31(!) 20 sec
Lumsdale falls 2 by Nigel Ogram, on Flickr
I should have moved the dead branch out of the way, as its bugging me now, and the top level of the falls is pretty washed-out - I guess 20 seconds was too long - half that would have been OK
F22, 17mm, ISO40, 8 sec
Lumsdale falls 1 by Nigel Ogram, on Flickr
Struggled a little with PP on this one as there was a lot of light coming in from between the trees. Fairly pleased with the fact that I've managed to eliminate a couple of hikers that were in the shot
As with the shots at the beginning of the thread, these are my first attempt - this time at running water
F22, 35mm, ISO31(!) 20 sec
Lumsdale falls 2 by Nigel Ogram, on FlickrI should have moved the dead branch out of the way, as its bugging me now, and the top level of the falls is pretty washed-out - I guess 20 seconds was too long - half that would have been OK
F22, 17mm, ISO40, 8 sec
Lumsdale falls 1 by Nigel Ogram, on FlickrStruggled a little with PP on this one as there was a lot of light coming in from between the trees. Fairly pleased with the fact that I've managed to eliminate a couple of hikers that were in the shot
As with the shots at the beginning of the thread, these are my first attempt - this time at running water
Nigel_O said:
And another couple for your CC please. Both are edited in LR
F22, 35mm, ISO31(!) 20 sec
Lumsdale falls 2 by Nigel Ogram, on Flickr
I should have moved the dead branch out of the way, as its bugging me now, and the top level of the falls is pretty washed-out - I guess 20 seconds was too long - half that would have been OK
F22, 17mm, ISO40, 8 sec
Lumsdale falls 1 by Nigel Ogram, on Flickr
Struggled a little with PP on this one as there was a lot of light coming in from between the trees. Fairly pleased with the fact that I've managed to eliminate a couple of hikers that were in the shot
As with the shots at the beginning of the thread, these are my first attempt - this time at running water
Photographing waterfalls is hard and really requires good conditions, which isnt clear bright skies! F22, 35mm, ISO31(!) 20 sec
Lumsdale falls 2 by Nigel Ogram, on FlickrI should have moved the dead branch out of the way, as its bugging me now, and the top level of the falls is pretty washed-out - I guess 20 seconds was too long - half that would have been OK
F22, 17mm, ISO40, 8 sec
Lumsdale falls 1 by Nigel Ogram, on FlickrStruggled a little with PP on this one as there was a lot of light coming in from between the trees. Fairly pleased with the fact that I've managed to eliminate a couple of hikers that were in the shot
As with the shots at the beginning of the thread, these are my first attempt - this time at running water
Usually you want a dull overcast day, some mist/fog and/or the chance of sun rays or sunstars.
1st shot -
Yes remove the branch, far far easier to do that kind of thing before you press the shutter button.
Not sure what the bottom 1/5th of the frame is doing. Either make it do something - that bit on the lower right looks like it could be interesting, or get rid of it and get closer to that mid ground rock.
You have blown the water - thats a fail in waterfalls, always try keep some detail in the water, the old silky shots have given way to keeping more detail in the water now.
Waterfalls are one place where you should be bracketing and taking multiple exposures.
2-3 for the water , slow shutter speed but dont over expose
at least 1 for the foliage at a fast shutter speed if there is wind
or
one for the foliage/background at a better exposure - usually not the same as the water as its often too dark
Sometimes I'll shoot the whole thing with and without a polariser so I can blend the two - polariser cuts glare from the foliage and enhances its colour , can work for the water too - but can also cut down on wanted reflections too - so we blend
2nd shot - like the comp a lot more, exposure looks good given the conditions, typically people would be looking to apply the orton effect here and add some light glow to the highlites to make it a little more mystical, really depends on how far you want to push the processing.
Superb feedback - thanks. I'd never have guessed that an overcast day is preferable.
Not tried multiple exposures yet and I need to read the manual on bracketing - like I said, I have a lot to learn, but I'm enjoying it, which I guess is what counts
And I've learned something - "Orton effect" - time to do some research...
Thanks again
Not tried multiple exposures yet and I need to read the manual on bracketing - like I said, I have a lot to learn, but I'm enjoying it, which I guess is what counts
And I've learned something - "Orton effect" - time to do some research...
Thanks again
Hi - you have already had some excellent feed-back and advice from the experts on this site but maybe just a couple of extra points. First, I wondered why you were using such a narrow aperture - f22? I know this allows for longer exposures and big dof but sometimes makes the images a little soft due to lens diffraction. Maybe open the aperture a bit and if you can't get the longer exposures you want use an ND filter. Perhaps experiment with different settings? Secondly, I assume you are shooting RAW images - gives you a much better dynamic range and more opportunities in post-processing. Just thoughts - I like what you have done so far and applaud the early rising!
Edited by Beggarall on Friday 16th September 12:54
Beggarall said:
Hi - you have already had some excellent feed-back and advice from the experts on this site but maybe just a couple of extra points. First, I wondered why you were using such a narrow aperture - f22? I know this allows for longer exposures and big dof but sometimes makes the images a little soft due to lens diffraction. Maybe open the aperture a bit and if you can't get the longer exposures you want use an ND filter. Perhaps experiment with different settings? Secondly, I assume you are shooting RAW images - gives you a much better dynamic range and more opportunities in post-processing. Just thoughts - I like what you have done so far and applaud the early rising!
Thanks for the feedback - it really is appreciatedEdited by Beggarall on Friday 16th September 12:54
I was at f22 (min for the lens) and ISO 31 (min for the body) in an attempt to maximise the shutter speed. I've now purchased a set of Cokin ND filters to allow me to control shutter speed without compromising too much on other aspects. Now I can try a running water scene with some different settings
Yes, I'm always shooting in RAW, but I'm still only at the basic level in LR
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff