You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
trying to expand my horizons is this a good photo?
- Thread starter Danforth
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
The first thing that pops out to me is the unnatural saturation of the green. It also doesn't seem very sharp but that could be with it being changed to jpeg. I would try it in black and white and see what you think. I think that would improve it.
I like the foggy nature of the photo, and the leading circular line of the edge of the water, but I am noticing a tilt on the horizontal axis which may be exaggerated from the wide angle lens. I think that an adjustment to horizon line would help it a bit.
--Ken
--Ken
thanks guys,this was hand held and darker in its original form.will try it again this summer on a tripod with my new 850.
Overall, the composition is good and pleasing to the eye. I'm not a pro landscape photographer so take the following with that in mind.
1) the horizon line does not look level. It may have been according to the artificial horizon in the camera but sometimes we need to "tweak" that a little if it appears off level.
2) you mentioned already it is dark. You had some room to boost the exposure a little. The fog has a "gray" look and you could have gone up a third to .7 stops and the fog would have been white without being overexposed and captured a little more detail in the shadows without blowing anything out.
3) someone mentioned over saturation in the greens. If that is an artifact of boosting shadows, you can easily reduce saturation only in greens and tweak the hue a little for a more natural look.
4) the only "artistic" suggestion is I like how the stump in the foreground is framed between the arched branches on the left and the trees on the right and how the framing is almost an upside down semi-circle. It is a nice touch. Maybe either through cropping or next time you are in that location, center the apex of the arch more in the frame. About 1 step to the right (if it was possible in this location, sometimes where we are standing is the only place safe to stand) would have accomplished centering the semi circle.
Honestly, it is a nice photo. If this is a place close to you or that you frequent different times of year, it would make an interesting 4 season photo study showcasing how the same scene looks at different times of the year.
1) the horizon line does not look level. It may have been according to the artificial horizon in the camera but sometimes we need to "tweak" that a little if it appears off level.
2) you mentioned already it is dark. You had some room to boost the exposure a little. The fog has a "gray" look and you could have gone up a third to .7 stops and the fog would have been white without being overexposed and captured a little more detail in the shadows without blowing anything out.
3) someone mentioned over saturation in the greens. If that is an artifact of boosting shadows, you can easily reduce saturation only in greens and tweak the hue a little for a more natural look.
4) the only "artistic" suggestion is I like how the stump in the foreground is framed between the arched branches on the left and the trees on the right and how the framing is almost an upside down semi-circle. It is a nice touch. Maybe either through cropping or next time you are in that location, center the apex of the arch more in the frame. About 1 step to the right (if it was possible in this location, sometimes where we are standing is the only place safe to stand) would have accomplished centering the semi circle.
Honestly, it is a nice photo. If this is a place close to you or that you frequent different times of year, it would make an interesting 4 season photo study showcasing how the same scene looks at different times of the year.
I wonder if you could talk about your settings? I see exposure compensation at negative 2.3, yet you ended up at f4 and handheld at 1/40. It seems handheld on that camera would want a faster shutter speed, and for a landscape there was room at least to use f8 or f11 to improve depth of field?
sorry just got back to my computer.those are great suggestions,and i will try the 4 seasons photo study.its about 20 minutes from my house and i plan on spending more time on birding and landscape there.spotted a black backed woodpecker there,but haven't got a shot yet.as far as the settings.i have caught myself repeatedly forgetting to check and recheck my settings,in this instance i never thought the shot would turn out otherwise i would have spent more time there.also i think i have improved in that area since this shot was taken.as far as the colors, yes that is from lightening and adding some color.i thought it was too much also.i have since been playing with the saturation levels etc. and am kicking myself for not trying that sooner.if its alright i would like to add a photo from the other side of the lake.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
i think i had some of the same problems with proper settings here.
Is it as good as it could be?
It has a good foreground, middle distance with the trees reflected in the still water and the receding background into the mist.
I think there is a lot of potential shooting in conditions like this - maybe at this location even with the camera in portrait orientation.
For me, the black rendering of the foliage on the top left distracts a lot. On the other hand without something there the composition seems empty.
The black foliage 2/3 up on the left also seems distracting but without it the composition becomes for me unbalanced towards the tree on the right hand side.
So it looks like you used 1/800 shutter speed, f5.6 and negative 2.3 exposure compensation. The shutter speed is not unreasonable for handheld, though you could have slowed it down a bit. For a landscape more like f8 or f11 might have given depth of field. But mainly I'm wondering why so much negative exposure compensation? You are darkening the shot from what is metered by almost two and a half stops? Do you notice that it comes out of the camera dark?
I like your final result though.
I like your final result though.
I was shooting swans on the lake earlier.am planning on bringing a note book with from now on so i can plan better before i shoot, and correct my errors the next time out.
Others have talked about the processing of the image so I'll comment on the composition instead. When taking a landscape shot, in general, the idea is to get it sharp from foreground, thru the middle, and to the background as the entire scene is the subject. In order to do this, photographers generally use a smaller aperture, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22. The smallest apertures may come with a slight downside so these days most photographers recommend f/8, but photographers like Ansel Adams actually used an aperture as small as f/64, and the downside of f/22 is quite small. For all photographs, looking at the edges and asking ourselves if anything there will draw the viewer to the edge and out of the scene is important, in this photograph the various branches poking in might take the viewer away from and out of the scene. The goal in photography is to create an image that draws the viewer in and keeps them "in" as long as possible. Finding good landscape compositions is an art in itself and often nature is not accommodating, as noted by the stump in the middle of this image. You obviously have a good eye for landscape shots but still have a lot to learn, the learning is done by shooting and viewing your own work with a critical eye and by viewing the work of well-known and highly-thought-of landscape photographers for inspiration. This shot had the potential to be a nice landscape shot if nature had helped out a little more.
i really appreciate your direction.this whole experience, with all the advice, has been eye opening.thanks so much.i will be setting aside more time to practice landscape photography.when this cold spell ends(-30 at nite,single digits above day time). i plan on snowshoeing in and getting a winter pic.this May (opening fishing) i plan on bringing my gear for a day trip into the BWCA.hopefully i'll have a better grasp of what i'm doing then.
The first 2 negatives that jumped out to my eye were:
1) the "tilt" - aka crookedness
2) the unnatural green
I think Connie (viathelens) gave you some excellent advice.
You have made a good start, and are obviously willing to put in the work. Keep at it one step at a time & your skills WILL improve over time.
1) the "tilt" - aka crookedness
2) the unnatural green
I think Connie (viathelens) gave you some excellent advice.
You have made a good start, and are obviously willing to put in the work. Keep at it one step at a time & your skills WILL improve over time.
MarkB
Active member
With any photo, the goal is to create a pleasing composition that focuses on the subject and that does not contain distracting elements. So what is your subject in this photo? To me it's the foreground, the foggy lake and the background trees. I find the limbs on the left and top distracting. Could you have stepped forward and to the right to eliminate those elements? I probably would have used something like f11 to have more depth of field and you also need to focus on the correct point so that depth is appropriately spread across you scene (hyperlocal distance). Why -2.3 stops of exposure compensation, just shoot on manual, when you adjust the f stop to f11 you won't need that exposure compensation at 1/40th. As others have pointed out, the horizon is not level and the overall scene is too green.
thanks
Calson
Well-known member
Highly recommend the books by the wilfdlife photographer Art Wolfe which provide guidance on photographing subjects and also landscapes. Even a picture with a rock in the foreground has something that grabs the viewers' eyes.
I will look those up, thanks.I need to get at least comfortable with these concepts before we visit my son in Maui in June.
Art Wolfe is one of my favorite outdoor photographers (behind Steve Perry of course). Seriously, the style differences and subject matter differences between Steve and Art are significant they are both masters in their genre.
With Art Wolfe, a really good book to start with is The Art of the Photograph: Essential Habits for Stronger Compositions. Well written and full of good advice from one of the all time masters.
Jeff
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
I started out in wildlife photography because things like this kept appearing in my front yard.then macro(same reason).It may be that landscape is a bridge too far,but there's so much beauty out there.i will read, and i will improve.how much???
I call myself a nature photographer. I shoot macro (insects, flowers) close focus of anything from flowers to textures to butterflies and what I call "intimate landscapes (up close pieces of landscape shot with a mid telephoto lens) and wildlife including birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, insects, arachnids and, basically anything that is alive and moves.
So, I would not say landscapes are a bridge too far, it is complimentary to your photography. I have found the broader my photographic interests are the less I get disappointed and come home empty handed. If no wildlife is around, there are always landscapes, sometimes pretty flowers and butterflies. Basically, there is always something beautiful to capture in camera while out in nature.
Hope this helps.
Jeff
Yes very much,thank you.
Guido Bee
Active member
Not a critique, but a caveat / comment on the F64 and diffraction. On the larger format view cameras used by AA, the physical size of the aperture at any given F-stop is much larger than smaller format cameras / lenses we commonly use today. The onset of diffraction is much later (smaller F-stops / higher number values) on the larger cameras. Wider angle lenses will have smaller (physical size) apertures at a given number, than longer lenses; this may contribute to the effects of diffraction being seen "earlier", like maybe F/8 or F/11. In addition, the resolution of film stocks 60+ years ago was less likely to show the effects of diffraction. My personal preference for landscape type images is to use between F/5.6 and F/11. In my experience this is a good compromise. Works for me. YMMV.
I think every one else's comments seem appropriate. All the best.