Common mistakes for Beginner landscape photographers

big soft moose said:
the emphasis should be on subtle - HDR done well is great , as the human eye/brain can perceive a wider dynamic range than the camera sensor so good HDR / scene blending can help create a view similar to what the percieved view

However HDR gets a bad reputation because some people tear the arse out of it and create the maximum possible dynamic range which looks unatural and false (this is nothing new - in the pre digital era the equivalent was coloured grads and effects filters)
Click to expand...

yes it can. But photography is as much as creating your vision of something, rather than documenting exactly how it looks. Often, and I used to tone map and bracket images, the results were splendidly detailed but lacking soul, depth and contrast. Subtle exppsure blending and focus stacking are accpeted tecnhniques and allow to create stunning images. However, don't let the shadow be your enemy.
For instance, I've played with the colour channels to create this contrasty B&W. The natural contrast of the scene looked nothing like this, but I wanted to create a vision I had. I've increased the contrast to really give a greater depth to the shadows and texture of the rocky mountains against the white snow

_DSC3052 (1) by SFTPhotography, on Flickr
 
Does anyone revisit a shot an process it again from scratch to get a different result? I'm wondering if my choice of processing is affected by what I see as I go along.
 
ianp5a said:
Does anyone revisit a shot an process it again from scratch to get a different result? I'm wondering if my choice of processing is affected by what I see as I go along.
Click to expand...

Sometimes. I tend to process, sit on it for a bit, and revisit. I sometimes also look back and see if my feelings, and vision of the place has changed.
 
I guess I just have to try it more often and see how the results look. Just that, once I have a result I'm happy with I don't get the urge to undo all my good work. If you see what I mean.
 
Last edited:
ianp5a said:
I guess I just have to try it more often and see how the results look. Just that, once I have a result I'm happy with I don't get the urge to undo all my good work. If you see what I mean.
Click to expand...

Make a copy. I was delighted (initally) with the colour image of this. But wanted to have something more memorable and punchy. B&W seemed the medium of choice.

Digital is great, you can make multiple version of the same image (so long as you kept the raw).
 
Sure. Everything is versioned.

Actually, the ability to keep, and try out different versions without losing anything was the main thing I appreciated about computers when I started using them in 1983 for CAD drawing. Previously if you wanted to change a drawing, you'd have to rub some of your hard work out and redraw it. Possibly screwing something up. The computer, for the first time, let me keep multiple copies while I try out various changes.
 
Last edited:
HDR and grads are often used to achieve the same effects. I hate HDR as it makes me feel like I can't get the shot right in camera so try wherever possible to do it right with multiple grads and careful exposure. The only time I use HDR is if I'm shooting out of the dark into the light and I want to exposure the indoors properly too. That can't easily be done in camera. Pretty much most other stuff I like to shoot can be.
 
ianp5a said:
The problem with grads is you can't get those freaky, OTT, HDR effects with them.
Click to expand...

Sorry, i missed the "problem"? Lol
 
sirch said:
Thanks ancient_mariner, I have been looking at the pros and cons of HDR (because of the type of photos I like to take) and what you say makes a really good point. I had been wondering about grads but then couldn't see how they would perform with a mountainous horizon or when shooting trees for example. I'm sure grads have their place and may even get a set at some point but subtle HDR seems the better option for me for now.
Click to expand...

Grads work fine. You can use soft edged ones and you cannot tell where they are placed
http://flic.kr/p/qZpFZ5

Where is the grad line in this

http://flic.kr/p/pTT3sa

Can you even tell I used one here and on what direction it was oriented (I'll give you a clue it was a soft edged grad) and it was placed not 100% level...
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Grads work fine. You can use soft edged ones and you cannot tell where they are placed
http://flic.kr/p/qZpFZ5

Where is the grad line in this

http://flic.kr/p/pTT3sa

Can you even tell I used one here and on what direction it was oriented (I'll give you a clue it was a soft edged grad) and it was placed not 100% level...
Click to expand...

Sorry, I replied to this a few days ago but just noticed that my reply is not here, guess I forgot to "Post Reply". Anyway, don't want to get into an argument but since you ask, the first has a near horizontal horizon despite being of mountains and the second I would say roughly top left to bottom right.

You are correct that it is not immediately obvious and suits those photos.
 
HDR is a personal choice thing, personally I class it as "modern art" and therefore find it to be the work of the devil with no exceptions. I fully accept that other people like it, I will just never understand why no matter how many times it's explained to me. The least objectionable HDR I've ever seen has been when a RAW file has been edited twice, first in HDR, and then normally, and the normal one has been overlayed at 25%. The worst I've seen has been black and white HDR that look like they have been taken after all the nukes in the world have gone off.
 
Last edited:
Yo! I like this thread. It is very informative. It certainly highlights that we all have different tastes and styles.
I would like to go up to the lakes in September, and try my hand at some landscape work.
Although it's always nice to do something out of the ordinary, I will have no issues in doing the 'done to death' shots at this stage, just to get some experience.

I would like to try this hyperfocal thingy out. I understand how it works etc, but I do have one question. If you were to go technical/geek mode, then where would you actually take the measurement from. Would it be measured from the focal plane marking on the camera body? I know it doesn't have to be that exact, but I am just trying to understand the science behind it just that little bit more.

As for HDR, I think it is a good thing, as long as its done well, and looks fairly natural. Maybe the overcooked stuff has a place (not sure), in urban shots??? All personal opinions again though I guess.

So going back to hyperfocal, does it actually work in practice. By that, I mean, is it worth doing. Have you seen a marked improvement in sharpness? I will be using a Canon (1.6x sensor) with a 17-40mm F4 L series.
 
Northantsgeezer said:
So going back to hyperfocal, does it actually work in practice. By that, I mean, is it worth doing. Have you seen a marked improvement in sharpness? I will be using a Canon (1.6x sensor) with a 17-40mm F4 L series.
Click to expand...

Yes, it works. It works both theoretically and physically.

It's not about the *sharpness* per say, in that it won't much affect the clarity of the produced image at the position that the lens is focusing on. What it does is maximise the depth of field. So is it worth doing? It's not a technique that you should use because it's the in thing, it's something to use if it helps you achieve what you want to achieve in the photograph.
 
Woodsy said:
Yes, it works. It works both theoretically and physically.

It's not about the *sharpness* per say, in that it won't much affect the clarity of the produced image at the position that the lens is focusing on. What it does is maximise the depth of field. So is it worth doing? It's not a technique that you should use because it's the in thing, it's something to use if it helps you achieve what you want to achieve in the photograph.
Click to expand...

Definitely something I want to try. I am fairly confident on composition (albeit conventional), but I know rules can be broken.
Looking forward to giving it my best shot. A big bonus is that I love the lake district anyway :)
Really hoping this can launch me back into photography.
God bless you for a speedy answer (y)
 
Really interesting read and a thread that I will now keep up with.

Exposure fusion was a new one on me!
 
Er... Yes.. Very specialised technique that. Hush Hush. What?

Trying to be of help. But could be bonkers though. Don't tell matron. Don't get out that orften.
 
Last edited:
We had a matron when I was living in the home. I can understand you keeping it quiet if its a bit special.
Thanks anyway.
 
Mark Johnson said:
Sounds basic

Ha ha
Click to expand...

LOL

I think my landscapes have started improving since I stopped staying rooted to one spot and only having one height for my tripod... you have to move about, even a couple of feet can make all the difference....

Robin
 
As a beginner myself I went to the Lake District, Kirkstone Pass to be more specific and started wandering around taking pictures. I took a few experimenting with f11 and f16 on aperture priority and was fairly happy. I was also thinking about whether to use my polarising filter or not. However I then found what I believed was my preferred standpoint and took a few more pictures then returned to my car. I didn't realise that in every picture at my preferred standpoint there was traffic coming up the A592. My best picture has a white car just coming round the bend in the road ahead. If I was good enough on photoshop I would get rid of it but I'm not.

P1030560.JPG
 
Grey77 said:
As a beginner myself I went to the Lake District, Kirkstone Pass to be more specific and started wandering around taking pictures. I took a few experimenting with f11 and f16 on aperture priority and was fairly happy. I was also thinking about whether to use my polarising filter or not. However I then found what I believed was my preferred standpoint and took a few more pictures then returned to my car. I didn't realise that in every picture at my preferred standpoint there was traffic coming up the A592. My best picture has a white car just coming round the bend in the road ahead. If I was good enough on photoshop I would get rid of it but I'm not.

View attachment 46141
Click to expand...

I'm not that good with PS, but here's my effort. (You have 'edit my images' set to 'yes', so I hope you don't mind. I can delete it if you prefer.

edit1.jpg
 
Im just starting out in landscape stuff as I live near some wonderful views and it would be a shame not to capture! I really have no idea were to start, what to focus on or any settings, so hopeully reading this thread will help!
 
JJ! said:
Im just starting out in landscape stuff as I live near some wonderful views and it would be a shame not to capture! I really have no idea were to start, what to focus on or any settings, so hopeully reading this thread will help!
Click to expand...

Buy books such as the Landscape Photographer of the Year collections and see how the best compose pictures and use light. Study, study, study and try and find your own style!
 
Scirocco_09 said:
Buy books such as the Landscape Photographer of the Year collections and see how the best compose pictures and use light. Study, study, study and try and find your own style!
Click to expand...

Probably one of the most underrated tips in landscape photography is the time of the day you shoot your landscapes. It is easy to believe it is best when the light is at its brightest (near mid day or so). The light at this time is harsh and not good for landscapes.

In landscape photography you can not add or remove light, so you need to find the best light. Most pros shoot their landscapes around sunrise and sunset. The golden light at this time of the day is great. As you progress you will also learn to take advantage of light conditions on hazy, rainy days. No role without exception. Photographing landscapes requires you to wake up early and stay up late.
 
JJ! said:
Im just starting out in landscape stuff as I live near some wonderful views and it would be a shame not to capture! I really have no idea were to start, what to focus on or any settings, so hopeully reading this thread will help!
Click to expand...


Probably one of the most underrated tips in landscape photography is the time of the day you shoot your landscapes. It is easy to believe it is best when the light is at its brightest (near mid day or so). The light at this time is harsh and not good for landscapes.

In landscape photography you can not add or remove light, so you need to find the best light. Most pros shoot their landscapes around sunrise and sunset. The golden light at this time of the day is great. As you progress you will also learn to take advantage of light conditions on hazy, rainy days. No role without exception. Photographing landscapes requires you to wake up early and stay up late.
 
TheAndyA said:
I'm not that good with PS, but here's my effort. (You have 'edit my images' set to 'yes', so I hope you don't mind. I can delete it if you prefer.

View attachment 47470
Click to expand...

Thank you that looks great , I don't mind the picture being edited at all.



Also reading Karorm's comments about light I think this was taken around midday so more food for thought.
 
I don't know why people have such a downer on HDR (not that I'm an advocate of it) it's just another method of processing. The problem is that people instantly associate the High Dynamic Range with that retina melting psychedelic garbage that burns through the back of your skull. But in reality if you are of a mind to create an abomination you can do that using any method, layers, HDR, or plain and simple slider aerobics. If the photographer does not want to process their work sympathetically to try and replicate all that is beautiful about our glorious landscapes then they won't .

It's a poor example to single out HDR IMHO, it's the person behind the computer that decides... If you are presented with a photo without any prior information and it was sympathetically and well processed, could you tell how it was processed? HDR, layered, focus stacked, composite images, whatever.... I doubt it.

It's just another tool for us to use, to try and bring out the best (or in some cases worst) in our photographs .... At the end of the day why would you want to get up at 4am,drive 200 miles get back home and then not process your work to the best of your ability whatever method you might want to use.:)
 
Anything where there is a lack of definitive subject - something like a rolling landscape of green grass with nothing to draw the eye. It's what non toggers would call a good photo, but anyone with a bit of experience will find it very dull.

Horizons in the middle of the frame

Blue skies with no detail. Moody skies are always the way to go.

Any use of HDR in any circumstances ever. That should be made illegal.
 
PhotoBoris said:
Any use of HDR in any circumstances ever. That should be made illegal.
Click to expand...

HDR is any technique that captures more dynamic range than your camera sensor can accommodate in a single shot. What is HDR for my old Pentax K10D could be a normal exposure on a D800. Accordingly, it's not possible to tell by looking at an image whether HDR was used to capture it or not. If you dislike excessive and tasteless tonemapping, then I entirely agree, but that's another matter altogether.
 
PhotoBoris said:
Anything where there is a lack of definitive subject - something like a rolling landscape of green grass with nothing to draw the eye. It's what non toggers would call a good photo, but anyone with a bit of experience will find it very dull.

Horizons in the middle of the frame

Blue skies with no detail. Moody skies are always the way to go.

Any use of HDR in any circumstances ever. That should be made illegal.
Click to expand...

I can't tell if you're taking the mick. I've seen plenty of superb pictures with a central horizon, even some great subtle HDR. Moody skies are certainly not the only way to go and there's not just one way to make a picture, it gets boring if rules are followed relentlessly
 
So I am just starting off on Landscape and I need to decide on a good lens for landscape photography, which would be the best for a beginner with little money?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top