Common mistakes for Beginner landscape photographers

Here's one - putting in your Seven5 Big Stopper the wrong way round....(foam circle facing away from lens and not lined up ) and a few spots of rain too ! Doh !

Lakes17-116-L.jpg
 
mark4183 said:
hahaha.... well ive never had the issue and I know plenty of others who haven't either
Click to expand...

It won't always happen but it can, it depends on the conditions. If it's a bright day and the sun is hitting the viewfinder then it can cause issues.
 
Hard to be into landscapes in the middle of Birmingham, but I do try.
 
Lots of good advice for a newbie although a lot of it I don't understand what with the military use of acronyms! :D
I realised I have been shooting on LN and not LN plus RAW :rolleyes: - luckily nothing I have taken so far will warrant any processing and even if it did I would have to learn how to do that too!
 
Pookeyhead said:
Diffraction.

The smaller your sensor, the softer images will look due to this. For instance, on a 5x4 camera, you can shoot at f64 and everything is sharp... should a lens that allowed f64 be used on a crop sensor digital camera it would look pants.

Serious about landscape.... then seriously think about getting something with as big a sensor as you can afford. Little tiny sensors, and landscape photography aren't the best bed fellows, as you often NEED small apertures.
Click to expand...

Disagree with this one. Shooting on something like a m4/3 camera means you can ditch the tripod for a large percentage of shots, which opens things up creatively.
Forgotten how clunky shooting with a tripod is until I went down my local wood yesterday with a SLR loaded with Ektar 100.
 
Pete B said:
Hard to be into landscapes in the middle of Birmingham, but I do try.
Click to expand...

I think there's plenty of opportunity for landscapes in Brum and surrounding areas with lakes/reservoirs, green spaces, hills, canals and post industrial spaces to give flavour.
Not everything has to be the trad shot of the great lakes and similar. Shoot what you see, not what other people see.
 
sirch said:
What a shame Pookeyhead isn't around anymore, it would have been an interesting debate.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you want to do with the image really. If you're viewing on a computer/internets or printing up to A3 then for my needs m4/3 is superior due to the freedom it gives you. Larger prints (or for prints with your nose pressed up against it) then full frame, medium or large format wins depending on print size.
 
Ste_S said:
Disagree with this one. Shooting on something like a m4/3 camera means you can ditch the tripod for a large percentage of shots, which opens things up creatively.
Forgotten how clunky shooting with a tripod is until I went down my local wood yesterday with a SLR loaded with Ektar 100.
Click to expand...

I don't like shooting with a tripod, either, although I'm trying to train myself to do it a bit more. All that, slow down, concentrate on the composition etc business... I prefer prancing around with my Pentax LX until I find a composition I hadn't seen before! Or if I need a bit ore stability, I'll use a monopod, either with a tilt head or a L-bracket. Tripod for exposure longer than 1/4 second, though...
 
Ste_S said:
Disagree with this one. Shooting on something like a m4/3 camera means you can ditch the tripod for a large percentage of shots, which opens things up creatively.
Forgotten how clunky shooting with a tripod is until I went down my local wood yesterday with a SLR loaded with Ektar 100.
Click to expand...
Yes, especially will the amazing level of stabilisation the Olympus cameras, for example, have. However, the right sized tripod for the lighter cameras, is much easier to carry around all day without holding you back, is another benefit of m43.
 
Not to mention increased depth of field...
 
sirch said:
What a shame Pookeyhead isn't around anymore
Click to expand...

it's just a plain shame he's not around anymore. full stop. Not for this one singular debate, but for everything he brought to the forum (apart from the occasional spot of verbal lashing out when he was cornered by philistines/eejits). I miss the irascible bugger, even if my viewpoint isn't necessarily shared by all members.
 
Last edited:
TheBigYin said:
it's just a plain shame he's not around anymore. full stop. Not for this one singular debate, but for everything he brought to the forum (apart from the occasional spot of verbal lashing out when he was cornered by philistines/eejits). I miss the irascible bugger, even if my viewpoint isn't necessarily shared by all members.
Click to expand...

it was when he started spouting off about things that he had very little knowledge of, like landscape photography, that he became a real pain..
 
jerry12953 said:
it was when he started spouting off about things that he had very little knowledge of, like landscape photography, that he became a real pain..
Click to expand...
You do realise that you have probably just described half of the members of TP? ;)
 
Bythesea said:
You do realise that you have probably just described half of the members of TP? ;)
Click to expand...

sirch said:
And 70% of the entire internet :)
Click to expand...

Pookeyhead may have been very knowledgeable about certain aspects of photography - and I use the word "may" with certain reservations - but it was when he started talking about landscape photography that I realised I knew far more than he did. Not that he would ever admit it, of course......
 
jerry12953 said:
it was when he started spouting off about things that he had very little knowledge of, like landscape photography, that he became a real pain..
Click to expand...
Whilst David is/was more than capable of defending himself ime he rarely said he knew it all re landscape photography, however he often did "talk" disparagingly about it. At least the things he does know about he really does know unlike one or two posters on TP who are regular spouters of BS who with their copious and self serving posts add little if anything to the forum.




mmm that is probably as close as I've come to a rant ... apologies.
 
Shooting at the wrong time of the day, low composition, no focal point, lack of dimensions are some common mistakes for beginners while taking landscape photograph.
 
Well there is and isn't a wrong time of day isn't there? I mean yes you can shoot a decent landscape photo at any time of day but if you have a specific intention, contrasty light on a hillside for example or obviously a sunset, then time of day/position of the sun do make a difference. As you say it's about the image you want but I do think it's fairly common for people to go out in the middle of the day and try to shoot things that would be a lot better shot earlier or later.
 
Before you even get close to discussing anything technical, its taking boring images, with no thought to composition, interest, details, forground, background etc. or shooting with the right skies / light.

Then issue number 2, is thinking that you can take an image in the first catergory and somehow fix it in photoshop.
3. Attempting both of the above and then arguing that 'Ansel Adams' did it ;-) No he didn't.
 
Shooting at the wrong time of the day, low composition, no focal point, lack of dimensions are some common mistakes for beginners while taking landscape photograph.
 
riddell said:
Before you even get close to discussing anything technical, its taking boring images, with no thought to composition, interest, details, forground, background etc. or shooting with the right skies / light.

Then issue number 2, is thinking that you can take an image in the first catergory and somehow fix it in photoshop.
Click to expand...
Yeah, really common among those new to photography who have just discovered post processing - super saturated, super contrasty and oversharpened. It’s an important step to go through in the learning curve though, which I certainly went through.
 
Night scenes, where the sky is completely black. Where some colour or shade in the sky would have lifted and balanced the result. I know dusk doesn't last very long, but once it's over, go home!
Or move onto closer cityscapes or other night scene where the sky colour is not so important.
 
Be prepared to suffer for the best light. My MF wielding, landscape loving friend has introduced me to wild camping...

Also, be prepared for a lot of disappointment!
 
ianp5a said:
Night scenes, where the sky is completely black. Where some colour or shade in the sky would have lifted and balanced the result. I know dusk doesn't last very long, but once it's over, go home!
Or move onto closer cityscapes or other night scene where the sky colour is not so important.
Click to expand...

Or, alternatively, getting that sick yellow city lights cast in what SHOULD have been a black sky...
 
Rather than a "Don't", some things to aim for.
Keep it simple, less is so often more. There really is no need to fill the frame with your focal point. Use the textures and patterns. Don't be afraid to extend those shutter speeds to take advantage of cloud and water movement. And it's not all about colour, some of the best landscapes scream for simple B&W edited with a little touch of dodge and burn.
Within another part of the forum you would find some that might suggest that shooting film is a great way to slow you down and make you consider every shot that little bit more before you push the button.



received_2199696613474843.jpeg
received_2526916990704827.jpeg
 
The common mistakes are: Overexposed skies, sloping horizons, too much foreground, too much skies, too much distractions that can easily be removed at photoshop, over dramatic images (too much HDR), shooting too wide when is not necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top