Common mistakes for Beginner landscape photographers

J

jonnyb123

Messages
147
Name
Jonathon
Edit My Images
No
Regularly at work we have meetings to reflect on the good/bad of a project, in order to learn from the lessons of previous work.

Bringing that to the world of landscape photography, have any experienced folks out there got some 'DO NOT's' when it comes to landscapes.

What are the mistakes you see most often in beginners landscape photos?
 
There's not a 'subject'.

Overexposed skies.

Horizons are sloping.

I could go on, I've done them all...
 
Landscapes need good depth of field - and small apertures increase the depth of field.
Makes sense - right?
I went through a phase where if the lens allowed big f-numbers, then I used them!
FYI - Something like f40 is available on the 75-300.

Wrong....
In those days I was shooting film and didn't really notice the problem till it was too late.
I had a shot published in the local paper even though it was soft printed at 6x4.
I blamed the budget lenses I was using at the time and never really looked into it; I had no idea how much I still had to learn!

In short - diffraction killed the sharpness.
For landscapes on a cropped sensor, you are best keeping below f16.
 
Duncan, i must admit this is something which i have only recently got my head around. At first i was just sticking the camera on a tripod and shooting (no matter what fstop).

Then i read about dof and the like, then whacked it upto f22 and beyond. Only recently have i read about the ~f8 sweet spot. Now its just finding time to go try out my new found knowledge :D
 
Before someone else says it :)
There's nothing wrong with using extreme apertures, but it should be a creative decision.

For example, if you want a bit of blur in moving water and you can't get the shutter speed slow enough, then changing from f8 to f22 (or beyond) is fine - but you need to be aware of the compromise in image quality to get the shot.

And - if you are including subjects near the camera and still want the horizon sharp then you are going to need a big aperture; either recompose or you have to live with compromising image quality!
It's really irritating to capture a cracking landscape and when you get home spot the foreground is distractingly out of focus. There are some tricks you can use, like hyperfocal distance, focus stacking and tilt-shift lenses, but that's pretty advanced stuff. For now, the best option is to keep upping the f-stop and review the image to when the near and far subjects become acceptably sharp.

Note that I'm using the words 'acceptably sharp'.
You don't need to aim for images that look sharp when zoomed to 100%, if you are only aiming to print to A3 then you can get away with a surprising amount of softness.
This is the bit where there's no substitute for experience and experimentation.
 
Last edited:
Not focusing in the correct place and not selecting the most suitable aperture are the most common problems I come across with people attending my photography workshops...the problem is that reading about the subject can be slightly confusing, especially Hyperfocal...a quick demo and people immediately see the difference. It's probably THE most important thing to understand if you want to improve you landscape shots.

For me having the foreground detail sharp is the most important, we naturally don't see distant objects quite as sharp so when viewing images people are not inclined to notice a distant mountain range being slightly unsharp, they will notice unsharp foreground though

Simon
 
The mistake I often make is putting the lens into manual focus and set hyperfocal distance for widest focal length (eg 1m f11 at 17mm), then see a good angle and zooms in with the lens, forgetting to set hyperfocal distance for the new focal length and come home to find mostly blurry shots :(

Remember to check your focus after every shot! Are the parts you want to be sharp, sharp?
 
I find over the top HDR painful to look at, and plenty of people seem to think it is a valid alternative to using grads. Similarly thinking HDR will rescue a boring composition

Using ultrawides without sufficient foreground so that everything looks lost.

Horizons smack bang in the centre of the frame where having it lower or higher would have suited it.

Sloping seascapes

Massive blown skies

Having no focal point.
 
Thinking that a landscape has to be a wide angle shot. The result is there is so much in the picture you do not see what attracted your attention in the first place because its so small.

Following on from Kendo's comment. (y)
 
Last edited:
Mark I agree with the HDR stuff. I've had a play with it myself, but can't stand the over processed stuff people churn out. I'd take subtlety any day.
 
huffy said:
Thinking that a landscape has to be a wide angle shot. The result is there is so much in the picture you do not see what attached your attention in the first place because its so small.

Following on from Kendo's comment. (y)
Click to expand...

This is something that I've taken to heart lately. Most of my recent landscape stuff has been shot at 50mm (on a crop) and I'm getting some great results.
 
So, as a novice landscaper, what would be a decent lens to add to my kit? I've got a Canon 18-55 kit lens, a Canon 70-200L, a Canon 100mmmacro and a Sigma 150-500.

I never seem to be able to capture what I see. Mind you, I've not done much proper landscape work.

Ta.
 
Hi Martin, you don't need any other lenses for landscape work until you find what your current gear provides to be limiting. You have everything you need focal length wise in your 18-55 and 70-200

I would suggest you spend the money you would have spent on a lens on going out and taking pictures. Work on your composition, your exposure and seeing a picture that works isolated from the experience of being there. Most poor landscapes are poor because of the lack of a focal point, they are simply pictures of nice places which don't actually work as photographs

If you do feel the urge to buy something then some graduated filters may help, depending on if you can get on with them. Others make do with fixing in PP with bracketed photos so it's not completely necessry
 
Last edited:
blackfazer said:
So, as a novice landscaper, what would be a decent lens to add to my kit? I've got a Canon 18-55 kit lens, a Canon 70-200L, a Canon 100mmmacro and a Sigma 150-500.

I never seem to be able to capture what I see. Mind you, I've not done much proper landscape work.

Ta.
Click to expand...

Don't fall into the trap of thinking you need a new lens to capture good landscape shots...I'd recommend spending more time developing your technique/style and only then think about lenses

Simon
 
Good thread...I've suffered from all the above. Found the info on aperture settings the most interesting...time to practice
 
Remember DOF is affected by focal length you are shooting at and focus distance as well as aperture.
 
Is the suggestion in some articles I've read of focussing a quarter or third of the way into the picture you are trying to capture a sound one ?
 
Believing you MUST use an ultra wide for landscape.

Looks to be on most peoples list, no focal point subject and wonky horizons, but we have ALL had a few of those along the way ;)
 
Last edited:
I agree with those that say "stick with what you have got" but would like to add 2 items that are an important part of any "landscape" photographers kit. Not having access to these items can result in more than 1 "common" mistake

a). A sturdy tripod - forget the cheap and flimsy aluminium ones that are always advertised on Fleabay, buy the best you can afford.

b). A decent circular polarising filter - try and buy one that is multi coated. Expect to pay in the region of £70+ and treasure it. CPL is not repeatable PP unlike the effects of a GND filter and can transform an average image into a good image.
You can purchase 1 CPL filter and, if needed, step up/down rings so that it will fit all the lenses in your collection.
Good manufacturers that immediately spring to mind are Marumi, Hoya and Sigma but others will no doubt have favourites.

I hope this helps.

Andy
 
Last edited:
As hinted above, it's tempting to go right up to maximum aperture value, which isn't such a good idea. There's a bit of science behind that, but i'm not completely familiar with it.

I'd also recommend getting one of those nifty hotshoe mount spirit levels (not the bullseye type), so that you can line up on the horizon even if you can't see it. I got one on Ebay for a couple of £, sure makes you realise just how inaccurate your own perception of level can be.
 
Last edited:
Jayst84 said:
Worrying about hyperfocal distances, expensive filtres, diffraction and the "rule of thirds" instead of going out and taking decent pictures with some meaning or feeling behind them. (y)
Click to expand...


Not scientific but I set aperture at 9 or 11 focus on mid distance and snap away. Remembering two thirds takes time to do it automatically...but if I forget...so what :LOL: If its a nice scene that will do for me...but to be fair generally I do remember. As I say its just a habit...but don't worry about it :)
 
Some good tips here, I'm meaning to get more into landscape photography this summer (weather and health providing), I too have been guilty of always thinking you need a super wide angle lens for good landscape shots in the past.
 
I read a good tip the other day - pretend you have to describe what you're shooting to someone who can't see it. If your description is vague - "a hill with trees", "a field with flowers" - then you should find a better focal point - "a mossy stone wall in the foreground leading up to a tree-covered hill", "an imposing oak tree in a flowery meadow" eg.

Not that I've managed to put this into practise yet . . . I still take photos of "pretty hills" and then wonder why I bothered when I see it in Lightroom.
 
abdoujaparov said:
I read a good tip the other day - pretend you have to describe what you're shooting to someone who can't see it. If your description is vague - "a hill with trees", "a field with flowers" - then you should find a better focal point - "a mossy stone wall in the foreground leading up to a tree-covered hill", "an imposing oak tree in a flowery meadow" eg.
Click to expand...

Excellent tip (y)

For long exposures, remember to cover the viewfinder, to avoid unnecessary light hitting the sensor.
 
abdoujaparov said:
I read a good tip the other day - pretend you have to describe what you're shooting to someone who can't see it. If your description is vague - "a hill with trees", "a field with flowers" - then you should find a better focal point - "a mossy stone wall in the foreground leading up to a tree-covered hill", "an imposing oak tree in a flowery meadow" eg.

Not that I've managed to put this into practise yet . . . I still take photos of "pretty hills" and then wonder why I bothered when I see it in Lightroom.
Click to expand...

I posted this shot on here and it seemed to get a good response, despite describing it to someone as some grass with a cloudy blue sky.

landscape-shot.jpg
 
Lyonspride said:
As hinted above, it's tempting to go right up to maximum aperture value, which isn't such a good idea. There's a bit of science behind that, but i'm not completely familiar with it.

I'd also recommend getting one of those nifty hotshoe mount spirit levels (not the bullseye type), so that you can line up on the horizon even if you can't see it. I got one on Ebay for a couple of £, sure makes you realise just how inaccurate your own perception of level can be.
Click to expand...

A lot of newer cameras have virtual horizon now anyway, I assigned it to the fn button.

Plus it's not always about level, it can be about what looks better. I had comments before on a shot I did of an oval pond from an angle, the camera was leveled because trees were in the shot, but they were complaining that the waterline was not, but If I had adjusted the waterline then the trees would be at a weird angle.

Sometimes people just go into 'rule mode' when looking to critique and don't consider physics or nature.
 
Also the point about having a focal point should be considered creatively, I have seen a lot of things being dragged onto beaches etc for the sake of it when it was'nt necessary.

A good looking mountain scene can be done well without ski's and poles stuck in the ground 2/3rds into the composition.
 
Keebsuk said:
b). A decent circular polarising filter - try and buy one that is multi coated. Expect to pay in the region of £70+ and treasure it. CPL is not repeatable PP unlike the effects of a GND filter and can transform an average image into a good image.
Click to expand...

Hi everyone I'm after a little clarification on this one, because I've heard it a few times. My belief was that the Grad tool in PS/LR , can only restore info that is there but not visible because of the limited dynamic range, however surely if the detail in the highlights has been completely blown out, it's gone forever?
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
Hi everyone I'm after a little clarification on this one, because I've heard it a few times. My belief was that the Grad tool in PS/LR , can only restore info that is there but not visible because of the limited dynamic range, however surely if the detail in the highlights has been completely blown out, it's gone forever?
Click to expand...

Correct
 
Lyonspride said:
As hinted above, it's tempting to go right up to maximum aperture value, which isn't such a good idea. There's a bit of science behind that, but i'm not completely familiar with it.

.
Click to expand...
Care to explain why not? The likes of Brian peterson goes all the way up on his apparture and his landscape shots are stunning
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top