Help, what can I do to improve?

Messages
415
Name
Ciaran
Edit My Images
Yes
Have recently got out with the camera with a bit more time to spare, and these are some of my shots. Im quite happy with them but know that they can be greatly improved (Remember way back at school doing art, and at the start of the year I was very happy with my work, only to review it at the end of the year to look at it differently and realise how much I had improved). Problem being here now is that I dont have a teacher on hand to advise regularly and I feel a bit on my own.
These were 3 bracketed exposures, on tripod, with camera timer, blended together in Lightroom HDR (I accept that some might say they are a bit overdone but have tried to make them pop without going way too far). Have read recently that using mid range apertures like f11 etc is reecommended -these were around f20 I think on a wide angle lens - I didnt go for the smallest aperture as I had read that you are best not to go the whole way but to step back a couple. Im aware of the composition rules, foreground interest, lead in lines, rule of thirds etc and try to apply if I can.
I guess I would like to go out again now with a few pointers from others who have much more experience than me so if any of you good folk can give me even the smallest pieces of advice, that would be great...
A, Top of bray with gate, A smaller.jpgClay Shoot A (1 of 1).jpgDuck Pond B (1 of 1).jpgMist across the Bann (1 of 1).jpgTop of bray with post & web less saturation (1 of 1).jpg of advice that would be great...
 
Regarding small apertures there is a diffraction limit to a lens, when you stop down to small apertures you start to lose sharpness due to diffraction as light passes through the small aperture. How much that matters depends on what you are trying to achieve. In most circumstances f16 on a wide angle lens get's pretty much everything in focus e.g. a 24mm lens at f16 has acceptable focus from around 1m to infinity.

That said from the photos above and the description you gave it seems that you are pretty much on top of technique and I would encourage you to consider what you are trying to achieve, what are the photos of? What are the photos for? Have a look at the work of other photographers and may be try to develop a style for your work (something I completely fail at :) )
 
Problem being here now is that I dont have a teacher on hand to advise regularly and I feel a bit on my own.

Chris's advice to look at photographs is the best way to make progress. Teach yourself to study why you like pictures, what makes them work. Not just the technicalities. In fact don't just look at photographs, look at paintings and other visual media too.

IMO asking advice on t'internet doesn't compare to having a good teacher on tap. A good teacher will put their personal preferences and prejudices aside and guide you the way you are already heading. Internet 'experts' mostly try to turn you into a clone of themselves. A good teacher will point you in the direction of work they think you might benefit from looking at - not their own!

At first you'll be imitating (we all do), but as you go on and learn to trust your judgements a style will develop over time. Of course some never get beyond the imitation stage. That's why t'internet is awash with pictures which all look alike no matter who took them.

As I said, all IMO.
 
I think, personally, what you are taking photos of. Now, I appreciate we're all different and we see things differently but I don't really see any clear 'subject/s' in your images. The third had the mid ground tree, but it's cut off and the foreground is messy. The fourth has what appears a nice subject tree on the right but again half of it is missing and there's part of a fallen branch? bottom left......

Settings and editing wise no issues really. I also don't like shooting into the sun in the way you have.
 
You talked a lot about the post processing etc. Which is OK, nothing special and definitely really got some dark areas where you don't want them.
Manually blend, don't use any auto HDR programs and you'll get better results.

The biggest initial issue I see is that there is nothing exciting about the shots.
 
Regarding small apertures there is a diffraction limit to a lens, when you stop down to small apertures you start to lose sharpness due to diffraction as light passes through the small aperture. How much that matters depends on what you are trying to achieve. In most circumstances f16 on a wide angle lens get's pretty much everything in focus e.g. a 24mm lens at f16 has acceptable focus from around 1m to infinity.

That said from the photos above and the description you gave it seems that you are pretty much on top of technique and I would encourage you to consider what you are trying to achieve, what are the photos of? What are the photos for? Have a look at the work of other photographers and may be try to develop a style for your work (something I completely fail at :) )


Thanks for the advice ref f16, 24mm focal distance, and full range of focus. If it was a wider photo (say 10mm) what sort of f number would be best?
 
You talked a lot about the post processing etc. Which is OK, nothing special and definitely really got some dark areas where you don't want them.
Manually blend, don't use any auto HDR programs and you'll get better results.

The biggest initial issue I see is that there is nothing exciting about the shots.

Thanks for taking time to reply Paul. With regards to the dark areas I found that they suffered from noise when I tried to lighten them more. How would you suggest getting better results? Could you explain better what you mean by manually blending or suggest any techniques available on line/youtube?
 
Thanks for you replies folks, I've responded to a couple already but don't know how to respond to multiple posts at once. All points gratefully taken on board and having looked at these pictures Id be the first to say that there is no clear definite focal point. These have been taken close to my home during the recent lock down so was unable to travel to a more interesting location and took a stab with these. What I had tried to do was capture the overall scene with a bit of foreground interest, ie. wire fencing, gate etc, and possibly framed like the tree to the upper RHS in one of them. Now, maybe I might take an actual photo of the tree itself - something different that I wouldn't have thought of before reading your replies. Something else that Id like to hear from you...... Say each of you were placed in the same location/surroundings and had to take a few pics, what would your thought process be in trying to get the best shooting position, composition focal point etc? Please try to be as specific as possible. Asking this to help me have a different, and improved approach to shooting, if/when I was to visit the same locations as the pics posted above. Thanks for any feedback....
 
...In fact don't just look at photographs, look at paintings...

This

Paintings, for me, can be the biggest inspiration and source of information in landscape work. Find something that speaks to you and matches your mood, that is where you will find your own style. Having a defined goal is probably the best way to learn the techniques required to get to where you want to be as every time it doesn't come out right, you can go back to your references and work out why it didn't work.

In response to your last message... If I was in the same location the first thing I'm looking for is light. To make it worth while lifting the camera to my eye, something needs to catch my eye. When you find something that the light is hitting just right, widen your gaze to the surroundings of this subject and try and make a composition out of it. Doesn't always work but that's the nature of the game. For what its worth, I probably wouldn't shoot straight into the sun though, I like it to the side. The last image would be fantastic at a different time of year with the sun off camera right, imo.

Also, not every stunning landscape comes across in pictures. Sometimes its better to leave it uncaptured and just appreciate that you got to see it. Too many times I have ruined my own mood trying, and failing to capture something that realistically was never going to come through in 2D when I should have just appreciated and enjoyed the moment.
 
Thanks for the advice ref f16, 24mm focal distance, and full range of focus. If it was a wider photo (say 10mm) what sort of f number would be best?
best bet is to Google "Depth of field calculator" but shorter lenses get you larger depth of field so at a guess you would be fine with f11 at 10mm. Are you sure font-to-back sharp focus is what you want though? In these scenes, probably yes but it's not always the right answer.

Say each of you were placed in the same location/surroundings and had to take a few pics, what would your thought process be in trying to get the best shooting position, composition focal point etc? Please try to be as specific as possible.
Quite often people want a recipe for photography and there is nothing wrong with that, most of us cook from recipes after all. But you seem to have a least one recipe since you have got as far as blending multiple exposure to the get the frankly quite good standard of images you have shown above then it's hard to give specific advice. They are your photos, you know what the world looks like to you.
 
I haven't clicked on the pictures (I do like them) and I won't comment too much on technicalities other than to say that f20 or anything like it is maybe a little extreme especially with a wider lens. Maybe if you have time you could take a series of shots starting from wide open stopping down with each shot. You could then look at the pictures on your pc and see if diffraction is an issue or not and at what point (if ever) it becomes an issue. Maybe it wont be so much of an issue that you'd care or change technique or maybe you could decide to shoot another way with another aperture.

Someone mentioned DoF tables, you could also read up on the Merklinger technique and see if it's a help or not.
 
Chris's advice to look at photographs is the best way to make progress. Teach yourself to study why you like pictures, what makes them work. Not just the technicalities. In fact don't just look at photographs, look at paintings and other visual media too.

IMO asking advice on t'internet doesn't compare to having a good teacher on tap. A good teacher will put their personal preferences and prejudices aside and guide you the way you are already heading. Internet 'experts' mostly try to turn you into a clone of themselves. A good teacher will point you in the direction of work they think you might benefit from looking at - not their own!

At first you'll be imitating (we all do), but as you go on and learn to trust your judgements a style will develop over time. Of course some never get beyond the imitation stage. That's why t'internet is awash with pictures which all look alike no matter who took them.

As I said, all IMO.

IMO too. Can't add anything further. Knowing *why* you want to take a picture will allow you to evaluate it once you have. It's a bit like getting in the car without knowing where you want to go, then asking for directions.
 
You'll find we all have preferences - even you - and we'll naturally push others towards them in our comments and critique. Studying other images of various kinds - and critiquing them, even if just in your head - is going to be useful as has already been said.

So my preferred images are 2, 3 and 5.

2 - you might have stepped back a little further, moved the camera slightly left to give the larger hut a little more space and clones out the blob of flare at the bottom. You might have also shot from lower down to give a different perspective.

3 - I'd definitely have wanted to shoot from lower down to get a bit more of the jetty in and so the camera could be tilted back to include the top of the tree. The shot feels slightly dark and colours muted, which may have been intentional.

5 - Best of the set for the way the open gate leads the eye in. Moving a little right would allow placing the sun more centrally, and if you could include more of the area left of the gatepost with the spiderweb that would also make for more interest. The blobs of flare need cloning out.

I don't know if you have an older camera, but none of these scenes necessarily required HDR to manage, depending on the dynamic range of your sensor, however you've controlled the effect well to prevent it being obviously HDR.
 
The last image would be fantastic at a different time of year with the sun off camera right, imo.

Thanks Josh, I'll def try to have a go at this sometime soon. Just out of interest, Ive tried to get the early golden hour for these shots, which places the sun where it is, as seen. It would probably be early to mid afternoon to have the sun off to the RHS. What are your thoughts about shooting landscapes at that time? In the evening time the sun sets behind this camera location but with it being a valley, its all in shadow so not sure it would be suitable...

IMO too. Can't add anything further. Knowing *why* you want to take a picture will allow you to evaluate it once you have. It's a bit like getting in the car without knowing where you want to go, then asking for directions.
I guess I feel that the location has potential for some great photos Ian, and that Im Hoping for a little help with getting the best out of it. Hope that makes sense?
You'll find we all have preferences - even you - and we'll naturally push others towards them in our comments and critique. Studying other images of various kinds - and critiquing them, even if just in your head - is going to be useful as has already been said.

So my preferred images are 2, 3 and 5.

2 - you might have stepped back a little further, moved the camera slightly left to give the larger hut a little more space and clones out the blob of flare at the bottom. You might have also shot from lower down to give a different perspective.

3 - I'd definitely have wanted to shoot from lower down to get a bit more of the jetty in and so the camera could be tilted back to include the top of the tree. The shot feels slightly dark and colours muted, which may have been intentional.

5 - Best of the set for the way the open gate leads the eye in. Moving a little right would allow placing the sun more centrally, and if you could include more of the area left of the gatepost with the spiderweb that would also make for more interest. The blobs of flare need cloning out.

I don't know if you have an older camera, but none of these scenes necessarily required HDR to manage, depending on the dynamic range of your sensor, however you've controlled the effect well to prevent it being obviously HDR.
Thanks Toni, the suggestions are much appreciated. Ref the camera, I have a Cannon 7d and 550d. The images might not look to be very high in contrast but thats probably down to the PP. In the different exposures for example, when the foregrounds were anywhere near correct, the sky was completely blown, and vise versa - I may be incorrect in this though as Im fairly inexperienced, hence the original post :).

Thanks to everyone for their replies so far.
 
It's a bit like getting in the car without knowing where you want to go, then asking for directions.
That sums up my approach to photography so well (obvs. apart from the asking for directions part, I am a bloke after all) I have litterally got up, looked out of the window, thought "the light looks good" thrown a random selection of cameras and lenses in a bag (of course without matching batteries, cards, film, etc.), jumped in the car and only then has it occurred to me that I should probably decide on what might work well in the given light and things like the weather in the undecided location, direction of the light...

:banghead:
 
Well that is why I said at a different time of year. Yes, shoot in golden hour, but not into the sun. The sun doesn't set in the same place all year, it moves across the horizon.
 
... jumped in the car and only then has it occurred to me that I should probably decide on what might work well in the given light and things like the weather in the undecided location, direction of the light...

:banghead:

Working like this would probably net me more results. I tend to notice the light and just pick a location that I know well. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, well it was probably a nice evening wander anyway.
 
Working like this would probably net me more results. I tend to notice the light and just pick a location that I know well. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, well it was probably a nice evening wander anyway.
Same really, I often head one way only to get somewhere and realise that the conditions would have been better if I had gone the opposite way but it's nice to see somewhere different, have a walk, scout locations for next time, etc.
 
Have been thinking again about this post and thank you to everyone that took the time to reply. I think to better explain what I had been thinking is to compare it to a cook... Say you had a number of identical kitchens set up all with the exact same food in the cupboards. The better, more experienced cooks would most likely prepare the better dish. For example if there was steak, potatoes, veg, etc (the equivalent of a great location), they may all try to make perfectly cooked steak and homemade chips with mushrooms, crispy onions and lovely peppered sauce, but the better cooks will make a much better job of it. Alternatively, if there were only the basics (an decent enough, but still average location), a less experienced cook might boil an egg with some toast, whereas the better cooks might make French toast, or an omelette. I know that the locations above were not the best, but they wern't too bad either, and have thought a lot about what a really good photographer would do if he/she was there and would really love to learn more about seeing things in the best way possible. Any way, hope I haven't rambled on too much and the talk of food has made me hungry. Have a nice weekend folks
 
My initial forray into cooking was with Delia Smith's complete cookery course in nineteen eighty *cough*. My mum bought it for me when I moved out of home because all I could manage was a mean 'fish fingers sur la toast'. I made Delia's Yorkshire Pudding recipe. When my gran tasted them, she suggested I tweak the recipe a bit. I continued to tweak it a bit, and finally [many years later!] I read Tania Ramsey's recipe and modified it with a bit of what she did because it sounded cool. The result I have today is magnificent.

My girls would both rather have Aunt Bessie's. :mad::mad::mad:

Cooking is a pretty good analogy because it's all about taste :) But ultimately, everyone has a different one, and all you get if you follow a recipe, is exactly the same outcome. There is no forumla to a "great image". If there was, someone would have told us what it was years ago!

So people come up with rules tools to help. Which is where we are today.

My sig quote is thus: "Rules are foolish arbitrary mindless things that raise you quickly to a level of acceptable mediocrity and then prevent you from progressing further.
Forget the rules; just make strong images
"

Next question: What is a strong image? The answer to that isn't available as a recipe. It's something that comes from inside you as you discover what it is you're trying to say with your work. If you like Landscape, go buy a book by Fay Godwin. Land is a great start. Try and figure out what she was/is trying to say.

But if you really just want me to shut up and give you one simple way I think you could improve all those images...
let there be shadows!! [/hdr]
 
Since we're on the cooking analogies, let me tell you that anyone who says (in relation to gear) that cooks don't get together and discuss the merits of different cookers, frying pans and other kit simply doesn't know any serious cooks.

;)
 
One big tip just from looking at these is turn the other way - shoot away from the sun and not into it. You'll

a) get more pleasing colours
b) manage an exposure
c) not have that distracting bright spot dominate your shots.

Other points. Go nice places - see the world beyond your doorstep. Go at nice times and shoot in nice conditions.

_DSC5127 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC3069 - Version 2 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

Shoot Portrait. Shoot still water, shoot moving water,

_DSC3857 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC3054 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr
 
The cooking analogy works in some ways, another creative activity that is analogous to photography is playing a musical instrument and for quite a while now, especially on forums like this, it has seemed to me that a lot of people treat it like playing an instrument. By and large they want to be given some music (equivalent to books on locations or lighting), practice their instrument and then "perform" (e.g. display on a forum) the results of their efforts. Others are happy to listen to many different interpretations of the same tune (Bamburgh castle, bird-in-flight) and like it when it is done well.
 
The cooking analogy works in some ways, another creative activity that is analogous to photography is playing a musical instrument and for quite a while now, especially on forums like this, it has seemed to me that a lot of people treat it like playing an instrument. By and large they want to be given some music (equivalent to books on locations or lighting), practice their instrument and then "perform" (e.g. display on a forum) the results of their efforts. Others are happy to listen to many different interpretations of the same tune (Bamburgh castle, bird-in-flight) and like it when it is done well.

And you like to make your own one-string guitars. ;)

I've played in a covers band, but prefer having freedom to interpret things myself or just improvise as the mood takes me.
 
The cooking analogy works in some ways, another creative activity that is analogous to photography is playing a musical instrument and for quite a while now, especially on forums like this, it has seemed to me that a lot of people treat it like playing an instrument. By and large they want to be given some music (equivalent to books on locations or lighting), practice their instrument and then "perform" (e.g. display on a forum) the results of their efforts. Others are happy to listen to many different interpretations of the same tune (Bamburgh castle, bird-in-flight) and like it when it is done well.
Or...

There are lots of guitar players on Youtube who play note for note cover versions of stuff deemed amazing in its day. Not so many of people who come up with anything outstanding of their own.

My tip of the day:

Try to make the best of whatever you have before you locally. If you can make the 'boring' into 'interesting' pictures so that when you do get to a hotspot you might then be able to see it in a different way to the herd.
 
Back
Top