|
xzzy posted:Basically, shoot at sunrise or sunset. Obviously there's more technique to it than that, but I can't think of anything that has a bigger effect on making a mediocre landscape into a great one. Composition? Content? I mean, I wouldn't say that light alone would make something a great photograph. There has to be something there in the first place. Dick Danger posted:I really hate sucking at things, so I want to make a goal of working towards the quality of landscape photography everyone else posting here seems to maintain. Are there any particularly good resources/theory for beginners? Look at a lot of photographs. Seriously, spend as much time as you can looking at images you like and think about why you like them. Landscape throws a lot of people because they have trouble with the concept of the scene it's self being the subject of the photo. It's easier to get away with sloppier composition when shooting something clearly defined that dominates the viewers attention, like portraits or sports. Remember that you aren't just trying to take a picture of a tree and a rock, you are trying to say something with those elements. I'm not saying that every photograph you take must be meticulously planned and thought out. Just that if you don't know why you are taking a photograph then you probably shouldn't take it. Here are a few Flickr groups with some strong work that I like to follow: http://www.flickr.com/groups/anthropogenics/ http://www.flickr.com/groups/neotopografia/ http://www.flickr.com/groups/americanelegy/ http://www.flickr.com/groups/democraticforest/ http://www.flickr.com/groups/landscapist/
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 10:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Composition? Content? I mean, I wouldn't say that light alone would make something a great photograph. There has to be something there in the first place. My assumption is if they're posting here they already have some awareness of composition.  Especially because almost everything that gets posted on this sub-forum blows my poo poo out of the water.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 14:09
|
|
|
xzzy posted:My assumption is if they're posting here they already have some awareness of composition. Fair enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 14:55
|
|
|
Some photos from Icedlandia, I was in Reykjavik for the marathon last weekend, so didn't really get too far out into the country, just the normal tourist spots in the southwest. Núpakot by tylerhuestis, on Flickr  Skógafoss by tylerhuestis, on Flickr  Skógafoss by tylerhuestis, on Flickr  Reynisdrangar by tylerhuestis, on Flickr  Þingvellir National Park by tylerhuestis, on Flickr  Gullfoss by tylerhuestis, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2012 22:03
|
|
|
Sorry for the repost but what do you guys think of this reprocessing job? Better or worse? The contrast between sunlit and shadow areas is a bitch to get right in the desert, so many of my shots ended up being flat as hell on the first processing run-through. This one was no different, I guess. Painted Hills Sunrise Pano (reprocess) by Smekermann, on Flickr Link to the original. edit: neckbeard, those shots really manage to convey Iceland's uh... epicness? Epicity? What I'm saying is, Iceland looks pretty fuckin badass.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
Smekerman posted:edit: neckbeard, those shots really manage to convey Iceland's uh... epicness? Epicity? What I'm saying is, Iceland looks pretty fuckin badass. grandiosity
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
I think Iceland needs its own superlative. Like icelandosity or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 14:20
|
|
|
Smekerman posted:
Thanks, I wasn't in the country very long, the furthest I got outside of Reykjavik was Vik, which is less than 200Km away along the coast, and the furthest inland I got was Þingvellir National Park, which is about 50Km inland. That means there's still poo poo-tons of Icelandosity out there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2012 15:00
|
|
|
 Adirondack High Peaks Region. That's about as close as I got without torrential downpours. Not fun hiking or picture taking that day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2012 07:50
|
|
|
It's been too long since I posted in this thread, I finally stopped being lazy and processed my pictures form my trip to Glacier National park this summer. I think I got really lucky with the weather, just the right mix of clouds and sun for great photos. Heavy Runner Mountian & Reynolds Creek by johnm3000, on Flickr  McDonlad Creek Valley by johnm3000, on Flickr  Medow and Dusty Star Mountain by johnm3000, on Flickr  Rainbow over McDonlad Creek Valley by johnm3000, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Nice, what focal length did you use? Thanks. That one was 24mm, as I was shooting at 30s I needed a slightly longer FL to get some trails happening. Here is another from the weekend, this time I think I improved the FG a lot, and eliminated the gaps in the trails, although they were thicker/more plentiful in the old one:  A Lucky Break by Aztatlan, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 11:32
|
|
|
jm3000 posted:It's been too long since I posted in this thread, I finally stopped being lazy and processed my pictures form my trip to Glacier National park this summer. I think I got really lucky with the weather, just the right mix of clouds and sun for great photos. This amuses me because I was there just a few weeks ago, and my pictures look suspiciously similar even though I was in a completely different part of the park. Downside being all my shots were taken right in the middle of the day, and I'm not too happy with most of them. I also had 100% clear skies.. which is fine for hiking, but I was secretly hoping for a huge storm to come through.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
Trekking through the Himalayas. Sunrise over the Himalayas by alangrainger, on Flickr Metalslug fucked around with this message at 10:30 on Aug 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 08:02
|
|
|
Metalslug posted:Trekking through the Himalayas. I think the saturation is a tiny bit too strong, otherwise this is killer. Such a great shot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 08:17
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:I think the saturation is a tiny bit too strong, otherwise this is killer. Such a great shot. Absolutely right you are, toned it down a bit. Thanks  e: Hopefully enough? Metalslug fucked around with this message at 10:42 on Aug 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 10:31
|
|
|
Me and a friend took a trip up to the Knoydart Peninsula to get away from civilization for a couple of days: Rainstorm by Tim Breeze, on Flickr  To Knoydart by Tim Breeze, on Flickr  Insert Celtic Music Here by Tim Breeze, on Flickr  Heading Home by Tim Breeze, on Flickr  Rowboat 2 by Tim Breeze, on Flickr  Rain by Tim Breeze, on Flickr Holistic Detective fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Aug 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 14:59
|
|
|
 Clouds over Nagarkot by alangrainger, on Flickr Metalslug fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Aug 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 18:33
|
|
|
 we were once here by jwallacephoto, on Flickr  Glass Front Porch by jwallacephoto, on Flickr I usually avoid doing this, but how easy is it to notice that the sky in the second photo is from a different shot?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
quazi posted:
would NOT have noticed had you not mentioned it... beautiful comp 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 00:01
|
|
|
quazi posted:I usually avoid doing this, but how easy is it to notice that the sky in the second photo is from a different shot? I only looked at the embedded images and not the large sizes, but I personally couldn't tell. Gorgeous shots, really jealous of those skies. edit: Yeah, it's pretty seamless even in the large size. Great job on the processing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
quazi posted:
I dunno, I immediately noticed, it looks pretty fake to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
Does crumbled wreckage count as rocks?  I'm still working on these, I had no idea the location for our short film would be both so incredible and so drat difficult to work with. Any feedback is more than appreciated, I'm banging my head against the wall over this series. The one day I wish I had brought sticks. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:I dunno, I immediately noticed, it looks pretty fake to me. Are you talking about the blend or the actual skies? If you're talking of the latter, I've seen skies like that (ie. with two different hues in the clouds), there's nothing fake about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
It's one of those pictures that's got so much processing going on, it's got that "more amazing than the real world so it actually looks kind of fake" feel. You know, the stuff you see on the front page of 500px all the time. I'm not really making a value judgement on that type of photo, but it is hard for me to look at it and not get stuck on wondering why it seems "off."
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 03:07
|
|
|
I think the sunset-like lighting in the clouds sorta gives it away. That's just a guess though. It seems like the light on the ground might be too bright for the clouds that suggest lighting in the evening.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 03:40
|
|
|
xzzy posted:It's one of those pictures that's got so much processing going on, it's got that "more amazing than the real world so it actually looks kind of fake" feel. You know, the stuff you see on the front page of 500px all the time. Really? What about it looks fake to you? If you actually sit there and analyze it, yeah, you might notice that everything's a bit too evenly lit, even for what looks to be a twilight scene (which might mean some exposure blending in the shadow areas), but on first glance I couldn't really see anything off about it, except that it was pretty vivid. Also, here's a lovely shot of mine from 2005 showing another example of skies like that: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
I'm not saying skies like that don't happen, just that that particular example doesn't sit well with me. And I can't express what's "off" about it. It just is. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
 Summer by atomicthumbs, on Flickr I don't know if this is good or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
You guys definitely aren't the first to say those images are a bit 'punchy'. And yes I'll admit I've possibly been spending an unhealthy amount of free time on 500px. For reference, here are the source images of the second photo (click for big):  Exposure 5 of 7 (facing west)  Composite of all 7 exposures as a 32-bit TIFF in Lightroom 4.1  Smekerman and East Lake, this might be what you're picking up on: this sky was taken 30 minutes later, 20 miles away, and facing the opposite direction from the "ground" half of the image. (Or maybe I just fell in the HDR Hole and need a ladder.) quazi fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Aug 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 04:38
|
|
|
No, I think it's the direction of the light. It's really obvious that the light is landing on the opposite side of the rocks that the sun is facing. I think also the bottom half is too bright compared to the sky. Not by much, but if you tone down the land by about 10% it would probably look more natural.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
Looks familiar. I was wondering how long that piano would last.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 05:09
|
|
|
I think I recall a Woot Fatigue photo of it too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
HookShot posted:No, I think it's the direction of the light. It's really obvious that the light is landing on the opposite side of the rocks that the sun is facing. I think also the bottom half is too bright compared to the sky. Not by much, but if you tone down the land by about 10% it would probably look more natural. Yeah after staring at your picture for far too long, I do agree about the lighting. I think what bothers me is that lit-up cloud on the right. Get rid of that (and darken the foreground a bit) and it'd be a lot harder to tell. So it was an HDR after all, I seem to remember you doing a bunch of exposure blending a while back which is why I mentioned it. Anyway, after seeing your original shot, I'm not sure why you went and changed the sky on it. Give it some contrast/do some burning in the shadow areas, maybe punch up the color a bit and you'd have a pretty drat good shot on your hands. Speaking of garish/overprocessed landscape shots, we should post our best examples of them. What do you guys think of this?  I'm a bit embarrassed uploading this but I kinda like it, in a "guilty pleasure" sort of way. Let's see if I remember all the horrible ways I overprocesed this: - square cropped it then moved the clouds accordingly, so they fit the composition better - obviously adjusted the temperature to a cool 3200K or thereabouts; blended the sunrise glow back to its original state, I think - dodged/burned the gently caress out of those clouds - transformed/distorted the dock so the lines were all parallel, then masked/cloned the area around it back to normal (something that always bothered me about the original shot is that I couldn't get the drat thing to look straight without mangling everything else) For reference, this is the "official" version of the shot:  atomicthumbs - Was the original really underexposed? It looks quite grainy for 125 ASA film. Smekerman fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Aug 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 06:00
|
|
|
Smekerman posted:atomicthumbs - Was the original really underexposed? It looks quite grainy for 125 ASA film. I've always gotten nothing but unpleasant grain from FP4, even in medium format. Apparently 35mm is not the exception
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 06:11
|
|
|
Grain shows up if the film is pushed either in the scanning/printing or the development process. I don't really think it's the film itself, though I don't have much experience with FP4. I'm assuming your film is still fresh? Do you develop it yourself? How do your negatives look? If they're pale or see-through then they're underexposed or the film itself is underdeveloped. If you still have a roll of film in your camera, I'd try maybe overexposing a few shots and see how those come out. The camera's lightmeter might be gone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 06:32
|
|
|
Smekerman posted:Grain shows up if the film is pushed either in the scanning/printing or the development process. I don't really think it's the film itself, though I don't have much experience with FP4. I'm assuming your film is still fresh? Do you develop it yourself? How do your negatives look? If they're pale or see-through then they're underexposed or the film itself is underdeveloped. The negatives look nice and dense; I had it lab developed. Maybe the grain comes from them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 07:10
|
|
|
For some reason I've really been on a national park kick over the last two years. Recently trying to get more into photography, but finding landscape shots kind of difficult. Anyways, my first trip with the camera was to Alaska, this is from Denali National Park: IMG_3061 by herd of mongeese, on Flickr mongeese fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Aug 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 07:16
|
|
|
removed.
Revolucion fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Nov 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 11:52
|
|
|
Smekerman posted:Yeah after staring at your picture for far too long, I do agree about the lighting. I think what bothers me is that lit-up cloud on the right. Get rid of that (and darken the foreground a bit) and it'd be a lot harder to tell. I bracketed based on exposure readings, the sunset was happening right in the gap of the formations, things were coming together nicely -- and then I drove off! I had this stupid idea "hey there are some other formations just up the road! (30 minutes away) Maybe I can catch the sunset over there too!" Within 10 minutes, the clouds behind me lit up, poked a rainbow through, but by then I was out in a field. I eventually pulled over, got the cloud shot, and got the one shot of the culvert right before it got dark. Moral of the story: When you're in an interesting place, and interesting light is happening, STAY THE gently caress THERE. And if you screw up that part, don't use Photoshop in anger trying to fix it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 15:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
Haha, I had that happen to me as well. I think being burned like that is why I try checking out spots I've never been to at least a couple hours in advance, that way I have enough time to find a good composition and figure out how the light is going to fall at sunset and whether it's worth me staying in that spot or finding a new one. Of course, sometimes my predictions turn out totally wrong and I end up in a lovely spot at sunrise/sunset. Meh. Even then, though, I just stick with it. I'd rather get something as opposed to nothing at all. And I wasn't saying that "oh hey it's HDR" like it was a bad thing, I use it quite often myself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2012 16:59
|
|