|
I get a fair number of questions about my landscape photos in PAD etc so I thought I would start a thread about sharing landscapes, tips, tricks or just ask some questions and I will do my best to answer. Hopefully some of the other landscape shooters will come out as well, and maybe we will find some new ones  If you are posting photos please don't post a million a day or things will get hard to sort through. And since this is about photos I will post a few of my recent shots.   
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
tell me how you do your water. immediately
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 02:39
|
|
|
Yeah I read books. posted:tell me how you do your water. immediately
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 02:40
|
|
|
Yeah I read books. posted:tell me how you do your water. immediately I am just running out for dinner, I will do a run-down when I get back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 02:41
|
|
|
I really love the water in all of your landscapes. I think that the water is generally more calm and clear there and I am very jealous. Landscape photography in my opinion is about 40% willingness to go to difficult locations, 40% post processing and about 20% actual photography knowledge. I could be wrong though I tend to over process a lot of my photos compared to Dread. For me anyway, it is more about getting outdoors and enjoying the scenery first hand, and if you get a good photo then that is just a bonus. Also the weather network is your friend, take into account wind speed and how quickly the clouds will be moving. I tend to prefer a windy day as conditions can change quickly and you can get a lot of different skies out of a short window of time. Some winter photos because I haven't really been out this summer yet.   
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 02:55
|
|
|
Do any of you guys bother trying hyperfocal focusing type of stuff or is that all airy-fairy?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 02:55
|
|
|
HPL posted:Do any of you guys bother trying hyperfocal focusing type of stuff or is that all airy-fairy? Not really, I kind of guess. I am normally shooting at 10-20mm f8-f16 so your DOF is pretty huge so it is not really a big concern for me. If I am shooting with a longer lens then I will pay much closer attention to what I am focusing on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 04:55
|
|
|
Forgot about the water question. To get water like that is not too tricky the trick is having clear water that is calmish and having the correct light. To really smooth the water out use a long exposure, the longer the exposure then the "softer" the water will become but this depends on how calm the water is. Here is an example that kind of shows both. You can see the water entering on the middle right is starting to foam over and the stuff in the top left is full on waves breaking against the rocks. In the middle it is pretty shallow so the rocks are still visible and the water is much calmer as it is protected. You will also need to take into account the sky and water conditions. Calm water will act like a mirror so you are much more likley to get a reflection from the sky. Example:  And example that is shot where the sky is not as visible.  Every locations location will be different and on top of that weather conditions will play a huge role in how the water is going to turn out. My best advise it to go find a river, or the ocean (some thing that has water moving with some white foam IE waves or rapids) about an hour or so before sunset set up a tripod with a wide lens and take photos until after the sun has set. As if gets darker your shutter length will increase and you will get a much better idea of how the water will act than someone trying to explain it. Once you get an idea of how different conditions and shutter lengths will affect the water you can start playing. I am sure this is not the best explanation so if you need any clarification just let me know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 05:33
|
|
|
jhoc posted:How much post did you do on this one? I've really only got one sunset picture I enjoy, however I'm pretty rusty on sunsets. I know to expose for the sky near the sun, but that's really it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 07:16
|
|
|
One thing Dreadhead is good at, but that he hasn't mentioned, is that compositional rules still apply to landscapes. Keep your horizon line on a rule of thirds line unless you have a good reason not to. Dead centered horizons are boring. Technically the horizon is centered in this photo, but the clouds act as another line, and it hits more along the top thirds line.  If there is a visual interest point that pulls the eye the most, try to get it one of the intersecting thirds line. In this one, the waterfall is the visual interest, and it's in the lower thirds intersection. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 09:57
|
|
|
Kazy posted:How much post did you do on this one? I've really only got one sunset picture I enjoy, however I'm pretty rusty on sunsets. I know to expose for the sky near the sun, but that's really it. Well sunsets will almost always require two exposures, one for the sky and one for the foreground. That photo was 3 shots I believe. One for the sky and a dark and light foreground exposure. Instead of dodging and burning I layered a lighter foreground on the dark one and just masked it in where the photo needed to be brightened up. Aside from that just some sharpening and some cloning and desaturating to get rid of the lens flares. Here is an example of what happens when you try to be lazy and "create" your second sky exposure in camera RAW.  As you can see, there is a bright aura above the sun that is pretty ugly. If that had been two exposures the sun would look nice and defined against the sky without that blotching. whaam fucked around with this message at 12:34 on Jul 15, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 12:25
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:These are beautiful, where do you live?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 14:02
|
|
|
maws posted:These are beautiful, where do you live? Both are from Iceland, where I used to live, but now I live in Germany. Thanks though!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 14:06
|
|
|
Superb shots, Dread Head. Beautiful light, expertly captured. Nice processing, too. Here's one from me. Not the best one out of the collection, but, shows a different perspective on landscapes. I think spring and autumn, especially, are the best times of the year, to go to bathe in the resplendent colours that New Zealand has to offer. I made this image whilst trekking along the Arrow River. I traipsed back and forth looking for a good spot to shoot other subjects, when I came upon this little clearing, under beautifully-filtered light, which made way for more shrubs, trees, and dead wood. To my eye (and mind), there is an incredible depth to this image, which has been enhanced in a subtle fashion through post-processing (of which there wasn't much). But, I think it is mainly the bent tree, leading off into the clearing which creates the effect. Keen-eyed observers will note the beautiful red foliage peering through the central-background region. They add another highlight to the image. Let your eye wonder into each zone of the image; note the textures, shapes, and colours; then try to piece the whole scene together afterwards and imagine what I saw: that the colours and texture tell the dreamy tale of autumn. Unfortunately, white/bright backgrounds on the web seem to ruin images and fine details get washed out, especially in landscapes. Best appreciated on a dark (black) background. Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM 1/2s f/16.0 at 31.0mm iso100 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 14:23
|
|
|
octane2 posted:That's a pretty pretentious description dude and I wasn't expecting a lot, but the shot is actually quite attractive. I like the muted colours, it feels more like an oil painting than a photograph. edit: poop - Iceland. Figures. I'll probably never make it there.  I'd love to see any more shots you have though.
maws fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Jul 15, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 14:31
|
|
|
octane2 posted:
I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing it. I don't always need flashy and in your face, but I think this one is just too blase. It literally just looks like a shot into Joe Everyman's backyard woods. I don't want to be insulting, but I'm almost positive this kind of shot needs supreme expertise to make it engaging, because there is no clear focus point, the depth is flattened by the visual noise, and nothing is really recognizable shape wise. It lacks focus, contrast, a subject, and depth, all of which I normally like to see with a medium or even high level, especially in landscapes. maws posted:
Sure, can do:      
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 14:51
|
|
|
Man, even though they're not as good as poop's (or the others in this thread), I'm itching to get some of my Iceland pictures processed and posted after we just got back last week. Unbelieveable country, and some kind of crazy geologist wonderland. I really love that last one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 15:16
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:The perspective on this really makes it stunning to me. It simultaneously makes you feel big compared to the sand and rocks and small compared to the vast horizon and open sky. Do you remember how high off the ground you were and did you have to angle it up or down much? EXIF shows a 10mm lens, I've never worked with such a super wide.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 16:31
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:The perspective on this really makes it stunning to me. It simultaneously makes you feel big compared to the sand and rocks and small compared to the vast horizon and open sky. Do you remember how high off the ground you were and did you have to angle it up or down much? EXIF shows a 10mm lens, I've never worked with such a super wide. I was actually crouched, I believe. That was the sigma 10-20mm, which owns, but I traded it along with my 40d for a 5d original and never looked back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 16:48
|
|
|
Uhhh, I want to go to Iceland so bad, every time I see a photo from there it reminds me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 17:08
|
|
|
I like to think of landscape photography as a naturally occurring Easter egg hunt. Someday I'd really like to be able to travel and take shots like yours Dread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 20:59
|
|
|
Cross posting from PAD. A few more from the weekend that I didnt like quite as much as the others I posted. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 04:29
|
|
|
How long is a "long" enough exposure to get that water effect? Nvm found the exif info from the first couple images. Then my other question is how dark is it really when you take these shots? I went to my local reservoir to try stuff like this and with f22 iso 200 exposure compensation 5 and the slowest I could shoot was 1/20th of a second. Maybe it just needs to be much darker then I think? Or does this kind of technique only work on westward facing beaches with large spaces in front that don't cast shadow? Evilkiksass fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Jul 16, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 06:11
|
|
|
Evilkiksass posted:How long is a "long" enough exposure to get that water effect? Most of the time I am shooting shortly after sunset so shadows are not too much of a problem. Hard to say "how" dark it is streets lights are probably on? Hard to quantify. As for the shutter speed it depends on the water, for a fast moving river you probably could get away with 1/10 or maybe 1/20th. For you thing that is calmer maybe a second or so? Like I mentioned above get to a location before sunset, and stick around after until maybe you can get a 5-10 second exposure just so you get an idea of it. Another way is to get a ND filter which depending on the strength cut a certain amount stops. So you dont have to rely on mother nature quite so much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2009 06:44
|
|
|
I think I will have to find a better location to shoot, this was at a resvoir that is nestled in a valley and the light is just horrible and the water is too deep. What would it look like if you did a 5-10 second exposure of a creek and then had a very weak flash at the end....?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 01:06
|
|
|
I am only ever interested in shooting landscapes on 120. I don't know why, something about square format.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 01:12
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I am only ever interested in shooting landscapes on 120. I don't know why, something about square format. I love the last one, you make the square crop work really well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 01:21
|
|
|
drat it double post.Evilkiksass posted:I think I will have to find a better location to shoot, this was at a resvoir that is nestled in a valley and the light is just horrible and the water is too deep. What would it look like if you did a 5-10 second exposure of a creek and then had a very weak flash at the end....? If you pop the flash you will end up freezing some of the water so you may or may not get the desired outcome. If you are using the flash to add some extra light you can try "light painting" in the areas you want brighter with a flash light or something or take another exposure that is longer and blend the 2 with masks so you can get the desired exposure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 01:24
|
|
|
Well I bought a tripod today so I'm looking forward to getting out and stepping up my landscape/sunset game. I'm gunning for you Dread Head.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 01:47
|
|
|
I tried shooting a roll of film of landscapes using hyperfocal focusing just for kicks. Judging from the results, I think what it does is simulate human vision a bit in that the stuff closer to the camera is clearer but the stuff further out is blurrier much like how you can't see pinpoint details a kilometer away in real life. Either that or it's supposed to give the photo a bit of depth by not having everything in focus like if you just adjusted focus to infinity at f/8 or smaller.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 07:52
|
|
|
Eh, I thought the whole point of hyperfocal focusing was to shoot stopped enough that your foreground *and* background are focused 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 07:58
|
|
|
Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM 20s f/16.0 at 55.0mm iso100 
octane2 fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Jul 20, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 08:48
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 08:59
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I am only ever interested in shooting landscapes on 120. I don't know why, something about square format. Like the first one, love the last one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 09:09
|
|
|
Amazing photos in this thread. Here's one of mine which people in PAD seemed to like. Hope it counts as landscape...
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 11:16
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Eh, I thought the whole point of hyperfocal focusing was to shoot stopped enough that your foreground *and* background are focused I don't know. Infinity focus usually puts everything in focus for me, but then I end up with a very flat-looking photo because there isn't much of a sense of depth with everything being in focus. I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 15:13
|
|
|
When someone smarter than me explained it, what I understood is that you shift focus back from infinity and stop down until both foreground and background/infinity are in the field. It's pretty easy to visualize on old-rear end lenses with both a focus and a depth of field scale.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 15:43
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:When someone smarter than me explained it, what I understood is that you shift focus back from infinity and stop down until both foreground and background/infinity are in the field. It's pretty easy to visualize on old-rear end lenses with both a focus and a depth of field scale. Yeah, I was shooting with a Mamiya 645 Pro and a 55mm lens. I was shooting at f/8 and putting the infinity mark on the edge of the f/8 DOF mark on the scale on the lens. Maybe stopping down to f/11 or so would have been better?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 16:05
|
|
|
HPL posted:I don't know. Infinity focus usually puts everything in focus for me, but then I end up with a very flat-looking photo because there isn't much of a sense of depth with everything being in focus. I have no idea. Getting depth to your photos can be tricky because you are trying to get as much in focus as possible (in most cases). I have been having a hard time with this. I am finding it works well to try and include a subject that will lead the viewer into or through your photo. For example I tried to use this point to get peoples eyes to start in the lower left and follow it out along the point giving the photo more depth (I think).
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
Ringo R posted:Amazing photos in this thread. Here's one of mine which people in PAD seemed to like. Hope it counts as landscape... Ringo R, this is absolutely stunning, what kind of post processing did you do to this? Could you post the original?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 20:17
|
|