|
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 29, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Thanks for the contributions. This is nice, my small nit pick is the branch in the lower right and in the very right corner there is something dark that bothers me a bit.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2009 22:36
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:It's strange but I'm a sucker for portrait-oriented landscapes. I like normal landscapes too, but when I'm out taking pictures I just find more interesting portrait oriented shots than normal ones. I feel pretty dumb, but what can ya do. Portrait orientation can often work quite well, I find it works better for tighter space such as rivers etc.  
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2009 17:23
|
|
|
Lets get back on track...  
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2009 07:04
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:He can answer as well, but I also shoot landscapes in spot, so I'll give my answer. Pretty much this I use the spot meter so I can find the brightest and darkest spot and then I go from there. If you use something like matrix it will see the dark water, and the bright sky and try to guess. I would rather see what the camera thinks the water is, then adjust from there and same goes for the sky. These and my shot from a few weeks ago are my first lighting shots so still trying to figure that out.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2009 16:47
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:Hopefully soon I can get out and try and shoot some epic poo poo like I see in this thread. The pics you guys are posting are amazing. Really digging the black sky although I feel it is a bit empty at the top. Looks like quite the location where is it and what is that structure at the top?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2009 06:07
|
|
|
Two from tonight was hoping for a better sunset but oh well. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2009 08:42
|
|
|
And one from today!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2009 07:22
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:This is not particular to landscapes, but if I print something that I really care about I crop it exactly how I want it, and mat and frame to fit that. On that note you can normally just get a larger frame and then get/cut a custom matte to fit your photo. Custom mattes are normally pretty cheap.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2009 07:17
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I've got the Sigma 10-20 for my D300 and it's pretty awesome. It's actually pretty sharp, and a great deal. I haev the same setup and also used the sigma 10-20 on my old D50. The range is awesome and it is REALLY wide but it does get some pretty crazy distortion and for it to be reasonably sharp you need to stop down to atleast f8 which you are probably going to be doing for landscapes anyways.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2009 20:08
|
|
|
Some from tonight.  
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2009 07:18
|
|
|
slearch posted:Couple of a corn field South of Ottawa These are shot at the wrong time of day, it looks like mid day sun which is very unflattering. Try to shoot around sunrise or sunset, the light will be softer and have a nice colour. Alternatively you can wait for a stormy overcast day and get some nice storm clouds.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2009 18:29
|
|
|
slearch posted:Yeah you are right it was the midday sun. Unfortunately most of my free time is between 11 and 3 which is all in the midday range Try to wait for a stormy or dramatically overcast day and you can easily get away with shooting in those times of the day. Landscape photos have a lot of variables that can be very difficult to control such as light, weather etc so a lot of it is just waiting for the right moment it can be very frustrating but when it all comes together it is great. If you are limited to those times try to find a location that the light can work for you for example a forested area can often still be shot during those times or some place that is shaded. Also as the days get shorter the ends of the days will get much closer to the time you have available.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2009 20:24
|
|
. Thanks for the criticism and advice - I love your landscapes.
|
From tonight 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2009 07:25
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2009 07:46
|
|
|
I guess you would call these landscapes. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2009 07:42
|
|
|
Malalol posted:I am definitely making my photos too dark... Yes, it also looks to be at a very odd angle, try to make sure things are level, it is even more important when there is water in the scene.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2009 22:19
|
|
|
Lac Le Jeune Park  
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2009 01:28
|
|
|
man thats gross posted:This is really cool. My only (minor) criticism is that the railings get lost in the silhouette of the hills. Yeah I could probably pull back detail from them but I am not sure how it would look, maybe I will give it a try.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2009 04:35
|
|
|
Yoho National Park, Emerald Lake  Yoho National Park, Natural Bridge 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2009 07:39
|
|
|
More from Yoho National park. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2009 07:31
|
|
|
ConspicuousEvil posted:Love to get some opinions on this one. The sky is awesome, but I think you have to much space at the bottom, I think if you cropped so the lake (water body) was gone it would be better. ---   
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2009 07:50
|
|
|
ConspicuousEvil posted:Cropped it a bit more. The first one does look better but now the bottom feels a bit empty, still think it looks better though. The 2nd one seems underexposed, try masking the bottom half in and boost the exposure.  
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2009 07:08
|
|
|
man thats gross posted:Dread Head you're seriously giving me a boner over here. I think I have got to around the halfway mark of my images from my trip sometime today woo. I have been meaning to start a trip thread... maybe tomorrow.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2009 07:20
|
|
|
Leviathor posted:Did the resize destroy the resolution of the trees in this one? Yes, they look a lot better at full res, part of the issue was I shot 2.8 as I didnt have my tripod with me and the light was not great.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2009 20:34
|
|
|
Super tired right now but I will add some more info for ConspicuousEvil sometime tomorrow. In short, kit lens is not terrible for landscapes as you can get semi wide and stop down since you will be doing this with a good lens anyways. Use a tripod, number one thing and just really concentrate on your composition and light.  
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2009 07:54
|
|
|
northward posted:Really like this photo but I can't help but feel like i'd like it a lot more if you cropped out the snow from the top left. I think it would look even better if it looked like the boat was sort of interrupting a pattern, if you know what I mean? I have a few different frames of this shot and this was the one I liked the most. Part of the problem was the canoe was often not parallel to wear I was shooting and those shots dont work nearly as well.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2009 17:21
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2009 07:03
|
|
|
To elaborate I am using a Nikon D300, 90% of my landscapes are with the sigma 10-20mm and some of my latest stuff was with the nikon 80-200.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2009 04:12
|
|
|
I need to go to Iceland.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2009 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:58 |
|
|
Curufin posted:Yeah, Iceland is a loving beautiful place to visit. Pretty expensive, though. Most good things are it seems.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2009 23:01
|
|