LANDSCAPE/NATURAL LIGHT Thread II

09/25/2005 11:39:55 PM · #76

Originally posted by arngrimur:

Thanks Robert for your great work here.

I started looking through my landscape photos and I was really surprised how few images I found that fit this assignment.

Here's one that might fit.

This is compositionally quite strong, as nshapiro has ably pointed out. It certainly has a dominant foreground element, and the diagonal of the hills works well in counterpoise to that. Hopwever, I see two problems, both related to post-processing: the foreground especially is too contrasty, with alld etail lost in the shadows, and the color saturations eems overdone. Also, there's a noticeable burn halo along the hills and a lesser one on the right side of the sky; as if you have a burtned-in vee of sky right in the center of the image.

I'd like to see an unaltered version of this to check what you had to work from.

Robt.

Incarlight

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

09/25/2005 11:59:33 PM · #77

Originally posted by bear_music:

No. I'm looking at the bright clouds upper left edge; they're an eye-trap, pulling our eye out of the iamge instead of into it. Picture would be measurably imporved if this bright spot were burned down a little.

R.

Ah, I'll keep that in mind in the future (both while shooting and while processing). Thanks!

arngrimur

09/26/2005 03:18:48 PM · #78

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by arngrimur:
Thanks Robert for your great work here.

I started looking through my landscape photos and I was really surprised how few images I found that fit this assignment.

Here's one that might fit.

This is compositionally quite strong, as nshapiro has ably pointed out. It certainly has a dominant foreground element, and the diagonal of the hills works well in counterpoise to that. Hopwever, I see two problems, both related to post-processing: the foreground especially is too contrasty, with alld etail lost in the shadows, and the color saturations eems overdone. Also, there's a noticeable burn halo along the hills and a lesser one on the right side of the sky; as if you have a burtned-in vee of sky right in the center of the image.

I'd like to see an unaltered version of this to check what you had to work from.

Robt.

You are right about my post processing being crude. I used levels and USM, no burning or advanced gimmics. The halo in the middle of the sky is probably caused by the circular polarizing filter. I do have some problems with it on this (canon 10-22) lens.

Here is a unedited version:

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

09/26/2005 03:36:28 PM · #79

Originally posted by arngrimur:

You are right about my post processing being crude. I used levels and USM, no burning or advanced gimmicks. The halo in the middle of the sky is probably caused by the circular polarizing filter. I do have some problems with it on this (canon 10-22) lens.

Oh yeah, for SURE. Your 10mm lens covers over 100 degrees from side-to-side. A polarizing filter on this lens is a REAL problem. I don't use one. Here's why:

Basically, the maximum polarization on a sky occurs when you are at right angles to the light source. So when you use ANY reasonably wide-angle lens with a polarizer you are gonna see a gradient from light-to-dark in the sky as you move away from the angle of maximum polarization. With a really extreme wide angle lens like the 10mm, if maximum polarization is dead ahead of you (i.e. you are set up with the light coming at right angles to the lens axis) you will see brightening both to the left and to the right of center on the image. As has happened here. You can minimize the effect by using less-than-maximum polarization.

This light gradient exists even without a polarizer, however; it's just that that the polarizer really, really exaggerates it. Any time you shoot in a direction that approaches "into the sun" with the 10mm lens one side or the other of the sky is going to be lighter; the side closer to the sun. Check the following shot:

That's at dawn, with the rising sun maybe 15-20% out-of-image to the right. The sky's quite a bit darker to the left. If I'd used a polarizer, the gradient would be MUCH more extreme, from full polarization on the left to virtually none on the right, where we're nearly looking at the sun. On this shot I applied a neutral gradient from left to right across the sky to balance the two sides pleasingly; the original showed a more pronounced difference across the sky.

R.

Message edited by author 2005-09-26 15:37:25.

tsheets

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

09/26/2005 03:46:17 PM · #80

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by arngrimur:

You are right about my post processing being crude. I used levels and USM, no burning or advanced gimmicks. The halo in the middle of the sky is probably caused by the circular polarizing filter. I do have some problems with it on this (canon 10-22) lens.

Oh yeah, for SURE. Your 10mm lens covers over 100 degrees from side-to-side. A polarizing filter on this lens is a REAL problem. I don't use one. Here's why:

Basically, the maximum polarization on a sky occurs when you are at right angles to the light source. So when you use ANY reasonably wide-angle lens with a polarizer you are gonna see a gradient from light-to-dark in the sky as you move away from the angle of maximum polarization. With a really extreme wide angle lens like the 10mm, if maximum polarization is dead ahead of you (i.e. you are set up with the light coming at right angles to the lens axis) you will see brightening both to the left and to the right of center on the image. As has happened here. You can minimize the effect by using less-than-maximum polarization.

R.

Interesting, hadn't really thought about that before. Glad it came up!

Bebe

09/26/2005 03:51:13 PM · #81

Thank you, bear_music, for this non-exclusive thread! I'm just a starting photographer, but I have a thick skin, so I'd love any/all comments!

09/26/2005 04:01:45 PM · #82

Hi Robert,
Wonderful thread! Hope this photo fits the assignment!
Punam Kumar

09/26/2005 04:02:54 PM · #83

Here's an attempt at "rescuing" arngrimur's image. I used shadow/highlight masking to balance the original quite a bit flatter and more "up-tone". I flattened the image at this point and made a copy of the new base layer to work on.

I then selected the entire sky area, being sure to include the portions "within" the foliage. I dodged the dark vee with a large soft brush. to roughly even out the tonalities, but this introduced color shifts. I overlaid on the sky a dark blue-to-transparent gradient and faded the gradient. I then used hue/saturation on the sky to make the color less glaringly, cartoonishly blue. I next burned at low opacity with a very soft brush the brighter areas along the ridgeline to blend them in.

I loaded the inverse of the sky selection and did individual hues/saturation adjustments to the foreground blue, cyan, green, yellow and red channels, adjusting also the brightness of each channel relative to the others to generate some more visual texture in what was (after shadow/highlight masking) a very flat foreground.

That's MAJOR photoshop rescue work; simpler to leave the polarizer off, probably, unless it was absolutely required for foreground reflections...

R.

09/26/2005 04:08:02 PM · #84

Originally posted by Bebe:

Thank you, bear_music, for this non-exclusive thread! I'm just a starting photographer, but I have a thick skin, so I'd love any/all comments!

Welcome aboard bebe. These fit the two assignments nicely. The first is a pretty blah shot, all-in-all, not bad but not particularly attention-compelling either. A little sharpening would help it. The second, though, is a VERY nice shot. Nicely-balanced, well-seen. I might wish for a little more sky above the foreground tree, upper right. I might try to pull a hair more detail out of the dark shadows middleground left. That's about it. Nice shot!

R.

09/26/2005 04:09:57 PM · #85

Originally posted by punamkumar:

Hi Robert,
Wonderful thread! Hope this photo fits the assignment!
Punam Kumar

Very nice shot Punam, very strange scene. Himalayas? Hindu Kush? What's the structure, what purpose has it? (Curious questions, not photo-related) I'm going to take a stab at tweaking this one a little later, so we can discuss how it may be improved in post-processing. Fits the second assignment very well though.

R.

09/26/2005 04:16:25 PM · #86

Right on! It is the Himalayas. The structure is a mobile toilet(!) parked in the middle of nowhere. Surreal, isn't it?
Thanks for the comment. I feel pretty chuffed!
Punam

Bebe

09/26/2005 04:23:02 PM · #87

Many thanks bear!

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

09/26/2005 04:33:06 PM · #88

Here's another one for Assignment # 2, from the same part of the world.(We went on a driving tour of Ladakh recently.)
Would this be more the horse as subject with landscape as background?

Punam

justin_hewlett

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

09/26/2005 05:17:30 PM · #89

Originally posted by punamkumar:

Here's another one for Assignment # 2, from the same part of the world.(We went on a driving tour of Ladakh recently.)
Would this be more the horse as subject with landscape as background?

Punam

I like this image and feels that it fits the assignment great. The only problem I can see with it is that it's quite lacking in contrast, color, and sharpness. I hope you don't mind, I had a quick go at it and here's what I came up with. I also trimmed a bit off of the top because I think it works better compositionally.

Pentax SMC DA 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR

09/26/2005 05:23:47 PM · #90

Here's my quick take on the Punam images. I see an overall color cast to them, for one thing. Often when you have such a color cast, auto levels will remove most of it and give yoiu a good base point from which to work with a single click. I worked hue/sat, levels, and selective color as well, plus added sharpening. End result is additional "clarity" of the image...

Robt.

Prism

Pentax K-30

09/26/2005 06:46:43 PM · #91

Thanks tsheets and dsidwell for your comments. Can a path be a dominant focal or am I back to no subject again and just not getting it?

edit: re-editted image..new thumb doesn't work but link still seems to

Message edited by author 2005-09-26 23:34:08.

tsheets

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

09/26/2005 10:00:02 PM · #92

Finally got to go out and shoot this evening after work.

Grabbed a couple for Assignment #2: Landscape With Dominant Focal Point (fore/midground).

Comments/Suggestions welcomed.

09/27/2005 12:54:35 AM · #93

Originally posted by rsm707:

Thanks tsheets and dsidwell for your comments. Can a path be a dominant focal or am I back to no subject again and just not getting it?

edit: re-editted image..new thumb doesn't work but link still seems to

As far as the "assignment" goes, this image doesn't really have a dominant focal point/subject. It's not exactly subjectless either, it's sort of in between. The idea here, really, is to try to create an image which pretty much layers a dominant subject (which doesn't have to be taking up a large amount of real estate in the image) with "everything else". It's not the same thing, for example, as simply having foreground objects adding depth to the image. And it's not the same as having a "subject" per se that itself has depth in the image.

In assignment one we basically created images that were flattened out, studies in texture and light pretty much. In this second assignment we're looking for a bi-layered effect, sort of, if that makes any sesne? That dominant subject may be in front with the landscape behind it, or it may be IN the landscape with the landscape AROUND it, but we want it to anchor the image and make a statement about the depth and space in the image.

Robt.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

09/27/2005 12:57:50 AM · #94

Originally posted by tsheets:

Finally got to go out and shoot this evening after work.

Grabbed a couple for Assignment #2: Landscape With Dominant Focal Point (fore/midground).

Comments/Suggestions welcomed.

Referring to my comments in the previous post, these are a pair of good examples, sheets. The first shot is a fine example of what we're talking about; the layering of "subject" and "everything else" is palpable and fulfilling. In the second shot, on the other hand, you don't have that dynamic. If anything's the "subject" I guess it's the sailboat, but it's certainly not dominating the image, or even defining it really. The tree on the right is simply a foreground object. It gives some added depth to the image, but it is not a "subject" in and of itself.

Robt.

tsheets

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

09/27/2005 01:29:23 AM · #95

Originally posted by rsm707:

Thanks tsheets and dsidwell for your comments. Can a path be a dominant focal or am I back to no subject again and just not getting it?

I like the shot, nice leading lines into the image, and pretty colors. It might be even better a little further down the path where the landscape opens up to the river. I keep trying to peek around my monitor to see more of this scene! :-) As far as assignment #2, I think the path makes a better leading line than focal point, though.

Again, nice shot!

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

09/27/2005 01:34:50 AM · #96

Here's another Acadia shot. Not much in the frame to serve as a subject, it's mostly about light, but to me the clouds serve as a dominant subject...

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

09/27/2005 01:38:49 AM · #97

Originally posted by nshapiro:

Here's another Acadia shot. Not much in the frame to serve as a subject, it's mostly about light, but to me the clouds serve as a dominant subject...

It's a nice shot, but here's the "assignment": This is the polar opposite of the just-concluded assignment; here I want you to use a single, dominant element to organize your image around. I'd prefer that this be a foreground element, or at least a middleground element. For the purposes of this assignment, towering clouds in a massive sky or a mountain peak dominating the horizon are not what I'm looking for. That will be the next assignment, ok?

Tsk, tsk. And jejejeâ�¢ If this were a real class, I'd say "Redo your work, son." But since it isn't I won't :-)

R.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

09/27/2005 01:44:00 AM · #98

Well, I already submitted images for Assignments 1 and 2, so I submitted it as extra credit. ;)

(Actually, it just happened to be the image I selected to process tonight.)

Bebe

09/27/2005 11:01:39 AM · #99

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by Bebe:
Thank you, bear_music, for this non-exclusive thread! I'm just a starting photographer, but I have a thick skin, so I'd love any/all comments!

Welcome aboard bebe. These fit the two assignments nicely. The first is a pretty blah shot, all-in-all, not bad but not particularly attention-compelling either. A little sharpening would help it. The second, though, is a VERY nice shot. Nicely-balanced, well-seen. I might wish for a little more sky above the foreground tree, upper right. I might try to pull a hair more detail out of the dark shadows middleground left. That's about it. Nice shot!

R.

Hi bear_music! I took your advice & tried to bring out the dark shadows middleground left. I actually tried to give more sky above, but it involved faking it and I quickly discovered that my photoshop skills weren't up to the task. Instead, I cropped in further, hoping to decrease the "tease" of the partial top branches.

Do you think that helps or hurts?