Learning Thread — Landscape Photography

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

04/27/2006 04:33:44 PM · #401

Much stronger, yes. Again, I'll reserve my comments for a little later.

R.

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

04/27/2006 04:34:13 PM · #402

Example of Portrait orientation

I don't have a thumb to show, but this is one of my favorite landscape shots, that I've taken in portrait orientation. They can work.. you just need to have the lines and flow to keep it interesting.

redmondson01

Pentax K50

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

04/27/2006 04:56:08 PM · #403

I'm late to the party but have been watching this thread and practicing, because my Photoshop skills needed some real help.

Here is my vertical entry...

Feedback appreciated

Edit: I only have PS Elements 4 ;(

Message edited by author 2006-04-27 17:20:30.

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

04/27/2006 06:19:44 PM · #404

I took some vertical shots this afternoon and plan to post them later this evening. Can someone tell me how to go about posting them in this thread? Thanks!

redmondson01

Pentax K50

04/27/2006 07:35:48 PM · #405

Pony up the $25.00 and join for a year then you can upload photos to your portfolio...and more

Click me

Originally posted by amandak:

I took some vertical shots this afternoon and plan to post them later this evening. Can someone tell me how to go about posting them in this thread? Thanks!

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

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

04/27/2006 07:43:05 PM · #406

Originally posted by amandak:

I took some vertical shots this afternoon and plan to post them later this evening. Can someone tell me how to go about posting them in this thread? Thanks!

Joining is a good idea. But you can also use imageshack.com to host photos for free, and when you upload, they give you the code you need to paste in your message to insert the thumbnail.

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/27/2006 07:55:25 PM · #407

Originally posted by wheeledd:

Here is a vertical/horizonal pair taken at the Baylands Nature Preserve, Palo Alto, California:

This is a scene that works either vertical or horizontal. The fact wheeledd thought to take it both ways and it looks good both ways is proof of that.

Some things just work better one way or the other. For me when I see aspects to the scene that have beautiful vertical lines I take it vertically to emphasize the "verticalness" of it. But here the exact same scene can have aspects of both so are taken both vertically and horizontally.

OdysseyF22

Panasonic DC-G9

Olympus 12-45mm f/4.0 Pro

04/27/2006 07:58:52 PM · #408

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by wheeledd:
Here is a vertical/horizonal pair taken at the Baylands Nature Preserve, Palo Alto, California:

--DanW

Which works better, and why? Compare and contrast with Steve's two saguaro shots...

Robt.

This one is sort of tought, as there are strengths to each shot. The horizontal has more of a "wow" impact for me, I feel like I can sit and look at it. However, as someone said a while back, the vertical shot has a much stronger sense of actually being there, as if I could step into the shot. I think it also focuses more on the water as a subject, where the horizontal splits between the two with a centered horizon - so the vertical is somewhat more interesting.

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/27/2006 08:07:45 PM · #409

Originally posted by Mambe:

Do people want me to continue doing PP demonstrations?

I say yes for me. Though I consider myself a PP sophisticate and do some teaching I am always open to new ideas and new learning. I'm certain you (and everyone here) can teach me and I will listen. :)

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

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

04/27/2006 08:08:39 PM · #410

Well here's my 2 cents:

For wide angle lens landscapes including foreground and distant backgound, verticals emphasize depth while eliminating any side distractions and the broad "landscape" feeling you get with a horizontal shot.

Consider this landscape, and compare it to my other Zermatt shot. The vertical is shot from a lower altitude, yet it tends to alert your sense to height more.

It's mainly psychological. We see broad landscapes as peaceful/serene. Verticals are more visually associated with height (and depth) and tend to evoke different feelings.

Here's an interesting comparison of depth and breadth:

These are different crops of the same frame. Which one do you like better. (These are from my Acadia shots, not Zermatt.)

Message edited by author 2006-04-27 20:10:36.

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/27/2006 08:32:51 PM · #411

In most landsacpes, whether vertical or horizontal, I don't often use DOF to emphasize distance. I almost always go the other way to try and make the scene focused everywhere. That is because distance is not a factor in most of my landscapes. For that matter, I don't think it is in most landscapes in general. But it can and is used to great effect in some landscapes.

I will chose a vertical orientation for a "landscape" when vertical lines within the scene literally beckon me to orient it vertically.

Another factor that plays a big roll for me is the number of interest elements there are in the scene. If there are few elements then vertical becomes a more natural selection.

What vertical often does is allow the photographer to draw attention to elements in the scene. Most landscapes are panoramic and less focused by their horizonatal nature. "Wideness" is an important compositional element in them. Most "vertical" landscapes draw much closer viewer attention to particular aspects of the scene. It can be its verticality or any number of compositional reasons.

To me, the thing that most often distinguishes "vertical" landscapes from horizontal is an element in the composition that, on its own, almost demands closer attention and requires more image real estate than other elements. Vertical orientation most often provides that.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

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

04/27/2006 08:50:50 PM · #412

Previous topic: I definitely want to learn some better PP skills. Just when I think I have a handle on it, I discover there's an easier way to do it. PS really has a lot of functionality hidden in special shortcuts, that aren't visible on menus.

For my landscapes, I rarely do selection type editing because it's a pain--I do use gradients to fade levels and curves adjustments, like a GND filter would do. I have also used the Painting with light techniques to burn and dodge, again, which don't rely on a selection.

But if I could do PP like Robert, I'd be happy!

04/27/2006 10:27:54 PM · #413

OK...I'm a little late to this party. I apologize for the interruption, but I'll try to catch up where everyone is. Here is an original and edited shot from this afternoon, which (I hope) incorporates the contrast masking idea. Please let me know if I'm on the right track or not...
Thanks!

Message edited by author 2006-04-27 22:31:15.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/27/2006 10:39:06 PM · #414

I'm not sure what I did wrong that the thumbnails don't link to the original image...I need some help here...lol!

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/27/2006 11:04:02 PM · #415

Don't use the [img] tags -- those place the actual thumbnail image. Instead use the [thumb][/thumb] button (top-rightmost button when writing a post) and insert ONLY the image's ID number (at the end of the URL) into the text field which pops up.

04/27/2006 11:17:13 PM · #416

Thanks! I'll try that!

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/27/2006 11:35:10 PM · #417

2nd attempt...

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/28/2006 01:13:47 AM · #418

Originally posted by amandak:

Thanks! I'll try that!

Worked, I see : )

I'd suggest making the modifications you did but to a lesser degree than the current example. I'd especially like you to try and keep more detail on the grassy knob sticking out into the water, right in the center of the frame. I think your current processing has brightened it too much and lost some detail.

04/28/2006 03:45:21 AM · #419

Originally posted by amandak:

2nd attempt...

The General's correct; you've gone too far. It's actually a nice-looking thumbnail, but when expanded in size it's all blocked up and harsh looking. Something more like this is probably what you are looking for:

The original was very soft, so I sharpened it up some. I did a double pass of contrast masking, with the shadows set to soft light in the second pass and the brights layer faded to only 20% in the second pass. Then I did a hue/sat layer and bumped the yellow saturation. Then I bumped the green saturation and darkend the greens at the same time; net effect; more contrast in the foliage, more viusal modulation.

I suspect something very close to the contrast masking could be attained in this case with simple levels and/or curves adjustments, it's a very clean exposure. But I'm just used to the contrast masking workflow now and that's what I mostly use. Except of course it isn't legal for basic editing.

It's a nice shot, Amanda. In the context of our "vertical" discussion, it's worth noting that the central "horizon" on this works fine. That's often the case with vertical reflection shots. It's a well-composed image.

R.

Tamron SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical IF for Nikon

04/28/2006 04:22:51 AM · #420

Thanks for the feedback! I agree that my attempt was overdone (and I thought that when I did it); I just wasn't sure what, exactly, I needed to do to it! Yours is definitely more of the look I was after. I had difficulty with increasing the contrast while maintaining the sharpness. I hadn't considered treating the greeens and yellows separately.

Node

Nikon D300

04/28/2006 05:11:33 AM · #421

Hey, Just wanted to say thanks Bear....

I'm following the thread I'm just a little slow as I'm back on page 9...

04/28/2006 02:08:19 PM · #422

Originally posted by Node:

Hey, Just wanted to say thanks Bear....

I'm following the thread I'm just a little slow as I'm back on page 9...

Haha! Go to your preferences and change how many posts show on a page; that'll move you right up to page 4 or something, and you'll feel better :-)

R.