Learning Thread — Landscape Photography

05/04/2006 01:59:31 PM · #476

Originally posted by cycleboy:

I've read through the entire thread, learned a TON, need much practice, and really grateful for the lessons.

Here's my try at what I have learned so far.

Original image (taken as jpeg):

Altered w/ 2 passes at contrast masking, blue gradient in sky, reddish gradient on ground (faded way out because it added to things, but looked fake if too opaque), cropped out the distracting road and tree on right side. I think that's all I did.

I like it. I don't feel like it is done, but more interesting than the original. I had originally considered it as an example of leading lines, but I think there are too many of them and they lead in different directions. While they are important to the shot, they don't in my opinion lead me to a specific subject.

You are correct in your analysis of the lines; I see this more as a string diagonal element than a leading line.

we need to be very clear on this: just because it's a line, and just because it's a strong line, doesn't mean it's a leading line. "leading" involves both purpose and destination.

Your reworking of thisimage has improved it dramatically and certainly shows that you are picking up PS skillz :-)

R.

05/04/2006 02:16:03 PM · #477

Originally posted by Prism:

Originally posted by cycleboy:

Interesting. I honestly didn't like the tree - perhaps in part because including it meant I would have to include the ugly roadside marker posts (or try to erase them, which I have zero experience with). I did try cropping out some of the left side where the sun is, but the sunburst seemed important and if I cropped out part of it to where just the rays were in the shot, it looked weird.

Thanks for the thoughts, this is all about trying different things and seeing things in different ways. This thread has really taught me to look at some of my images I had originally set aside as junk because they may just have potential. I was amazed by the tropical island shot - Robert's transformation of that one is awesome.

I didn't mean to crop the whole sunburst out because I agree it is a large part of what makes the picture. Only a small portion of it. As for cloning the posts out, always good to learn new skills..;)

I tried here with PSP9 to give you an idea of what I meant. My PP skills are nothing compared to bear_music but I hope you don't mind my giving it a shot.

This is an awesome learning thread and I really appreciate the time taken by all of the contributors to share their knowledge and skills.

I understand what you're after here, but I don't think it will work as well as cycleboy's own recropping. Here's why: what cycleboy has done is taken a fairly wishy-washy landscape with some elements in it that aren't strong enough to "carry" it but are nevertheless prokinent enough to distract us, and he has whacked them right out and produced much more of an abstract landscape. It's now all about the interplay of the receding planes of the landsape, with the diagonal element of the gence tacked onto it to give it a third dimension. It's quite sophisticated, compositionally. To illustrate what I mean, here's the same shot whacked-and-cloned into a purely abstracted landscape:

Not the right way to go, clearly, right?

R.

05/04/2006 02:19:00 PM · #478

Originally posted by redmondson01:

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 ;(

I am sorry I missed this earlier. Your reprocessing of the image is a dramatic improvement :-)

R.

Olympus 12-45mm f/4.0 Pro

05/04/2006 02:21:44 PM · #479

Originally posted by Artyste:

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.

I miseed this one also, I am sorry. Yes, that's a powerful landscape with dramatic depth to it. Ideally-suited to the verticla rendition. Imagine it in the usual "tourist orientation" ("Look how much I can cram in!") and it is dramatically weakened. Your use of the near foreground and the powerful sky gives this a sense of immediacy and power that is relatively rare in such "vista" shots.

R.

OdysseyF22

Panasonic DC-G9

05/07/2006 06:55:18 AM · #480

Any more leading lines shots out there?
Or is everyone waiting for the next lesson?

Bump back onto the page, so no one forgets about this! :-)

05/07/2006 08:00:39 AM · #481

It's taken me 3 evenings to catch up with this superb thread

A lot of my photography has been landscapes recently so this threa is amazingly useful

Here's a previous challenge entry that didn't do very well but I think is a good "leading lines" example

Steve

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/09/2006 12:07:10 PM · #482

OK, I killed one of the best threads ever on DPC

:-(

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/09/2006 12:09:39 PM · #483

Originally posted by Tallbloke:

OK, I killed one of the best threads ever on DPC

:-(

Yeah... shame on you. Whoops... now its me!

05/09/2006 12:59:43 PM · #484

Nah, I was depressed nobody is coming in to add anything of substance and asking myself "what difference is it making?" So I didn't even look at the thread yesterday, and sure enough someone popped in :-) I'll get back to this shortly, doing my "rounds" here.

R.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/09/2006 01:07:38 PM · #485

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

"what difference is it making?"

R.

Personally, to me, spending 3 nights reading through, making notes, trying things out......

a huge difference (and I guess many, many more will agree)

Thank you

Steve

error99

Canon EOS-6D

05/09/2006 01:48:32 PM · #486

OK, had some time yesterday between appointmens (about 30 minutes :D ) and I popped into a park and snapped this real quick like. It's nothing spectacular, but, I hope it represents a leading line.

I hate to see this thread die. I've learned a LOT. I've just been swamped with work stuff and haven't had much time during daylight hours to do much with photography.

raw:

ps'ed:

Message edited by author 2006-05-09 13:49:44.

Prism

Pentax K-30

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

05/09/2006 03:26:36 PM · #487

I, too, would hate to see this thread die out. It is extremely helpful and I am learning a lot. I suspect that there are a lot of "lurkers" out there who are watching this thread but are too shy to post to it and express their opinions on the topics raised (like me for the most part), but eagerly await the responses of those more experienced photographers to soak up the information they give.

So after that, here now are my "trying to learn new stuff" opinions for ya! :)

Originally posted by Tallbloke:

I think the stream in this is a good example of leading lines. Like the shot posted earlier by OdysseyF22 with a lot of foreground though, I feel that the leading lines may not be as strong as they could be with a slightly closer crop.

Originally posted by error99:

I like the way you have chosen to crop this shot. It does put much more emphasis on the path leading into the shot. Nice job on bringing up the colour too.

pgatt

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II

05/09/2006 04:38:26 PM · #488

Here's my leading lines shot:

I will post the original file later.

OdysseyF22

Panasonic DC-G9

Olympus 12-45mm f/4.0 Pro

05/09/2006 08:10:10 PM · #489

Originally posted by pgatt:

Here's my leading lines shot:

I will post the original file later.

Now that's an intense B&W shot! I like the fact that while the rock formation does have leading lines, they're not the more common smooth, flowing lines, like are found in shots of roads, water, etc. The jagged-ness adds some impact. I think this is a great example of vertical shooting, too. The combination of effects really pulls you right into the shot.

05/09/2006 10:24:40 PM · #490

Error99:

The PP is a dramatic improvement, surely. But I can't say as much for the cropping, where all the grace and counterblance of the canopy has been lost to us. Is it a leading line? I supose to some extent it is, but it's a weak one, not that stong an element within the whole.

Tailbloke:

Exectionally nice leading line, but the overall image seems full on unfulfilled potential. One gets the sense of too much foreground. Perhaps the colors are not what they might be, although I have takne note of your specific mention of the "muted colors". It's a nice image, a lot of interesting aspects to it.

Pgatt:

Powerful B/W conversion, intense leading lines in a very complex interplay: one of the best shots of yours I have yet seen. Marred (seriously marred) by failure to level the horizon.

R.

Message edited by author 2006-05-09 22:25:06.

pgatt

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM II

05/10/2006 03:42:46 AM · #491

Here's a few more:

And one last one that got kinda just short by bad pp.

05/10/2006 03:33:31 PM · #492

dont let this die Bear....

Message edited by author 2006-05-10 17:25:14.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/10/2006 06:09:33 PM · #493

Originally posted by Tallbloke:

dont let this die Bear....

It ain't gonna die. I'm busy right now. Hang tight.

R.

cycleboy

05/10/2006 10:32:40 PM · #494

Definitely don't want this to die, I have already learned a ton and have much practice to do and am eager to learn more, but have also been unbelievably sick for the last 3 days. Haven't had energy to practice or even turn on the computer.

bfox2

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/11/2006 09:10:35 AM · #495

So I was working on a landscape today and I though to myself 'Jeez that could really use a bit of a gradient' and boy was I right. Thanks Bear! Now if only I had anything with leading lines :(

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

05/11/2006 09:44:41 AM · #496

Originally posted by pgatt:

Here's a few more:

And one last one that got kinda just short by bad pp.

Speaking of Paul's shots collectively, we can see that they represent (within this thread) a shift away from shots "about" leading lines, as it were, to shots where leading lines are used WITH other compositional devices to bring power and motion into the scene. Some might argue, in fact, that these are NOT "leading lines" but, instead, are "strong diagonal elements." I have no problem with that, at all.

To sum it up, we have learned that leading lines can lead us TO a subject, or they can lead us FROM a subject deeper into a picture, and (arguably) they can be used to lead us OUT of a picture, though some would debate the desirability of this. We have learned that just because it's a "line", actual or implied, doesn't make it a "leading" line.

In particular, we have learned not to mistake pictures with strong, diagonal elements for "leading line" pictures; they are not the same thing. They MAY be, but they don't HAVE to be.

Also, of course, as long as it works it doesn't matter what we call it; it just IS, ya know?

**************

Next Assignment

Everyone knows about the "rule of thirds", right? Even if we don't, we think we do. Everyone knows that horizons should not be in the middle of images, but at the top third or the bottom third line, right? Everyone knows that subjects should not be centered in the image, but offset to one side or the other, right?

Well, yeah, generally speaking these are good rules to follow. But they are nothing like universal; each image has its own dynamic, and often enough all these "rules" can (and should) be broken to good effect. Let me show you some rule-breaking images:

Now, I'd welcome some discussion amongst y'all about WHICH rules have been broken, and how this hurts or hinders the appreciation of the image.

And for your assignment: Look at the "Truro Motels" above: centered horizon, centered subject, strongly symmetrical compositional elements. Now, go forth and do something like that, please.

By "like that" I don't mean you HAVE to find some motels and duplicate this (that would be silly); I'm not even requiring the strong diagonals, though you're welcome to them. What I want to see is images of landscapes (with or without buildings) that are "spun off" a central point, with a strong subject dominating the image. I especially want to see equal amounts of foreground and sky.

BTW, for the record, as far as we are concerned in these lessons, the "urban landscape" is a viable subject for us to be working with.

Robt.

Message edited by author 2006-05-11 10:05:26.

pamelasue

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/11/2006 10:00:10 AM · #497

I'm brand new to the "real" digital photography game ... came from a P/S digital world and have very little experience with my new camera. I've been watching this thread for about a week now and have learned a lot from it. I need to find more time to get out of the concrete jungle to shoot landscapes ... I sure hope this thread doesn't die!!

pineapple

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

05/11/2006 10:01:59 AM · #498

the "urban landscape" as a viable

That reads "IS A viable"....? Am I right?

Stuck here in NYC that's a rather crucial line to the great post above...

Message edited by author 2006-05-11 10:02:29.

05/11/2006 10:06:24 AM · #499

Originally posted by pineapple:

the "urban landscape" as a viable

That reads "IS A viable"....? Am I right?

Stuck here in NYC that's a rather crucial line to the great post above...

Corrected, thank you. I'd LOVE to see some urban, or suburban, landscape work in this thread. Buildings, streets, waterscapes, you name it.

R.

pgatt