How do I take an amazing landscape/fall pic? HELP!

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

10/03/2008 06:53:40 PM · #1

Hi again... ok... There are two types of pics that I want to get really good at taking so I can later combine them... Portraits and landscapes... i've got a good start on portraits, now, landscapes...

I have the day off tomorrow and I want to drive up north and take some landscape pics... it's fall and there are lots of amazing pics to be taken... I made an attempt last sunday, but the only way to recover anything good out of the pics I took was to WAY overprocess them... they looked like cheezie postcards or paintings... in a BAD way... I can't show the main one because it is in teh sept free study (doing terribly too...), anyways, here is another shot from that day... is there anything i could do in terms of processing or re-taking the pic to make it look good?

the camera settings were:
iso 200
f/7.1
1/250

I used a D50 with a nikkor 10.5mm fisheye

K3Master

Pentax K-3

10/03/2008 06:59:09 PM · #2

I hate shooting landscapes, but I'm going to follow responses to this, because I'd like to learn more about fundamentals myself, and internet searches usually just end up frustrating me.

Prash

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

10/03/2008 07:00:56 PM · #3

Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:

I am no expert. But I have been hearing that Nikon results need less post processing in color/tone curves for landscapes (compared to the Canons). I dont know about noise levels because they depend on so many other factors too. But from what I have seen in review/test results online, Nikon's capture colors more vibrantly and faithfully. This example image doesnt look that vibrant in colors.. although we dont have a Canon shot with an equivalent lens to compare with. With my camera (Rebel XSi)), for example, I feel it misses the richness in reds in the hue. I use a 28-105mm Canon lens.

I would also like to learn more about post processing (minimal) that would bring out the beauty of a landscape image.

Message edited by author 2008-10-03 19:01:25.

EstimatedEyes

Fujifilm GFX 50R

Fujifilm GF 45mm f/2.8

10/03/2008 07:01:18 PM · #4

Wow, that's a big question.

Luminous Landscape is a great place to start poking around, then check back with more specific questions as you try stuff out. For me, the top 5 tips I would offer are:

1. Use a tripod whenever you can;
2. Shoot RAW and bracket, so you get good info in both highlights and shadows
3. Learn how to use granduated neutral density filters, for the same reason
4. Use a circular polarizer filter.
5. Shoot early in the morning or in the golden hour before and after sunset.

ericwoo

Nikon Z7II

Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120 f/4 S

10/03/2008 07:04:44 PM · #5

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

I hate shooting landscapes, but I'm going to follow responses to this, because I'd like to learn more about fundamentals myself, and internet searches usually just end up frustrating me.

It just looks like your lighting was wrong here. That sky is very bright, so perhaps an early morning shot would work a bit better, and maybe with the sun more behind you. Other than that, it looks like you've got a nice shot here. I see some color, but it looks like the sky just overpowers everything.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

10/03/2008 07:06:40 PM · #6

good tips... lots of my shots suffer from overblown sky... especially with the 180 degree fisheye... i'll try early morning / golden hour... I think I need to invest in a heavy/stirdy tripod too for brasketing

now... in terms of this shot... would a polarizer do anything? or is that just if there is a sky any I want to deepen it?

Ok... but aside from that... in this shot... the actual pic kinda sucks... not too sharp overall and I loose detail in the distance... how can that be fixed?

K3Master

Pentax K-3

10/03/2008 07:09:52 PM · #7

Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:

That's probably a lens issue more than anything. Fisheyes weren't really meant to resolve detail on any grand scale. What you want is a solid wide-angle rectilinear lens. Also, I do know that it can help with distance detail to use between F8 and F11.

mpeters

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

10/03/2008 07:09:55 PM · #8

Good suggestions from Estimated and Eric. I think you will find that the 10.5 fisheye(or any ultra wide) is particularly hard to use, especially if the sky is bright. The sky needs to be perfectly balanced with the rest of the image or it will overpower it! I think the time of day(early/late) is critical for pulling detail out of a landscape.

EstimatedEyes

Fujifilm GFX 50R

Fujifilm GF 45mm f/2.8

10/03/2008 07:12:16 PM · #9

Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:

now... in terms of this shot... would a polarizer do anything?

No. A fisheye has too wide an angle for a polarizer ... you end up with weird banding. Polarizer works best when sun is off to the side as you're shooting. It works mainly to deepen the sky, but I find it also helps saturate colors in the right light. It can remove reflections and cut down glare on water as well.

Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:

Ok... but aside from that... in this shot... the actual pic kinda sucks... not too sharp overall and I loose detail in the distance... how can that be fixed?

For sharpness, see tip number 1 -- use a tripod -- and add tip number 6 -- shoot at f/64 (or 32 or 22 if you must) for good sharpness in foreground and distance :-).

As far as loss of detail, i think eric is right about the sky blowing everything else out.

10/03/2008 07:13:05 PM · #10

How to shoot waterfalls...

This guy is a bit of an idiot though... ;)

10/03/2008 07:14:59 PM · #11

hmmm... ok, if I were to go back tomorrow, what lens should I re-shoot this (and other simmilar shots) with?

Here is what is in my bag:

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR II
Lensbaby 2.0
Nikon AF Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX
Nikon AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D
Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D
Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8
Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II
Nikon MF Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 AI
Nikon MF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AIS
Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 for Nikon

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

10/03/2008 07:23:45 PM · #12

What are you trying to accomplish with your picture? It's like asking us what club to use in golf but not telling us anything about where your ball lies...

tnun

Ricoh GR III

10/03/2008 07:24:27 PM · #13

I would really really take the time of day seriously, and choose your lens AFTER you decide what it is you want see/show.

Mick

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

10/03/2008 07:27:39 PM · #14

To make an amazing landscape photograph, it helps to have an amazing landscape to photograph. :D

Of course, it's not absolutely essential. Some people can make amazing photos of simple, everyday scenes. Weather, lighting, and other atmospheric conditions can often make a normally humdrum landscape look very dramatic.

right place + right time + right conditions + decent photographer = amazing photo

And there's always Photoshop. :D

10/03/2008 07:28:05 PM · #15

ok... sorry, what bothers me about the pic is the lack of sharpness and DOF... i thought i'd be safe with a fisheye...

i want the pic to be much sharper overall and have a MUCH broader DOF... I know that shooting at like f/22 will give me that DOF but there is still no sharpness in the distance... is it the lens? camera resolution?

10/03/2008 07:31:08 PM · #16

You will lose sharpness due to diffraction after maybe f/11-13. You also are trying to cram a ton of detail into a canvas that is 640-720 pixels wide (unless you are looking at a bigger pic and we only get to see this one). Sometimes when shooting landscapes with lots of leaves and branches sharpness is actually your enemy. I will often purposely soften images like that because the sharpneing just leads to artifact and winds up being ugly.

You also have to have sky that will not blow and is not overcast. I just can't imagine too many landscapes that have a blown solid white sky that are good.

Note the softness:

Message edited by author 2008-10-03 19:33:33.

10/03/2008 07:33:39 PM · #17

hmmm... softness eH? let me try that...

10/03/2008 07:37:20 PM · #18

How do you soften the image? do you soften the entire image?

10/03/2008 07:37:46 PM · #19

A landscape like your shot is going to need a great deal of PP to make it pop. It lacks contrast, but you could easily get things looking very dark if you simply boosted it. You need to do all that very selectively with some judicious burn and dodge. Basically that shot could only be salvaged with a heavy PP treatment.

OTOH, perhaps the time of day would change things. Getting a raking light across might be interesting, or the sun behind you or clouds in the sky. I basically shoot landscapes 1-2 hours before or after sunset and sunrise.

10/03/2008 07:39:07 PM · #20

Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:

How do you soften the image? do you soften the entire image?

One trick is to use Neat Image on a small pixel canvas. So if you are going for a DPC entry, use NI AFTER you have resized. Also you can google "Orton Effect" and you might get some useful techniques there.

Personally I'd soften the image and then mask off the path and some of the larger trunks to keep them sharper. You want to soften the branches and leaves, but not everything else.

10/03/2008 07:40:18 PM · #21

hmmm... ok now, let me ask you about the fist shot you have there of the trees... was that taken at the edge of the forest, or reight in the middle?

Some shots like that are taken in the woods, but have such amazing lighting... are those people taking like a large spftbox into the woods and firing it off?

10/03/2008 07:41:44 PM · #22

Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:

That was right at the edge so I had light coming in from behind (although the sun wasn't there).

Prash

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

10/03/2008 07:43:29 PM · #23

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Hey Doc, can you share links to the originals too? For example, I couldnt find originals for the second one. That would help in understanding what PP does to enhance an image.

10/03/2008 07:47:14 PM · #24

Originally posted by Prash:

Hey Doc, can you share links to the originals too? For example, I couldnt find originals for the second one. That would help in understanding what PP does to enhance an image.

I am not scared of PP in my work, but even I will admit that one is heavily altered due to the challenge of "fairy tale"...

Original:

DJWoodward

Canon EOS-5D Mark III