LANDSCAPE/NATURAL LIGHT Thread II

09/27/2005 11:53:09 AM · #101

Originally posted by Bebe:

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.

The dodging of the darker trees is an improvement. The cropping to decrease the tease is an interesting idea, but I think in the main it's better at original crop. It's not like the tease is a fatal flaw. Nice work!

R.

09/27/2005 11:53:48 AM · #102

Originally posted by punamkumar:

You're right, they're much better now! Thanks Robert. I guess I need a tutorial on Photoshop :) Could you recommend a beginners tute on DPC or somewhere else?
Thanks again.
Punam
PS Can't wait for the next assignment!

Just follow along with the Photoshop Basics mentorship group, open to all comers, here. We're taking it from the very bottom and working our way slowly up.

R.

Message edited by author 2005-09-27 11:56:00.

punamkumar

Nikon D70

09/27/2005 12:13:16 PM · #103

In the meanwhile , here are 2 more, one for assignment # 2, and the snowscape for assignment # 1. D'you think the snowscape is appropriate?
I've had a shot at Photoshop for 'Temple' !
Punam

09/27/2005 12:25:24 PM · #104

Originally posted by punamkumar:

In the meanwhile , here are 2 more, one for assignment # 2, and the snowscape for assignment # 1. D'you think the snowscape is appropriate?
I've had a shot at Photoshop for 'Temple' !
Punam

The snowscape is a fine example of landscape-without-subject. Very striking shot, Punam. But I think you have monitor calbration issues. All of your shots thus far have shown a greenish cast in the skies. I "corrected" this on your "Himalayan Outhouse" shot. When you look at these on your monitor, does the sky in your version look correct to you and mine too-cartoonish in the blues?

If so, your monitor is way off in calibration. If you can see that yours is too green when side by side with mine, then the issue is in your post-processing, not the monitor.

Robt.

punamkumar

Nikon D70

09/27/2005 01:00:55 PM · #105

Yes, I see what you mean. I like your blues, n I think the problem IS with the post-processing. I'm not sure what I should do about this though, or why it's happening in the first place. Could polariser overkill have anything to do with the green cast in the skies??
Thanks
Punam

09/27/2005 01:27:47 PM · #106

Originally posted by punamkumar:

Not likely, no. Polarizers tend to make blues more intense. High altitudes tend to make blues more intense. Are you doing ANY color correction betweenh camera and the image we are seeing? If you're not, you presumably have a white balance issue. It may be that if you are using auto white balance it is not properly "undrestanding" the more intense blue light of high altitude and is overcompensating trying to neutralize the foreground tonalities. I don't have a lot of experience at high altitude light balance issues. Do you have some shots made at sea level and shot/processed the same way that we can use for comparison?

One thing that occurs to me is that since high altitude light is much bluer than sea level light (due to less atmospheric diffusuion) it is possible that setting your white balance to "cloudy" or "open shade" (both of these are bluer than direct sunlight at sea level) may give a more neutral balance.

Robt.

09/27/2005 02:27:37 PM · #107

Sorry, not meaning to jump in mid-thread, I've just been so busy lately. This is a subject I am very interested in. I'll try to post from assignment 1, but for now... Is this an example of a dominant subject?

This was my entry for the destinations challenge.

09/27/2005 09:00:05 PM · #108

Thanks for the explanation on my last try, bear_music.

Message edited by author 2005-09-29 09:56:00.

09/28/2005 10:19:46 PM · #109

Does this fit the first assignment?

09/30/2005 11:56:57 AM · #110

Did this thread die out?

Was it me? Did I say something wrong?

Maybe you guys were blown away by my stunning work! ;-P

09/30/2005 02:37:03 PM · #111

NO, I'm at someone else's house and don't have access to PS and don't care for this monitor either...

Lee, your sea/landscape has a subject, more or less; the hill and the beach. It's kind of neither here nor there. The blues are rather extreme as well.

We really need a new assignment. Let's see.... We've done landscape-without-subject and landscape-with-dominant-fore/middleground-subject, so....

Next Assignment â�� "Landscape Dominated by Distant Subject"

You've all seen this kind. A vast sweep of foreground leading to an overpowering vista of a mountain peak. A little slice of landscape with huge, towering masses of cloud filling most of the image. You get the idea. You get the idea; the power in the image is far away and massive.

Admittedly this is not the easiest sort of shot to produce on demand :-) Dig around and see what you can find. For this assignment it's OK to link up other peoples' work; I just want y'all to see the potential power of this sort of thing. These shots are frequently telephoto shots, btw, but they don't have to be.

But what I don't want is to see shots framed by foreground objects. I want the foreground to be subordinate to the distant view.

The following is a fairly reasonable, if uninspiring, example of a landscape dominated by a distant subject; to a certain extent ANY dramatic sunset that includes just a small slice of foreground will meet this topic.

I find it interesting to note, in trying to "lead" this group, that I rarely take shots the fit the "distant subject" category, witht he notable exception of LOTS of what might better be called "skyscapes"... I used to do it, but I don't now. I've asked myself why, and I realize that Cape Cod basically doesn't HAVE that sort of view. It's more of a foreground, detailed, kind of place. Another shot from around here that sort of fits is the following:

The land mass in the center isn't that distant, though; the wide angle lens is doing all the work here. Still, ignoring that for the moment, see how stark this image is? With that land mass having a weight, or presence, wuite out of proportion to its size, and the foreground and sky both serving as minimalist "canvases" on which the "subject" is floating?

Now, at the same time, here's ANOTHER assignment;

Landscape Framed by Foreground Objects

For this one I want a palpable sense of framing. You can troll through the relatively recent "Naturally Framed" challenge for some approaches to this. But not everything in that works here, so use some thought ok? The idea is to introduce a sense of scale with objects that are NOT subjects. Remember how a couple of the shots in the "dominant subject" assignment I said were "framed" but the objects were not subjects? That's what I'm talking about.

Remember, this isn't a "challenge" where we need to nit-pick variations on the "rules"; "framing" doesn't have to mean "draw a box around". Indeed, some naturally-framed landscapes are only "framed" on one side. MANY of them are framed top-and-right or top-and-left; imagine a strong tree trunk with overhanging branches.

I shot some "framed" shots this morning but I have two problems; I'm not at yhome so I can't process and post 'em, and one of them may work for my "corner of the world" entry so I'm holding off for now.

To a certain extent the following shot from my portfolio is "framed":

The near tree on the right side is a framing element, esepcially inasmuch as it overhangs on top as well. And to a certain extent the foreground slice of water is likewise a framing element. Imagine the image cropped right and bottom to see what I mean. But this isn't a clear-cut example, I admit.

Okay, have fun! The goal here for all these lessons has basically been to explore our "realtionship" to the landscape in the sense that we can organize our images in such a way as to urge a specific relationship upon the viewer, if that makes sense?

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-09-30 14:48:51.

09/30/2005 02:40:16 PM · #112

Originally posted by ldowse:

Did this thread die out?

Was it me? Did I say something wrong?

Maybe you guys were blown away by my stunning work! ;-P

I like your shots but as I am a beginner still trying to get a good example of a dominant focal subject, I don't feel that I can comment on whether or not the one you posted fits. I really like your composition on the no subject post, the water is so blue it makes me want to jump in. As for what has happened to everyone else...maybe out shootin' ???

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

09/30/2005 02:46:41 PM · #113

Originally posted by rsm707:

Originally posted by ldowse:
Did this thread die out?

Was it me? Did I say something wrong?

Maybe you guys were blown away by my stunning work! ;-P

I like your shots but as I am a beginner still trying to get a good example of a dominant focal subject, I don't feel that I can comment on whether or not the one you posted fits. I really like your composition on the no subject post, the water is so blue it makes me want to jump in. As for what has happened to everyone else...maybe out shootin' ???

As an aside, since this thread is on landscape and natural light (mostly landscape right now) the partcipation/activity is pretty much guaranteed to be sporadic. That sort of photography kind of depends on time available and whether it coincides with decent weather for shooting. A lot of people just don't want to submit, even to a tutorial thread, plain-vanilla shots of vistas of little interest, and I can understand that. I've tried to break the ice by including mediocre shots of my own that are illustrative of the point, but...

I don't mind if it moves slow. But everyone should bear in mind that when it goes stagnant, I'm not likely to revive it until some participant steps in and says "Okay! I'm ready for more!" or somesuch :-)

Robt.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

09/30/2005 03:05:31 PM · #114

Ok, we're ready for another lesson/assignment...

09/30/2005 03:07:31 PM · #115

Originally posted by nshapiro:

Ok, we're ready for another lesson/assignment...

You just GOT one, dude. Two, actually :-) Scroll, baby, scroll.

R,

09/30/2005 03:10:58 PM · #116

Not meaning to backtrack, but is this an example for the second assignment (dominant subject)? Sorry for the repetition, just trying to play catch-up before moving on to the next assignment.

09/30/2005 03:30:31 PM · #117

Originally posted by ldowse:

Not meaning to backtrack, but is this an example for the second assignment (dominant subject)? Sorry for the repetition, just trying to play catch-up before moving on to the next assignment.

Yes and no. It is not "layered" the way these shots usually would be. It is arguably not really a "landscape", though we don't much care about that. Here's the thing of it: your subject is the tracks, and they penetrate every levelk of the landscape from near to far. So it's plain and simple a photograph "of" something, see?

As an example of the opposite approach, earlier on one of our group posted a desert landscape with a fairly small, twisted, bare tree that dominated the landscape far out of proportion to the space it occupied. One could easily say that was a photograph "of" that tree, even though MOST of the space was filled with desert and sky.

The idea here is to effectively combine a couple layers of subject in counterpoise. But there's no right or wrong, really, we are just exploring compositional appraches, ok? Yours is a very nice shot, Lee.

Robt.

res0m50r

09/30/2005 03:34:26 PM · #118

In the same boat as Idowse... not meaning to backtrack just wanted to check my understanding of the assignment

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

09/30/2005 03:39:05 PM · #119

Originally posted by res0m50r:

In the same boat as Idowse... not meaning to backtrack just wanted to check my understanding of the assignment

Nice shot! Kind of another in-betweener. Are the trees the "subject"? Or the seastacks? If the latter, then this is the first submission in "framed" category.

Peop-le, let me reiterate; these categories are arbitrary. Not all that many images fall squarely into one, and only one, category. I don't think about actegories when I shoot, but I've already sublimated all of these into my creative process, as it were.

So I'm trying to help you think of these variables independently from each other, so you, too, can begin the sublimation process, and watch your landscapes become more and more organic and less and less formulaic.

R.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

09/30/2005 11:17:51 PM · #120

Coincidentally, here's tonight's Acadia shot:

I think that might qualify for assignment 3. Let me know.

Here's a different crop of that, which plays even stronger on the mountains, but since the foreground is removed, I presume it doesn't qualify?

Message edited by author 2005-10-01 01:52:31.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

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

10/01/2005 07:38:07 AM · #121

Oops. double post.

Message edited by author 2005-10-01 07:38:26.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

10/01/2005 09:51:06 AM · #122

Neal,

Actually the B/W version better qualifies IMO. In the color version, the extra foreground is balancing the distant mass in such a way as to DE-enphasize it considerably. The color version looks more like landscape-without-subject to me, closer to a pure abstract. It's another of those in-betweeners. The cropped, B/W version is much more powerful IMO.

R.

arngrimur

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

10/01/2005 08:40:06 PM · #123

Here is one for the "Landscape Dominated by Distant Subject" assignment

And for the "Landscape Framed by Foreground Objects" assignment

There is not a lot of trees in Icelandic landscape and they are generally very short so they are not very suitable for framing.

10/01/2005 09:30:38 PM · #124

Originally posted by arngrimur:

There is not a lot of trees in Icelandic landscape and they are generally very short so they are not very suitable for framing.

I don't think bear_music meant that only trees can be used for framing. That was just an example he used for us to get an idea of what he meant by framing. Using two rocks set closely apart and shooting at a scene between them could also be a way to frame a landscape.