| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/07/2006 02:59:42 PM · #1176 |
Originally posted by meyers:
Word. When my wife and I went to Hawaii for a vacation, my "photography" time was fairly limited, and I was stuck with midday light and overcast days for the most part. |
The way I used to cope with that, when I was in a place (like Hawaii or Big Sur) with photo opportunities in abundance but my family in tow, was to get up before dawn and hit the road for a 2-hour photo journey, then get back in time to take 'em all to breakfast and embark on the "family day".
R. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 03:00:32 PM · #1177 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In any event, I'd be interested in feedback on how most people want to see it divvied up; focus more on the relatively difficult task of creating "perfect" landscape photos, or more on the common real-world task of optimizing the ones we ARE able to capture?
R. |
It might be more interesting to not settle. To chase fantastic light and compositions in the smaller scale landscapes, than to accept mediocre light and compositions in the grand landscape.
I just see a lot of threads with pictures and people asking how to 'fix' the image. They want to know which knob to tweak in photoshop to make it look passable. But the real way to growth as a photographer is to realise that the way to fix it, is to go and shoot it better. Be there when the light is right. Compose it in a more dynamic or stronger way. See better. But instead they get a lot of tweaked versions in photoshop.
You don't have to hike the Tetons to do that, but you do have to start from a point of view that great landscape photography is about light and that perfect moment coming together. Not fixing something up later on. You have to be willing to push a bit beyond tarting something up later on if you want growth and improvement.
Message edited by author 2006-11-07 15:01:17.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 03:02:15 PM · #1178 |
Originally posted by meyers:
Edit: here's some pictures I took on that trip. I'm sure they could use a lot of processing to look really nice. My photoshop skills are pretty limited. |
Sorry to pick on you. I haven't had a chance to look at the images you linked to. But that's the sort of comment I mean :)
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 03:02:49 PM · #1179 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In any event, I'd be interested in feedback on how most people want to see it divvied up; focus more on the relatively difficult task of creating "perfect" landscape photos, or more on the common real-world task of optimizing the ones we ARE able to capture?
R. |
It might be more interesting to not settle. To chase fantastic light and compositions in the smaller scale landscapes, than to accept mediocre light and compositions in the grand landscape.
I just see a lot of threads with pictures and people asking how to 'fix' the image. They want to know which knob to tweak in photoshop to make it look passable. But the real way to growth as a photographer is to realise that the way to fix it, is to go and shoot it better. Be there when the light is right. Compose it in a more dynamic or stronger way. See better. But instead they get a lot of tweaked versions in photoshop.
You don't have to hike the Tetons to do that, but you do have to start from a point of view that great landscape photography is about light and that perfect moment coming together. Not fixing something up later on. You have to be willing to push a bit beyond tarting something up later on if you want growth and improvement. |
Amen to that!
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 03:08:54 PM · #1180 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by meyers:
Edit: here's some pictures I took on that trip. I'm sure they could use a lot of processing to look really nice. My photoshop skills are pretty limited. |
Sorry to pick on you. I haven't had a chance to look at the images you linked to. But that's the sort of comment I mean :) |
No problem. I'm well aware of the difficulties I'd have with lighting by not getting across the island until the middle of the day, and there are a lot of shots I took (or considered taking) where the lighting was just too hard to work with.
The sunset picture _was_ one where we stayed out until the light was as right as it was going to be.
I am not a professional photographer (and I _am_ in Team Suck, so..), and what I do in Photoshop is basically levels and sometimes saturation adjustments to the picture as a whole. Do all of your pictures come out great straight from the camera? I'm all for minimal processing, and getting things right the first time, but there are some things I'd like to learn to be able to make subtle changes which can enhance my pictures.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 03:52:39 PM · #1181 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Running list please "quote" this post and add your name to the list.
1.  james_so
2. dsidwell ~Sounds fun and enlightening!
3. MadMan2k
4.  Hihosilver
5.  David.C <-- camera's out of commission so take my vote for what it is worth. I would really like to see the step by step composition focus this thread started with before getting side tracked into post-processing.
6. bluezamia
7. peecee
I would echo earlier requests and like to see more on composition, focus and lens choices/aperatures/speeds etc.
8.  brens29
9. justin_hewlett - Personally I'd like to see more on exposure - perhaps spot metering, and maybe even the Zone system.
10. vikas
11. pineapple
12. melethia
13. stdavidson But only if I can make bad jokes. :)
14 nshapiro
15. siggav
16. meyers
17. wanger114I'd like to join as well ... I'm doing my best to catch up with earlier material.
18. prism-I would love to see this going again
19. cpanaioti Would like to see this again
20. Gordon Different considerations for composition when shooting for large and small output formats (e.g., web vs large prints) Emotional decisions in presenting a scene. Shooting approaches in the landscape (wait for the light, mad scramble for the scene, work one subject to death vs keep moving) Compositional approaches for wide angle (building a scene vs. stumbling across it, ways to construct scenes, use of rhythm, and other approaches) seeing tone rather than colour. Less emphasis on post processing, more about being present. Me being less verbose.
21. Thndrdrag I would like to participate if there is room, to better my landscapes and hopefully learn a bit about tone mapping and hdr files that bear is so good at.
22. RitaD
Rich |
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 04:07:28 PM · #1182 |
I'm definately in the pre-visualation camp.
Sometimes I shoot low contrasty and slightly under exposed on purpose because that gives me the best material in the photo for later post processing. That's not really "fixing" a shot in photoshop. That's knowing how you're planning to post process even as you're taking the picture. Which is different.
..and if you're shooting in sub optimal conditions trying to optimize your photo for later post processing is probably a good thing. I.e it's a drab day, I won't get to this location again or I'm stuck with the wrong lens or whatever, how can I create the best pictures I can with what I have including the "digital darkroom" of photoshop.
I might have a different perspective because I came backwards into photography. Started out painting and drawing, then painting digitally and from there taking photos for reference shots for paintings and then shooting just for its own sake and now I've pretty much stopped painting because I'm enjoying the photography so much.
Anyway to go back on topic. I think it's all the same thing really, it's how can I make the best photo possible using the resources I have. Best case being the resources being a great location and a lot of time to spend there and repeat visits. Sometimes that's not possible though so you'll have to deal with that situation too. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 04:20:10 PM · #1183 |
Originally posted by meyers:
Do all of your pictures come out great straight from the camera? I'm all for minimal processing, and getting things right the first time, but there are some things I'd like to learn to be able to make subtle changes which can enhance my pictures. |
And that's certainly something worth talking about. I'm trying to draw a distinction though between taking the best possible capture, making the most of the light, location, weather - and then optimizing that capture.
or
Taking something at noon, with hazy blue light, a carelessly slanted horizon and a coke can in the foreground and then patching it up in photoshop and dropping a sunset into it.
Both require photoshop skills. In the first case I'm interested in those. In the second case, I don't believe it has much to do with landscape photography and I'd prefer to steer the discussion away from that.
There's a real skill to be learned in knowing which images are worth working on. Recognizing that it could be shot better and shooting it better, rather than spending a lot of time 'fixing' something.
Certainly not all of my pictures come out of the camera looking great. But an increasing proportion do. I spend an increasingly smaller amount of time fixing things. In fact, in the majority of cases now, if something needs more than 5 minutes fixing, I won't fix it. I'll reshoot it correctly.
If I didn't try to do this, it wouldn't happen. If I just accepted what I got as what I got and then fixed it - the initial captures wouldn't get better. It might be more inconvenient, but I think the results improve faster if you spend the time getting better initial captures, rather than worrying about how to fix things.
But with the right capture, I could spend hours optimizing it, tweaking it, making it all it could be.
I remember standing, freezing in Badwater, in Death Valley. Feet in about a foot of salty, nasty, smelly water. Cold. In the dark. Waiting on the sun to rise. Then, we had glorious light. A beautiful morning. Amazing photography. I think we spent about an hour shooting it then trudged back in as the sun was getting high, the light was flat, the colour gone, the salt just bland and white. As we got back to the car parks, the tourist buses started rolling in and people were everywhere shooting with their cameras. Capturing the same landscape, but in so many ways not the same landscape.
Message edited by author 2006-11-07 16:25:10.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 04:28:20 PM · #1184 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by meyers:
Do all of your pictures come out great straight from the camera? I'm all for minimal processing, and getting things right the first time, but there are some things I'd like to learn to be able to make subtle changes which can enhance my pictures. |
And that's certainly something worth talking about. I'm trying to draw a distinction though between taking the best possible capture, making the most of the light, location, weather - and then optimizing that capture.
or
Taking something at noon, with hazy blue light, a carelessly slanted horizon and a coke can in the foreground and then patching it up in photoshop and dropping a sunset into it.
Both require photoshop skills. In the first case I'm interested in those. In the second case, I don't believe it has much to do with landscape photography and I'd prefer to steer the discussion away from that.
There's a real skill to be learned in knowing which images are worth working on. Recognizing that it could be shot better and shooting it better, rather than spending a lot of time 'fixing' something.
Certainly not all of my pictures come out of the camera looking great. But an increasing proportion do. I spend an increasingly smaller amount of time fixing things. In fact, in the majority of cases now, if something needs more than 5 minutes fixing, I won't fix it. I'll reshoot it correctly.
If I didn't try to do this, it wouldn't happen. If I just accepted what I got as what I got and then fixed it - the initial captures wouldn't get better. It might be more inconvenient, but I think the results improve faster if you spend the time getting better initial captures, rather than worrying about how to fix things.
But with the right capture, I could spend hours optimizing it, tweaking it, making it all it could be. |
I'd like to think I'm in the camp of "trying to get the picture right the first time, but needing a little help with PS to make up for less than perfect conditions". What you're suggesting is using Photoshop more as an artistic/compositional tool than as a photo-enhancing/darkroom tool.
Honestly, with my limited Photoshop skills, if it takes me more than 5 minutes to do some basic levels/saturation/crop, I'm ruining the picture.
I'd like to learn more about how to get the best capture given the conditions: what to look for in terms of lighting, composition, etc. But I'd also like to learn more about some basic post-processing steps which can make up for some commonly encountered poor conditions.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 06:34:48 PM · #1185 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I just see a lot of threads with pictures and people asking how to 'fix' the image. They want to know which knob to tweak in photoshop to make it look passable. But the real way to growth as a photographer is to realise that the way to fix it, is to go and shoot it better. Be there when the light is right. Compose it in a more dynamic or stronger way. See better. But instead they get a lot of tweaked versions in photoshop.
You don't have to hike the Tetons to do that, but you do have to start from a point of view that great landscape photography is about light and that perfect moment coming together. Not fixing something up later on. You have to be willing to push a bit beyond tarting something up later on if you want growth and improvement. |
I agree with you in principle; how could I not? I mean, that's literally self-evident. And we will certainly explore, in this thread, the components that collectively elevate a good landscape to a great one.
But my point is that the thread (or I should say the previous landscape threads) have existed to serve the needs of the members, and obviously an overwhelming need has shown itself: "How do I post-process for maximum impact in my landscape shots?" This is a very real concern of a LOT of people. We have seen plenty of very decent landscape shots that can, in fact, be elevated to the next level by a fuller understanding of post processing in photoshop. This isn't even an issue of "fixing" bad shots; it's a matter of getting the most out of a potentially very good shot.
So what I am asking here, because you, Gordon, are emphasizing this, is:
Do we want to run this iteration of the thread as a "master class" that focuses on "great" landscapes, or as a practical thread that explores real-world issues of everyday photographers, or as a combination of both?"
Certainly, meyers represents a voice asking for consideration in the second camp. And my approach has always been that if you teach a photographer the skills, whatever they may be for the given work, then when the photographer has internalized those skills so they become second nature, then the door opens wider and more "great" landscapes will emerge as a result.
R. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 06:41:19 PM · #1186 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So what I am asking here, because you, Gordon, are emphasizing this, is:
Do we want to run this iteration of the thread as a "master class" that focuses on "great" landscapes, or as a practical thread that explores real-world issues of everyday photographers, or as a combination of both?" |
I certainly don't want to shut down the discussion on either aspect. But could we do it across a couple of threads ? The very start of this thread began with discussion about light, but seemed to very quickly turn into here's my flat picture with cyan light and here's 10 different versions of it with the saturation turned up to the max, or turned to B&W with the contrast off the charts.
I didn't go much beyond the first page though. Put perhaps a thread about preprocessing landscape photography and a thread about postprocessing landscape photography (and perhaps a thread about preprocess steps in anticipation of post processing as well come to that) would be worthy of consideration.
It seems heavily biased towards how to work with what you got and not much on how to get it better.
I had the Ansel Adams saw floating around in my head about the score and the performance. Often it strikes me that we have a poorly composed score, but then try to perform it as loudly and brashly as possible, in the hope that nobody notices.
But I'm going to shut up now and see what the other 20 people would like to do (and try not to drown in a swimming pool for a couple of hours)
|
|
|
|
11/07/2006 06:45:04 PM · #1187 |
To be fair, that was a VERY long thread and we DID begin by discussing compositional and lighting issues at great length. But the participants began to focus more and more on PP issues within that context, and that's how we ended up where we did.
R. |
|
|
|
11/07/2006 06:53:06 PM · #1188 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Running list please "quote" this post and add your name to the list.
1. james_so
2. dsidwell ~Sounds fun and enlightening!
3. MadMan2k
4. Hihosilver
5. David.C <-- camera's out of commission so take my vote for what it is worth. I would really like to see the step by step composition focus this thread started with before getting side tracked into post-processing.
6. bluezamia
7. peecee
I would echo earlier requests and like to see more on composition, focus and lens choices/aperatures/speeds etc.
8. brens29
9. justin_hewlett - Personally I'd like to see more on exposure - perhaps spot metering, and maybe even the Zone system.
10. vikas
11. pineapple
12. melethia
13. stdavidson But only if I can make bad jokes. :)
14 nshapiro
15. siggav
16. meyers
17. wanger114I'd like to join as well ... I'm doing my best to catch up with earlier material.
18. prism-I would love to see this going again
19. cpanaioti Would like to see this again
20. Gordon Different considerations for composition when shooting for large and small output formats (e.g., web vs large prints) Emotional decisions in presenting a scene. Shooting approaches in the landscape (wait for the light, mad scramble for the scene, work one subject to death vs keep moving) Compositional approaches for wide angle (building a scene vs. stumbling across it, ways to construct scenes, use of rhythm, and other approaches) seeing tone rather than colour. Less emphasis on post processing, more about being present. Me being less verbose.
21. Thndrdrag I would like to participate if there is room, to better my landscapes and hopefully learn a bit about tone mapping and hdr files that bear is so good at.
22. RitaD
Rich |
|
Wildcard: Please count me in,I don't know anything much about anything so whatever we're learning will be great. In the meantime I'm still trying to catch up on this thread. |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 03:43:26 AM · #1189 |
If I may interject an observation about the above conversation.
Whether a person is previsualizing the scene from memory or topographical data ...
... or standing in a foot of brine waiting for the right moment to click the shutter ...
... or walking around clicking here and there ...
... or sorting thru their captures from an outing looking for the keepers ...
... or bringing out the best in an image ...
... or trying to salvage a less than stellar image ...
... or even participating in a landscape thread.
They all have one thing in common ... what makes the image good?
What do you visualize toward, wait for, look for, enhance, choose or salvage?
I realize there isn't a set forumula for success -- but surely there are commonalities to be looked for to make the the image better. Even if we are not shooting for great just yet, only better. As I believe Gordon mentioned about, How to see?
If 'What to look for when seeing?' can be codified I think all perspectives mentioned here would be satisfied.
David
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 07:05:30 AM · #1190 |
Good morning all,
For me I would like to dicuss both topics bear has listed not only the salvage of mid day landscapes using basic PS skills will be a tremendous help for those 3 hr hikes or people who can never get out the door in time like myself to get the good light. I also being of limited PS skill if I spend to much time editing a photo taken at midday, I have wonderful halos around my trees and what not and I would really like that not to happen :) ....
I would also like to define I guess what we are calling good lighting what makes this lighting better than normal lighting and then talk about compositional components of a landscape and what makes for powerful landscape such as these from bear.
  
I want to be able to get quality photos like these from my camera, Bear uses a 20D like myself and through his techniques gets higher quality images out of it.
Also hopefully discuss the abilities of take the "perfect landscape" with the good lighting. And the adjustment of the landscape taken in good lighting to create the ultimate landscape using the HDR imaging and tone mapping techniques..
Finally if there is time I would also love a quick tutorial on shooting landscapes/ cityscapes at night.I have tried my hand at these types of shots at Niagra and in Boston without much sucess (also using crappy equiptment of the kit lens at the time).
Sorry for the length, but any information on all the previous noted topics is better than none. I am willing to learn as much as I can for the whole subject and I will do my best in this thread to keep up with everything.
Rich |
|
|
|
11/08/2006 10:48:41 AM · #1191 |
Co-incidentally I was listening to one of Jeff Curto's Camera Position podcasts last night. He was focusing on the impact of camera position on a composition, but in this particular case, the importance of the camera position in time, on a good composition.
Waiting until the light is just right. Watching the shadows move into place. Anticipating the clouds.
Message edited by author 2006-11-08 10:48:52.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2006 08:27:29 PM · #1192 |
Hmmmmm...
Been a lot of intellectual discussion going on back and forth in this discussion. Its enough to make a guy's aperture dial spin! Wait, wait... do digital lenses still have an aperture dial? LOL!!!
Since Robert has so graciously asked that I co-mentor here I thought maybe I should finally make an appearance.
My head is still expanding and contracting over all this high level thinking going on so I don't have an opinion yet. Give me time and I will get back into the swing of things. Anyone wanna know how to level a horizon? LOL!!!!!
|
|
|
|
11/09/2006 06:30:13 AM · #1193 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Anyone wanna know how to level a horizon? LOL!!!!! |
I think I have that down mostly any ways.... I think I am a bit cross eyed though cause I dont always see that my horizon is crooked. Anyways... I justt wanted to say good morning to all.
Rich |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 07:08:14 AM · #1194 |
Ok, just because I'm feeling left out I would like to make some off the wall comments about "good lighting"...
Honestly, I would like to know a solid definition for "good lighting" in a landscapes to.
I the above images, I'm not sure I'd describe them as "good light" as much as I'd describe them as "sunset" light. Of course, the lighting is good. But "Sunset" light is pretty much always the same. "Sunset" light is what you get when you show up at sunset and take pictures. As far as I can tell that happens with every night. The difference being that sky and cloud conditions vary to make some sunsets more dramatic than others. But the photographer has no control over that. What you get is mostly luck.
The exception above is the angle on the illuminated reeds. The photographer specifically composed it that way for the lighting conditions and the lighting has a particularly striking effect on the composition. That activity makes it "good light". Most sunsets are straight on silhouettes.
"good light" in landscapes, to me, is when I survey a place I want to photograph, determine what the best time of day or year it is to capture the landscape to achieve a particular effect, return at that time and take the picture. Then and only then does the lighting produce the most stunning results or "good light".
Another more practical approach to "good light" is to take what nature provides. Often times I go on photo safaris with a particular goal in mind only to discover my idea did not pan out, but that other unexpected lighting opportunities gave me some great pictures I did not anticipate. I just have to be smart enough to be flexible and keep my eyes open... but nature ALWAYS provides something wonderful, just not necessarily what we wanted.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2006 07:47:16 AM · #1195 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Wait, wait... do digital lenses still have an aperture dial? LOL!!!
|
Yup....mine does!!
|
|
|
|
11/09/2006 08:45:44 AM · #1196 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
"good light" in landscapes, to me, is when I survey a place I want to photograph, determine what the best time of day or year it is to capture the landscape to achieve a particular effect, return at that time and take the picture. Then and only then does the lighting produce the most stunning results or "good light".
|
I guess then my question is what make "good light" different from normal light and what effects are you looking for in the ladscape to capture? What makes "good lighting" different from "normal lighting" and what do we look for when we look for "good lighting"
We know sunset or sunris lighting is good becuase of the colors and hues it produces, and becuase of the angle of the sun is positioned that most rays refract instead of reflect make less harsh lighting conditions.
I was told early on when I started that you should always keep the sun at your back therefore your shawdows are at a minimum. Is this what we look for? Is this even Valid?????
Are there ideas or tips like this one that we can share to help better understand lighting technique and what to look for when deciding how lighting should be in a particular landscape?
Thanks
Rich |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 08:51:36 AM · #1197 |
Originally posted by thndrdrag:
I was told early on when I started that you should always keep the sun at your back therefore your shawdows are at a minimum. Is this what we look for? Is this even Valid?????
|
For landscapes, I often try to shoot with the sun/ light to either the left or right side, to get the most contrast/ shaping.
It a lot of ways its like shooting portraits - you don't 'normally' want the light right behind or infront of you, as it flattens out the scene.
As ever with every statement ever made, there are exceptions, but those tend to prove the norm.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2006 10:15:16 AM · #1198 |
In the most particular sense, "good" light is what works for any particular picture and bad light is what works against the picture. IN landscape photography, we usually look for "descriptive" light, whatever enhances and describes/defines the subject best, or best sets the mood we are after. This will usually be low light from one side or another, sometimes backlighting (think sunsets/sunrises), and rarely will be it be flat light, with the sun directly behind you.
In a more general sense, for the landscape photographer the "best" light is mostly from half an hour before sunrise to two hours after sunrise, and two hours before sunset to half an hour after sunset. The middle of the day is usually not worth much for "open landscapes", although it can be effective in forests and steep, rocky terrain. Generally, we work with shadows and texture, and early/late low light, in general, brings the most texture to the scene, especially for open, flat foregrounds and water.
This is something we'll discuss at length when we get going.
R. |
|
|
|
11/09/2006 11:02:46 AM · #1199 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In a more general sense, for the landscape photographer the "best" light is mostly from half an hour before sunrise to two hours after sunrise, and two hours before sunset to half an hour after sunset. |
The one thing that digital seems to be changing is that range in the twilight periods. A lot of places you can keep shooting an hour or more before and after sunrise and have great results that were tough on film.
It's worth playing around and stretching those established notions of 'good light' with the changing technology.
Used to be that you'd tend to wait until the start/end of civil twilight, but now it seems its possible to shoot right through nautical twilight and get good landscape results - in fact often more interesting light in that gap.
Astronomical twilight and beyond seems to be more into the range of night/ star trails though.
This is I think around a 15 minute exposure, well into nautical twilight.
This was another really long exposure. The light is incredibly even yet beautifully coloured as it is reflecting off the high clouds. Its almost too dark to focus at this point, so a flashlight helps, but the colours that a digital camera can record in this sort of late twilight is awesome.
Message edited by author 2006-11-09 11:05:36.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2006 11:12:31 AM · #1200 |
The 30-minute figure is just a convenient approximation; the actual length of time between sunset and full darkness varies dramatically depending on your latitude (I'm aware you know this, I am just expanding on it). On the equator, sunset to full darkness is something like 20 minutes, and the stages of twilight are very compressed. At the arctic circle, on the other hand, depending on the season, twilight may last for hours.
R.
this one's a 15-second exposure in morning twilight: 
Message edited by author 2006-11-09 11:15:39. |
|
