So I have taken these photo's, now what!

[snberk103]

I liked the texture of the flowers and the yellow. Also I was quick to spot that if I crouched down on the rockery, I could fill the background with the green bush. So I knew I could blur the background as much as possible, to isolate the yellow flowers. I had this printed out at work today (along with a few others), which are my first prints since buying a DSLR. I think this makes them look even better than seeing them on the screen.

OK, Just for fun I've 're-worked' your image slightly by cropping. I've done nothing to exposure or colours etc.

So, the answer to 'Why?' is the texture of the flowers. So, the answer then should emphasize that texture. In the photo you are showing, however, there is a lot of 'background' showing... so the viewer may be confused about you are trying to show.... flowers, texture, background, etc. It is that 'confusion' in the viewer's mind that can weaken an image. All I did was to crop out a lot of background that surrounds the flowers. The flowers now dominate the photo, and it is more clear that the photo is about the flowers, not the texture of the background.

I could have moved the bottom crop up closer to the flowers. On the one hand this would emphasizes the flowers more, but I think in this case the flowers without stems wouldn't look right. I could have also cropped it to a perfect square. In this case it is so close to be square that if this was mine I would take the time to do this. A 'nearly' square crop often tends to look a bit funny.

I am not familiar with your specific type of camera so I don't know if it is a full frame sensor or what, or if the focal length data reported is actual or 35mm film equivalent. However, I will say that it appears you are using either a 'normal' focal length (i.e. nearly a 50mm lense with 35mm film equivalent -which sits between wide-angle and telephoto) or at best a short telephoto. Try the same shot with a longer telephoto. Long telephotos will crop out more of the stuff behind your subject (that messy bush on the right would have disappeared) plus they give you a much shorter DoF... so the pine needles behind the flowers would have gone much more blurry ... and wouldn't have been a distraction, as I (personally) believe they are now.

Finally - I've circled 3 elements that I think are visual distraction in your composition ... the 3 blades of grass. The one on the left because the brown tip sits in the same visual line as the flowers. It breaks the nice repetition. And the middle and right hand grass because along with the brown tip they cross the strong verticals with a diagonal line, and that upsets the repetition of the strong vertical lines of the stems.

Personally, I think I would have removed all the grass stems and left just the flowers.

However, making these kinds of compositional changes (specifically moving or removing grass) may lead to some serious soul searching. If you are shooting 'natural scenes' how much can you play with what you see before it is not 'natural' but composed? Can you remove something entirely and not leave it in the scene at all, or can you shift it to make pretty good scene excellent. Can you move things when shooting, but in editing mode? There are no right and wrong answers here - except those you set for yourself. Everyone will have a different opinion. And you should also accept that the 'rules' you set for yourself this week may change over time as you think these things through and talk to other photographers.

Hope you don't mind the long post.

 

[Apple fanboy]

OK, Just for fun I've 're-worked' your image slightly by cropping. I've done nothing to exposure or colours etc.

Hope you don't mind the long post.

Not at all. Thanks for taking the time. To answer your questions. My D3200 is an entry level DSLR, so not full frame. I currently just have the kit lens (18mm - 55mm) but am looking to add to this with a telephoto and perhaps some extension rings in the next couple of months.
The pine tree/bush thing was about 2 m behind the flowers, so this was the maximum DOF I could achieve with my set up. You can do stuff post of course, but I don't really have the skills.
I hadn't really thought about the blades of grass. Of course if I had, I could have just plucked them out (is that wrong?) when I was there!

As for cropping, I left it as shot because the blurry pine needles don't really bother me. What is the attraction of square (assuming like me you don't do Instagram)?

Sadly the middle flower is past it's best, but the other shot I would have liked to take is of one flower isolated, but I didn't really have the time to hang around (as I climbed over a wall in a public garden to get this shot).

 

[leighonigar]

There are no right and wrong answers here - except those you set for yourself. Everyone will have a different opinion. And you should also accept that the 'rules' you set for yourself this week may change over time as you think these things through and talk to other photographers.

This really is true of course. I preferred the original to your reworking, as in my view we have lost the interesting context of the plant, the texture of the pine and replaced it with a sort of tunnel vision! Of course there is great scope for manipulating or 'posing' plants but I don't find the leaves of the Kniphofia (the plant that is the subject!) distracting in the context of the original.

As many people have said, you need to think to reliably take great photographs. To have goals, to visualise and take that extra moment. In many fields this means planning for light or for a subject to be right (flowers open, animals out).

Good luck and keep shooting.

 

[AT06]

Wow. I just realised that I could answer the thread title very easily.

So I have taken these photos, now what! GO AND TAKE SOME MORE! EXPERIMENT. FIND WHAT INTERESTS YOU!

 

[Policar]

What photos do you like that other people have taken?

Do you want to emulate these or do something different?

What do you want to express/imitate/improve upon?

Why are you asking us? You should make changes that look good to you.

 

[Apple fanboy]

What photos do you like that other people have taken?

Do you want to emulate these or do something different?

What do you want to express/imitate/improve upon?

Why are you asking us? You should make changes that look good to you.

I like most types of photography. Landscape are probably my favourite, but I also like macro and wildlife. I don't really have the glass for wildlife, so haven't attempted any yet. I enjoy being out and taking photos, although find the West Midlands to be a pale reflection of some of the landscapes I see on here.

I want to be able to take my photos and present them in the best way I can (post processing). This is the bit I struggle most with. I start playing with my image by sliding up then down to see if it looks better or worse. I then choose the most appealing final result. Do I over do it or sell my self short? Probably z bit of both.
What looks good to me, might not be the right direction. I guess that's what I'm asking. Lots of useful pointers on workflow etc and now I have LR 5 I can start to get a bit more organised.
The other issue I have is getting round to dealing with the ever growing collection of photos in my HD!

 

[Policar]

What are some landscape photos you like or would like to imitate?

Different amounts of post processing are appropriate for different shots. If you like it, that's really all that matters.

Lightroom is great for organization and processing. It's really all you need. The most successful photographer I know (who is world-famous in his field and has published many books) uses it to organize and process files, but he'll use plug ins (noise reduction) occasionally on much larger prints.

I'd focus more on the shot than on processing it. In theory you should never need to crop in more than one axis (to get the intended aspect ratio, not to find the frame after the shot was taken). Try to visualize it before even lifting the camera, then get it as close as you can in camera, then fix it in post in the ways you were unable to (dodging and burning, removing optical flaws, grad filters, adding sharpness and acutance, tint, saturation, spotting dust, removing distracting stuff with the clone tool).

It helps if you can provide a reference shot, then we can say how it was likely shot an processed.

 

[BJMRamage]

I want to agree with the statement above about books.
This one (already said above) is a great read: Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson

One thing to think about (and you asking help here is a good start) is "you can't do better if you keep doing the same thing"

I've been shooting film and digital for a while and still an amateur/hobbyist. Over the past year I have added a few more items to my photobag and decided to take a risk on some things. Just recently I have decided to delve into Manual Shooting, rather than Auto/Aperture/Shutter/Program or one of the scene modes. I am also testing the water on White Balance/Custom White Balance and using Kelvin settings.

we went for a hike this weekend and I took my camera hoping for a nice waterfall shot but 75+ people were all over teh rocks and the waterfall was barely there (nothing like the images on Google). I decided not to even shot it. But during teh hike, I shot Manual and adjusted the WB to see what I could get. Then in Aperture I looked over the INFO palette to see "what I did" and hopefully understand what it was that worked.

if you can find some Presets to use in Lightroom get some and see what they do, try and understand what it is that makes these presets "work"

and take more photos and then delete the bad ones (which can be a very hard thing to do, I know)


PS: do a little at a time. trying to hit it all at once may be overwhelming.

 

[tekmoe]

I like this thread. After reading it, I want to go out and shoot more photos!

 

[snberk103]

..... West Midlands to be a pale reflection of some of the landscapes I see on here.

With respect, but this may be more of your shooting style than the actual landscapes available. A good photo is about light, and good light can be fickle and fleeting. It may mean you have to stop, wait, assess, wait, wait, and then perhaps leave perhaps without taking shot because the light you wanted never materialized. But you may come back later when the light will be better. Perhaps that location needs morning light, or evening light - so you return several times. I'm not quite that patient to wait in one spot for an hour or several hours. But I do return to same spot over and over again when I think the light will be good.

...
I want to be able to take my photos and present them in the best way.....

This is also an important consideration. When you say "present" - what do you intend to do with them? How you process depends on this. Are you simply popping them up on a web-page (small and relatively low-res) or printing them out? Big prints or greeting card sized? Each of these dictates how you process. It is not unusual for me to have a couple of different versions of some of my images since I need images that produce very high quality prints, as well as show well on my website. Plus I like to print out my own card sized images in some cases to send to friends and family.

Welcome to world of serious photography!

 

[Apple fanboy]

I want to agree with the statement above about books.
This one (already said above) is a great read: Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson

Its next on my list. Currently reading one of his other books, Learning to see creatively, which I think has some great ideas and thoughts.

One thing to think about (and you asking help here is a good start) is "you can't do better if you keep doing the same thing"

I've been shooting film and digital for a while and still an amateur/hobbyist. Over the past year I have added a few more items to my photobag and decided to take a risk on some things. Just recently I have decided to delve into Manual Shooting, rather than Auto/Aperture/Shutter/Program or one of the scene modes. I am also testing the water on White Balance/Custom White Balance and using Kelvin settings.
I started out very much in Auto or scene modes. Trying to use Aperture or Shutter Priority more now. I might hold of on the manual setting for a while though! I have a little understanding about White balance and tonight at the works camera club we started we were discussing changing the WB. The two older pros both recommend the sunshine setting for the sort of photo's I'm (mostly) taking, so going to try that out at the weekend.

we went for a hike this weekend and I took my camera hoping for a nice waterfall shot but 75+ people were all over teh rocks and the waterfall was barely there (nothing like the images on Google). I decided not to even shot it. But during teh hike, I shot Manual and adjusted the WB to see what I could get. Then in Aperture I looked over the INFO palette to see "what I did" and hopefully understand what it was that worked.

if you can find some Presets to use in Lightroom get some and see what they do, try and understand what it is that makes these presets "work"

and take more photos and then delete the bad ones (which can be a very hard thing to do, I know)
I can really relate to this. I find it hard to decide which photo to keep and which to loose. I shoot a lot of similar compositions, but with different settings. I then can't always decide which looks best.


PS: do a little at a time. trying to hit it all at once may be overwhelming.

I hear you on this. So much to learn. The more you read or hear the further I feel from knowing what I need to!

----------

With respect, but this may be more of your shooting style than the actual landscapes available. Clearly never been to the West Midlands!)A good photo is about light, and good light can be fickle and fleeting. It may mean you have to stop, wait, assess, wait, wait, and then perhaps leave perhaps without taking shot because the light you wanted never materialized. But you may come back later when the light will be better. Perhaps that location needs morning light, or evening light - so you return several times. I'm not quite that patient to wait in one spot for an hour or several hours. But I do return to same spot over and over again when I think the light will be good. Yes knowing when the lighting is good is a problem. Especially as with work and family commitments, I have times when I can shoot and times when I'm not available. Take Sunday night for example. The sky was alive with colour. Really beautiful. However I was stuck at home. On the night I did go out to catch the sunset, it was well rubbish! Too cloudy and no real colour.

This is also an important consideration. When you say "present" - what do you intend to do with them? How you process depends on this. Are you simply popping them up on a web-page (small and relatively low-res) or printing them out? Big prints or greeting card sized? Each of these dictates how you process. It is not unusual for me to have a couple of different versions of some of my images since I need images that produce very high quality prints, as well as show well on my website. Plus I like to print out my own card sized images in some cases to send to friends and family.
Mostly on Flickr. However had some nice 10" prints done at work yesterday (for free!) on our Epson D3000 Surelab. I have no shortage of printers at work. Somebody else I know does a photo book every few months so he can see how his work is progressing. I quite like this idea.

Welcome to world of serious photography!

Thank you to all on here for making me feel so welcome with your advice and the time you have taken to share your wisdom!

----------

I like this thread. After reading it, I want to go out and shoot more photos!

Go for it! I'm dreading the winter when It is dark when I come home. I'll have to get some studio lights and convert the spare room!

 

[Apple fanboy]

What are some landscape photos you like or would like to imitate?

Different amounts of post processing are appropriate for different shots. If you like it, that's really all that matters.


It helps if you can provide a reference shot, then we can say how it was likely shot an processed.

Here are a couple of examples I like.

Wastwater, yesterday...

Image

 

[kingalexthe1st]

OK, here's my guess on these photos. As has been mentioned before, it's about the light at the time rather than the PP invovled.

The 1st picture was probably taken sometime in a cloudless afternoon with the sun above and to the left and somewhat obstructed by the canopy of the trees. The light on the right side of the photo produces strong contrast between the rock and shadow, typical of the daytime sun, while the left is muted and in the shade. For PP, the photographer probably added some punch with increased contrast and clarity, but also may gave reduced highlights and upped the shadows to give the whole photo a 'balanced' look of detail between the shaded and exposed areas. On a side note I'd put money on them having used a neutral density filter so they could keep the shutter open to achieve that silky water flow.

Looking back at your initial photo of the rocks and water, was it taken on a cloudy day? There aren't many shadows and the light looks 'muted'. If so, try setting your WB to cloudy (either in camera on in Lightroom) and it should give your photo a slightly warmer feel to it. (Another side note: I shoot almost exclusively in 'cloudy' unless I'm inside or shooting at night. Plus, I don't like to leave any settings on 'Auto', bar focus)

For the 2nd shot, it's much the same; good lighting. Or more like 'extreme' lighting. There's clouds with patches of open sunlight giving strong contrast to the colours in those areas the sunlight falls on, and muted in the overcast areas. It's a lovely scene, but the different lightings is what makes it interesting to me. If the entire scene were shot on a completely overcast day it wouldn't be such an interesting photo to the eye. It would still be nice, I'm sure. Just not as interesting as the one taken.

Alright, what does everyone else think?
Alex

 

[Doylem]

I can tell you how the pic was ‘done’ ‘cos I was there, along with another contributor to Pic of the Day. The location was familiar - an iconic lakeland view - as was the vantage point, a rocky outcrop. Some pix require half a day of backpacking, through perilous terrain, but not this one. We had to walk all of 20 metres from the car...

My usual method, for landscapes, at least, is to find a location, choose a composition, and ‘lock’ it; the camera’s on a tripod. I set the aperture to f11, as usual, and the ISO to 100 (also as usual), leaving the shutter speed as the only variable. Then I just watch how the scene changes. On a day like this - breezy, mostly cloudy, with patches of light - the conditions were constantly changing. The combination of light and shadow can help to define different areas of the pic. The heavy cloud at the top forces the eye back down towards the central mountain, which is lit, leaving the two mountains that flank it in shadow.

I get quite engrossed in watching how the scene changes from moment to moment, though I appreciate that some might find it boring. What counts, IMO, is the attitude we bring to the process, including...

1) Low expectations. It doesn’t have to work out.
2) Let’s just see what happens. No pressure to take good pix.
3) Just watch... and wait... and be prepared...

We didn’t spend too long at that spot (hey, the pubs were open), but it could have been hours. Even in a static composition, things happen... like a trio of walkers enjoying the same view...

 

[Apple fanboy]

I can tell you how the pic was ‘done’ ‘cos I was there, along with another contributor to Pic of the Day. The location was familiar - an iconic lakeland view - as was the vantage point, a rocky outcrop. Some pix require half a day of backpacking, through perilous terrain, but not this one. We had to walk all of 20 metres from the car...

My usual method, for landscapes, at least, is to find a location, choose a composition, and ‘lock’ it; the camera’s on a tripod. I set the aperture to f11, as usual, and the ISO to 100 (also as usual), leaving the shutter speed as the only variable. Then I just watch how the scene changes. On a day like this - breezy, mostly cloudy, with patches of light - the conditions were constantly changing. The combination of light and shadow can help to define different areas of the pic. The heavy cloud at the top forces the eye back down towards the central mountain, which is lit, leaving the two mountains that flank it in shadow.

I get quite engrossed in watching how the scene changes from moment to moment, though I appreciate that some might find it boring. What counts, IMO, is the attitude we bring to the process, including...

1) Low expectations. It doesn’t have to work out.
2) Let’s just see what happens. No pressure to take good pix.
3) Just watch... and wait... and be prepared...

We didn’t spend too long at that spot (hey, the pubs were open), but it could have been hours. Even in a static composition, things happen... like a trio of walkers enjoying the same view...

Image

Thanks for sharing. How often do you go out and come back with nothing? I guess I'm still at that stage that if I have gone out I want to come back with pictures. The skill with your shots I would say is the lighting. Getting the settings and timing just right. Sunset was beautiful here Sunday, but I was busy. Trying to decide if tonight's will be any good.

 

[Doylem]

Thanks for sharing. How often do you go out and come back with nothing? I guess I'm still at that stage that if I have gone out I want to come back with pictures. The skill with your shots I would say is the lighting. Getting the settings and timing just right. Sunset was beautiful here Sunday, but I was busy. Trying to decide if tonight's will be any good.

If the light is interesting (and that can mean just about anything!) I'll take plenty of pix. But if it isn't, then I probably won't take any pix at all. I don't want to fill up my drive with dull pix; I don't have any use for them. I don't mind coming back empty-handed; hell, I've probably had a good walk and some fresh air...

 

[Apple fanboy]

Okay so I took these tonight. I had left it a little late and should have got there sooner. (by the way I put the edited image in the POTD thread, but wanted to show the before and after here.

So tweaked in LR


And as shot



The only thing I would like to do is get rid of the car headlights in the tree. Is there anything else you would do or not do?

 

[Doylem]

There's no real subject to the pic. If you can combine the colours in the sky with, say, an expressive silhouette, you might have something. You're still thinking about how to improve your pix with PP, when the time to organise the space within the frame, is before you press the shutter...

 

[Policar]

There's no real subject to the pic. If you can combine the colours in the sky with, say, an expressive silhouette, you might have something. You're still thinking about how to improve your pix with PP, when the time to organise the space within the frame, is before you press the shutter...

I disagree; the above is a step forward. Composition is nice doesn't need to be cropped in post and the processing improves it. You could say there's no subject to any landscape or any macro excepting some gimmicky ones. Some of the best photos are more about composition than about subject:

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/images/work/P/P78/P78372_10.jpg

(And that's a damned good photo, as is most of Gursky's work.)

It's really a step in the right direction and looks nice. Flat horizon, nice light, etc. Keep using the same approach and focusing on composition (rules of thirds, leading lines; read a book on composition and study art history a bit for reference) and light and how the two relate. Just do what you think looks good; even if you don't have an interesting subject here it's framed better.

 

[leighonigar]

I disagree; the above is a step forward. Composition is nice doesn't need to be cropped in post and the processing improves it. You could say there's no subject to any landscape or any macro excepting some gimmicky ones. Some of the best photos are more about composition than about subject:

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/images/work/P/P78/P78372_10.jpg

(And that's a damned good photo, as is most of Gursky's work.)

It's really a step in the right direction and looks nice. Flat horizon, nice light, etc. Keep using the same approach and focusing on composition (rules of thirds, leading lines; read a book on composition and study art history a bit for reference) and light and how the two relate. Just do what you think looks good; even if you don't have an interesting subject here it's framed better.

I'm with Doylem on this one. I'm not sure that the OP's new photograph is objectively or (generally) subjectively better than his original submission. It is very different, and I like the smoke layer but otherwise it lacks intention. The Gursky photograph is interesting, and I'd say it has a pretty strong 'subject' in as much as there is a particular thing being conveyed. By contrast, it's not entirely clear what is being demonstrated/expressed/shared in the dusk photos.

There may be no 'subject' in some landscape photographs, but if the picture is any good chances are the photographer knew what they were taking a picture of.

Incidentally, simplifying the new photo by covering the left hand side of the image improves what remains, at least in my view. it becomes more abstract and loses the distraction of its grounding in the everyday.

 

[Policar]

I'm with Doylem on this one. I'm not sure that the OP's new photograph is objectively or (generally) subjectively better than his original submission. It is very different, and I like the smoke layer but otherwise it lacks intention. The Gursky photograph is interesting, and I'd say it has a pretty strong 'subject' in as much as there is a particular thing being conveyed. By contrast, it's not entirely clear what is being demonstrated/expressed/shared in the dusk photos.

There may be no 'subject' in some landscape photographs, but if the picture is any good chances are the photographer knew what they were taking a picture of.

Incidentally, simplifying the new photo by covering the left hand side of the image improves what remains, at least in my view. it becomes more abstract and loses the distraction of its grounding in the everyday.

Fair enough. It is a stronger composition and more coherent overall, but I agree there's nothing terribly interesting about it. But I think it's the right approach, and applying that approach (simpler composition decided upon before shooting, rather than cropping, and focusing on nice light or at least trying to get it) will yield good results if applied to more interesting locations.

And yeah, the Gursky photo is incredible, as is almost everything he does, but it is an entirely different style, too, and also done by an absolute master. But it is an example of a potentially banal subject being elevated by composition.

 

[leighonigar]

And yeah, the Gursky photo is incredible, as is almost everything he does, but it is an entirely different style, too, and also done by an absolute master. But it is an example of a potentially banal subject being elevated by composition.

Just for the sake of completeness for anyone who didn't know - Gursky removed a building, a power station or something from the photograph cited. Six of one and half a dozen of the other!

 

[acearchie]

Quick fix for the headlights, use the spot removal tool. It's not just for spots!

Another thing you might want to play around with is crop tool and then push "O" to cycle through various different cropping guides (rule of thirds, golden ratio, etc.)

These are all related to LR which I believe you have.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Quick fix for the headlights, use the spot removal tool. It's not just for spots!

Another thing you might want to play around with is crop tool and then push "O" to cycle through various different cropping guides (rule of thirds, golden ratio, etc.)

These are all related to LR which I believe you have.

I'll give that a go. I've only just got LR so need to play around with more of the settings to familiarise my self with them a bit more.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Fair enough. It is a stronger composition and more coherent overall, but I agree there's nothing terribly interesting about it. But I think it's the right approach, and applying that approach (simpler composition decided upon before shooting, rather than cropping, and focusing on nice light or at least trying to get it) will yield good results if applied to more interesting locations.

This wasn't the location I was going to shoot at, but I left a bit late and I was losing the light. Decided it was better to try this new location out, but I have another place to try for the next decent sunset.

----------

I disagree; the above is a step forward. Composition is nice doesn't need to be cropped in post and the processing improves it. You could say there's no subject to any landscape or any macro excepting some gimmicky ones. Some of the best photos are more about composition than about subject:

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/images/work/P/P78/P78372_10.jpg

(And that's a damned good photo, as is most of Gursky's work.)

It's really a step in the right direction and looks nice. Flat horizon, nice light, etc. Keep using the same approach and focusing on composition (rules of thirds, leading lines; read a book on composition and study art history a bit for reference) and light and how the two relate. Just do what you think looks good; even if you don't have an interesting subject here it's framed better.

Thanks for the encouragement. I'm reading Bryan Peterson's book on composition at the moment. I'm a real slow reader between family and work commitments. Then I get some spare time and I want to go out and shoot!