Why is this so terrible.....

JustJazzie

Been spending a lot of time on here!
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
3,793
Reaction score
1,732
Location
Bailey, Colorado
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I don't always post questions about camera equipment, Sometimes I post horrible pictures too. :Giggle:

I was going through pictures from the lake the other day and Im so disappointed. This was one of the prettiest spots that I found, and I *thought* I was shooting it during a good time, but apparently not. My intention was to attempt another HDR but the clouds moved so that won't work at all. Anyways, it falls pretty flat so I figured it would be a good one to get some hardcore C&C on.

Dont be too nice, Im ready this time.

$14330542418_57960191dc_c.jpg

Here is a link to the larger file if it helps to see it bigger.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/33723628@N02/14330542418/
 
I'm just getting into this hobby but for me there's just nothing of interest. I mean the road is nice but it leads to nothing. Maybe if a storm was in the background or something significant it would be better. Fwiw I've taken tons of these pics as well. Like you, they seem to always fall flat.

Hooefully someone one with more wisdom will come along and chime in.
 
Because of the road at foreground the background wich should be the main object of this image looks flat. Personaly I'm not a fan of low points of view so I would crop the bottom part of the image. And the white balance settings is way too cold.
 
Too much rocky road, not enough ice cream...the rocky road at the foreground is soooooo wide,and sooo prominent in this photo that it makes the background look small. I'd say too short of a focal length to make the "scene" really pop. You were seeing with yuor eyes and brain, but the camera's vision was very different.
 
I will agree with the comments of previous folks. My main question that you have to answer is "What is the subject?" Is it the road or the hills in the background? Regardless, the image is a bit underexposed and could use some contrast - the trees in the middle ground seem to just fade into the hills in the background. As Derrel indicates, the camera does not see the scenery the way your eyes do. Personally, I would have tried the HDR to see what happened with the clouds. Most HDR programs can handles the "ghosting" that might occur with moving clouds.

WesternGuy
 
Too much rocky road, not enough ice cream...the rocky road at the foreground is soooooo wide,and sooo prominent in this photo that it makes the background look small. I'd say too short of a focal length to make the "scene" really pop. You were seeing with yuor eyes and brain, but the camera's vision was very different.

I'm thinking that Derrel again puts his finger on the key point. What we see and perceive has to be translated into what the camera will capture.

Deconstructing the image, the lower third is "rocky road" with the foreground out of focus. The upper third is sky, more or less featureless. The middle third has the "meat" but with sunset haven just happened, the whole scene is in shadow - there are no highlights.

The exposure seems to have been set to expose the road and sky properly, but the "meat" is underexposed. However, if the exposure is boosted, then the sky become "white" or even blown. So this is where the brain needs to translate what the eye sees, and instruct the camera. How important is the sky in this image? How important is the road? If they are not so important, then choosing a higher vantage point could reduce the amount of sky, and reduce the prominence of the road. The way the road curves and meanders IS interesting, but you may emphasize the lines by shooting at the edge of the road, where this line will be more clearly visible.

As for the exposure, it's under-exposed for the main subject, which I assume is the middle third. You could, in pinciple, reduce the sky brightness by using a graduated ND filter, or you could do a composite (sky one exposure, ground a different exposure).

As for the white balance, the scene is being illuminated by the blue sky, and therefore the overall color cast is blue. The "shade" setting on the WB dial is intended to compensate for that, or you could do a custom temperature like 7200K or 7600K to tell the camera that the primary light source is very blue.

In these kinds of situations, it helps (me at least), to verbalize what I am seeing, and what I think is important in the scene. Something like: " I love the deep rich greens of the hills, and the way the reddish road constrasts with the green. I love the redness in the rocks that are exposed here and there." That would then give me a clue as to what I need to put into the image (focal length choice, perspective, orientation), and where I would need to bias the exposure and the white balance.
 
If the camera were on a 6' tripod, I think it'd be a totally different picture. You'd be able to see down the road in the distance, leading to the mountains.
 
As everyone else has stated ...

The detailed rocks up front grabs your attention ... the rest of the photo is no longer the subject.
If taken from the side (off the road) where the road is not so prominent but leads the eye to the distance would help it alot.

Also ... moving clouds could be fun. with a good ND filter you can take a photo of the clouds moving ... something I've been playing with from this thread.
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...d-filters-anyone-have-various-nds-photos.html
 
Already mentioned: Camera perspective - height and focal length.

Light - poor quality and direction. A GND filter for the sky would have allowed correct exposure of the land. Or. You could blend 2 exposures - 1 correct for the sky. 1 correct for the land.

If you allowed edits, someone could edit your photo to demonstrate how a GND could have helped make the land a more integral and interesting part of the photo.

Insights From Beyond the Lens: Inside the Art & Craft of Landscape Photography
Landscape Photography: From Snapshots to Great Shots
National Audubon Society Guide to Landscape Photography
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Too much rocky road, not enough ice cream...the rocky road at the foreground is soooooo wide,and sooo prominent in this photo that it makes the background look small. I'd say too short of a focal length to make the "scene" really pop. You were seeing with yuor eyes and brain, but the camera's vision was very different.
MMMM ice cream. We made some homemade cookie dough ice creak the other night, rocky road might be next on the list!

Thanks for chiming in. I hadn't planned on this low point of view. But, long story short DH rolled the 4 wheeler and was very late getting back, so I was walking (and carrying a sleepy kiddo) up the path trying to figure out what was taking so long. By the time I found him, the light was almost gone, and I didn't have my tri pod with me, so I had to use the ground or not shoot at all. At least I have an idea of what to do next time!

I will agree with the comments of previous folks. My main question that you have to answer is "What is the subject?" Is it the road or the hills in the background? Regardless, the image is a bit underexposed and could use some contrast - the trees in the middle ground seem to just fade into the hills in the background. As Derrel indicates, the camera does not see the scenery the way your eyes do. Personally, I would have tried the HDR to see what happened with the clouds. Most HDR programs can handles the "ghosting" that might occur with moving clouds. WesternGuy
all I have for HDR is cs6, if it can handle ghosting, I'm not sure how to use that feature. As for the under exposure, as soon as I saw it in flickr I thought "is that underexposed" it looks slightly different in aperture for some reason. However, I suppose I chose that exposure because it was a "middle ground" between the sky and the mountain. The next exposure up isn't any better though.
If the camera were on a 6' tripod, I think it'd be a totally different picture. You'd be able to see down the road in the distance, leading to the mountains.
I'll take my tri pod next time and try to go a little earlier!
As everyone else has stated ... The detailed rocks up front grabs your attention ... the rest of the photo is no longer the subject. If taken from the side (off the road) where the road is not so prominent but leads the eye to the distance would help it alot. Also ... moving clouds could be fun. with a good ND filter you can take a photo of the clouds moving ... something I've been playing with from this thread. http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/359770-nd-filters-anyone-have-various-nds-photos.html
*sigh* a ND filter is on my list, but I am afraid to buy one until I finally get this new camera business settled.
 
crop the bottom 1/3 off. call it a panoramic shot. warm it up. add an ND filter in lightroom or something to the sky, add some saturation. see what it looks like
 
Already mentioned: Camera perspective - height and focal length. Light - poor quality and direction. A GND filter for the sky would have allowed correct exposure of the land. Or. You could blend 2 exposures - 1 correct for the sky. 1 correct for the land. If you allowed edits, someone could edit your photo to demonstrate how a GND could have helped make the land a more integral and interesting part of the photo. Insights From Beyond the Lens: Inside the Art & Craft of Landscape Photography Landscape Photography: From Snapshots to Great Shots National Audubon Society Guide to Landscape Photography
The reason I prefer people not to edit my photos is because I would rather them tell me how to do it myself. I *personally* don't learn best that way! and I will gain so much more knowledge if I can attempt it myself. If you know of any tutorials on how I can apply a GND filter in post, I would be delighted to give it a shot! I unsuccessfully attempted to composite a well exposed sky with a well exposed mountain, but I just could not get it to blend correctly. Is there a better way? Or do I just need to improve my technique?
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Already mentioned: Camera perspective - height and focal length. Light - poor quality and direction. A GND filter for the sky would have allowed correct exposure of the land. Or. You could blend 2 exposures - 1 correct for the sky. 1 correct for the land. If you allowed edits, someone could edit your photo to demonstrate how a GND could have helped make the land a more integral and interesting part of the photo. Insights From Beyond the Lens: Inside the Art & Craft of Landscape Photography Landscape Photography: From Snapshots to Great Shots National Audubon Society Guide to Landscape Photography
The reason I prefer people not to edit my photos is because I would rather them tell me how to do it myself. I *personally* don't learn best that way! and I will gain so much more knowledge if I can attempt it myself. If you know of any tutorials on how I can apply a GND filter in post, I would be delighted to give it a shot! I unsuccessfully attempted to composite a well exposed sky with a well exposed mountain, but I just could not get it to blend correctly. Is there a better way? Or do I just need to improve my technique?

But you would have the before and after photo. AND get instructions on how to get there.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
I didn't read the comments.

I think it just had too much road.

I'm bored at work and decided to give it a lick in Lightroom.

This is about 5 minutes tweaking on it.

I think it's a lovely image
 

Attachments

  • $14330542418_57960191dc_c-2.JPG
    $14330542418_57960191dc_c-2.JPG
    80 KB · Views: 168

Most reactions

Back
Top