C&C - Some Landscapes

[tevo]

I have recently taken an interest in landscape photography, and tried my hand while camping in Plumas National Forest this weekend. These are two of my favorites so far, I will definitely be posting more. I am looking to learn as much as possible, so any C&C is greatly appreciated. Both images were made on an x100s.

#1
Falls by trevorwillphoto, on Flickr

#2
Sierra Buttes by trevorwillphoto, on Flickr

 

[Monday]

Both images are awesome!

Did you do some PP on the trees? For some reason some of them on the bottom right side look off to me compared to the sharpness of the rest of the image

 

[tevo]

Both images are awesome!

Did you do some PP on the trees? For some reason some of them on the bottom right side look off to me compared to the sharpness of the rest of the image

Thanks!

I did not, just some contrast/saturation adjustments. I shot that hand held at f/8 I believe, it might be slightly out of focus.

 

[D7K]

2nd one is a nicer Landscape shot for me, 1st one is nice if just a little dark for myself.. Congrats and continue enjoying it!

 

[Monday]

Makes sense at f/8 and hand held would love to see that one redone with smaller aperture

 

[IzzieK]

Not a fan of slow exposure so I like #2 better. It is clearer and sharper.

 

[sscarmack]

What were you settings for 1? 30 seconds????

 

[tevo]

What were you settings for 1? 30 seconds????

Fujifilm x100s ISO 200 23mm f/8.0 125.0 sec

 

[Derrel]

My honest C&C on these. I think the 125 second shutter speed on the rocks + water is a bit too slow a speed. The rocks do not reveal themselves very much, and are rendered a bit darkly for my taste. As to the slow-speed water blurring, it's a technique that's becoming very much overdone these days. Once the "nature" or the "character" of a water flow is distorted too much, it becomes edifice, not reality; meanwhile, the non-moving landscape like rocks, which never move, not even in the wind, stand in start contrast. I don't want to offend you or diminish your endeavors, but this reallllly slow-speed water thing is like...selective color and overcooked HDR...it's rapidly becoming a go-to method for a lot of people, and it really does not advance a lot of scenes, but just looks like somebody saying, "Okay, let's pop on the 10-stop ND filter and see what we get if we leave the shutter open for two minutes or so."

I understand going to very slooooow-speed shots to build up water levels in small streams and creeks when the flows are minimal, like in the summer, but again, I prefer to be able to see at least some of the stream flow, the volume, and the natural flow of stream,s and rivers and creeks. I've spent a lot of my life fishing, and around rivers and creeks, and I like to see some hint of what the flow is really like, in its natural state.

The second shot is a majestic sight, but the processing does not look like the lighting I see; the shadows look excessively light, and the direction of the light looks oddly rendered. The shadow areas appear too bright, as if too much in-camera processing or post-capture "digital fill light" has overly lightened up what should be deeper, more-crisp shadows. The contrast of the scene looks significantly altered, and yet it's a very "real" type of subject rendered pretty straight forwardly. I think this would look better with a much more deep black-point as the basis for the entire image.

 

[tevo]

My honest C&C on these. I think the 125 second shutter speed on the rocks + water is a bit too slow a speed. The rocks do not reveal themselves very much, and are rendered a bit darkly for my taste. As to the slow-speed water blurring, it's a technique that's becoming very much overdone these days. Once the "nature" or the "character" of a water flow is distorted too much, it becomes edifice, not reality; meanwhile, the non-moving landscape like rocks, which never move, not even in the wind, stand in start contrast. I don't want to offend you or diminish your endeavors, but this reallllly slow-speed water thing is like...selective color and overcooked HDR...it's rapidly becoming a go-to method for a lot of people, and it really does not advance a lot of scenes, but just looks like somebody saying, "Okay, let's pop on the 10-stop ND filter and see what we get if we leave the shutter open for two minutes or so."

I understand going to very slooooow-speed shots to build up water levels in small streams and creeks when the flows are minimal, like in the summer, but again, I prefer to be able to see at least some of the stream flow, the volume, and the natural flow of stream,s and rivers and creeks. I've spent a lot of my life fishing, and around rivers and creeks, and I like to see some hint of what the flow is really like, in its natural state.

The second shot is a majestic sight, but the processing does not look like the lighting I see; the shadows look excessively light, and the direction of the light looks oddly rendered. The shadow areas appear too bright, as if too much in-camera processing or post-capture "digital fill light" has overly lightened up what should be deeper, more-crisp shadows. The contrast of the scene looks significantly altered, and yet it's a very "real" type of subject rendered pretty straight forwardly. I think this would look better with a much more deep black-point as the basis for the entire image.

Thanks for the C&C. I am pretty happy with the first image in that it is a close representation of how I visualized it while shooting. I played with various ND stops + exposure times (4s, 15s, 2m, 4m) and the flow of the water looked almost completely the same. This entire "waterfall" was maybe my height, so I wanted to play up the size of the water as well as give a cloudy/milky appearance to the stream for a B&W conversion. I do agree the rocks are a bit dark, here is a re-edit; I'm not sure which version I will end up keeping:

Falls v2 by trevorwillphoto, on Flickr


As for the second, I do feel that it was a bit overprocessed. I spent the entire trip trying to figure out how I could make the Buttes appear large- It was difficult because from most angles the only foreground content was the lake, and the surrounding hills made the Buttes look very small. I was walking up a road to get my tent when I realized that from that position I had trees / plants in the foreground and midground that would provide scale. Unfortunately, this was when the sun was still relatively high and the lighting wasn't ideal. You make a good point for the blacks, I re edited that as well. I like the second version a bit better, what do you think?

Sierra Buttes v2 by trevorwillphoto, on Flickr

 

[D-B-J]

Love the Sierra's shot. The first is nice, but I agree maybe a tad too dark, but that's just me.

Cheers!
Jake

 

[leeroix]

Is the first shot interesting without the water? I dunno? You need to start with something interesting, and the flowing water should merely enhance the shot...

 

[Derrel]

Oh my, yes, the second shot of the cgraggy peaks and the trees looks much better and more "impactful" with the blacks anchoring the shot. And you are totally right...the buttes appear small because of the focal length of the lens, and their distance...the only way to make the distant buttes appear larger is to use a longer focal length, and either front tilt on a view camera, or focus stacking on a fixed-body camera. There's really nothing you can do...unless you can quad-copter the camera out there another 3/4 mile...

One thing: the shadow that runs downhill in the foreground: just making that specific shadow DARKER has totally increased the impact of the foreground as a size gauge for the buttes. This is a case where a longer lens would literally, magnify the buttes on-film size, but to pull focus, you'd want a tilt/shift lens, or a view camera, or would probably need to focus stack a few frames. I'd burn down the upper right hand corner a bit, to contain it, but yeah, the second edit IS more-impactful, much improved.


You're rally starting to sound like a photographer though, with the analysis of the buttes/lake size/distance issue!

On the waterfall...I just wanna see some texture in all that white water. I cannot literally 'see' moving water, just white areas...not trying to pick on you or this...I just do not see the character of the water in the stream, but I DO see the rocks revealed well.

 

[tevo]

Love the Sierra's shot. The first is nice, but I agree maybe a tad too dark, but that's just me.

Cheers!
Jake

Thanks! Did you see the v2 edit? I lightened it up a bit. Interested to hear your opinion.

Is the first shot interesting without the water? I dunno? You need to start with something interesting, and the flowing water should merely enhance the shot...

This first shot accomplished a few things for me:

Firstly, I saw the dull colors of the rocks and the waterfall, and that made me envision a B&W photo since the water (with a CPL) would stand out against the rocks, which looked almost like granite. I visualized somewhat of a surreal scene while at the base of this particular sect of the stream, which is why I opted for a longer exposure. I was trying to emulate the cloudy water effect that I've seen other photographers use, and this didn't achieve the effect *exactly* but I was pleased with the result; it looked surreal. The rocks at this particular location also had less stray branches/leaves impeding my view of the water, so it was nice. Second, the shape of the falls formed a zig zag line, which I felt would create energy in the composition that reflected the energy of the falls. Lastly, if nothing else this was an exercise of a)composition and b)long exposure, as landscape composition is something entirely new to me, as is the usage of long exposure techniques. In these regards, the photo was successful for me. Whether or not it was successful as an impactful, interesting photo depends on the viewer. My dad is requesting a print of it, it was his favorite shot of mine in a while.

Oh my, yes, the second shot of the cgraggy peaks and the trees looks much better and more "impactful" with the blacks anchoring the shot. And you are totally right...the buttes appear small because of the focal length of the lens, and their distance...the only way to make the distant buttes appear larger is to use a longer focal length, and either front tilt on a view camera, or focus stacking on a fixed-body camera. There's really nothing you can do...unless you can quad-copter the camera out there another 3/4 mile...

One thing: the shadow that runs downhill in the foreground: just making that specific shadow DARKER has totally increased the impact of the foreground as a size gauge for the buttes. This is a case where a longer lens would literally, magnify the buttes on-film size, but to pull focus, you'd want a tilt/shift lens, or a view camera, or would probably need to focus stack a few frames. I'd burn down the upper right hand corner a bit, to contain it, but yeah, the second edit IS more-impactful, much improved.


You're rally starting to sound like a photographer though, with the analysis of the buttes/lake size/distance issue!

On the waterfall...I just wanna see some texture in all that white water. I cannot literally 'see' moving water, just white areas...not trying to pick on you or this...I just do not see the character of the water in the stream, but I DO see the rocks revealed well.

Thanks for the tips! Part of my goal for this trip was to do some night photography with the 14-24 and DSLR, and just carry the x100s for the rest of the time. I unfortunately had overcast skies the whole trip, so 95% of all the photos I made were with the x100s. I opted to do this because it forced me to consider composition and make use of what I had, without carrying my entire array of lenses. I may go back with a longer lens next time + focus stack (hadn't thought of that), as well as wait for better light.