Don't usually shoot landscapes. This may be why haha 2 for cc

[TylerF]

went on a walk today. havent had time to shoot anything so even though, im not into landscape stuff, I brought my camera. let me know what you think. I can take it haha

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Both of these seem like two images in one because you have water/tree divisions dead center.

 

[TylerF]

Very true. I noticed that. I personally like the second one more.

 

[Seekwence]

Yeah, I don't like the 50/50 split either. Also, did you think about trying a *much* slower shutter speed?

 

[Ajlista]

I was thinking the same, if you bring the shutter down, really makes the water looks nice, i cant wait to try a shot like it

 

[Kbarredo]

Yes a slower shutterspeed would have been much better. The still water is reflecting alot of light and its very distracting. slowing shutter would have made the water look misty and less distracting reflections.

 

[Dao]

I think a CPL may help in cutting down the reflections.

Of course, different time of the day maybe better.

 

[o hey tyler]

Usually landscape photography is done with the camera in landscape orientation... (But this isn't true always)

I find that if something looks pleasing to you in portrait, that it's fun to also shoot in in landscape with a different composition to see what might work better.

 

[bazooka]

Usually landscape photography is done with the camera in landscape orientation... (But this isn't true always)

While it may be true that most "landscape photography" is done in horizontal, that doesn't mean that it is more effective. Landscapes shot vertical are often much more effective at showing depth than a horizontal crop. Most "front to back" landscape shots are vertical. Just as a quick poll, I looked at the "Landscape Exhibition" group on Flickr which puts up good stuff. On the first page, 30% of the shots are vertical and they are very effective shots. I suppose my argument is that perhaps if more people *considered* turning their camera 90 degrees, their shots would be even more effective.

OP, I agree that a CPL filter would have helped your shot here because the water, as it is, just isn't interesting. You might also try placing something in the foreground, such as a rock jutting out of the water, or anything 'interesting'. The vertical crop leads my eye from bottom to top, but there isn't anything interesting at the bottom to draw my eye back once I get done with my scan so it's a static composition with no reason to take more than a glance at it.

The harsh daylight isn't working in your favor either as you've lost all detail in the shadows of the trees. You probably could have recovered some detail in RAW processing.

 

[o hey tyler]

Usually landscape photography is done with the camera in landscape orientation... (But this isn't true always)

While it may be true that most "landscape photography" is done in horizontal, that doesn't mean that it is more effective. Landscapes shot vertical are often much more effective at showing depth than a horizontal crop. Most "front to back" landscape shots are vertical. Just as a quick poll, I looked at the "Landscape Exhibition" group on Flickr which puts up good stuff. On the first page, 30% of the shots are vertical and they are very effective shots. I suppose my argument is that perhaps if more people *considered* turning their camera 90 degrees, their shots would be even more effective.

You realize that I was simply suggesting that he try both orientations, don't you? 70% (in landscape orientation) is usually more than 30% (portrait).

 

[bazooka]

I do realize that 70% > 30%. But I don't want him to think that shooting a landscape vertically is a rare thing. The most striking landscapes in my opinion are vertical, although I realize that is subjective. I think he probably made the right choice here.

 

[SrBiscuit]

i agree with grabbing an ND filter, and slowing it down a bit.

 

[GreatPhotoRace]

Try the Rule of Thirds when composing your shots. Bitter Jeweler is right in that it looks like two images. These two photos look like they were shot at eye-level which can be a bit boring. Go down lower, find an angle, and your shots will be more interesting.

I'll also third the ND/Slower shutter speed.

-GPR

 

[TylerF]

I personally don't like landscapes lol. I had a cpl filter on but I wanted to bring contrast out in the sky. I didn't bring a tripod and was straddled between 2 rocks so a slow shutter speed was a no go.

I just haven't picked my camera up in months so I figured I would bring it. I'm more into portraits and automotive stuff. Thanks though. I have to get back into the swing of things lol

 

[waikiki]

Second photo is OK.
I think the movement of the water is captured pretty good, this give some dynamic to the photo.
The vertical landscape is very hard to do, but if you get lucky this vertical photo might be one of your best landscape ever.

You have to be careful not to divide the image in half.

This is landscape photography, sometimes you find something beautiful , something you know that looks good but camera does not, you have to compose it very carefully and make sure you emphasizing what you like and hiding what you do not like.

Here are couple tips;

Landscapes with water, use the polarization filter, this will help you to control the light reflection. If you like what you see through the water show it, if you like the white reflection in the water turn the polarization but be careful, reflection in the water with most likely come out overexposed.

As Far as composition.

I would come closer to the big rock, get lower so the rock would take about 30% of the photo.
That way we will have 30% big rock, %40 water, and hopefully you could expose a little bit more sky.

I might be wrong maybe you do not have to lower te camera, maybe just bring it up.

Point of view of the camera is very important.