How could I improve these 3 photos?

[hifitie]

I am looking for CC on these pictures.

1.

Focal 14mm
Aperture 4.5
ISO 100
Shutter 1/3200
Aperture Priority

2.

Focal Length 18mm
Aperture 7.1
ISO 100
Shutter 10
Manual Mode

3.

Focal 38mm
Aperture 5.6
Shutter 1/800
ISO 100
Mode: Priority Aperture
For the first picture I was trying to capture a tropical scene. I thought the way the tree pointed to the ocean shifted the viewers eyes to the water instead of the ugly buildings on the horizon. I don't like how "fuzzy" it came out even though it was in focus.

The second picture I wanted to give the photo a dreamy look. I think I accomplished this, it is my favorite of the bunch

For the last one I wanted to practice framing and capture the rugged deserted look of the building in the desert.

How could I improve these, do you guys like any of them?

 

[GoProPhotographer]

For the first photo, shooting at a smaller aperture (Larger number) would have brought more of the photo into focus. I'm not sure where you focused the lens for this shot but the DOF would come out quite shallow shooting at the aperture you did.

I like the ethereal look of number 2.

 

[tirediron]

Moving to the Landscape Gallery.

 

[KmH]

For the first photo, shooting at a smaller aperture (Larger number) would have brought more of the photo into focus.

I disagree.

I'm not sure where you focused the lens for this shot but the DOF would come out quite shallow shooting at the aperture you did.

The DoF is as deep as it's going to get (see below) if a crop sensor camera was used. The far DoF limit is already at infinity in #1.
DoF is also affected by lens focal length and point of focus distance, which is why those values have to entered into a DoF calculator Online Depth of Field Calculator.
A 14 mm lens will produce a very much deeper DoF at f/4.5 than a telephoto lens, like a 200 mm lens will. Lens aperture has lots less effect on total DoF than point of focus distance.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm

I suspect the issues with sharpness are more related to lens quality (cheap UV filter on the lens for 'protection'?) and a bad time of day to be shooting landscapes. i/3200 is plenty fast enough to eliminate camera shake blur as an issue.

I picked a crop sensor camera (7D). (if a camera with a smaller image sensor was used, like a 4/3rd sensor camera, the DoF will be even deeper.

Note that focusing 10 feet further into the scene doesn't change much as far as DoF is concerned.

 

[pgriz]

#1 – the basic shapes are good. There seems to be a small tilt to the right. The killer to me is the background detail (buildings on the far shore) which takes away from the mood you’re trying to create. If you had stepped maybe three steps to your left, and reframed the tree, I’m thinking you would have eliminated that distraction. I know you were trying to hide the buildings behind the tree, but in a larger image, they are still too clear.

#2 – basic approach is good. You’re getting the “milky” water feeling with a long exposure. Now you need to play around with the cropping to make sure you’re keeping the eyeballs where you want them. That little bit of brightness at the left side is competing with the main body at the middle right. The horizon also looks a tiny bit tilted.

#3 – the portrait orientation doesn’t really work here. I think I see what you were trying to do, but the image doesn’t convey your intent very well. “deserted” would be better seen if the building had more space around it, and if its location was off to the side, both of which would help us figure out what we “should” be seeing.

 

[Rafterman]

1) Seems really heavy on the left and the horizon appears tilted. Some cropping and a simple transform would fix that. The buildings in the distance would have been nice to see. Moving towards the tree and to the right would have let them be viewable under the branches.

2) The hill on the right that cuts off the continuity of the water on the horizon sort of bothers me, and the dark patch of water on the left doesn't help either because it draws my eyes away from the great mist in the middle. A simple crop would fix both issues and make me REALLY enjoy this image.

3) Unfortunately, this image didn't do much for me in its current form. The portrait view doesn't fit for me, and the shack is too far away to be a strong point in the photo. Plus, shooting this at high noon took a lot of blue from the sky, turned all the tall cacti into silhouettes, and makes the roof of the shack too bright with the front of it too dark. Edit out that blurry bird blip in the sky too. I'd like this photo a whole lot more if it was shot landscape style at 5 or 6pm after you took several steps forward and made the shack a stronger main point of interest by having it fill more of the frame. The sky would be deep blue and the cacti would have a nice green glow about them. Then it would really rock.

They certainly aren't poor images to be sure. I would just enjoy them a lot more with the noted suggestions. :thumbup: