i sucks at landscapes.

dannylightning · Oct 26, 2015

well here are some of the landscapes i have kept, i kind of like them but do not love them. i think the first 3 were taken at 10mm. but i was going for that really wide effect on those. last 2 pare probably around 18mm

than here is one that i do like. it was taken at 10mm .. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jcdeboever · Oct 26, 2015

Your a freak, there is nothing wrong with that... Now I will start the banging of my head on the wall with exposed scones. Maybe a little too much sky... bang... bang... You have a lot of talent.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

dannylightning · Oct 27, 2015

that is only 6 photos I have kept, I have deleted a few hundred lousy landscape photos that were no way near as good as those.. Compared to allot of landscapes I see others post I think those 6 photos look pretty poor.

Sent from my XT1028 using Tapatalk

D-B-J · Oct 27, 2015

They aren't bad, but the biggest thing I notice instantly is that, in every one, there's no clear subject. Landscape photography is ALL about composition, and these strike me as a "it looks nice with my eyes from here, so let's take a picture." That buildings got potential, but if you're going to shoot so wide, get close! The waterfall is nice, but it's lost in the frame. Get close! I've had my gear inches above the water and inches away from my subject when shooting ultra wide.

Really, you're at a good starting point; exposure and focus and processing all seem good. Now you just need to practice the composition bit.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

runnah · Oct 27, 2015

D-B-J said:
They aren't bad, but the biggest thing I notice instantly is that, in every one, there's no clear subject. Landscape photography is ALL about composition, and these strike me as a "it looks nice with my eyes from here, so let's take a picture." That buildings got potential, but if you're going to shoot so wide, get close! The waterfall is nice, but it's lost in the frame. Get close! I've had my gear inches above the water and inches away from my subject when shooting ultra wide.

Really, you're at a good starting point; exposure and focus and processing all seem good. Now you just need to practice the composition bit.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. I pass on so many good scenes because they lack a true focal point. The second photo posted by the OP almost pulls it off because the sidewalk creates nice lines that can replace a good subject.

dannylightning · Oct 27, 2015

that's pretty much how i have always tried to do it. looks nice, ill take a photo.

i went out this morning got a few shots. still not super happy, most were bad. i do like this one though. the rest were pretty bad, not much interesting going on where i was shooting i guess, good spot for birds but i guess not interesting landscapes.

the second photo is not bad i guess but still not great.

soufiej · Oct 27, 2015

Aaaah! The comedian who wishes to play Hamlet.

Elvis always wanted to be an actor who got roles similar to those offered to James Dean. He wasn't a James Dean. Yet, he changed the entire world in ways Dean has not. Don't know if it's true or not but I recently heard a comment on the music being listened to by the teenagers of today. According to this source, they still have Elvis on their music players but few have the Beatles or the Stones.

There certainly is nothing wrong and much to be said for developing your talents at something. When a question comes up as to how to learn a subject, one of my most often used pieces of advice is to find the lesson plan which speaks to you and stick with that lesson plan. Do not flop around chasing one shiny object after another.

Learning the basics and then developing your "style" within the totality of the subject is not without its benefits. Constantly trying to be something you have yet to learn about is not so good. The rough edges show a bit more than we'd prefer. Therefore, "sticking" to your bird photography isn't something to be seen as, "Cripes! I'm Elvis, I have changed the world and here I am doing 'Harum Scarum'."

The '68 Comeback was just around the corner.

Looking at your examples, I would tend to say your "problem" with landscapes (which aren't always landscapes) is you suffer from the "Up" syndrome. If you don't remember, here's the often imitated scene that has the dog explaining his ability to speak;

That's where a lot of photographers are. "Let's see, I have my camera set to f 2.8 and the exposure compensation to WATER!!!"

"OK, I'll try the 18-55 on this scene and maybe set ISO at 1 TREES!!!!"

It's not you, it's the equipment that makes you do it. Blame the equipment.

What you see by way of your cognitive perception is not what the camera is going to record. You see a dynamic range which the camera cannot capture and you see well beyond the limits of your lens' focal length. You have a sense of what came before and what is occurring as you take the photo. You see in your mind a perception that will be a great photo when you get to your computer in a few hours.

Your camera, on the other hand, has none of that and is only going to respond to the manner in which you use it. I find this to be a particularly vexing issue with today's cameras; they have no perception, only a somewhat poor facsimile of reality. I'm constantly finding reasons to blame my gear for not seeing what I perceive. Stupid camera!

This "cognition" thing is a bit like the Zen style musician who can play one note and express everything the world is about in that one single note. The wavering, quivering, bent and unbent, attacked and struck, played and played upon, sustaining and ultimately decaying note.

Then there are the rest of us who can simply play "a note".

There was a question on this forum a while back where a student photographer asked what was wrong with their photos. They felt they lacked dynamics, particularly in the skies. "Well", I said, "skies have to have something going on before there can be drama in the sky in your photo."

"Oh, OK, thanks, I never thought of that."

"And one thing you will find with most non-professional photographers is we are on a schedule. We are not getting paid to be in one location for a week coming back to that same location a dozen or two dozen times to decipher just when during the day that location looks its best for a photograph. The non-professional tends to walk up to a spot, take a photo and then walk away. What we get is often not that interesting because we weren't waiting for the materials of photography, the lights and shadows, to develop into something more than a rather mundane image we could form into a something with our tools, the camera and lens."

"Well, I was on vacation and had to get back on the bus."

Those would be my first comments on your "landscapes".

Next, where do you go to shoot your landscapes? You live in Ohio if your info is correct. What's in Ohio as far as landscapes? Certainly, last time I looked there were no majestic mountain vistas or dramatic 1,000' waterfalls. There were farms and more farms and a few WATER!!!

Sorry, I got distracted.

Ohio is mostly flat with a lot of agriculture and some HOUSE!!!

I hate it when that keeps happening.

So let's go back to bird photography which is spur of the moment shooting and speed and quickness TREES!!!

OK, this is going nowhere. Maybe you get my point.

Save the wide lenses for what a wide lens does best; How to Use Ultra-Wide Lenses

Finally, there needs to be a bit of discussion ROAD!!!

DAMN!

No, DAM!!!

FORK IN THE ROAD!!!!!!!!

OK, this just isn't going to work out today.

Don't ignore what you can do in post production;

Good lu SQUIRREL!

vintagesnaps · Oct 27, 2015

I think you're getting a little too much in the photos, my inclination would be to crop the right or left side on some and bring the viewer more into the picture.

For example I like the one of the lock, but probably would have framed it differently - it could probably go either way, crop some of the water and trees to the right or some of the left side and keep more of the water. It to me almost makes for two pictures.

Think about what you want someone to see, what's the picture about? Take a minute to move around and see if you get something you like better in the viewfinder.

I think you're on the right track, it takes practice. I actually like the last one but I think it could be better if it wasn't such a wide scene. Or could be two pictures, one with some of the sky to the left or one that emphasizes the pattern of the trees to the right which I like (and I'd like to see the reflection not quite so chopped off, probably framing a little lower, would've gotten more reflection and less boring gray sky along the top of the frame).

jcdeboever · Oct 27, 2015

soufiej said:
Aaaah! The comedian who wishes to play Hamlet.

Elvis always wanted to be an actor who got roles similar to those offered to James Dean. He wasn't a James Dean. Yet, he changed the entire world in ways Dean has not. Don't know if it's true or not but I recently heard a comment on the music being listened to by the teenagers of today. According to this source, they still have Elvis on their music players but few have the Beatles or the Stones.

There certainly is nothing wrong and much to be said for developing your talents at something. When a question comes up as to how to learn a subject, one of my most often used pieces of advice is to find the lesson plan which speaks to you and stick with that lesson plan. Do not flop around chasing one shiny object after another.

Learning the basics and then developing your "style" within the totality of the subject is not without its benefits. Constantly trying to be something you have yet to learn about is not so good. The rough edges show a bit more than we'd prefer. Therefore, "sticking" to your bird photography isn't something to be seen as, "Cripes! I'm Elvis, I have changed the world and here I am doing 'Harum Scarum'."

The '68 Comeback was just around the corner.

Looking at your examples, I would tend to say your "problem" with landscapes (which aren't always landscapes) is you suffer from the "Up" syndrome. If you don't remember, here's the often imitated scene that has the dog explaining his ability to speak;

That's where a lot of photographers are. "Let's see, I have my camera set to f 2.8 and the exposure compensation to WATER!!!"

"OK, I'll try the 18-55 on this scene and maybe set ISO at 1 TREES!!!!"

It's not you, it's the equipment that makes you do it. Blame the equipment.

What you see by way of your cognitive perception is not what the camera is going to record. You see a dynamic range which the camera cannot capture and you see well beyond the limits of your lens' focal length. You have a sense of what came before and what is occurring as you take the photo. You see in your mind a perception that will be a great photo when you get to your computer in a few hours.

Your camera, on the other hand, has none of that and is only going to respond to the manner in which you use it. I find this to be a particularly vexing issue with today's cameras; they have no perception, only a somewhat poor facsimile of reality. I'm constantly finding reasons to blame my gear for not seeing what I perceive. Stupid camera!

This "cognition" thing is a bit like the Zen style musician who can play one note and express everything the world is about in that one single note. The wavering, quivering, bent and unbent, attacked and struck, played and played upon, sustaining and ultimately decaying note.

Then there are the rest of us who can simply play "a note".

There was a question on this forum a while back where a student photographer asked what was wrong with their photos. They felt they lacked dynamics, particularly in the skies. "Well", I said, "skies have to have something going on before there can be drama in the sky in your photo."

"Oh, OK, thanks, I never thought of that."

"And one thing you will find with most non-professional photographers is we are on a schedule. We are not getting paid to be in one location for a week coming back to that same location a dozen or two dozen times to decipher just when during the day that location looks its best for a photograph. The non-professional tends to walk up to a spot, take a photo and then walk away. What we get is often not that interesting because we weren't waiting for the materials of photography, the lights and shadows, to develop into something more than a rather mundane image we could form into a something with our tools, the camera and lens."

"Well, I was on vacation and had to get back on the bus."

Those would be my first comments on your "landscapes".

Next, where do you go to shoot your landscapes? You live in Ohio if your info is correct. What's in Ohio as far as landscapes? Certainly, last time I looked there were no majestic mountain vistas or dramatic 1,000' waterfalls. There were farms and more farms and a few WATER!!!

Sorry, I got distracted.

Ohio is mostly flat with a lot of agriculture and some HOUSE!!!

I hate it when that keeps happening.

So let's go back to bird photography which is spur of the moment shooting and speed and quickness TREES!!!

OK, this is going nowhere. Maybe you get my point.

Save the wide lenses for what a wide lens does best; How to Use Ultra-Wide Lenses

Finally, there needs to be a bit of discussion ROAD!!!

DAMN!

No, DAM!!!

FORK IN THE ROAD!!!!!!!!

OK, this just isn't going to work out today.

Don't ignore what you can do in post production;

Good lu SQUIRREL!

Great link on ultra wides. It is everything I was doing wrong.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

encom_ · Oct 27, 2015

I like the second photo of the first set! Personaly, I would have tried taking it from a lower point of view. Any way, they are better than what I currently get.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

dannylightning · Oct 27, 2015

soufiej said:
Aaaah! The comedian who wishes to play Hamlet.

Elvis always wanted to be an actor who got roles similar to those offered to James Dean. He wasn't a James Dean. Yet, he changed the entire world in ways Dean has not. Don't know if it's true or not but I recently heard a comment on the music being listened to by the teenagers of today. According to this source, they still have Elvis on their music players but few have the Beatles or the Stones.

There certainly is nothing wrong and much to be said for developing your talents at something. When a question comes up as to how to learn a subject, one of my most often used pieces of advice is to find the lesson plan which speaks to you and stick with that lesson plan. Do not flop around chasing one shiny object after another.

Learning the basics and then developing your "style" within the totality of the subject is not without its benefits. Constantly trying to be something you have yet to learn about is not so good. The rough edges show a bit more than we'd prefer. Therefore, "sticking" to your bird photography isn't something to be seen as, "Cripes! I'm Elvis, I have changed the world and here I am doing 'Harum Scarum'."

The '68 Comeback was just around the corner.

Looking at your examples, I would tend to say your "problem" with landscapes (which aren't always landscapes) is you suffer from the "Up" syndrome. If you don't remember, here's the often imitated scene that has the dog explaining his ability to speak;

That's where a lot of photographers are. "Let's see, I have my camera set to f 2.8 and the exposure compensation to WATER!!!"

"OK, I'll try the 18-55 on this scene and maybe set ISO at 1 TREES!!!!"

It's not you, it's the equipment that makes you do it. Blame the equipment.

What you see by way of your cognitive perception is not what the camera is going to record. You see a dynamic range which the camera cannot capture and you see well beyond the limits of your lens' focal length. You have a sense of what came before and what is occurring as you take the photo. You see in your mind a perception that will be a great photo when you get to your computer in a few hours.

Your camera, on the other hand, has none of that and is only going to respond to the manner in which you use it. I find this to be a particularly vexing issue with today's cameras; they have no perception, only a somewhat poor facsimile of reality. I'm constantly finding reasons to blame my gear for not seeing what I perceive. Stupid camera!

This "cognition" thing is a bit like the Zen style musician who can play one note and express everything the world is about in that one single note. The wavering, quivering, bent and unbent, attacked and struck, played and played upon, sustaining and ultimately decaying note.

Then there are the rest of us who can simply play "a note".

There was a question on this forum a while back where a student photographer asked what was wrong with their photos. They felt they lacked dynamics, particularly in the skies. "Well", I said, "skies have to have something going on before there can be drama in the sky in your photo."

"Oh, OK, thanks, I never thought of that."

"And one thing you will find with most non-professional photographers is we are on a schedule. We are not getting paid to be in one location for a week coming back to that same location a dozen or two dozen times to decipher just when during the day that location looks its best for a photograph. The non-professional tends to walk up to a spot, take a photo and then walk away. What we get is often not that interesting because we weren't waiting for the materials of photography, the lights and shadows, to develop into something more than a rather mundane image we could form into a something with our tools, the camera and lens."

"Well, I was on vacation and had to get back on the bus."

Those would be my first comments on your "landscapes".

Next, where do you go to shoot your landscapes? You live in Ohio if your info is correct. What's in Ohio as far as landscapes? Certainly, last time I looked there were no majestic mountain vistas or dramatic 1,000' waterfalls. There were farms and more farms and a few WATER!!!

Sorry, I got distracted.

Ohio is mostly flat with a lot of agriculture and some HOUSE!!!

I hate it when that keeps happening.

So let's go back to bird photography which is spur of the moment shooting and speed and quickness TREES!!!

OK, this is going nowhere. Maybe you get my point.

Save the wide lenses for what a wide lens does best; How to Use Ultra-Wide Lenses

Finally, there needs to be a bit of discussion ROAD!!!

DAMN!

No, DAM!!!

FORK IN THE ROAD!!!!!!!!

OK, this just isn't going to work out today.

Don't ignore what you can do in post production;

Good lu SQUIRREL!

you lost me here, not trying to be rude but i read your message 2 or 3 times now and i just keep going UUUHHHHHHH what...

i get how to use the wide angle lens. but being me, i try out all kinds of diffident things to see what i can do with it. i see something and think maybe this would look cook with the 10mm so i bust it out.. i have not used the lens much yet but with the bit of playing around i figured out what works, what kind of works and what does not really work with it.

at my local spot i did not really see anyting that could be the star of the photo except for that red house. in the other photo i guess i tried to make the bit tree the star.. i cropped some of the water out and it looks a bit better. i actually kind of like the sky in that, boring yet has a bit going on there too.

i do see how i was trying to go too wide on allot of the photos i snapped, i did not think they looked that wide till i viewed them on the computer. i was using the 18-200mm lens and i was probably between 50-100mm for most of the shots. but ill just have to play around a see what works or what does not i guess.

thanks to everyone who posted, there is some good advice in this thread.

Derrel · Oct 27, 2015

You are not the first person to have difficulty making satisfying landscapes. The MAIN reason yuo come back and are disappointed is that you have not yet learned to see and to perceive what your LENS is recording. In your park shots, your ultra-wide angle use is KILLING the shots. Your brain can literally see and enjoy the things in the scene, with the selectivity and the filtering-and-reconstructing that the brain brings to visual perception.

Your first sidewalk shot...boring. Why? A sidewalk that is 4x wider than the trees behind it....that's just NOT any kind of idealized reality...the second sidewalk shot as runnah said almost makes the grade, because the sidewalk is large, but it is also forked, and a substantial foreground element...buuuuut....the focal length is KILLING the backgrounds.

Your waterfall shot...same problem: the concrete area to the left is larger than the whole danged waterfall and creek, because it is closest to the camera and the focal length is too short.

You need to become aware that lens focal length has a huuuuuuuuuge effect on the way the lens renders the world! The very short focal lengths you have at your disposal are absolutely the worst lengths for landscapes of this scale. Using really,really short lenses on full-size outdoor landscapes causes very large things, like 90 foot-tall trees, to appear TINY, and make insignificant things like sidewalks and small patches of concrete larger,physically,measurably, obviously, indisputably, much larger and more prominent than they ought to be.

The very short lens lengths cause tremendous exaggeration of the size of foreground objects, and a significant decrease in the size of mid-ground objects, and a ridiculously exaggerated miniaturizing and diminishing effect on background objects. Using an 11mm or 12mm focal length is one thing when it is done inside of a living room, but at a city park, it leads to scenes where the objects all look small, far-away, and not very engaging. You say you "get how to use the wide-angle lens." But no, you obviously do not yet fully understand how to work with it.

dannylightning · Oct 27, 2015

no, i get the wide angle. i just have not really used it that way yet.. now if you tell me i used it wrong here than i guess i do not know how to use it.. but i am sure i really don't know how to take a good landscape yet lol.

here are a few more wide angle shots where i think i used it correctly and was very close to what i was shooting but was not thrilled with the shots.

DSC_0108 by Daniel Caldwell, on Flickr

DSC_0061 by Daniel Caldwell, on Flickr

DSC_6631-2 by Daniel Caldwell, on Flickr