Landscape Critique

[crzyfotopeeple]

I have been lurking on the forum for quite some time now. Finally found some time to upload a few images for critique. I have seen a lot of great stuff on this forum and figured I could use some input. All comments welcome. Thanks.

 

[Light Guru]

Compositionally they are not all that interesting. Also watch those crooked horizons.

 

[crzyfotopeeple]

Yeah. I see what you mean about the horizons. Thanks for the reply.

 

[HikinMike]

I agree with 'Light Guru', especially being level. It looks like if you waited after sunset, the colors could have been more impressive. As for the leveling, just remember that the reflected parts should line up vertically with the non-reflected parts.

 

[pgriz]

I'm thinking you shot about 1/2 hour too late for the first one. The foreground is rather grey. With the second one, you essentially have a back-lit scene, with the foreground in shadow. You either will need to use a graduated neutral density filter to reduce the difference in illumination between the upper (sky) and the lower halfs, OR do two shots with appropriate exposures (one for the sky, another 3-4 stops more for the ground) and combine in post. Of course, the fact that you also have reflections in the foreground complicates the matching up of the exposures. This may be one place where some HDR will help.

 

[crzyfotopeeple]

Would bracketing have helped on the second one? I guess that's what I would need to do anyway for HDR. Would a camera with better dynamic range make any difference or is it just pretty much user error? Sorry. Lot of different questions posed.

 

[HikinMike]

Would bracketing have helped on the second one? I guess that's what I would need to do anyway for HDR. Would a camera with better dynamic range make any difference or is it just pretty much user error? Sorry. Lot of different questions posed.

Yes. I would have taken at least two, one for the sky and one for the foreground. I personally use Layer Masks to hand blend them in Photoshop. I wrote a short article a few years ago and you can read it in my sig.

Also, I've used Tony Kuyper's Luminosity Masks too: Tony Kuyper Photography—Writing

 

[WesternGuy]

I would agree with most of the comments made so far. My first thought when I looked at these was "What is the subject?", particularly the first one. I am assuming that the subject in both is the sky and the clouds and there is nothing that really stands out to tell me this. Maybe, as others have suggested, it might have been better had you waited for some more colour in the sky/clouds. In the second one, there is a reflection of a bush in the water that interferes with, or detracts from, the reflection of the cloud. I might have moved to a different location so that I could get an unencumbered cloud reflection in the water. HTH.

WesternGuy

 

[crzyfotopeeple]

Yeah. I see what you mean about not really having a subject of interest in the shot. I thought the clouds looked kinda nice with the colors in the water but I could have waited for better light. I know there is a lot of noise as well (in the 2nd one) because of trying to bring up the shadows.

 

[Stormchase]

You had an idea when you shot these. Thats a good thing. Using reflections, rule of thirds.. I can't add much more on top of the others.

 

[D-B-J]

The biggest issue is a lack of a foreground subject. Wide angle landscapes almost ALWAYS need a foreground element to anchor the photo. These do not have that, which really hurts the composition. Looks like some beautiful scenes, and I definitely think you are off to a good start.

Jake

 

[crzyfotopeeple]

Thanks Jake. I think a lot of my landscape shots so far are suffering from a lack of a really good foreground element. Something I'm definitely going to keep in mind next time I go out to shoot landscape.