[cprobertson1]

Sounds like a plan!

Thanks for all the tips, folks! I'll hopefully start posting up images soon. I'm just back from holiday though, so I have some to process from that as well (though I didn't get as many chances as I thought I might!).

There is literally tonnes of advice on this thread, I'm going to distill it down soon into a number of bulletpoints and post it back up here too

Got a few good shots of the Baths of Antoninus, but I've still to curate them properly

I've attached one of the pics (one of the only "real" landsacapes I took) - I'm afraid I didn't have much control of the location, but I like it all the same


28mm (42mm@35mm) at F/8, 1/800

--EDIT--
Just noticed the land has a slight magenta tinge - I'll need to sort that!

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by cprobertson1; 06-23-2019 at 11:33 PM.

[biz-engineer]

Just noticed the land has a slight magenta tinge - I'll need to sort that!

Looks like a land, without any scape, or a scape without the land. Try to add features on top of the background, tree, waterfalls, fields , rocks, mountains. Anything will improve.

[cprobertson1]

Looks like a land, without any scape, or a scape without the land. Try to add features on top of the background, tree, waterfalls, fields , rocks, mountains. Anything will improve.

Teehee that made me giggle

Look, I put EVERYTHING you mentioned there in my pic, okay!?! It's hardly my fault that the trees, waterfalls, rocks, fields and mountains were between 50'000ft and 1'370'000ft away2 so you can't make them out!!!1

1Don't worry, that was a joke! Aye, it's definitely not a "complete" image - but as I said, I like it despite it's failings. It's certainly the purest landscape I took on holiday... consisting almost entirely of "land" and some sky - which actually looked like that OOC thanks to the polariser and the altitude we were at - the curvature of the window compressed the gradient a bit as well which is why it's not as stretched out as you'd expect - plus there is some vignetting but I don't know what actually caused that because it's only at the top of the image - I can only assume that I captured some of the window - but in that case, why didn;t I also capture the sides of the window? ::shrugs::

As for the composition, I'm afraid my options were particularly limited by flying at 46'000ft with a tiny FoV that didn't include the aircraft itself! Now, I tried to get the pilot to take me on a quick safari at fifty feet above the ground... but he told me that would be unsafe and asked how on earth I got in the cockpit without anybody noticing and then told me where I could go... back to my seat!

2Based on an observer 46'000ft in the air, with an approximate horizontal distance of 260 miles and a field of view of approximately 60° above and below the horizon (I actually suspect it was closer to +/-45° which would have made the minimum distance 65'000ft)



--EDIT--
Come to think of it, I'm not actually sure I'd have been able to put anything in the foreground of this image: if I moved the camera back you'd have the frame of the cabin window in the way and lose the expansiveness of the world below - especially when the window is barely head-sized and overlaps with the seat in front ::scratches chin::

Best bet would have been for a bird flying by - but at mach 0.65-0.7, it wouldn't have been in-frame very long... so that just leaves Douglas Adam's bowl of petunias/falling whales, which are unfortunately infinitely improbable...

[rogerstg]

I'm afraid composition options are particularly limited when you're flying at 46'000ft

True, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Still, you might want to look into composition techniques, particularly the rule of thirds. It's a good starting point and would add a bit of interest. Here it is after cropping:

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[cprobertson1]

True, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Still, you might want to look into composition techniques, particularly the rule of thirds. It's a good starting point and would add a bit of interest.

Interesting! See, usually I would quite happily put the horizon on the upper/lower third - I don't know why I didn't this time! ::scratches chin::

I must have been distracted and/or simply forgot about it! My bad!

I also didn't check the composition when I was developing the RAW - didn't even think of it - I was more concerned with removing the blue tinge (atmospheres ruin everything!) and didn't even think of checking everything else - that's definitely a place I can improve - not thinking is simply not an excuse!

I've actually realised that I didn't take many landscape photos when I was in Tunisia - the closest I came was at Carthage (well, the ruins of the Roman bathhouse that was in the city built over the remains of Carthage) - but I'm not actually sure how many of those shots count as "landscapes" rather than architecture shots. I did also get a few night shots over Hammamet from the roof of the hotel - but apart from that I don't think I got any photos that I'd say "that is a good landscape shot". ::strokes chin::

Oh well!

In that case, I shall just need to plan more and get some shots back on the home front!

---------- Post added 06-24-19 at 06:49 AM ----------

Ps - you can definitely see the difference when it's cropped right!

[biz-engineer]

It's hardly my fault that the trees, waterfalls, rocks, fields and mountains were between 50'000ft and 1'370'000ft away2 so you can't make them out!!!1

Correct. You touch an important point here: painting is an additive process, landscape photography is the other way around, that is the problem. While you can add things and move subjects and lighting in a studio environment, you can't do the same for a landscape photo. Your choice for landscape photography is not to photograph what doesn't include nice looking elements in the frame.

[cprobertson1]

Correct. You touch an important point here: painting is an additive process, landscape photography is the other way around, that is the problem. While you can add things and move subjects and lighting in a studio environment, you can't do the same for a landscape photo. Your choice for landscape photography is not to photograph what doesn't include nice looking elements in the frame.

Very true! Insightful, even! We touched upon that exact topic earlier - but something clicked with your wording there: "what was I trying to capture?" - and in this case it was actually how deep the sky was... So why is it that my photo has less than half of it dedicated to the sky? Good question!

Ps - I meat to say, sorry if I came across as cheeky =( I mean, I *was* being cheeky, but I was trying to be lighthearted/playful about the lack of control I had, rather than just being insolent! Hopefully you realised that already - but I wanted to apologise anyway, just in case!

[civiletti]

For me, it's a compelling scene that gets my photographic passions going. Many photogs are able to make great images of whatever is around, but I've not gotten there yet. You can check out my landscapes here: TOM CIVILETTI?s albums | Flickr

[iheiramo]

One last thought...when it's handy, have you considered using your bike as your tripod? Maybe you could use some kind of clamp to mount your camera to the handlebars or center column of your bike, in lieu of using an actual tripod.

Took some time to do this, as I wanted to make test example as cheaply as possible. Ordered an ball head and an clamp designed for action cameras from ebay for about 20€. I had to modify the clamp with some tools to fit 1/4" bolt in it to connect the parts. Result was a small bikepod that, based on test shots, is sturdy enough for K1ii with smaller lenses. Thought in this picture K30 is mounted on it.

[TaoMaas]

Cool! Nice job! Looks like it'll let you do tripod things without actually having to carry a tripod.

[monochrome]

Brilliant idea! I need to start thinking how to attach the tripod head to handle bar. There must be usable clamp in bike accessories that can be modified for the use.

Took some time to do this, as I wanted to make test example as cheaply as possible. Ordered an ball head and an clamp designed for action cameras from ebay for about 20€. I had to modify the clamp with some tools to fit 1/4" bolt in it to connect the parts. Result was a small bikepod that, based on test shots, is sturdy enough for K1ii with smaller lenses. Thought in this picture K30 is mounted on it.

For thr somewhat less industrious among us:

Manfrotto Super Clamp + Reversible Short Stud

Digital Photography Gear How-To article

[Take-5-JB]

cprobertson1,

That is a documentary "landscape" as you would not expect it to place in an exhibition, or sell as art. It would serve in an article or book to illustrate the geography/topography. You need to clone out the two aberrations in the upper third quadrant to clean up. Keep playing with things and develop your style.

JB

[R.Miller]

Goooood morning ladies and gentlemen!

TL;DR -- I would like to try my hand at some landscape photography. I have tried in the past, but let's face it, I'm not good at it. I'm barely mediocre, and I'd like to improve!

---

The problem is that my images just aren't interesting - sure, I can go for a walk and say "hey, that looks nice!" and grab a shot of it - but it later on when I come to look at it, it just lacks something. Even when I settle down around a specific location and try to capture something, unless there is something really obvious, chances are my scene will lack an interesting focal point.

As an example of what I mean, there is a field near my work.

It's a lovely place - it was earmarked as an industrial plot but never got developed. As a result, it's home to some ankle-high wildgrass, and a row of trees - but it very relaxing - but whenever I try to photography it, it's just... boring. I can't convey the tranquility of the scene, and the field has no real features to distract from my boring picture. The trees are a little more varied - but again, there isn't much to focus on. Sorry, I should be more specific - I can't find anything to focus on - and looking out the window at it now, the best I can see is a tree that's a bit taller than the rest, and the clouds in the background (which today are a pretty featureless collection of fairly smooth clouds with little contrast between them).

It may just be a mostly featureless scene - but at the same time - it may just be me.

See, on one hand, I like that there isn't nothing going on there - as I said, it's tranquil - but I just can't seem to capture it's serenity - and I suspect that's all on me, rather than the scene.

I find this a common theme when I am trying to do landscape photography - not necessarily in conveying tranquility, but in conveying anything! Unless there is an obvious focal point (like an interesting rock, or rock outcropping, lone tree, animal, etc) then my scene will just feel featureless. Obviously, this is where things like leading lines and diagonals could come into their own - but Im finding it hard either to find them in the first place, or to emphasise them once I find them.

Any tips would be appreciated! In the meantime, I'm going to have a good read-up on the DPS website, and I seem to recall I have a few ebooks/pdfs on composition and "inspiration" that I'd like to take a gander at!

Yup. I know exactly where you are coming from. One thing I have found that helps is a change in perspective. For example. We are fortunate to have a number of parks around where I live. Some are just a grassy field with a path through it. Not too interesting right? One day I was standing there with the camera and decided to lay on the ground and shoot up through the tall grass. I liked the results with the sun highlighting through the grass and the green against the blue sky. It was more towards evening and so the lighting was not harsh either. Lighting and perspective can make a huge difference.

[RookieGuy]

Found this late. I haven't been doing this long, but there's still some thoughts to add.

Thought 1 is simple. Move around. Get low, get high. Walk up to something. Get in the trees face with a wide angle. Or even telephoto. Unless you're using film, it's free (after the initial investment) to snap all the pics you want.

I have a Limited 15mm. That's by far the nicest lens I own. Partly because of the pixie dust and build quality. But partly because I never use it. For me, the 28 is as wide as I can use on what passes for landscape in my forested neck of the woods. Everything is woods and trees. Very little open space. Any clearings or glades can be completely covered with the 28. And mostly it's my old 55-300, mostly used between 55-100, except for wildlife. So from my perspective, I would probably take the same flat seemingly featureless photos as the OP. Partly because I wouldn't know what to do with such a field of vision.

None of this is to take away from anyone else. Lighting and perspective is essential to landscape photography. But it's not really specific to landscape.

[cprobertson1]

Found this late. I haven't been doing this long, but there's still some thoughts to add.

Thought 1 is simple. Move around. Get low, get high. Walk up to something. Get in the trees face with a wide angle. Or even telephoto. Unless you're using film, it's free (after the initial investment) to snap all the pics you want.

I have a Limited 15mm. That's by far the nicest lens I own. Partly because of the pixie dust and build quality. But partly because I never use it. For me, the 28 is as wide as I can use on what passes for landscape in my forested neck of the woods. Everything is woods and trees. Very little open space. Any clearings or glades can be completely covered with the 28. And mostly it's my old 55-300, mostly used between 55-100, except for wildlife. So from my perspective, I would probably take the same flat seemingly featureless photos as the OP. Partly because I wouldn't know what to do with such a field of vision.

None of this is to take away from anyone else. Lighting and perspective is essential to landscape photography. But it's not really specific to landscape.

Im afraid that I'm not (as of yet) having great success.

Some of this relates to transport - I don't drive (as of yet xD) so Im limited to public transport, walking, and cycling - and it's difficult to get to where I want to be for the golden/blue hours - I tend to end up "in the wild" somewhere between 1200 and 1800, so, for now, my lighting has been far from optimal.

The other problem is finding the time - I've not been doing much photography at all of late - most of what I've done is what I'd call "lazy" photography, I'm not really going out my way to create pictures - but rather just waiting for those small opportunities when I'm out and about - resulting in me "not being bothered enough" to go far afield.

I have two shoots planned:

The first is overlooking the Firth of clyde from a raised hill overlooking a quarry, about 92m (ASL) which gives me a decent view across a good portion of Ayrshire (I think I;ve mentioned that location before, actually) - hoping to make that an evening shot on a clear night so I can catch the sun going down behind Arran, and then I can take advantage of golden hour while I'm there. I'll need to be careful though to highlight something particular - I have a few points of interest highlighted on my OS map, but I'll play it by ear once I'm up there. I also want to try taking a panorama, because I haven't actually done it with my DSLR yet! I'm not expecting miracles with that though: just having fun, really - with no real "goal" in mind... so I expect my panorama to be a boring example of the local geography.

That said, maybe it'll be useful for the wikipedia article for my region - can never have too many boring geographic pictures! (Not going to lie... I LOVE pictures of geographical features... the kind of photo most people look at and go "wow... so.... it's some land, right?" - to which I reply: "YES IT FREAKING IS!" and grin manically while I run through the local flora and fauna, followed by the the biome arrangement and how it all interacts with the local geography...


My second planned shoot is in a local park (Eglinton Country Park) - there are a few features I'm specifically wanting to capture: I'm going to list them here mainly for my own reference, but it might interest random folk in the area as well.

- Eglinton Castle. One cannot visit Eglinton Castle Park without also visiting Eglinton Castle! This will be a challenging shot for the simple reason that I don't quite know how to go about it... I'll be winging this one, I think!

- The Tournament Bridge; which I always thought was called "the swan bridge" - but, apparently, that just isn't a thing! Pure confabulation on my part, by the looks of things - I suspect it was what I called it as a kid, because there were swans there and I loved to play near it.

-The Lugton Water, the river that the Tournament bridge (and several others) span. After crossing the Tournament Bridge, I plan on following the river eastward, and then diverting up the "Draught Burn", taking me onto the "woodland walk" - which is a path with moderately closed-in sides - of the places I plan on shooting, this would probably benefit the most from golden hour lighting - but at the same time, as there is a lot of woodland canopy, I might find it becomes too dark. I'm hoping to try and capture how cosy and inviting this little area is.

-The Draught burn (detail) - crossing the Draught burn is a small stone bridge, and beside that, a tall treestump long conquered by foliage and the slow decay of time. A long time ago, in a galaxy far away, I remember looking over that bridge and the treestump and the burn flowing beneath it, and thinking how much like a fairytale it was - and I want to try and recapture that feeling. If I only have time for one shoot on my trip here, this is it. As I said earlier this area would benefit from golden hour the most out of all my shots (or at least, I believe it would) - so I want to try and spend it in this area in particular, if I can. It may also benefit from blue hour - time shall tell!

---

Oh... the weather's been terrible lately as well... so I may need to rely on the "WR" lens and make sure I carry an umbrella! Any other tips for shooting in the rain? Actually, I'm going to resurrect my old "DIY" gear thread, as I have an idea that will probably help me in the rain.