[BlueBubbleBoy]

I've recommitted myself to getting back and learning the basics of photography. Something I'm trying to focus on now is composition and having a clear subject that stands out. I've been going back to some older photos and recropping them and reprocessing them since I haven't been able to get out and shoot any new photos in the last few days. Darn responsibilities!! Below are a couple of examples from a trip to Las Vegas last September. I'd love to get some feedback on the composition with any suggestions to improve. Also, I'm open to anything else that can be improved. I've got a long way to go, but that's why we keep trying, right?

@18mm, ISO 200, f/9.0, 1/60s


Are the foreground trees good for framing or too distracting? If good for framing, too light, too dark?
@21mm, ISO 200, f/9.0, 1/60s

[Miguel]

Hi Barry,
Among the key components of a mountain shot are light, depth, color, grandeur, and drama.

In your first shot the eye is naturally drawn to the tallest mountain. Yet, the most interesting part of the mountain facing the camera is lost in shadow. So that's a turn off.

The bottom image is a bit more interesting, but the details of the upper parts of the mountains are lost in glare. If a viewer cannot see all the details in a shot that has zero clouds (and I'll get to that), then there is little "visual stickiness" to the image.

Both shots share a common problem of little drama, in part due to lack of cloud cover. Clear blue days are wonderful for our eyes and souls (living near Seattle I savor them on that level) but are less-than-photogenic. Clouds provide depth, scale, texture, awe, and fascinating lighting. All those factors are excellent for photography.

Most mountain range shots also benefit from shooting during the traditional golden hours: around dusk and dawn. You get color, details, and some drama then. These two shots look pretty static to me, but really most mountain shots from that perspective fall into the snapshot bucket.

To answer your question, sure trees can help frame a shot and add interest. The smaller three on the right middle seem to block the mountain face a little too much for my taste. The others are pretty nicely placed.

M

[Sparkle]

You can remove stuff in PP. This is very quick and very dirty and a very poor example. With work stuff can be salvaged.

[Ash]

Miguel's on the money.
The high contrast does pose a challenge to getting all the important parts of the landscape well exposed, but otherwise you've done well with composing these scenes.

[Fontan]

Don't you want to get closer to the rocks?

[BlueBubbleBoy]

Hi Barry,
Among the key components of a mountain shot are light, depth, color, grandeur, and drama.

In your first shot the eye is naturally drawn to the tallest mountain. Yet, the most interesting part of the mountain facing the camera is lost in shadow. So that's a turn off.

The bottom image is a bit more interesting, but the details of the upper parts of the mountains are lost in glare. If a viewer cannot see all the details in a shot that has zero clouds (and I'll get to that), then there is little "visual stickiness" to the image.

Both shots share a common problem of little drama, in part due to lack of cloud cover. Clear blue days are wonderful for our eyes and souls (living near Seattle I savor them on that level) but are less-than-photogenic. Clouds provide depth, scale, texture, awe, and fascinating lighting. All those factors are excellent for photography.

Most mountain range shots also benefit from shooting during the traditional golden hours: around dusk and dawn. You get color, details, and some drama then. These two shots look pretty static to me, but really most mountain shots from that perspective fall into the snapshot bucket.

To answer your question, sure trees can help frame a shot and add interest. The smaller three on the right middle seem to block the mountain face a little too much for my taste. The others are pretty nicely placed.

M

A lot of great advice in your comments Miguel! I really appreciate you looking and giving me so many suggestions. Thanks!

You can remove stuff in PP. This is very quick and very dirty and a very poor example. With work stuff can be salvaged.

Thanks for the 'quick and dirty' example Sparkle.

Miguel's on the money.
The high contrast does pose a challenge to getting all the important parts of the landscape well exposed, but otherwise you've done well with composing these scenes.

Thank you Ash. I'll keep at it.

Don't you want to get closer to the rocks?

I always want to get closer to the rocks. I love rocks. Are you suggesting a more close up or zoomed in photo?

[Fontan]

Yeees

[BlueBubbleBoy]

OK, I'm going to give this a go and critique some of my own photos based on the very useful comments I've received so far. These photos are at Zion National Park taken during the same time frame as the photos in the original post. If you all wouldn't mind, keep the feedback coming and let me know if I'm starting to get it or I'm still totally lost.

First off, this was a quick trip that I was able to get in (was out there on business). I had no tripod with me and had a time crunch. So, I missed the golden hours to shoot and didn't take enough time to really thoughtfully compose these photos. With that said, here are the photos.

This photo had no texture in the sky, so I cropped most of it out. There was also a lot of shadows and blue haze taking away from the detail and texture of the landscape. I worked on it a while in LR3 and at least improved it. From what I see I have a nice leading line in the canyon and more color and detail than in the photos in the OP. Possible problems I see are the loss of detail in the shadows on the right side of the canyon wall, not much foreground other than the bush on the left (and maybe even distracting?), and the leading lines only lead to a hazy mountain off in the distance. No dominant subject.


With this photo I have a pronounced subject (Angels Landing) on the left. I also had to really bring details out of the shadow and remove the blue-ish tint it had on the left side of the ridge. It seems like there is decent detail there now and it grabs my attention. However, I still have the plain sky and a line that does not really lead to anything other than a tree in the foreground and a hazy background. This photo is cropped, and I tried different ways to give more isolation to Angels Landing, but they all looked to square for my liking.


I realize that these photos are still more on the snapshot level, but I'm just trying to learn from them so I can improve whenever I get opportunities like this again.
Thanks again for all of you that are so willing to share your knowledge.

[Sparkle]

IMO, they are not "on the snapshot level". They have more (+ sub-conscious) thought than that for which you give yourself credit. The foreground in the first provides depth. The area to the right of the second also provides perspective to the size of Angels Landing. On such trips, under such conditions you have to settle for the best you can achieve in camera. You may be able to add some fluffy clouds, subdue the burnt sky along the ridge and brighten the shadows etc. in PP. You are doing fine.

[BlueBubbleBoy]

IMO, they are not "on the snapshot level". They have more (+ sub-conscious) thought than that for which you give yourself credit. The foreground in the first provides depth. The area to the right of the second also provides perspective to the size of Angels Landing. On such trips, under such conditions you have to settle for the best you can achieve in camera. You may be able to add some fluffy clouds, subdue the burnt sky along the ridge and brighten the shadows etc. in PP. You are doing fine.

Thanks Sparkle for the kind words and for the comments. I do appreciate them. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was being so hard on myself. However, I am trying to be really critical so I can improve. All of the feedback I get on this forum helps too. Thanks again!

[Fontan]

Latter pictures are much better. More to the point, more mindful of subject(s).

[BlueBubbleBoy]

Latter pictures are much better. More to the point, more mindful of subject(s).

Thank you Fontan.

[blulagoon]

you only needed a polariser filter to make them far better. But overall I think you have a good eye for composition . (Just my humble opinion)

[BlueBubbleBoy]

you only needed a polariser filter to make them far better. But overall I think you have a good eye for composition . (Just my humble opinion)

Thank you for the comment. A polarizer is on my list of things to buy, just haven't made the jump yet. I've been holding out in case I can replace the kit lens, but stuff keeps breaking in the house that has to be fixed.

[juu]

I like #3 a lot, I only wish the tree on bottom left corner would stand out more.