[mr_spencer]

Looking for some constructive criticism on my landscape shot. Composure or post processing. Thanks,

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[bertie]

Nice photo Mr Spencer, the only thing I would say (and I'm no expert) is it seems the photo is too equally weighted in proportion. I hope you don't mind me illustrating with your own photo but I think this would have looked better. Maybe a filter that would give a better sky colour too. Here I have increased the contrast.

[rednax]

must say I much prefer Spencers own version here. The way the mountains gets a little pale in the distance and the depth you get from the size of the flatland...Beautiful pic! Maybe a filter on the sky though...Mats

[mcgregni]

I'd crop the other way, ie take off some sky and leave the ground ... There's a lovely sense of distance in the image and I like the perspective created by the focal length. My crop would have the advantage of removing the huge dust spot near the top, to the right of centre.

[bertie]

I'd crop the other way, ie take off some sky and leave the ground ... There's a lovely sense of distance in the image and I like the perspective created by the focal length. My crop would have the advantage of removing the huge dust spot near the top, to the right of centre.

I think you might be right mcmregni, either way changes the proportions and that's what it needs imo. Doing it your way, yes you do get more of a sense of distance. Personally I just found more interest in the sculpting of the mountain range formations and I tend to like sky when I am trying to convey the feeling of remoteness. Unfortunately MS had a day when the sky was a bit "bland"

[Rondec]

I think the hardest part is that the light in this photo feels flat. I would definitely crop out part of the sky and focus more on the mountains, as that feels like the strongest part of the image. You do have dust on your sensor that I'd either clone out or crop out.

[mr_spencer]

Thanks for the tips, I'm not sure where the dust came from as this is the only image i can see it on. I applied a graduated filter in LR to the sky here but I see how it would look better if some was cropped out.

[gmans]

This is my opinion/experience on landscape and lens choice, a normal or short tele lens is the hardest lens to get a good landscape it does not give a wide enough angle to appreciate the view and it is not long enough generally to isolate a feature in the landscape. The normal lens is supposedly about the same perspective as our eyes, but the eye will pick up more detail in a scene and the normal lens leaves the user with the belief the user will get the same scene as from our eyes. Which is very rarely the case, so remember framing through the view finder is what you will get in the scene and have a idea of what you want to really capture i.e.; autumn colours or snow capped mountain.

Mid range tele are useful for compression of perspective and isolating a feature. Atmosphere/haze really effects tele lens so make sure your subject is clear and will not to be to badly effected by haze.

The only thing is I can never remember this things on lens and perspective when I have a camera in hand.

[desertscape]

The best landscape pros have one thing in common; they have a great eye. They know when to trip the shutter and when not to. You must ask yourself before you shoot, "does this scene have "wow factor"? If it is not a spectacular scene, then don't shoot it. The difference between a pro landscape shooter and an amateur is that the pro can tell the "A" grade scene, while amateurs will see a "B" grade scene and think it is an "A" grade. It's all in the eye. Your shot does not have the "wow factor".

[Sagitta]

This could actually work as a black and white - processed right it would give a nice vintage feel, and would eliminate the color debate.

[debakarma]

Since it is a panorama, if you had something arresting (a rock, plant, or something else in sharp focus) in the left or right side foreground to anchor or frame it, you might have pulled it off better. The light is flat, ND grad filter might have helped there. 55mm is also not the right choice for the lens, something wider would have been better. But then again if thats what you had, you could have tried the Brenizer method and then stitched some frames together.

[Sagitta]

Eh, you can do a landscape with any lens, wider isn't always better. I think the biggest issue here was bad light - a bit of color to the sky or across the ground, a bit deeper shadowing and this would be a definite keeper.

A wider lens would have just exaggerated the sky and foreground and unless one or the other had something interesting going on, would then (most likely) require a crop.

[Bruce Clark]

If I may add my comments to this as I find this to be typical of landscape images that I often take myself. I see a beautiful colourful range of mountains, WOW - click but I do not always see the lacklustre sky and the bland expanse of foreground. What to do about it?

Several things that are not always practical. I will resist the temptation to replace elements by photoshop.

1 Come back another time when the sky is more interesting. Not always feasible. Although a wait of a few minutes can work wonders if there are clouds about. A time shift of a few hours may enable a sunrise or sunset.
2 Change your point of view. This looks to have been taken from a high vantage point. Again this is not always possible but often by moving a short distance you can find a foreground of grasses, flowers, rocks etc. The stockyards do form a foreground element but are so small as to seem insignificant. If by moving down to the plain would it have been possible to include the stockyard as a major foreground element?
3 Assuming no change of time or vantage point are possible, look for ways of enhancing what you have. Cropping, saturation, contrast adjustments are all tools you may apply. I have cropped to remove most of the sky and put the stockyard off centre. I have boosted contrast in the sky and on the ranges. I have selectively done some dodging and burning on the foreground and on the ranges to darken the dark areas and lighten the light areas to make the features stand out more.

[bertie]

Bruce your 2nd point also occurred to me and I think it's a very good one.

Still not completely convinced on the cropping though.

The problem with that to me is it has you looking through the scrub for something which is ultimately not there and therefore becomes a distraction to what I considered to be the most powerful element. When I chose my view I decided the mountain range was the most powerful part of the photo and therefore framed it to draw your eye directly to it with only a short distance of scrub to lead the eye in and give contrast/context.

If the sky had been better I think that would have been all it needed to complete the scene by giving the other elements size and scale.

Anyway that is what makes photography so interesting for me, the fact that everyone sees things slightly different.

[fg-one]

The best landscape pros have one thing in common; they have a great eye. They know when to trip the shutter and when not to. You must ask yourself before you shoot, "does this scene have "wow factor"? If it is not a spectacular scene, then don't shoot it.

..then you might end up shooting only a handful of pics every year. Not worth the camera investment IMO. You might as well just buy a few prints from the "pros". To try to be useful to the OP, I would recommend following mcgregni's advice. A slight crop from the top right would improve the image balance.