Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Why I don't post landscapes

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

55% OFF new PortraitPro 12 - use code EPHZROS414.
ade_mcfade
ade_mcfade  1014554 forum posts England216 Constructive Critique Points
7 Feb 2013 - 10:00 PM

The first time I ever saw Half Dome was when I entered Yosemite Valley in 2001 - never seen a photo or painting of it before.... truly amazing thing to see in the flesh, huge too.. the whole valley is huge...

I took 1 photo of it with my Canon Powershot compact....

I've actually dipped back into landscape recently - mainly for a few teaching days and workshops - and they've all been pretty dull days really. Except for one of those fast moving cloud days - where shafts of light move across the landscape. Kinda got the old buzz back that day - was with richsr actaully. He's not processed any of those yet... was early december!

looked like this....

-mg-1111.jpg

always feel that to get anywhere on "photo upload sites" you've got to push the processing or employ some gimmic - be that the mud-filtered effect Keith's on about, or some "detail extractor" filtered eye popper.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
7 Feb 2013 - 10:00 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

ade_mcfade
ade_mcfade  1014554 forum posts England216 Constructive Critique Points
7 Feb 2013 - 10:01 PM

hence the uber-contrast and vignette on the shot above... just add that... it did look impressive in the flesh, but there were no black skies... that's just pushing the contras and adding a vignette to "fit in"

StrayCat
StrayCat  1014200 forum posts Canada2 Constructive Critique Points
7 Feb 2013 - 10:04 PM

I have been viewing the sites of some landscape photographers and trying to get a bit of inspiration, like a boot in the a**e, to get me on my way to the mountains, which are 45 minutes drive from home. We get a good snowfall, the roads are too bad to travel with the car, and then we get the Chinook winds and everything is a mess with snowmelt. I want to go just after a big snowfall, with a high, thin overcast sky, and get a couple of landscapes. I haven't concentrated on that for years.

keithh
keithh  1022557 forum posts Wallis and Futuna29 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2013 - 7:41 AM

The next point for would be landscapers is composition.

It took mankind 30,000 years to arrive at this artistic point in time and along the way we developed an understanding of composition. Ignoring this knowledge does not make you unique or even a rebel.

The one 'rule' that most people tend to ignore is The Rule of Thirds. Unbeknown to them they generally arrive at a central horizon, which of course is a compositional tool used to convey space. All compositional guidelines are just that. There are no rules, there is only one with that title and if you use your brain you can work out that 'Rule' does not refer to it being the law.

However, if you think you've broken the rules, you rebel you, be prepared to at least say which ones.

Last Modified By keithh at 8 Feb 2013 - 7:41 AM
mattw
mattw  105189 forum posts United Kingdom10 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2013 - 3:00 PM

I don't have a problem if someone doesn't like taking landscape images. We should all work with the subjects which inspire us. Photography is a way to express your love of the subject, rather then a clinical exercise in collecting kit and camera operation.

As for landscape photography, I have no issue with 'HDR' when done well, however I am increasingly bemused with ever increasing number of 'HDR abuse' shots widely seen and praised... massively over exaggerated grainy detail, mushy colours and halos you could fly a jumbo through (or according to a friend "The Photomatix default settings look"!). Never understood that craze.

mattw
mattw  105189 forum posts United Kingdom10 Constructive Critique Points
8 Feb 2013 - 3:03 PM


Quote: I want to go just after a big snowfall, with a high, thin overcast sky, and get a couple of landscapes. I haven't concentrated on that for years.

I usually find a 'light dusting' is more photogenic then a heavy snowfall


Quote:
The one 'rule' that most people tend to ignore is The Rule of Thirds. Unbeknown to them they generally arrive at a central horizon, which of course is a compositional tool used to convey space. All compositional guidelines are just that. There are no rules, there is only one with that title and if you use your brain you can work out that 'Rule' does not refer to it being the law.

It's actually quite difficult to break the rule of thirds. Unless you go specifically for a central comp, then things usually fall on or somewhere near a third.

keithh
keithh  1022557 forum posts Wallis and Futuna29 Constructive Critique Points
10 Feb 2013 - 8:47 PM

I keep spotting them.

The highlights in sea water are usually white not a shade of cyan.

joolsb
joolsb e2 Member 927107 forum postsjoolsb vcard Switzerland38 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 7:06 AM


Quote: It's actually quite difficult to break the rule of thirds. Unless you go specifically for a central comp, then things usually fall on or somewhere near a third.

Not if you shoot landscapes in 'portrait' format (oooh, look! There goes another 'rule'). Then you have a whole lot more scope for placing the horizon anywhere you damn well please. Smile


Quote: The highlights in sea water are usually white not a shade of cyan.

Don't get me started on radioactively glowing blue surf and other examples of 'not shot on Planet Earth' processing.... Wink

Last Modified By joolsb at 11 Feb 2013 - 7:07 AM
Nick_w
Nick_w e2 Member 63723 forum postsNick_w vcard England98 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 7:45 AM

Then there's the just off centre composition... Hang on that hits the Golden section.

Our brain is conditioned to look for a harmonious composition, it's what happens in nature all the time, even the aspect ratio of an image plays its part eg a 3 x 2 crop are two adjacent numbers on the finnibacci sequence, even when you think your breaking all the rules.

JohnParminter
11 Feb 2013 - 8:21 AM


Quote: are two adjacent numbers on the finnibacci sequence, even when you think your breaking all the rules.

That is where I have been going wrong all these years, I was following the Fenerbahce sequence, apparently some football team in Turkey......

Wink

Sooty_1
Sooty_1 Critique Team 31125 forum posts United Kingdom192 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 10:35 AM

Or indeed Fibonacci !

The Fibonacci sequence is related to the golden mean in that the ratio of two adjacent numbers in the sequence approximates to the golden section, more so the higher the numbers become.
The golden section is approximately 0.618, whereas using thirds would place an object at 0.66, but its close enough for real world. Suffice to say it is accepted that an offset subject is usually more pleasing on the eye than a central one.
Also, the ratio of sides of a frame are supposed to be most pleasing when they are in a golden secton ratio (a golden rectangle) of either 0.618:1 or 1:1.618.

Nick

Nick_w
Nick_w e2 Member 63723 forum postsNick_w vcard England98 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 10:45 AM

Oh don't you love predictive text...
The Fibonacci sequence isn't quite as simple as 1:1.618, that the formula for the infity value, but it's a number built up by adding the previous 2 together: 1,1,2,3,5,8,13 etc the ratio is devised by dividing the higher of 2 adjacent numbers with the other, it's why a square crop works 1:1, same with 3:2 and also why it's rare a 4:3 works (when it does its normally because there is a composition, within a composition, if that makes sence).

joolsb
joolsb e2 Member 927107 forum postsjoolsb vcard Switzerland38 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 12:37 PM


Quote: and also why it's rare a 4:3 works (when it does its normally because there is a composition, within a composition, if that makes sence).

Not really, no. I crop to 3:4 quite a lot and 4:5. By your reckoning 6x7 (1.6666) should work better than 4x5 (1.25) only it doesn't. The Golden Mean works in some cases but it's no guarantee of good composition and certainly shouldn't be applied to every aspect of a picture (pun intended).

In any case, composition shouldn't be imposed on your subject. It should be a function of how you see a scene and the relative importance you personally attach to elements (and their relationships to other elements) within that scene.

mattw
mattw  105189 forum posts United Kingdom10 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 1:13 PM


Quote: I keep spotting them.

The highlights in sea water are usually white not a shade of cyan.

One of mine Keith? Wink
If so, probably a result of poor processing rather then trying to break the rules.

Although you could argue that the water would take on the tone of light falling upon it (or whatever it was the Da Vinci said)

keithh
keithh  1022557 forum posts Wallis and Futuna29 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 3:18 PM

Not one of yours Matt but they are the result of processing. Sometimes wave breakers will have coloured tinge if the light is a total red sky etc but in general, in fact more than general, long exposure wave washes and tidal draws etc will be white.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.