Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: JohnKoerner on September 25, 2009, 10:07:51 pm
-
I bought a Canon Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens and was going to sell it because I didn't really do landscape ... but then I tried to give it a shot and see what happens. The following are a few shots I took of some Florida beaches and woodlands ...
Thank you,
Jack
.
-
...
-
Absolutely love the first three.
Number one is just so well balanced between weighing the sky and the pond. I'm so attracted to the smooth transition in the sky along with its reflection in the water, and the multitude of vertical lines connecting the two keeps my eyes moving.
In number three, the isolation of the wooden pier without other distractions along with the warm-cool contrast really give it a feel of idyllic tranquility. I would prefer much less contrast in order to bring out the subtleties in the extreme shadows and highlights. However, that would lessen the initial impact and hey, it's your photograph not mine.
The last one would have worked for me if the branches on the tree weren't so busy and if the palm leaves weren't encroaching from the right.
Thanks for sharing. And again, great job.
Sean
Thank you very much for your kind words and encouragement
In the last photo, I thought about cropping the palm trees out of the right element, but just posted it "as is" for now. I have always been really into macro, and never thought I'd get into landscape, but after trying it this last week (and seeing the colors pop out like that), I am hooked
Jack
.
-
Hi Jack:
1) This is pretty well done, but I'm always a bit leery of images that lead the viewer out of the frame - from right foreground to left background in this case.
2) Great rainbow - the horizon seems a bit tilted to me, and if you could lighten the shadows a bit in the lower right it would help.
3) Absolutely my favourite. Again, if you could bring up a bit of detail in the foreground rocks I think it would add rather than detract.
#4/5 don't do much for me, but everyone gets an opinion.
Mike.
-
I love the light in the second, but I agree with Mike - the third is the best.
Jeremy
-
Hi Jack:
1) This is pretty well done, but I'm always a bit leery of images that lead the viewer out of the frame - from right foreground to left background in this case.
Thanks Mike. Interesting advise on it being undesireable to lead the viewer out of the frame. I was actually trying to do that, thinking it was good, in taking the viewer from the shallow simplicity of a pond out into the infinity of the world beyond, with the sky shot.
2) Great rainbow - the horizon seems a bit tilted to me, and if you could lighten the shadows a bit in the lower right it would help.
Thanks again! I had to edit-out a sign on the land (and a raindrop off my lens ), but I will go back and see if I can straighten-out the horizon and pull some detail out of the shadows, as you suggest. My girlfriend is the one who spotted this rainbow while we were on our way to Horseshoe Beach. There were actually two rainbows, one on top of the other, and the field colors were nicely-illuminated by the sunlight.
3) Absolutely my favourite. Again, if you could bring up a bit of detail in the foreground rocks I think it would add rather than detract.
Thanks, and it is mine too. This photo (for me) shows the benefit of digital photography over film. I had taken 6 different shots of this same pier, but because I was able to immediately see the results, in the first two I was able to see I had a tiny speck of 'someone's home' sticking-out in my left framing, so I moved my composition over to get it out of the photo. The next 4 shots I experimented with the lighting, and on this one there seemed to be the best and most interesting blend of the cool blue of the ocean and sky merged with the warm glow of the sunset ...
#4/5 don't do much for me, but everyone gets an opinion.
Mike.
I agree, #4 is pretty ho-hum, but it was the first lighthouse I ever photographed I was really just trying to experiment with the 'stretching' effect of a super-wide lens ...
My girlfriend actually took #5 and I thought she took a better shot with her G9 than I did with my 50D. I agree with the previous criticism of the palm leaf in the right side (she even said this also), but what I liked was the depth-of-field generated by the little point-n-shoot and how it captured the texture of the marshland, from front-to-back.
Thank you very much for taking the time, Mike, and thank you too Jeremy for your kind words.
Jack
.
-
Hi Jack,
For me the third is the best, too. It's nice to see that you can photograph things that are more than three inches from the front of your lens! Keep it up (and the closeup stuff as well, of course.)
Eric
-
The second and third are quite nice.
-
The second and third are quite nice.
I second and third that.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nicely done, and a good example of why the 10-22 is one of my favorite lenses.
-
Thanks Mike. Interesting advise on it being undesireable to lead the viewer out of the frame. I was actually trying to do that, thinking it was good, in taking the viewer from the shallow simplicity of a pond out into the infinity of the world beyond, with the sky shot.
OK, here's my take on this issue...
The sentiment is laudable, but it's best to accomplish this by leading the viewer to infinity via distance while remaining inside the frame. To try to lead the viewer's eye past the edge of the frame is an annoyance to the viewer because they're running into a visual roadblock (the frame edge), and once their eye has run outside the frame it may never come back (i.e. they give up and go on to the next photo). To lead the viewer to infinity successfully, you need to set up a view that starts with the foreground and then draws their eye more and more into the distance, until the haze and blur of distance (or a horizon) turns into that infinity you're looking for.
It's a really good sign that you're thinking about what effect you want to have on the viewer, and consciously setting up your image to try to achieve that. It took me years of snapshots to get to that point.
Lisa
-
Hi Jack,
For me the third is the best, too. It's nice to see that you can photograph things that are more than three inches from the front of your lens! Keep it up (and the closeup stuff as well, of course.)
Eric
The second and third are quite nice.
I second and third that.
Cheers,
Bernard
Thanks alot fellas
.
-
Nicely done, and a good example of why the 10-22 is one of my favorite lenses.
Thank you, and I am really starting to enjoy this lens too. I bought it several months ago but just never used it. I was even going to sell it, essentially unused, but then I decided to give it a whirl ... and wow ... it really pops the colors out. I am now finding more and more uses for it and am glad I decided to keep it
.
-
OK, here's my take on this issue...
The sentiment is laudable, but it's best to accomplish this by leading the viewer to infinity via distance while remaining inside the frame. To try to lead the viewer's eye past the edge of the frame is an annoyance to the viewer because they're running into a visual roadblock (the frame edge), and once their eye has run outside the frame it may never come back (i.e. they give up and go on to the next photo). To lead the viewer to infinity successfully, you need to set up a view that starts with the foreground and then draws their eye more and more into the distance, until the haze and blur of distance (or a horizon) turns into that infinity you're looking for.
It's a really good sign that you're thinking about what effect you want to have on the viewer, and consciously setting up your image to try to achieve that. It took me years of snapshots to get to that point.
Lisa
Thank you Lisa for taking the time with a detailed explanation. The next time I go back to St. Marks I will try to re-compose the shot with this in mind. St. Marks not only has beautiful landscapes, but it is also home to several nesting sites of bald eagles, and in addition it is also a stopping place for migrating monarch butterflies on their way to Mexico ... so I shall be returning within a month
Jack
.
-
The sentiment is laudable, but it's best to accomplish this by leading the viewer to infinity via distance while remaining inside the frame. To try to lead the viewer's eye past the edge of the frame is an annoyance to the viewer because they're running into a visual roadblock (the frame edge), and once their eye has run outside the frame it may never come back (i.e. they give up and go on to the next photo). To lead the viewer to infinity successfully, you need to set up a view that starts with the foreground and then draws their eye more and more into the distance, until the haze and blur of distance (or a horizon) turns into that infinity you're looking for.
I'll have to say, that's great advice- thanks, Lisa, I just learned something.
I'll throw in my vote for #2 and #3. The color and lighting are stunning!
John
-
OK, here's my take on this issue...
The sentiment is laudable, but it's best to accomplish this by leading the viewer to infinity via distance while remaining inside the frame. To try to lead the viewer's eye past the edge of the frame is an annoyance to the viewer because they're running into a visual roadblock (the frame edge), and once their eye has run outside the frame it may never come back (i.e. they give up and go on to the next photo). To lead the viewer to infinity successfully, you need to set up a view that starts with the foreground and then draws their eye more and more into the distance, until the haze and blur of distance (or a horizon) turns into that infinity you're looking for.
It's a really good sign that you're thinking about what effect you want to have on the viewer, and consciously setting up your image to try to achieve that. It took me years of snapshots to get to that point.
Lisa
Interestingly, it led my eye to the bright moon above and to the right. At least that's what I think it is. These shots are too small on my computer to really make it out for sure.
I'm a huge 10-22 fan. I use it all the time.
-
I'll have to say, that's great advice- thanks, Lisa, I just learned something.
I'll throw in my vote for #2 and #3. The color and lighting are stunning!
John
Thank you very much
.
-
Interestingly, it led my eye to the bright moon above and to the right. At least that's what I think it is. These shots are too small on my computer to really make it out for sure.
I'm a huge 10-22 fan. I use it all the time.
Yes, on the image with a pier there is a small moon in the sky ... and I also lightened the shore rocks as Wolfnowl suggested.
I too am really beginning to enjoy this 10-22 lens immensely ... and here are a couple more photos I have taken with it:
Enjoy.
Jack
.
-
The watermarks kill them all.
-
The watermarks kill them all.
Aww shucks, Eric, I think they're still kickin'
Just to prove I can compromise, I changed my avatar and have no watermarks on this ... LOL ... and, hey, I will even offer another 'olive branch' to appease you with the following shot, of my girlfriend Tina and me, which was taken by tripod and self-timer on Horseshoe Beach, FL last night ... no watermark here either
Jack
.
-
Nice! I'd better download it before you change your mind.
I don't plan to steal your avatar, though, so you can watermark that if you want.
-Eric
-
The 10-22mm is a great and fun lens. Definitely keep it, specially if these are your first landscape efforts. Very nice series. Keep going...
-
Aww shucks, Eric, I think they're still kickin'
Just to prove I can compromise, I changed my avatar and have no watermarks on this ... LOL ...
In your defense, Jack, this is the primary purpose of copyright laws - to be able to batten down the hatches and prevent any unauthorized copying in any way. You are just exercising the full extent of your rights under the law.
On the other hand, is it possible you are simply adopting this mentality due to the availability of copyright laws (i.e. the government's given you a hammer, so everything's...)? There are alternatives (http://creativecommons.org/choose/).
On the other hand, since you're likely to stick with the watermark, then you should avoid the semi-transparent version. It is well documented that the original image is easy to reverse engineer, because all the information is still there.
On the other hand, a community is compose of many individuals. Others have a right to their opinions too, and may exercise the full extent of their rights by voting with their feet.
On the other hand, I noticed Jeff posting recently. If I say something annoying enough, he can come on and rudely defend the rights of all professional photographers everywhere.
Sean
-
The 10-22mm is a great and fun lens. Definitely keep it, specially if these are your first landscape efforts. Very nice series. Keep going...
Thank you Thomas, I appreciate it.
And, yes, I have had a lot of fun with this lens
I have taken some unusual angle shots with it recently also, kinda playing with the depth of field it gives, that has produced some unusual effects as well.
Jack
.
-
The watermarks kill them all.
Jack,
It may be better if the watermarks were smaller and placed at the bottom of the image.
Just thought I'd chime in here with my 1st post.
Nice images though.
-
In your defense, Jack, this is the primary purpose of copyright laws - to be able to batten down the hatches and prevent any unauthorized copying in any way. You are just exercising the full extent of your rights under the law.
On the other hand, is it possible you are simply adopting this mentality due to the availability of copyright laws (i.e. the government's given you a hammer, so everything's...)? There are alternatives (http://creativecommons.org/choose/).
On the other hand, since you're likely to stick with the watermark, then you should avoid the semi-transparent version. It is well documented that the original image is easy to reverse engineer, because all the information is still there.
On the other hand, a community is compose of many individuals. Others have a right to their opinions too, and may exercise the full extent of their rights by voting with their feet.
On the other hand, I noticed Jeff posting recently. If I say something annoying enough, he can come on and rudely defend the rights of all professional photographers everywhere.
Sean
Dang, I don't have enough "other hands". Now what do I do ...
-
Thank you very much for your kind words Majik_Imaje.
Your thoughts on what is what in terms of fine art are true: in the end it only matters if people will buy the work. I understand that the copyright symbols ruin the image: in a sense that's what they're supposed to do. Maybe I'll get around to re-doing them at some point, toned down a bit, so that I can deflect the admonishments of the senior members here
But I do appreciate your encouragement on some of my photos. Here are a couple more for kicks. They were taken in various locations in Florida (which offers quite a bit different climate from what you're used to!). Hopefully, you can see past the watermarks
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Photography/boktower.jpg)
Bok Tower, FL
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Photography/1manatee.jpg)
Manatee Springs, FL
The sunbeam light in the center photo is real, not Photoshopped.
Hope you enjoy them,
Jack
.