Beginner Looking for Constructive Critique of Landscape and Some Basic Questions

[meyersm]

Hello everyone,

I'm new here so I hope you all will bear with me as I look for some basic instruction. I've only taken one photography class in my life back in college. It was a black and white class so we developed our own prints and learned some the fundamentals. Currently I own a Canon G10 which seems to be a very nice camera for its price range, although I'm sure it is far less versatile than a DSLR.

Photography is more of a hobby for me. I love to hike, fish, snowboard, pretty much anything outdoors. My goal is to be able to produce some high quality images that I could make prints out of for my own personal use. I don't own any photo processing software, and even if I did I don't want to be spending a ton of time processing photos. So I'm looking for suggestions on how to get the best out of my camera without any editing.

Below are a few samples of some of my photography. After reading up a little today, I noticed a few things about the majority of my landscapes. The composition usually doesn't follow the rule of thirds, I tend to frame the horizon in the middle of the picture. This seems to make for boring shots. Secondly, a lot of my images appear more drab than what I've seen browsing this forum. I'm guessing this is due to the lack of a polarizing filter, and no editing. While we are on the subject of polarizing filters, would most of y'all consider this an essential accessory for shooting landscapes?

Another concern is that many of these images do not appear particularly crisp. I don't know if this is true, but I heard somewhere that the G10 takes better pictures at low aperture settings, so most of these photos are f2.8 or f4. This raises another question. I know that a smaller aperture size, like f/16, produce greater depth of field, but if I'm far enough away from my foreground and I use f2.8 or f4, shouldn't the entire picture still be in focus? I also shot all of these photos with an ISO setting of around 80 because noise seems to become a serious issue on this camera with ISO settings around 200.

The last observation I'll make, is that I seem to photograph decent subjects, but nothing really stands out in my photographs. I've taken a picture of the scene without capturing its real beauty. If y'all could let me know what you think I'm doing right, as well as all of the constructive critiques that come to mind, I would greatly appreciate it.

Cheers,

Brent

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

[Dick Roadnight]

Hello everyone,

The last observation I'll make, is that I seem to photograph decent subjects, but nothing really stands out in my photographs. I've taken a picture of the scene without capturing its real beauty. If y'all could let me know what you think I'm doing right, as well as all of the constructive critiques that come to mind, I would greatly appreciate it.

Cheers,

Brent

Hi..

If you were in the UK midlands, and you were thinking about a career in photography, you could use my kit. ¿any aspiring assistants here?

You have summarized the basics of landscape photography... but you say "nothing really stands out"... this is typical of many landscape photographs, and you need to try to organize the composition/perspective to lead the eye to some point of interest (as in 5). It is nice to have additional details and "scenes within the scene".

If you want to see good landscapes look at "Old Master" paintings.

Do you watch television? Photo software is worth the trouble, and you can edit your photos in stead of watching television.

[John R Smith]

Hello everyone,

 My goal is to be able to produce some high quality images that I could make prints out of for my own personal use. I don't own any photo processing software, and even if I did I don't want to be spending a ton of time processing photos. So I'm looking for suggestions on how to get the best out of my camera without any editing.

Brent

Your statement above is a contradiction in terms. You can't get the best out of your camera without editing the result, at least at some sort of basic level. You can get PS Elements, which will do pretty much everything you need, for around 60 GBP here in the UK, so cost can't really be an issue wherever you might live.

The example pictures you posted show some promise. It all depends how far you want to go with photography. There is literally shedloads of information in the archives of this Forum and in the articles on the main LL site about technique, photo-editing etc etc. You could spend a week reading it and learn a hell of a lot.

But nobody, no book, no video tutorial, can teach you how to take a good photograph. For that you have to learn how to see. Some people just have that ability, others have to learn. Landscape photography (if that's what you really want to do) is one of the most difficult of photographic disciplines, because it is so hard to avoid a cliche which everyone has seen a thousand times before. What you have to avoid is seeing a chunk of landscape, forest, river, or mountain, pointing the camera at it, putting a frame around it and think that you have made a picture. You have to bring more to the table than that.

John

[pegelli]

Agree with John, post processing behind the computer is now as essential as doing the darkroom work with film.

You can compare your jpg or raw out of the camera with the latent image on film and your post processing with all the development and printing work in the darkroom. One does not go without the other.

Composition wise your pictures are OK (nothing stunning or spectacular, but that's probably true for a lot of photographs posted on the internet) but with a little effort a lot more can be pulled from them.

[stamper]

The first image is appealing but it is crying out to be image edited. It reminds me of the Grand Canyon images seen on the internet. Have you seen them? The colours are vibrant and were done so in Photoshop. They are a cliché however. Regarding the G10 it is a compact small sensor camera and you certainly don't need f/16 because the small sensor will give you good depth of field. f/5.6 would do. If you don't want to image edit your images - you should - then crank up the sharpening and saturation using jpegs and accept what you get but you won't progress if you go down that route.

[marcmccalmont]

Just my opinion a landscape lends itself to a 3 x 2 aspect ratio (more like human vision with both eyes open) than the G10's 3 x 4 aspect ratio
to make it "interesting" I sharpened it with focus fixer then
cropped 3 x 2
adjusted black and white points with levels
selected the sky and added contrast with curves
selected the ground and added contrast with curves
selected the ground and added saturation to the green channel
Just what I would have done as an example.
Marc
wish I had the full resolution RAW file to work with!

[marcmccalmont]

I'm having too much fun!
I softened the sky using noiseware pro for a pastel look
adjusted the black point with levels
Marc

[NikoJorj]

I don't own any photo processing software, and even if I did I don't want to be spending a ton of time processing photos. So I'm looking for suggestions on how to get the best out of my camera without any editing.

Go for something simple and integrated ; I like Lightroom very much.
It's very hard and even often impossible to find the correct in-camera parameters to go with any situation, particularly with high contrast scenes. Working on a raw file with a well-made software makes it really easier, and is much more powerful. Edit : see above examples

The composition usually doesn't follow the rule of thirds

That's a good beginning!
For the rest of that matter, a simple rule : a good composition is one that pleases the eye.
Cf. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/wolfe/seeing.shtml eg, some guidelines are more illustrated in http://www.artsconnected.org/toolkit/explore.cfm

Secondly, a lot of my images appear more drab than what I've seen browsing this forum. I'm guessing this is due to the lack of a polarizing filter, and no editing.

1) Choose a good light
2) Treat the photo with care
A polarizer may help in some specific conditions, especially to help make the green of foliage stand out with contra light. I wouldn't call that an essential tool, but use it sometimes on my tele lens.

I know that a smaller aperture size, like f/16, produce greater depth of field, but if I'm far enough away from my foreground and I use f2.8 or f4, shouldn't the entire picture still be in focus?

Read http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF6.html if you want to understand what's going on.
Otherwise, bottom line : with your camera, stay at f/2.8 or f/4.

I also shot all of these photos with an ISO setting of around 80 because noise seems to become a serious issue on this camera with ISO settings around 200.

Good idea ; it's also advised to do the same with less noisy sensors, to be able to take advantage of some high-contrast situations.

[stamper]

With regards to the first image IMO this type of image needs the foreground to be warmed up. Reds and yellows to saturated and possibly the hue adjusted? I feel there is potential in this image for colour changes that would make it a good image.

[marcmccalmont]

With regards to the first image IMO this type of image needs the foreground to be warmed up. Reds and yellows to saturated and possibly the hue adjusted? I feel there is potential in this image for colour changes that would make it a good image.

Good call, I boosted the red channel a tad in my version, I hope that Brent decides to invest in good post processing software
Marc

[meyersm]

Thanks for all of the feedback y'all. I'm beginning to see the light with regards to photo editing. Equating it to a negative and then dark room work makes a lot of sense... Marc that editing job you did makes the photo look a ton better. So is my camera only capable of shooting 3x4 aspect ratio? Just out of interest, how long did that editing job take you and how long does a typical editing job take for most folks?

I'm reading up a little bit on negative and positive space. While this is easy to see with a clearly defined subject (or black and white) I'm wondering how this concept transfers to landscapes and color. Any other composition tips are also appreciated.

Cheers,

Brent

[wolfnowl]

Brent:

It's really all been said, but I'll add one more voice that says that there are two aspects to photography and always have been.  In the film days (or tin types, daguerrotypes...) one made the image onto a medium like a glass plate or a piece of plastic or whatever, but in order to be seen the image had to be processed and (possibly) a print made.  Digital photography is no different.  One makes the images in the camera, but then they must be processed to be fully expressed.  In the film days many people farmed out the film processing and printing to others, but with digital it's become more common to do this work on one's own.  It's one of those things where almost anyone can do it, but it takes patience, training and dedication to do it well.  I recently entered some image in a 'before/after' Lightroom competition; if you want to see some samples of images from the camera vs. images after being run through Lightroom, you can do so here: http://www.flickr.com/groups/1511382@N21/  You might also want to read 'Just Say Yes' - an article by Alain Briot here on this site.

There are a few different paths to learning how to see as a photographer.  One is to study under someone or take courses.  A slightly different path is from books and/or tutorials - one of my favourite books on photography is 'Photography and the Art of Seeing' by Freeman Patterson.  Another route is to look at photographs that you like and to try to discern what it is in those images that appeals to you, then begin to use those elements in your own work.  IF you go here you'll find links to about fifty photohraphers' web sites.

And don't forget rule #5!

Mike.

[marcmccalmont]

Thanks for all of the feedback y'all. I'm beginning to see the light with regards to photo editing. Equating it to a negative and then dark room work makes a lot of sense... Marc that editing job you did makes the photo look a ton better. So is my camera only capable of shooting 3x4 aspect ratio? Just out of interest, how long did that editing job take you and how long does a typical editing job take for most folks?

I'm reading up a little bit on negative and positive space. While this is easy to see with a clearly defined subject (or black and white) I'm wondering how this concept transfers to landscapes and color. Any other composition tips are also appreciated.

Cheers,

Brent

just a couple of minutes for each one, you get quicker with time, yes I think the G10 is only 3 x 4 aspect ratio which is good for portrait orientation (looks more like a magazine page) that's where cropping helps. The bottom line is don't let the look be dictated by a Canon engineer do a raw conversion and get the look you want!
Marc

[marcmccalmont]

I hope you don't mind but I "post processed" the rest of your images

[marcmccalmont]

the rest