For as long as I've been a member here, one thing that I always read about, even among the more published or experienced photographers, is the fact that people feel ill equipped to evaluate certain/different genres of photography. While looking at the varied and wonderful images that get published and talking to all the different members helps, I have always felt that we need something a little more concrete. So, towards this end, over the next several months, we are going to try formulate the Top Ten Things To Look For within each genre of photography.

Since I personally struggle with knowing how to evaluate Landscape photos, this will be the first genre we address. I have spoken to John Parminter about this and he has graciously agreed to lead the charge. So this is how it's going to work:

1.) For the next two weeks, in this thread only, all members who wish to may set out what they believe to be the Top Ten (or less) things to look for in a Landscape picture. No point is too small and feel free to list more than 10 if you so wish.

2.) It is often difficult to understand comments without examples and so, IN THIS THREAD ONLY, members will be permitted to refer to both published and rejected landscape pictures to illustrate their particular point. For those members who do not wish to be a reference source, please let me know and I will post your name in this thread to ensure your pictures are not selected for reference. Please remember that this thread is being started for informative reasons - it is not here to give you the opportunity to gripe about why a picture has been rejected or published nor is it an opportunity to insult or criticize others. There will be zero tolerance for rude, obnoxious and inappropriate comments.

3.) At the end of the two weeks, John will comb through the entire thread and put together a final Top Ten List of things to look for and this thread will then be the top thread in the landscape category within the "Photography Forum".

I hope that this initiative will be a great way for people to learn and get to know one another and, most importantly, be informative. Post comments and links keeping other people's sensitivities in mind and we can all ultimately benefit from this - have fun!!

Your moderator team: barbara, Tim, Patricia and Kevin.

Can only talk for my own graphical oriented landscape-style, but here is what I'm looking for:

- The play of light/shadows over the landscape
- Lines and rhytm in the landscape
- Simplicity in composition
- Curves, forms and geometry in the landscape
- Colour-tones
- Texture more than depth
- Calmness/Zen-feeling by looking at it
- Mood, that transcends time and place a bit - not just a postcard

Lars :-)

A good initiative Kevin and thanks for the oportunity to talk about particular categories. OK, there are a few things that I especially look out for when I take a landscape image, my style is very descriptive and strong subject based but my first 'top ten thing' will be 'Light, the quality and how it transforms a landscape'

Once I've chosen a particular location to shoot I will try and decide when and what sort of light will provide the best chances that will emphasise the location best.

Usually I prefer a side lit subject from an arc from over my shoulder to just in front of perpendicular to the camera, this I find provides great definiton and shadows across the land and is usually quite easy to control contrast issues.


The light in this image was directional from 90 deg on the right, it was also partially filterd by cloud and nicely highlights certain parts.

I rarely shoot back lit subjects or into the Sun as the contrasts are usually too high and definition can be lost in foreground subjects, the exception to this of course are sunsets but often the Sun is hidden by cloud or has actually set.


A sunset but with an obsured Sun and plenty of reflections to provide evenly distributed light making contrast easier to contol.

So, they are my prefered directions of light but the quality is important as well. I usually look for dramatic light and this for me means two things, early morning or late evening light which has a warmer temperature and secondly clouds. If I can combine these two together then usually your subject is going to be displayed to it's best potential.


This was taken an hour after sunrise through layered cloud, the light temp is still warm and mellow and the clouds have slightly filtered it and crucially provided something for it to bounce around off. The foreground is indirectly lit by the reflected light off the clouds, they also themselves provide useful interest as well. If a sky has 50-75% coverage with reasonable gaps in it then I'd be confident to capture something useful. I find I can also shoot throughout the day in Winter if there is sufficient cloud cover and a low Sun, can provide spectacular results.

Of course, very little light can be good as well as long as it's a high quality. I often wait until well after sunset around beaches or coast as reflected light off water can be special.


There is no direct light source in this except ambient harbour lights but its really the light reflected off the water.

So to sum up for me its directional light, early/late light and clouds and mist which filters and difuses light is what I look for.

JP

What a really great idea to do this!
I'm looking forward to seeing all the topics coming in future.

For I'm not an landscape expert, I'll read and learn from what will be written in this thread.

Peter

I know very little about landscape photography, yet I will briefly say that in my opinion, the photo needs a point of interest, or a raison d'etre (did I spell that correctly). I've seen many that are centred on technique only, yet subject material is lacking, or there is nothing that specifically makes the scene.

Everybody,

Maybe not even a list of ten is required, but only one of seven.

(1) Centre of interest. Does the picture under evaluation have a single centre of interest or am I trying to convey multiple concepts and ideas with the picture? The more different concepts I am trying to get across the less successfull I am likely to be. It is like a good speech - there is one single thread or idea running through the speech, perhaps supported by things from the side, but the speech has one message. If not, it won't be memorable. The supporting items are exactly that - they support - they do not compete for my interest with the single concept or centre of interest.

(2) Is there compositional balance in the picture which enhances the overall centre of interest i.e. contributes to it. Do we have a visually-pleasing scene with good compositional balance? Is the main item - the single centre of interest - prominent and then supported compositionally by the others?

(3) Has the photographer chosen an appropriate selection of focus, dof and bokeh in the picture? A softer picture would require softer focus, more pleasing out of focus highlights and so on. Are the supporting elements in the story more-prominently in focus than the centre of interest? - this would not be good.

(4) Can I, as the uninitiated viewer, become emotionally involved in the picture? Am I able to connect with the story that is being portrayed or conveyed?

(5) Is the lighting appropriate for the picture? A soft baby picture being taken in harsh light is not good, whereas harsh light may be preferable for a war-zone shot.

(6) Has the photographer been creative? Can he portray well-known things in a creative way. Look for inpiration how well some advertisers do - they take well known things and present them to us in a different light.

(7) IMPACT - the word none of us like here. This evalautes the picture as a whole. If all of these single points from above are OK or cannot be majorly-faulted then what wraps them up is impact. Does the picture as a whole leave an internal impression with me - do I remember it?


Some of the OE rejection reasons overlap with many of these and they have been subdivided into other categories, but these seven points to me are enough.

Colmar

@Alexander: You mean a person or something like that in the landscape-shot? Then I must disagree. The raison d'etre of a landscape is IMO the landscape itself, the lines, light and colour in it, and the calmness and zen-feeling it gives you
@Colmar: Good general points, but not all relevant for landscape. For example IMPACT, at least not for the graphical type of landscapes I make, where there are absolutely NO drama, only calmness. OK, maybee slow impact....! :-)

Lars,

Even a Landscape you can evaluate like this - IMPACT does not have to "hit you like a ton of bricks" - it can also be a softer effect, but it must leave its "trace in you" and you must remember the picture. If you struggle to remember it, or don't want to retain it in your mind, then it has not had an impact on you.

Even a softer landscape can be evaluated by these criteria.

Colmar

Lars, I am completely against naked women staring into the mountainous distance, or people in general for that matter. When I say a raison d'etre, the landscape itself is what I mean, yet for the picture to work, the landsape must have a certain focusing area (not necessarily where my eyes lead) or selling point, probably a better phrase. My first shoot with my Nikon D90 yesterday allowed me to take a few landscapes, which allowed me to come to my conclusion.
If we look at my picture: http://www.fotoblur.com/images/Clouds-To-Radar-10639
It has clouds, it has reflections, it has a man made object, it has colour, but it has nothing that makes the image. All these are pleasing subjects, but it has nothing that makes the scene particularly interesting. The clouds are not particularly dramatic, the reflections are broken and do not stand out against the top-most clouds, the man made object is incredibly insignificant, and the colour is dull. If I was a photoshop master, upped the contrast, made the colours quite stunning, then the photo would have a selling point. If I zoomed in on the radar, it would have a selling point, if to emphasize the clouds I motion blurred both layers, it would have a selling point.

Without reading all the other posts, in landscape, what I look for is:

- the colour red, or
- excellent blues and soft heathery colours to complement
- clear, calm weather conditions, but
- good sky (good clouds, interesting clouds)

After that, I don't know. Landscape is new to me for the most part, and I'm experimenting to see what works for me.

What a great idea for a thread. My two cents worth:
The first two I tend to apply to my evaluation of most photos, and so therefore apply to landscapes. These factors are important to me because they are two factors that for me characterise photography and differentiate it from other media. As with a lot of things these charcteristics overlap and influence other key criteria also.

Number 1 without a doubt for me is the use of light. Often beautiful soft light, but I think that creative use of light is also valid. Creative use of light overlaps for me with a point I will make later.

Number 2, why did you chose this point in time to take the shot, as opposed to 1 minute before or after or 5 hours before or after. Again a lot of this is in relation to light, but I think it also applies to things like composition e.g. is a cloud in the right place for compositional purposes.

Number 3 is has the photographer interpretted the landscape in some way, hopefully from a new point of view. It is no longer just enough for me for a photographer to find a beautiful spot and take a literal interpretation of it. Examples may be isolating a particular detail e.g use of telephoto lens, choice of shutter speed, point of view in combination with choice of lense, use of black and white in some circumstances. This interpretation factor can also involve creative use of light.

Number 4 is composition, again a combination of some of the above factors, point of view, timing, use of light.

This will do for me for now, I will think about it some more and maybe add some more later.
Andrew

Here's what I'm looking for when I shoot landscapes. For this discussion, I'm mainly talking about the typical wide-angle landscape, rather than intimate landscapes created with a longer lens:

1. A good subject - this doesn't have to be anything dramatic or iconic. Good landscapes can be right around the corner.
like my recent "Farmland" photo:


In fact, I like to look for things that the average snapshooter or inexperienced photographer wouldn't even think to take a photo of. Although there is a place for it, I try to avoid people in my landscapes, unless they help with providing a sense of scale, and, of course, are available. I usually shoot alone, and it's difficult without a 'model'.

2. Good light - this depends largely on the time of day, the orientation of your subject, the season, and the cloud cover. Side-light from a low lying sun (as in "Farmland"), seen at the beginning and end of the day is optimal, but depends on what you're after. Cloud cover in mid-morning or late afternoon can diffuse and soften the light and provide favorable shooting conditions for landscapes also. I especially love stormy skies.


The orientation of the subject is very important - some excellent subjects may never receive the beautiful light of the magic hour. Some subjects may get great light in Autumn, but not in Spring (in the northern hemisphere, the arc of the sun runs further north in Spring than Autumn)

3. The weather - this certainly plays a role in the quality and quantity of light. The presence/absence of wind weighs heavily in whether I shoot or what I shoot. Wind can be used creatively, but severely limits the use of vegetation as a strong foreground subject. Calm weather with nice puffy clouds is fantastic, but sometimes partly stormy weather is even better.

4. Strong foreground or lead-in lines - this is a very important aspect of my style. I prefer a fore-, mid-, and background and like a foreground that leads the eye into the landscape, but hopefully not dominating the image too much. When I'm on location, I often look for foreground first, then determine how to use it as part of the bigger picture. Here's an example of a strong fg. Also notice how the two rocks and boat form a line leading the eye into the scene.


5. Arrangement of elements/balance - I use an approximation of the rule of thirds loosely but extensively - when the rule is broken, it is always intentional and with a purpose. I also try to make sure the elements in the frame are not too heavily weighted to one side or the other.

6. Shapes - I look for shapes in a landscape- particularly circles and triangles, which strongly draw the eye. Look at all the triangles in this photo:


(Note: This image was rejected months ago, but it is one of my favorites and probably my top seller. I have just re-uploaded an 'improved' version that takes care of the editing issues)

7. Perspective - I always like to consider whether the image will benefit from a higher or lower perspective than standing height.

8. Exposure - I like to think about whether the scene can be recorded as a straight shot. or whether I need to blend exposures (or, alternatively, use an ND grad filter) to cover the dynamic range in a scene. I would rather blend correct exposures than selectively change exposure in the RAW converter, for quality reasons.

9. Mood - the light and the weather largely determine this, but in addition to the peaceful scene, I love landscapes with drama - dynamics such as dramatic/stormy skies, motion, etc. I love shooting when the weather report mentions 'scattered showers' as that is an opportunity for dramatic landscapes that can be shot in the middle of the day.

10. Story - No, not really! I typically don't consciously consider this when shooting landscapes. Of course, if there are people in the landscape, it is very important.

OK. I'll give it a go. It will be hard to come up with anything different that has not already been said. And 10 points may be a bit long for me so I'll just come up with what I can.
1. As was said, the quality of light has to be a factor. With it comes shadows that are interesting and besides that, it usually attracts the attention of the masses that never get up that early in the morning in order to see what it can be like. :-) The atmosphere seems to be in a state of change and clarity that one doesn't usually see during the middle parts of the day and therefore adds a bit of drama (impact) that may not be available during the day.
2. A strong foreground. This is something my personal critic (daughter) has to remind me of constantly. I get so caught up with the big picture that I forget the details sometimes.


Although this image does not have that classic (cliche) individual rock in the foreground, the strong bright reflective sunlight in the water holds an interest in that area (FG). The sun was actually behind me and this is the reflection of the setting sun reflecting off the clouds. The following image of Johns is a very fine example of when this point can be broken and leads us to the next point.


As you can see, there is no strong foreground element. But the image works so well when you look at it in regards to the elements it has. And by taking these elements together with their reflections, you will see how these shapes almost have a life of their own. The mountains on the right all pointing to the dark island. It is almost abstract in its elemental quality. The atmosphere helps with this by softening the image. One way to see these qualities in an image while shooting, is to defocus the camera and look at the elements that remain. This can give you a good idea of where your focal point will reside. (Hmm. Must be why I use the MAVDU so much :-)
3. Focus. Along with focal point. Usually one will find a large DOF in landscape images. Probably because many have that strong foreground element that one wants in focus. But many times the background gets soft anyway so it might not be as important there. But I don't think you want to leave it helplessly out of focus (background) where much of the frame is that way. Here is an image that didn't work as well as I had hoped it would for this simple reason.


I think if I had given it a larger DOF and was able to get the trees in the background in focus it might have worked a bit better. I want to make sure that I distinguish between focus and clarity. Items may very well be in focus but may not be very clear. Hence my fascination and fun with the MAVDU. It is something that not all viewers like or can relate to, but with time may become friends with the technique. For those not familiar with the term MAVDU. It is sort of an inside joke. It stands for Mal's automatic vaseline dispensing unit. It is a technique of placing vaseline on the front "CHEAP FILTER" on your lens to create softness.


This is the color version of Yosemite Falls.
Color also can play a role although many great BW landscape images exist and will continue to be produced. Color can actually play to the disadvantage of producing a landscape image and in that case, it may be well to convert it to BW. And the other way around.


Which do you prefer? And you can't choose Neither :-)

4. How about leading lines/elements. This helps the viewer through the image and will usually draw their attention to that portion of the image that you wish them to pay attention to. This, again was done very nicely with John's example above. We also will see it with curvy lines or straight lines. Roads flowing through a scene is a very common way of directing the viewer. Pauline works the edge of the rocks very effectively in this image, directing us to a very small element that may be easily overlooked.


You may also here someone (Lars frequently) recommend to flip an image horizontally. This works mostly when the image is not readily recognizable as being flipped by the general population and the flip leads the viewer from left to right which is the normal way for many to read. If the native reading method is different than left to right and top to bottom, then sometimes this is not as well accepted by the viewer because it is not their normal way of scanning a sheet of paper. It's like trying to walk backwards uphill. Not as easy or natural. So in this instance it may be something to think about in regards to who your audience is.

5. If sky is going to be in the image, then rarely would I want it to be white. Or just blue. Again, this can be broken but generally speaking, a sky without clouds is pretty dull and can bring an image down. If these conditions exist, generally speaking, try to minimize the sky in the image. Direct your composition away from that dull aspect.


Dull sky equals no sky.


Dramatic sky equals more sky.
This where some drama can be shown.

So there are 5 points I think are important. This should get fun as we move on to different genres. That is not to say we are done with this one by any means. Thanks Kevin.

I want to express some definate opinions here in response to this. But in this genre, I dont know if anything I had to say would be of any value.
One factor is missing here... the intention of this exersize.
Is this ten point system directed at better screening... or better critique?
I am not sure I understand the intention, or I didnt read the initial post correctly.

Hi Ian
You can use these infos as you wish.
For me it is a great thing to learn about genres I am not familar with plus helping me to evaluate my own pictures and photos in screening and in the critique section. I love this initiative, because I can build up a katalog of criteria to improve my way of seeing.
Frank

Ian,

Frank has hit the purpose of this initiative on the nose - it's good for both screening and critique and as personal information.

Subject and an affinity for it.
I started off my top ten with 'Light', whilst being very important to show off your scene to it's best it isn't the reason why I point a camera something. For my type of images the subject is the reason why I bought a camera and why I take photos. I hope to record a scene, reproduce it in print or on the web and be able to repeatedly view it, I find I can only do this if I'm interested in the subject and if I have an affinity with it. If you have an interest and an attachement to the subject then I believe it is easier to make better images than if these ingredients were missing. I find I'm not at all successful photographing family, people etc as I don't have a photographic interest or attachement to the results, I basically don't know what i should be looking for however, I can make reasonable attempts at mountains.


This image was relatively easy for me to take even though I had only had a camera for 3 months. This is the mountain I was born under and still live near, this is basically the view from my house. For 30 years I've walked, ran, biked and gazed at Black Combe (I'm not that old BTW, I started at 10..) with a lot of affection. My passion for the outdoors and mountains in particular started many years before I took up photography and I think I owe my picture style to this fact.


Another one of Buachaille Etive Mor yet again, I know this scene is popular but I'm drawn back to areas such as this time and time again. I think if you concentrate on what you're really passionate about and have alot of knowledge about then making images of these subjects can be easier to achieve, almost instinctive and second nature.

Coincidently, I think my images reflect my character as well. Mountains are often seen as alone, solid and immoveable. I'm introspective, fairly stubborn, dependable and like my own company too much.... my wife puts up with me though..:)

So another top tip, if you can take images that you are really in-tune with and have a sense of being from yourself then I think that can all help to produce better images.


'Time, the planning and patience' next one I think....;-)
JP

I am on the learning side here, and probably couldn't add anything more to what was already said. I could definitely not prepare a checklist of landscape criteria (or a very short one only: tangible depth/perspective and an element of a known size, like a human, a boat, a house etc to give a feeling of dimensions). I approach this motif on a like it or not basis. If I look at the photo and it makes me want to be there, it works for me regardless of the criteria checklist. This is why I'm not too impressed by too much post-editing, HDR/DRI or otherwise. Because I know that what I see is not for real, and I can't get emotionally attracted to the scenery. Just like a perfectly good plastic imitation of a cheeseburger doesn't make my mouth water, as it has no smell, no warmth.

Why do I have the feeling that you'll still try to eat it though Balazs?! :)))

However, Balazs brings up an interesting point - what about HDR? Anyone out there who does a lot of landscapes using HDR? Would love to hear your Top Ten too!!!

I don't do true HDR landscape images as I haven't been presented with a difficult contrast scenario that my Neutral Density Grads have not been able to cope with yet. If a difficult contrast scenario arose I would probably choose the two exposure option and manually blend the images into one full dynamic ranged image in PS, I've experimented with HDR (Photomatix) and for me personally have been disappointed with the results but this could be with the way I do it.
I do however, use on occasion Photomatix to tone map an image and this I find has produced pleasing results that I could not achieve with my limited PS skills. There are a number of tone mapped images in my PF and a couple happen to be my favourites to date.

We need a balanced opinion from the HDR gang if you are out there... :-))))

JP

I am a cheeseburger afficionado Kevin, and only the best of the best make it into the mouth of Mrs Pataki's wee little boy...



Oh God, how much I suffered with my old 20D's non-existing dynamic range until I re-discovered the blessings of the Cokin system. Since then I practically welded the filter holder to my lenses. Works great as a protection too. The tricky thing with grad filters is that the motif is not always following their plain horizontal line, and if there's let's say the upper part of a white cliff in the darker and the rest of it in the lower part, it's a screwed situation.



I think the alchemy of Photomatix needs to be learned like everything else, it's not so easy... but if you're not into that style, why bother. I managed to produce one mediocre HDR with it, enjoyed the "I can do it too" feeling and never opened it since...

You are right with the white cliff scenario Balazs and I have to be especially careful with mountains as they have a nasty habit of sticking up and presenting themselves in the skyline however, most images in my PF has been taken with Lee soft ND grads and I think I've gotten away with it on most occasions. There are a couple where grads were not required and one 'Weeping' where I had to use the available grads I had (0.6 & 0.9) and also a blend of two images because the dynamic range was still way too much for 5 stops of grad.



This could have been a perfect example of where to use HDR, say take 5 or 7 images of different exposure and put through Photomatix but in the time taken for me to do this there would have been movement in the clouds and reflections. In the end I did what I was comfortable with, took one compromised shot (sky slightly overexposed) then in RAW converter adjusted the exposure for the sky and saved two files which i eventually blended the best bits from both.

I'm still not 100% convinced by the results HDR gives especially the metallic tones, grainy appearance and obvious lines dividing high contrast areas. But, I'm still open to it and willing to try every now and again as in certain circumstances it is useful.

JP

A pragmatical and wise approach JP. Ends all discussions about purism vs post-editing.

I agree with this, almost exactly my same experience!


You know you can make 3 or 5 conversions from one raw file with a bracket of exposure settings and then do Photomatix with those tiff files. This gives no blur to the clouds at all because they are all from the same exposure. Make sure you are converting from raw to a 16bit tiff.

This image was converted like this, one raw file, 3 tiffs:


This was done the same way, but the "tone mapping" was manual in Photoshop:

I do exactly this Clyde on occasion and refer to this as my 'tone mapping' technique as opposed to HDR as I am not particularly interested in increasing the dynamic range but like the processing effect it has, so in this case Photomatix is really just a processing piece of software instead of true HDR.

I wrote a technique the way I sometimes do it in the post processing forum. Have to say though that i don't use it all the time, just when I feel an image needs it but these days i'm geting my desired effects straight out of camera with just a few tweaks to levels.

JP

Time, the planning and patience.
If you allow yourself plenty of time and have the quality of time to take landscpae shots then I believe you will produce better images. The time can be anything from a few seconds difference between shots or months and years of waiting for the opportunity.

I generally only go and take my shots if I know I have plenty of time on my hands, if I'm rushed or pre-occupied about having to be somewhere else I usually don't produce very good results. I set time aside for my photography when I know I will have the time I need to get good results, when these times coincide with great weather conditions is not always the same though.. When I'm out with my family or with friends I don't even take the camera, this way I can't be tempted to make rush photographic decisions and can devote all my attention to what I'm doing without feeling the need to take photos.

Planning:
Mostly I plan my images and visualise what I want to achieve, I study maps and read guide books as part of my passion for mountains and use this knowledge to work out where and when the best light is likely to be, work out access times and generally plan a location and be prepared before I get there. The following image has been planned for over a year, I visited this tree over a year ago and took pictures but was always niggled that I didn't get the best composition. I had visualised it on a cloudy day with a brief splash of light in full Spring colours and when I was in the area recently I went back, set up and only had to wait 20 minutes for the one splash of filtered light.


Timing:
This image was all about the specific timing of the shot, I had my exposure set correctly and took a few but there was something missing, I noticed the boat was heading into frame so waited until it was in the optimal position then had to time the shot to capture the wave splashing in the foreground and central midground to get all the elements I wanted.


Patience:
I'm lucky as I have a lot of patience when out in the hills, in fact I can sit and take in the views for ages even in foul weather. I choose to be in the hills even if I'm not taking photos so waiting for the right moment is a pleasureable experience for me. I have literally stood, sat and wonderered around for full days when on location as I have had nothing else to do apart from soaking up the atmosphere.
The next shot is an example of my patience, timing and planning. I was on Skye for 3 days alone without any distractions and time to do what I wanted, I knew this location was a sunset place so planned to be there each evening but conditions were only right on my last day. I set up in mid stream and stood for about an hour to get this shot and timed it just right as the Sun was gone a few seconds after taking it.



It's not to say that I'm not opportunist and spontaneous as well, some of my beach sunsets are literally a dsah out of the house, down to the beach and set up in 5 minutes flat to catch a fantastic developing show but in general I need good quality time to absorb my surroundings and properly tune in to a scene before I start to take reasonable pictures.

If I think of any more tips I'll be back.... :-)))

JP

I read all posts and probably there is no much more to say, but...

I need to say that in most cases if you taking (making) pictures you have to need a lot of luck. Probably all good landscapers they know the basics solutions of a good picture but they never know what they meet at the place of interest. The most important thing is random circumstances like weather. The worst case for me is a clear sky because it is quite difficult to have a proper exposure and no drama. So first of all you need to check the weather if you plan the trip and what you can expect. It is really good to know how to read meteorology stuff plus the knowledge of the clouds. They are important because working as a huge softboxes so sometimes there is no need to use filters which I don?t like because they reducing the quality (I use polar an half-grey very seldom ). The other thing is knowledge of which side is sunset or sunrise because then you now what kind of light would be created.
So:
Weather means light:
- the state of a clouds
- wind (no wind preferred for a mirrors effects in the water)
- sunrise/sunset directions
- knowledge of passing fronts. Cold front preferred with huge cumulonimbus (before this you can notice fabulous altostratus lenticularis-lens shape), and leave improved visibility.
- fogs

Composition.
Sometimes I read that the composition is bad. So what that is means?. So is it really any other chance to have a better composition in that place? No, because it is very hard to get the compositions what you can read in the books with strong points, one third of the sky or the leading lines. Ok, I always try to apply to those rules but sometimes you need to break them. So acc to general composition means dress for a nice women but she is still loking good without:
- not so much sky (one third) but spectacular
- strong foreground. Only wide angle lenses for distortions. Looking for lines from the bottom corners (especially left corner) leading to centre of picture and the sky. That can be everything like stones, wood, etc.
- If there is no foreground you need to find something else. That can be a single human factor (amazing in mountains areas) or birds. Sometimes it is good use telephoto lenses to cut out only the part of scenery

From the other hand:
- huge amount of the sky and only small life factor or land with interesting point
- the main object in the centre of the picture with horizon cutting this in a half (still treated like a big mistake)
- square not panorama layout

You need to be very elastic if you vote for or against composition.

Exposure
I can compare the pictures coming from analog cameras or even digital compact and see the difference between the pictures taking by them and new reflex cameras with?modern landscaping aspects?. For me it is not a problem that those new ones are digital converted (photoshop) and it is really very hard to not improve the picture nowadays to follow all professionals users.
At the moment the power of color decide about of popularity of the picture (that?s why I like BW?). I don?t say that is wrong because I have never had panting skills but now I can do it by my camera and computer.
What I must know:
- I always do different exposures (setup the single point of exposure in the camera) and measuring the sky or foreground (bracketing). After that I can choose the best one or even make the HDR if the tonal range is very wide. The best HDR is only then when you can not notice that it is. You can not touch the sky by this program so you need to work on the layers in PS to merge different exposures. I know that it is some kind of manipulation but I don?t want to have any over exposured parts.
- Knowledge of histogram curve and ability to point the lack of details in shadows and lights. In landscape should be between 5 and 90% (info tool)
- Ability to play on a layers, levels, curves but in acceptance limits. Tutorials are usually breaking the pictures down.
- BW conversion- the most difficult post processing. Young photographers don?t like this kind of photos because they think this is not attractive anymore and this is real mistake. For BW conversion should be other thread.

Now I know why I am very unlikely to take seriously good landscape photos! I don't think I can muster the discipline, or the necessary passion for it. Really great information JP and everybody. Thanks for that, and thanks to Kevin for such a great idea. Maybe, when the final thoughts are all in and amalgamated, a PDF including the pictures referred to might be a cool idea. Subject to relevant permissions being given of course. I'm sure there are members with an art/design background who could help with this, me included.
Jon

Excellent stuff here, folks!

I'd like to weigh in on the HDR issue. None of my 1x photos were generated using an automated HDR program, though, on occasion I will use Photomatix for that purpose. At this point, I don't think the software is nearly good enough, in most cases, to give results as good as a manual blend of exposures. Manual blending, which I do frequently, gives you much more control. I will only use automated HDR in cases where manual blending is just not feasible.

You often do see a bias against automated HDR amongst photographers, and you will see comments such as "looks too HDRish", "too unnatural", "too unreal". One ignorant and arrogant 1x member even commented on someone's published image recently, that use of HDR is just basically a substitute for bad photographic technique. Some HDR is done very badly. For much of this, however, it is merely a matter of personal taste and what we are used to seeing. Someone commented that my "Avalanche Lake" photo looked unnatural (created with manual blending, not automated HDR) - fair enough, but, what exactly is 'natural-appearing' in a photo, compared to what we are used to seeing in a photo? To state that a traditional landscape photograph is 'real' or 'true to reality' is false, as we know that a camera sensor doesn't see what our eye sees. In fact, HDR might be considered closer to what our eye 'sees' than a single exposure.

Check Darwin Wiggett's recent blog about this to see what I mean. The bottom line is, it's all very subjective and we shouldn't be dogmatic about any particular technique. It's the end result that counts.

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/rant-hdr/

Quite agree with you Doug, as mentioned previously I'm also not overly struck on the 'HDR look' that you sometimes get but quite a few of my published images are actually processed using Photomatix. They are not true HDR where I have taken separate exposures to achieve the dynamic range but one RAW file correctly exposed using ND grads etc is then turned into 3 separate TIFFs of different exposures then wrung through the Photomatix mincer to produce one tone mapped file.
Funnily enough a few people have asked if they are HDR and I've just replied that they are tone mapped but they must have a HDR kind of look or I wonder if some folk don't realise that there are traditional methods to capture the full dynamic range in camera using filters? This strikes me as possibly true, quite often when I'm on location set up with polariser, ND grads etc other people taking photos with expensive cameras enquire what all that stuff is on the end of my lens, honestly it's true. I patiently explain about that it's all there to balance the exposure as I don't want blown highlights and white sky, to which they shrug their shoulders and carry on firing off bracketed shots hand held!!
I wouldn't be so presumptuous to say they don't know what they are doing but it gets one thinking..

JP

One thing I think that this "tone mapping" whether Photomatix or manual, is guilty of is flattening the environmental perspective of an image. Doug, I think your "Avalanche Lake" is somewhat guilty of this. When the exposure is evened out to the point that it flattens the depth of the scene, then most people will react that it doesn't look "natural" anymore, and they may well be right.

This image came up in Critique a little while back and, again, I think it suffers this same type of depth flattening:
http://1x.com/mview.php?p=r136813

Like the great masters of the wet print and zone system, this is digital tone mapping is a craft that is slowly developing into an art form. It will take a while longer for some to get really good at it and then it will take the rest of us even longer to catch up. Alas, many will never bother and just continue to crank the sliders up to the stops and say: "Voilà!"

Hillbilly out!

....saw this in critique - do you perhaps remember where this place is. Looks really interesting!

It was just titled Bizerta, could be the place but the critique thread didn't mention where it was.

JP

Thanks John!
Wikipedia: Bizerte is known as the oldest and most European city in Tunisia. It was founded around 1000 BC by Phoenicians from Tyre. It is also known as the last town to remain under French control after the rest of the country won its independence from France.
Initially a small Phoenician harbour, the city came under the influence of Carthage after the defeat of Agathocles during the Punic Wars. The city was then occupied by the Romans, under the name of Hippo Diarrhytus or Zarrytus, was dismantled and moved to Utica.
.....added to my wish list of places to go, Andre

We are getting away from the original intent here, in that I dont think a history lesson, regardless of how informative it may be, has anything to do with 10 observational points of interest in a landscape photograph.

to get back on track - I am not a list person.
I dont make lists and I dont list points very well; but there are definately factors .. I like to call it, that influence me when studying a landscape photograph.

First of all, I DONT like HDR. I am not saying it has no place in photographic art, just that it is in my opinion, unatural, false.
The most important factor I look for immediately in a landscape photo, is a sense of depth.
AS a photographer we are using a tool that transforms a three dimensional reality onto a two dimensional record.
SO there has to be a sense of depth, distance; particularly if a wide angle lens is used.
Lines; leading lines, or objects in a pattern that directs me through the photograph or to a focal point are very important to me, as this supports the illusion of a three dimensional reality.
A landscape doesnt have to be color, but if it is Black and white, it MUST be simple and dramatic.
I rapidly lose interest in a BW landscape that has too many mid tones, or presents a complex subject matter.
Consistancy is important to me. I dont like objects such as buildings or telephone poles appearing to be scattered randomly through the scene.
This just ruins the impact or enjoyment of "virtually" walking through the scene.
I know this is not ten points, but like I said.... I am not a list person, and each photograph I look at... regardless of genre; requires, in my opinion, a different approach each time.

A few things I look out for when viewing other's images that stick in my mind:

Composition:
I usually like a bold and strong in your face type composition that is striking in itself and usually is the reason for the photo or a main element within.
Check out Calle's jetty
http://1x.com/photos/member/1217/20274/
and Maciej's boat
http://1x.com/photos/member/9017/17271/

Colour & texture:
Sometimes the main components that come across are the colours and textures, I don't know how these guys do it but they really make the image sing for me.
Check out Jure's 'The Core'
http://1x.com/photos/member/2983/20311/
and again Maciej's 'Landmannalauger'
http://1x.com/photos/member/9017/17415/

Interest:
Sometimes images just have so much impact and interest, could be that they were difficult to get or unusual.
Such as Harry's shot from Everest, doubt if I'll be putting my running shoes on for a quick jog up to this vantage point..
http://1x.com/photos/member/137/463/
and Guilio's mountain, it's just simply dead interesting for me, I could study this and images like it for ages.
http://1x.com/photos/member/3260/11444/

There are other things that attract my attention but these are especially appealing to me.

JP

ps, didn't know how to display other peoples thumbnails, sorry.

Just include one of your own published images and replace it's id with the id of the published photo, you want to show a thumbnail of

Lars :-)

Learn something everyday Lars, cheers.

jp

Lots of good stuff in the posts before.
I want that, and then.. something more to discover when I look at the image! Something you not neccessarily see at first glimpse ( or screening..).


Why not make HDR in Photoshop? It's there, but not that easy to fake it with one exposure. That's not HDR anyway..

Lars, I tend not to do HDR landscape images anyway as I haven't been presented with a difficult contrast scenario that my Neutral Density Grads have not been able to cope with yet.

I have experimented with HDR (Photomatix) inside churches, caves etc where HDR is the obvious choice if you are not using artificial lights/flash etc. In these cases I've found it disappointing and generally just tend to stay away from these situations anyway, I haven't tried PS HDR but to be honest I'm not really struck by the HDR process anyway.

As far as landscapes go I get more than acceptable results with filters.

JP

Hey John.

How about offering an 'in person' masterclass?

I could be at yours in about an hour and a half ;^)

Promise not to bring my whippets.

Great idea Kevin. Very much looking forwards to the 'action' genre.

Regards
Bob

Aye, nae problem Bob, next time you're in the Lakes I can show you many instances of how to get it wrong as well....

:-)

I think most of the well recognised attributes of good landscape images are covered such as Light, Composition, FG Interest, Lines/Curves/shapes etc but little has been mentioned of emotional content and story.

I have to admit that these attributes come farily well down my own order when I'm taking my landscape shots as I'm primarily interested in capturing scenes in a descriptive and informative way where the viewer doesn't have to interpret or use too much imagination to decipher the image. But landscapes can be used as the canvas to portray a feeling or emotions perhaps.

I'll try and give a few examples but meybe the experts in such areas could describe what they look for.
Check out storytaylor's moody morning dawn bird flight over a beach.
http://1x.com/photos/landscape/25705/
and Alex's very emotive run in the fabulous park, evokes energy and stimulation and individualism to me among other things.
http://1x.com/photos/mood/25531/
and Zsolt's very calm and soothing minimalistic image, alot can be read into this I think.

The nearest I've got to portraying a sense of something is probably this, maybe tranquility, silence perhaps.


Something I'm looking to develope in my images this.

JP

Who needs a book! when you have John summing up and exampling landscape images.
Bravo. Excellent. Thank you.
And a special thanks for all those image contributions from the members of 1x.
clap clap

Thanks Jerry appreciate that, I think I'd better read it a few times and learn something from it, then I might be able to get something published out of my barren patch..!!

;-))

JP

Do you need my PayPal deposit number? :-)

No need Jerry, the cheque's already in the post.

Yours shamelessly,

JP

(:-))

OK.

I don't do landscape, but I now have a reason to learn fast.

I made the final 25 of the Nikon/Photography Monthly UK POTY. (£8,500 of gear up for grabs)

The next challenge is in Buxton (in England) on Friday the 7th of August and it's Landscape.

Unfortunately I have no time to practice between now and then due to workload.

I believe they are going to let us loose in 3 groups throughout the day (luckily I'll be out late morning)

I think we have a few hours to get our pics and then we have until Monday to submit 3 images.

I won't get the final details until the day so who knows what they will ask for.

I'm using a D3 and have 24-70mm, 70-200mm and 50mm prime.

I have read this thread and made notes of the top tips.

If anyone has any advice it would be most appreciated.

Regards
Bob

Be lucky!

It does seem a bit odd that they will be letting you out in groups at different times Bob. Groups at certain times of the day could have distinct advantages over other groups at times of the day that can often not be conducive to good landscape photography, especially landscapes in Summer. Often in the Summer the light can become so harsh and unappealing even shortly after sunrise that it can be hardly worth using the camera, especially on calm high pressure days with little cloud cover.
I woke at 4am this morning and went to the beach for 05:10am sunrise, I was there half hour before and this provided really good quality pre-dawn light for a few shots then I shot until about 7am as there was reasonable cloud cover to difuse the Sun but after that it developed a very harsh and contrasty quality so I gave up. It stayed like this all day until around 6pm this evening when I went to the woods to get some nice difused light for mushroom close-ups etc. So, what I'm saying is that you have to be aware of the characteristics of the light throughout the day and try and adapt to it, if you have a reasonably scattered cloudy day then it may be good for the patchwork light effect over the land type shots and use this to hightlight contours etc. If you have grey leaden skies then go for the milky, slow shutter speed waterfall, babling brook type shots. If you have the dreaded perfect Summer blue sky job then bung an IR filter on and hope for the best... as to be honest I would just pack the camera away, sit in the garden and drink ale.

:)

JP

I hope to be K. I think that will be a factor in who goes forwards from this point.

I'll be using the 'Law of Attraction' (as usual).

B

Just had another thought, try and do a bit of research of the area you are going to, what is Buxton famous for, has it got certain characteristics, how would folk recognise Buxton and the area from your submitted images?
Its always in the back of my mind to try and express an essence of the location I'm shotting, can't always do it but it may be especially pertinent to try this for competition reasons, they may look for this in judging even though the afore mentioned conditions may not be conducive to fab landscapes. For example, when I go the Scotland I try and show the characteristics which I like about it up there, being the reds, yellows of the foliage and the natural ruggedness and remoteness. Look for what you think Buxton offers.

JP

Thanks for the tips J.

They do seem disorganized. People are traveling from all over the country and they aren't even providing a little lunch.

These are the timings of the groups. I'm probably in the best group (1)

Timings
Group 1
8.30am Arrive Longnor, minibus will depart at 8.45am
9am Presentation/introduction at The Spout
9.45am Transfer back to Longnor
10am Challenge begins
2pm Challenge ends, return to Longnor
Appx 2.15pm Free to return home
Group 2
9.30am Arrive Longnor, minibus will depart at 9.45am
10am Presentation/introduction at The Spout
10.45am Transfer back to Longnor
11am Challenge begins
3pm Challenge ends, return to Longnor
Appx 3.15pm Free to return home

Group 3
10.30am Arrive Longnor, minibus will depart at 10.45am
11am Presentation/introduction at The Spout
11.45am Transfer back to Longnor
12noon Challenge begins
4pm Challenge ends, return to Longnor
Appx 4.15pm Free to return home. Any people travelling by train will be taken back to the station in Buxton

I sadly don't have an IR filter. Perhaps I should get one as it may give me an edge.

Cheers
B

They could be giving you specific guidlines for you to follow which may negate the ambient conditions and they could be looking for certain techniques you have or a particular vision. I'd be interested to do something like this.

JP

I have been looking at the local area on google earth and checking out the pics to see which are the most scenic areas.
It is a very beautiful place. It's actually south of Buxton. There is some lovely countryside especially to the west.

Oooops! My finger just slipped on the 'buy it now' button when I was looking at a Hoya R72 ;^)

Cheers
B

Forgot to say..... this is where we are heading........

http://www.peakphotocentre.com/index.asp

B

Good luck Bob, if I think of owt next day or so I'll let you know.

Toodlepip
JP

A polariser may be a good idea to save the day for blue skies as well, gonna cost ya a weef ortune all these bits and bobs aye Bob..??

;-)

JP

It really slipped - I could have sent you my own for free, because I'm generous (and have no more lenses @72mm :)) Could have been yours in 24 hours...


In case you don't have one, well, I do and it will be happy to see some action... just OEmail me your address. My Hoya pol became obsolete for the same reason - I only use the Cokin Z-pro series now (except a Kaesemann pol but that's welded to my 24 prime...) So if you need it, let me know.

Don't be afraid to lay down on the ground or climb up in a tree. I carry a small ladder in the car, only useful if I'm not hiking far from that car, but very useful at time. Find a unique POV, break the rules and have fun!!

Luckily I have one already. I got it ages back, but have never used it.
I did try it out yesterday, but was unable to see any obvious changes as I rotated it. I'm sure it would be a different matter with water, but with blue sky and bits of cloud I was struggling.

I was intending getting the IR filter anyhow and found one at about £95 on ebay. Considering that the winner of each stage wins a D90 and 2 lenses it could be a decent investment. Thanks to you the set of 3 grad filters were a very decent price too.

Cheers
B

Balazs, that's incredibly generous of you to offer. Thank you very much, but my main lenses are 77mm.

Cheers
Bob

Cheers for the top tips C.

I'll give them a go.

B

Oh, I see. Stupidly I thought the R72 refers to the diameter. Which in my case actually does, since the filters are 72mm.
BTW, the polarizer works best when there's a clear sky and you're standing 90 or so degrees to the sun. Apart from the deep blue sky, you can also use it to remove reflections from water - an asset in landscapes.

I know I've hijacked the thread somewhat and I'll start a new one should anyone wish, but I have a few questions.

When using the infrared (Hoya R72) filter, is there anything special I need to consider/do ?

What advice can you offer regarding getting a really deep depth of field in a landscape that has foreground interest?

What apertures are best taking into account the loss of sharpness due to diffraction at small apertures?

Where is best to set your focus point? (I know this is a bit of a dumb ass question, but wondered if there was a general rule)

What the hell is the definition of landscape anyhow? Would I be penalized if my images were of a macro landscape? (not that I'm intending doing that - I rubbish at macro too. I'm allergic to tripods)

My plan so far is............

Use the tripod whenever possible and the mirror up function.

Try and get the shots with '1 exposure' (forgive the pun) using grad filters etc if required.

If needed autobracket at 1 stop intervals for 5 frames. (Should I turn off active d-lighting?)

Cheers
B

R72, compose carefully and set focus manually prior to attaching as obviously its too dark to see through.

DOF is easy, a very general rule of thumb is select a small focal length say upto 25mm, select f16 and focus about 1/3 way into a scene and this should give you acceptable sharpness front to back. More scientifically, calculate correct large DOFs using this online calculator http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html for your camera/lens combo then write a few down on a piece of paper for the main f stops such as f/11, f/16 and f/22.

I personally don't worry about using any apertures as long as it is the one I need for the creativity or effect I'm after, if the ambient light dictates I need f/32 to get a slow water shot in bright sunlight then I use it. However there is discussion that lenses have sweet spots in their mid aperture range say f/8 to f/16 but I honestly don't worry about this.

For large front to back DOFs with a bold foreground interest I generally use f/16 at say 10 to 20mm and focus on the subject itself to ensure it is in focus (maybe a few feet in front of me), f/16 takes care of the midgound to background.

I would listen to what instructions they give out if any on the day but other than that a landscape can be anything wide to close up details of things in a landscape I would say.

Use a tripod unless shutter speeds are at 1/125 or above depending on focal lengths, try polarisers and IR filter and use ND grads. If there are any dedicated landscapers in your group I can almost predict what their gear will be, out of the boot of their car will be a camera attached to a tripod complete with a set of ND grads attached sporting a spirit level and cable release. well mine is like this anyway...

JP

Cool. Thanks J.

I have a cable release and luckily the D3 has a built in level.

Have just been looking at DOF charts for my 24-70mm and I had chosen to use F/16 for a deep DOF.

(Recently sold my 14-24mm Doh! - Didn't use it much and needed the money. I actually preferred the lens I sold to buy it which was the 17-35mm)

I better get through after all this top quality tuition ;^)

Cheers
B

......just a long as you remember what focal length you are using and where you actually focus as well.... ;-) I'm sure you know this

JP

I carry a small walker in the car.


When I do that, I can't get up.

Do DSLR's not have hyperfocal distance markings on the lenses? I suppose they wouldn't. Very handy, those, in established desired DOF limits.

Some lenses designed for the newer crop sensor DSLRs do have and some don't, I've got one without and two with. My wide angle lens always seems to indicate infinity which is fine as that is what I'm after anyway.

JP

Just found loads to applications for the iPHONE or iPOD that calculate DOF/Hyperfocal distances. Two of them are free. Just search 'dof' in the iTUNES store.

Cheers
B

R72 came today, but I'm getting the dreaded hot spots with it. Looks like my 24-70mm lens is no good for IR. Grads are fine though.
I'll try it with my 50mm and see what results I get.

B

Bob, if you are not comfortable with a new piece of kit don't be going into the competition thinking you have to use it because we have recommended it on here, you'd be far better off sticking to the tried and tested stuff and getting something reasonable or good I should say to work with.

JP

Cheers J.

I totally agree. I'm going to look for something unique and try and shoot as much hand held as possible from unusual perspectives.

I'm going to ask them for a definition of landscape before we start and see what boundaries I can push. No point playing it safe.

B

..could be risky Bob, they may think this guy doesn't even know what a camera is as well...


Narr, only kidding, good luck with it anyway.

JP