Mountains

[taquintana07]

hey guys took some shots this weekend before my XTi died:evil: Anyways have some shots of the mountains. CC appreciated and please let me know what i did wrong, right..etc..



http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b118/taquintana07/Others/Mountains/IMG_1419.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b118/taquintana07/Others/Mountains/IMG_1409.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b118/taquintana07/Others/Mountains/IMG_1407.jpg

[LeuceDeuce]

When your sky is clear like that it rarely adds anything to the image so I would raise your horizon (lower your camera) to show more of the landscape.

I would also like to see something, with some interest, in the foreground. This would add depth to your images.

[EOSBoy]

Holy saturation!
Agree with LeuceDeuce too.

[taquintana07]

If i lowered the horizon i wouldve gotten the other side of the freeway. I was going up they were going down. ;(. thanks for the tip though will take it to heart next time im shooting on a clear day

[bill boehme]

Holy saturation!
Agree with LeuceDeuce too.

Good eye, Boy Wonder! ;) Saturation +100, Vibrance +48. Better to leave saturation control set to zero except for unusual circumstances and use the vibrance control sparingly (typically less than 10).

If i lowered the horizon i wouldve gotten the other side of the freeway. I was going up they were going down. ;(. thanks for the tip though will take it to heart next time im shooting on a clear day

Of course, there are not any "rules" -- just general guidelines. Don't let some "rule" keep you from taking a shot. You can decide later whether to keep it.

[taquintana07]

Heres what the original picture

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b118/taquintana07/Others/Mountains/IMG_1408.jpg

[LeuceDeuce]

original is much better.

Bill: how are you reading such detailed numbers? where are you getting that level of exif data?

[Glenn NK]

Bill: how are you reading such detailed numbers? where are you getting that level of exif data?

Good question.

My own personal preference for a landscape is to have an immediate foreground (about four to six feet from the camera), combined with objects from this point to infinity to create scale to provide the illusion of three dimensions. The images posted have no foreground whatsoever, and the only objects that are included are essentially at infinity focus. This won't give the illusion of three dimensions.

Even with the houses included (which are at infinity focus for practical purposes), there is little to indicate three dimensionality.

Does this make sense to anyone? If not, get this guy's book - it's worth it:

http://www.amazon.com/National-Audubon-Society-Landscape-Photography/dp/155407195X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208240774&sr=1-1

[bill boehme]

original is much better.

Bill: how are you reading such detailed numbers? where are you getting that level of exif data?

Adobe Camera RAW 4.4.1 -- it is not all EXIF data, some of the metadata is the ACR data as shown below. I did not look at the IPTC data because it is all user data.

262974