Sunrise over Konza Biological Station, Kansas

[swimmergrl]

Hey everybody!

This is my first post. I got into photography about 4 years ago, and then stopped for a reason I can't remember. I assume it was money/time related. (College student alert! :D) My gear consists of the the canon 300d, 18mm-55mm kit lens, and a Tokina 24mm-200mm. I've also have uv and polarizing filters for both lenses (cheap ones due to $$ limitations). I also have a really cheap tripod that I used for auto timer/all family included type pictures, but after using for these pictures, realize I really hate it and need one of better quality. Unfortunately, a sever lack of funds means no new gear or upgrades for quite a while.

This picture was taken with the Tokina lens, petal lens hood, and polarizing filter on one of the hill tops. The goals I strive to meet with photography are to make people realize how small we are as individuals in the world, open their eyes to the beauty of nature inspire to protect it, and look at regular things with new angles. How did I do? This picture is straight from the camera, no fix ups.

All criticism welcome!

Rachel

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a16/rgugler/SunriseoverKonza.jpg

[NathanS]

I really like it. I think it is beautiful! Where was this picture taken?

[NathanS]

Haha, I just realized that it is right in the title! Is this a recent photo? It reminds me alot of where I am from - Alberta - but not as cold looking :P

[Cdeming]

My only critique is that there is too much sky. Especially in this picture where the foreground is very colorful and interesting, and the sky isn't.

[swimmergrl]

Yes, this is recent, I took it yesterday morning!

Thanks for the input on the sky,I'll try to fiddle around with composition next time I head out there. I was actually surprised I got this picture, because I failed to remember that it is about 15 degrees colder on top of the hills at Konza, and couldn't really feel my hands or face, and the screen on the 300d is so tiny it isn't very easy to see what needs to be fixed!

Rachel

[NathanS]

Isn't Kansas famous for its skies or something? I dont know I could be making that up but if so I like it the way it is!

[swimmergrl]

Well, we have a little population (~2 million people in about 80,000 square miles), so a lot less light pollution than most places. The sunsets and sunrises can be really really amazing. It is pretty over farm land, but the tall grass prairie in the fall is my favorite. I love the gold/red colors in the grasses. When the wind blows it really is like an ocean gold! The ecology of the tall grass prairie is actually very similar to the African savanna. There is concurrent research between Konza and some areas in South Africa. (Can you tell I'm a wildlife biologist student? :P) I was out at Konza again trying to get some white tailed deer pictures around dusk, and the sky had every color from a rich dark blue, to purple, to the most amazing orangey red color I've ever seen. I'm still working on how to capture all the colors without totally killing the foreground. I'll probably end up blending a couple pictures together to get it. I'm going out again tomorrow morning, but I can't decide if I want to do some more sunrise attempts, or get a good seat to watch the turkeys.

Rachel

[tonydee]

An excellent shot. I (unusually) find I disagree with Chrissy on this one: I think the amount of sky perfectly judged as the gradation is unusually from a dusty brown into the deepening blue, with the blue tone entering at about the Line of Thirds. The simple elegance of that more-complicated-than-usual transition in a cloudless sky works well, and lightens somewhat the heavy tones below. Indeed, it's the heavy mid-ground ground that strikes me as less interesting than it ought to be. The foreground grass has some vibrancy and local contrast, but the mid-ground is pretty flat and the details aren't crisp or satisfying. Anyway, perhaps I'm asking too much of a made-for-web-forum JPEG and the original delivers... past my bed time and I'm starting to ramble. Cheers, Tony

[Walczak Photo]

Hey everybody!

This is my first post. I got into photography about 4 years ago, and then stopped for a reason I can't remember. I assume it was money/time related. (College student alert! :D) My gear consists of the the canon 300d, 18mm-55mm kit lens, and a Tokina 24mm-200mm. I've also have uv and polarizing filters for both lenses (cheap ones due to $$ limitations). I also have a really cheap tripod that I used for auto timer/all family included type pictures, but after using for these pictures, realize I really hate it and need one of better quality. Unfortunately, a sever lack of funds means no new gear or upgrades for quite a while.

This picture was taken with the Tokina lens, petal lens hood, and polarizing filter on one of the hill tops. The goals I strive to meet with photography are to make people realize how small we are as individuals in the world, open their eyes to the beauty of nature inspire to protect it, and look at regular things with new angles. How did I do? This picture is straight from the camera, no fix ups.

All criticism welcome!

Rachel



First let me say that these are strictly MY comments and opinions and should only be taken as such. They are not meant to be rude or offensive in ANY way. From your post I realize that you are just a begginer...all I'm offering here is my honest evalutation of your image.

Considering all of your negative comments about your gear, the problems I see here don't really have much to do with your equipment at all. My first big issue here is simply the composition itself. The colors are quite lovely but there's no real specific subject to the image to anchor the eye...the eye sort of just wanders around looking for something to connect with. There's some sort of building there waaaaaaaaaaaaay off in the distance that my eye wants to settle on, but it's really too far away and too small in the image to be effective. Shots of fields and such can be effective by themselves if there's enough interest or drama in the scene, but more often times than not it comes out looking like "empty space" as you have here. You really need something as a central subject here...a tractor, a bail of hay, a building, a horse, cow, deer, dog....something. Ask yourself exactly what it is the image is supposed to be about then concentrate on that specific element and eliminate anything that's not relevant to that subject. Colors and lines and contrast and such are elements of a good composition but often times are not sufficient by themselves to make up the entire composition.

Another approach would have been to actually catch the sun as it came over the horizon with a more dramatic sky, but again here you just have this "big blob of blue" that dominates almost half of the image. Again no real interest or drama there.

Beyond the lack of a central subject, there are some other smaller issues here too. You have the horizon pretty close to splitting the middle of the image. In most cases this is a compositional "no no". Again there are times when it can work quite effectively but in most cases it is much better (especially for a newbie) to follow the rule of thirds in regards to a horizon (you need to know and understand what the "rules" are before you can effectively start to break them). On that same note, the horizon also looks a bit crooked...looks like it's tilted a degree or two clockwise. There is some softness to this image too but as you say, it was right from the camera. If this were a better composition I would suggest some USM (unsharp mask) or other form of sharpening (and maybe a saturation boost as well).

Unless you are shooting in some special situation such as low light or something, the equipment you have there should be quite sufficiant for this type of work...in fact Tokina lenses are one of the better 3rd party lenses out there. If you look around on the internet, there's a ton of great images shot with very modest equipment...sometimes even cheap point & shoot cameras. The camera is only as good as the person using it. That said, my suggestion to you would be to study up on composition...learn what makes a "good" image compared with a random snapshot. You might even want to look around on the internet and in books for landscape shots (there's literally millions out there) to see how they differ from yours and learn from that. Also remember that what looks good to your eye when you are looking at a scene may not translate well to film/digital. In the case of your image here, I'm sure that as you are standing there looking at this scene, I have no doubt at all that it is quite lovely and even breath-taking but as far as a photographic composition goes, there really isn't much there at all. Pretty colors and some nice lighting, but that's about it. I appreciated your "goals" as a photographer as you have them stated...I have similar goals myself (people tend to destroy that which they find "ugly" and tend to protect that which they find "beautiful"), but I think you need to get a better understanding of the elements of composition before you will really be able to achieve those goals.

Lastly I would add that I do think with some effort you can achieve those goals...and they are quite worthy goals to say the least. As not only a photographer myself but as something of an environmentalist and a nature lover, I would strongly encourage you to keep at it...photography is not only an "art" but it is a skill as well and does take time to learn if you want to move beyond the simple snap shot. Read, learn, study and most of all, be patient! A good picture is indeed worth a thousand words and I think that the message you are trying to convey is well worth saying :D.

Again this is just my honest $.02 worth...I hope it helps!
Jim

[swimmergrl]

Hey Jim,

Thanks for the input, I realized the composition was off when I when I first looked at it on the computer, but I still love it, probably because it reminds me of actually being out there. I'm a 5th senior with dual degrees in Wildlife Biology and Animal Science/Biotechnology, and and minor in International Agriculture, so photography is definitely just a hobby for me, and it tends to go by the wayside when life gets busy. My main interest in photographing Konza right now is I am actually working on an analysis of white tail deer densities and landscape use out at Konza, so I'm out there quite a lot. The main reason I'm getting back into photography now, is I'm hoping to get a seasonal educator/naturalist job in Denali National Park this summer, and want to be on the top of my game!

The reason you don't see the sunrise, is the picture is pointed towards the southwest. The buildings you see in the distance are the headquarters, fire station, and bison handling area. When I stated my goals, I wasn't assuming I had achieved them with this photograph. That is just what I hope to strive for. I am very aware that I am a beginner and don't understand most of the "laws" of composition. You have to start somewhere, right?

A question I have, is if this is so wrong, then how does one correctly compose a picture to show off space? I don't want a picture of something else, I want a picture of the landscape. Konza is special because it is one of the last protected areas of tall grass prairie in the world. (Tall grass prairie is more endangered than tropical rain forests) With urban sprawl continuing at crazy rates, it is difficult to find large areas of natural ecosystem. With wind power becoming more popular, undeveloped prairies are even more rare. What I hope to capture with pictures like this is the space, and try to convey a sense of what it feels like to be surrounded by nothing but rolling hill of 6 foot tall grass.

Thanks!

Rachel

Another question I have it, how do you make something appear less flat? This is my ignorance showing. Tonydee mentioned the midground of the picture looked flat.

[skygod44]

Hey,
I'm new to this forum but have loved photography since 1979 when I had a Praktica film camera with a cheap little 50mm lens for my 10th birthday, so I hope I can add some comments that might help you!
So, about your picture...my thoughts are in line with some others. I love the colours, but I feel a horizon near/at the middle of the frame is a bad idea. Also, landscape pictures in general are tough. You need to ask yourself, "What's the point of this picture?" If you have time, check out Ansel Adams' landscapes (just 'google' his name!). He was a 'god' among mere mortals regarding landscape photography up until his death (and long after, I suspect) in 1984. Chosing something close to you which leads the eye into the picture really adds some depth. Just reduce the apperture to f/11, shove your camera on a tripod/beanbag/whatever and increase the exposure. That will give you more depth of field, keeping a close subject AND the scene back-drop in focus. Don't forget that unless the person looking at your picture knows the scene personally, a landscape shot is fairly meaningless. Add some detail and then anyone will love to see your picture.
Keep at it, and I'd recommend looking into some quality lenses as-and-when you can afford it, as they WILL allow you to take pictures more easily, especially in low light (go f/2.8 or faster) and for long distance shots of animals, birds, etc. (The Canon EF100-400L from B&H in New York is a bargain, as long as you've plenty of light!) And don't worry about your camera/pixels etc. Almost any camera (over 3 megapixels) can produce a great shot! Just keep at it!
Simon

[swimmergrl]

Hey Simon,

Thanks for advice. I've been drooling over the Canon EF 100-400L, but it is way out of my price range right now. I'm a very broke college student, so it may be awhile.

Thanks!

Rachel

[toyoufromzero]

oh wow, I've been there a number of times.

I graduated in '01 from Wamego, KS about 15min from Manhattan.

[Walczak Photo]

Hey Jim,



A question I have, is if this is so wrong, then how does one correctly compose a picture to show off space? I don't want a picture of something else, I want a picture of the landscape. Konza is special because it is one of the last protected areas of tall grass prairie in the world. (Tall grass prairie is more endangered than tropical rain forests) With urban sprawl continuing at crazy rates, it is difficult to find large areas of natural ecosystem. With wind power becoming more popular, undeveloped prairies are even more rare. What I hope to capture with pictures like this is the space, and try to convey a sense of what it feels like to be surrounded by nothing but rolling hill of 6 foot tall grass.


Well...there are a couple of ways to approach this. First I probably should have mentioned that I typically approach photography from an "artistic" point of view...in other words, I think of pictures as "art". However another perfectly legitimate school of thought is "photojournalism"...or simply documenting you subject "as is", in which case what you have here is perfectly acceptable. That said, I think what you are shooting for here (no pun intended) is somewhere in between thus I will approach your question from that of "art"...others may have different opinions which may also be perfectly valid.

The two big things I would do different in this shot are things that I have already mentioned. First, in regards to your horizon...since the image you are seeking to capture is about "the land", I would put your horizon in the top third of the image (i.e. the rule of thirds). What I mean by this is, divide your image into equal horizontal thirds (either mentally or physically)...you'll have the top third, the middle third and the bottom third. Try to place your horizon around where the top and middle thirds meet. There is a lot of psychology behind why this is an effective compositional element, but for now just accept that it generally makes for better compositions.

Also on the note of the sky itself....while flat, featureless skies make for nice sunny days, they don't usually make for interesting photographs. In most cases a few clouds are usually very desirable as they give a great deal more interest and/or sense of drama to the sky during any time of the day.

Secondly...and this is again just my opinion here, but you really need something in the foreground. This is where I think the two approaches I mentioned above will be vastly different. If you are only trying to "document" the tall grass prairie then having something in the foreground isn't really that important to that documentation. However artistically as I've said before, it leaves a lot of "open space"...too much to be effective for compositional purposes. Because I'm not specifically familiar with the environment that you are shooting in, I can't really make too many specific suggestions as to what would be appropriate, but in general you might want to look for something like a small tree or even a bush for example and place that in lower right or left third of the image...

Again going back to the rule of thirds here, in this case divide your image equally into thirds both horizontally -and- vertically and the places where those line meet are what some folks refer to as the "power points" of the rule of thirds. The idea here is to place some interesting foreground element right at the center of one of those power points (or fairly close to it at least). Looking at your original image there, there does appear to be some smaller trees or something there. I would suggest trying to move in closer to one of those and try the approach I just described. If you can't find a position against one of those trees or something that works, the you may need to add something else to the scene. Again because of the nature of this work, you'll have to decide what is actually appropriate here but the idea is that it should be something that will generally compliment the over-all composition.

Another question I have it, how do you make something appear less flat? This is my ignorance showing. Tonydee mentioned the midground of the picture looked flat.Creative lighting. The thing to remember about photography is that it is a 2 dimensional medium. The one single thing that gives a photograph the illusion of 3D is how lighting and shadows play and interact with each other. Now that said, I actually disagree to some extent with Tonydee's comments about the midground...at least as far as the lighting goes. If you look towards the hills in the background of the image, you actually had some very lovely lighting and colors here. I think that it's just that the wooded area there in the middle lacks a degree of detail compared with the rest of the image as it is mostly dark. In my mind at least, this isn't really a big deal as that could be "fixed" a bit with some creative processing. If you have Photoshop or a similar editing program, look for a tool called "burn and dodge"...burn darkens an area of an image and dodge lightens, so you could use the dodge tool to lighten up that area of woods there just a bit.

I would also like to take a moment and say a thing or two in regards to lenses and sharpness. First, being a "Canon" forum there are a lot of people around here who are really hung up on L lenses. If a person can afford them and that's what a person chooses to shoot with, that's fine but please know that there -ARE- excelent alternatives to having that big ol' white chunk of metal hanging on the front of your camera. The simple truth of the matter is that most lenses today...even the really cheap "kit" lenses can produce very sharp and high quality images. In fact, except for my new Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 which cost me $700, I've never owned a lens that has cost more than $100. The -ONLY- reason I bought the f/2.8 is that I needed something a little faster for shooting in low light conditions. Unless a given lens has been dropped or otherwise damaged in some way or unless you are planning on shooting advertising billboards any time soon, I seriously would not get that hung up on what lens you are using. As I've said many times on these forums, it's not the camera or the lens, it's the person using it. Understanding how to use a lens properly is, in my ever so humble opinion at least, far more important than the lens itself. For the type of work you are doing here, that 18-55mm or your Tokina 24-200 should serve you very well.

Beyond that, there is also the issue of simply learning how to properly sharpen an image. You said your using a 300D to shoot these (I believe that's the original Rebel if I'm not mistaken) so in regards to the sharpness of this image, one of two things probably happened here. -If- this was shot with just jpeg, then the camera applied very basic sharpening to the image which in most cases really isn't enough for an image to really be considered "sharp" in most folks opinions. If you shot this in RAW, then chances are no sharpening was applied to the image at all. In most editing programs, there is a tool called "unsharp mask" (don't ask about the name...it's a carry over from the old days of film processing) that can be used to sharpen an image such as this and it will make a very dramatic difference. Something that you will find as you go is that virtually everyone who does their own editing, regardless of how "sharp" their lenses are...almost everyone adds an extra degree of sharpening to their images.

Alrighty...that's about it for now. I've tried to give you some specific tips and ideas as I know your still learning. We all had to start somewhere so I hope you find this helpful!

Peace,
Jim

[swimmergrl]

Ok, so I tried a little bit of editing. How does this look?

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a16/rgugler/SunriseoverKonza2copy.jpg

[skygod44]

I've been drooling over the Canon EF 100-400L, but it is way out of my price range right now. I'm a very broke college student, so it may be awhile.

Thanks!

Rachel

You're welcome. But I stick to my suggestion of saving up for decent glass. Apart from a fairly cheap "nifty 50" (I'm thinking of going for an EF50mm f/1.4 soon - only $320 from B&H) better quality lenses seem to offer so much more. Much better build quality, faster f-stops, fully manual while in AF, etc.

In the meantime, keep being creative, and don't worry about the money...it'll come...

Byeee for now.

[Jim M]

I really like the edit. I was in Manhattan just a few weeks ago, but I was at the mercy of others and didn't have time to stop at the Konza. Are you familiar with Patricia Duncan's "Tallgrass Prairie, The Inland Sea"? She shot a lot of her stuff on the Konza Prairie. It came out about 1978 and was one of the first photographically oriented books about tallgrass prairie. I hadn't thought about that book in a lot of years, but your picture made me go dig it out. Thanks.

[Lutefisklover]

I've been to Konza and have spent a lot of time on northern tallgrass prairies. I appreciate the difficulties in making landscape photos on the prairies. In addition to the other comments, you might try shooting through the big bluestem or other grasses (if the wind is still), or include some forbs in the foreground. Bison or young kids in the foreground (probably not in the same frame) can also add interest.

Good luck,
Rick