CC please on two Landscapes

Howdy, I'm pretty happy with how these two photos came SOOC, but I'd like to hear suggestions. I played around on both of them with Lightroom 4 and can't figure out any ways to make them more "professional looking". I know, to look professional you have to start with a professional photo to begin with. But I still enjoy trying to improve them with PP and it's not happening. I've tried changing contrast, exposure, crops, highlights, etc., etc., and can't find anything that really jumps out at me. I'd love to hear your thoughts and suggestions!

I think they don't jump out after your processing because there is not one point of interest, but many. They become abstract with everything that is going on. Which can work if you go down a different route of capture and processing, IMHO.

With shots like these, where you are so close and filling the frame with the same subject, I would like to go very wide on the aperture and use shallow depth of field to isolate one subject/area so you are drawn to that.

Also, as both photos have the same tones/colours, everything is popping out/blending together. An option I would try in this case is go black and white and see how that looks.

Rammy has summed this up very well. These are almost abstract. It's hard to tell what you're trying to show in both of them.

I would add too that you might have gone with a little longer exposure on the shot with the running water. Maybe 2 to 5 seconds to give the water a sort of dreamy quality.

You could make the second shot a bit more interesting by adjusting the white balance and contrast. In this example, I cooled the w/b to bring out more color than just the red tones and played with the contrast. I also thought I'd try to give the image a bit of a painted look.

What really kills the shot for me is the branch on the right getting in the way of the falls.

Well to get professional results you have to start with a compelling subject, compose it in a good way and then snap the shot when the light is good. I'd say these miss on all three. The first is a busy mess of trees with no clear subject and nothing that stands out. Nothing leads your eye. The second one is better than the first, but there are some distractions like the branch on the right. It could be more interesting but I think composition wise it isn't very good. Try to get a different angle, a closer detail of the falls area and don't include as many rocks which don't add as much to the scene. It also could use some color, or a conversion to B&W. I would also go for a longer shutter speed so you make the water really get that flowing look. It's in between the flowing motion and stopped motion shots.

Thanks for the feedback, it's exactly what I was hoping for. That's why I love this section of the forum...if everyone simply said nice remarks about my photos, I'd never improve.

#1
Of the two photos, I greatly prefer this one. It almost works for me as an abstract, but you guys are right, they are both much too busy. My focus of this picture is the tree in the middle, with the cool bark pattern. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a way to bring it out like I wanted without it being a jumbled mess (like it is). Even with a wide aperture, there are way too many things at the same distance that are also in focus, and distracting. And due to the nature of it being a tree surrounded by trees, cropping doesn't really seem to work, because I lose too much of the subject that I want to keep.

#2
Thanks for playing around with it Navydoc, I like your colors you came up with. I agree with everyone that the branch on the right is awful. When I took the shot I actually purposely included it, thinking it would look good.. When I saw the finished results, I was much less impressed. I even took some with the branch in focus and everything else out of focus. It didn't work, the branch simply isn't an interesting subject. Numenorean, you hit the nail on the head, my composition really needs some work on both these. I hear what you folks are saying about the water. To be honest, that is the one aspect I like about the picture. I know most people prefer stop motion or really smooth, but I like the in-between look. I understand I'm in the minority on this one.

It was sort of depressing to be honest, I spent the last two days on a trip to the Eastern Sierras ( a long drive with expensive gas), specifically to do some landscape photography, and not one of my pictures really made me happy. I got there a little too late for the fall colors, and it was snowing the majority of the trip, so the weather wasn't cooperating. I know bad weather can make for even better photos, but this was more like gloom. I got some pictures of Mono Lake and a photo or two in the Alabama Hills I thought would be really great and when I saw them on the big computer monitor they were a complete ho-hum. Back to the drawing board with my landscape photography.

I must be in the minority too as I also prefer the shutter speed you used. It shows motion but still retains the texture of the white water intermixed with the darker waters. In my opinion, using longer exposures to fully blur the water only makes the water blend together and appear unrealistic and fog like.

It all comes down to individual preference but I thought the water in your 2nd shot was the best part of the photograph.

Jedi5150 wrote in post #15256842
It was sort of depressing to be honest, I spent the last two days on a trip to the Eastern Sierras ( a long drive with expensive gas), specifically to do some landscape photography, and not one of my pictures really made me happy. I got there a little too late for the fall colors, and it was snowing the majority of the trip, so the weather wasn't cooperating. I know bad weather can make for even better photos, but this was more like gloom. I got some pictures of Mono Lake and a photo or two in the Alabama Hills I thought would be really great and when I saw them on the big computer monitor they were a complete ho-hum. Back to the drawing board with my landscape photography.

Sometimes, that's just landscape photography. I couldn't tell you how many times I've gone out to get a photo and come home with nothing. Sometimes gone on trips and never taken my camera out of the bag because there wasn't anything compelling. You will take many, many more bad photos than good most likely. At least until you get more experience. I go back and look at my early work, some of which I thought was pretty good at the time. It's mostly all crap. Landscape photography is one of the hardest things I think to start to master. I've gotten so that when I go out I know I can get a good image - IF nature cooperates. If the clouds don't light up and are bland or the wind is blowing away a reflection in a lake....it's just what happens. So even when you get really good at the photography part of things, you still need other things to fall into place or you go home with nothing. Or you shoot anyway and go home with mediocre shots. But I took plenty of mediocre shots while learning.

What are you struggling with do you think? I can try to help.