General landscape question

Hello all, after a 2 day trip to the Eastern Sierras that I just returned from, I'm in dire need of landscape advice. I took a gazillion photos, ranging from super close shots of trees to wide shots of lakes and mountains. It was snowing quite a bit, and some clear skies as well, so I got some interesting weather combinations. I went through absolutely beautiful scenery, and in the end, I came home without a single photo I liked.

To start off with, I can't figure out which lens to use. My choices are a 70-200L or a 24-105L (the sensor is full frame if that helps decide which zoom range would be more ideal). I know a lot of people love and recommend wide angle lenses for landscape. The 24 on a FF is pretty wide, and even then, I can't think of a single time I would have needed to go wider. I had the 70-200mm on for probably 98% of the shots. And before someone says, "there is your problem right there", please hear me out.

It seems the wider my lens is, the more superfluous crap ends up in the picture. Not to mention that even in the beautiful mountainous setting, it's hard to make a mountain fill a wide lens and still be interesting.

Problem #2. Nothing jumps out. I've heard that it's generally good to get everything in focus for landscapes, and all that leaves me with is having no "subject", or a too busy photo. If I go for a narrow depth of field, I get a great rock or tree, and the photo looks bad because everything else is blurry. I guess what I'm trying to say is that photographing people seems much easier for me than landscapes, which is ashame, since landscapes are what I'd rather take. I'll include a few shots from the trip, so you can see what I mean. None of them come close to "speaking to me".

Looking at these photos, in general, they do seem a little dull (other than #5 of the tree). The colors just come out a little flat. Lighting does not seem to be ideal in any of the pictures - seems like they were taken on cloudy overcast days.

The time just before and after sunrise and sunset are usually the best time to take landscape photos - that way you get that nice orange/red glow to your pictures. As they say "lighting is everything". Another thing that you might try is using a circular polarizer.

I had/have the same problems as you, and the single best thing I did to make my photos better was to take them during golden light.

Thanks Oeijur, you're right, most were shot during overcast and/ or snowing conditions. The light wasn't cooperating for the trip. I know part of my problem (a big part) was also composition, I just need to get better at "seeing" good subjects. I used to have a circular polarizer for my old len, but I don't have one yet for this new 70-200. I'll make sure to get one.

Thanks for the feedback!

Well, I am not a landscape master or anything but more than one great landscape photographers told me that the only times worth taking pictures are 1 hour around sunrise and another hour around sunset. Nothing else simply worth the effort. It is conventional (unconfirmed ) that landscape magazines don't even look at pictures submitted that being taken at other times.

That's your problem right there. So, if you can't wake up early enough to go to the location waiting for the light, you won't have great landscape pictures. I tend to agree, great landscapes are not for the tourists.

This also relate to the issue of composition. The subject of focus should have good light. It is natural that anything with good light will jump out of your picture being the trees, mountains, water or leaves etc., so the trick for me is not too look for a fixed idea of composition but simply look for something with good light, and that would be much easier at the right times.


That's being said. Some of your pictures are nice enough for general landscape shots, especially 3,4,5.

Thanks for the kind words VAflower, don't get me wrong, it's not that they are so bad I get queezy just looking at them. It's more irritating that the entire purpose of my trip was to take good landscape shots and not one photo actually "wow'd" me. I've taken a few photos recently (non-landscapes), that actually shocked me at how much better they were than all my previous shots. I'd been hoping that at least one or two of my landscape photos would do the same. But you guys are right, I think lighting plays a huge role, followed by composition.

PS- As an interesting side note, it amazes me that with that arid landscape of the last picture, it is taken right at the base of the tallest mountain in the continental 48 states.

Jedi
I also rely mostly on the 24-105 mm But find the 17-40 extremely useful in some landscape shoots . This with with FF 5 D2.

I likewise use the 70-200 mm as another lens for closer views...looking at your images, maybe recropping and fill in lights pp will make them pop up...for example the trees with the clouds and mountsin peaks nd the autumn colored yello tree woul look nice as foregroubd on wide angle

vaflower wrote in post #15260457
Well, I am not a landscape master or anything but more than one great landscape photographers told me that the only times worth taking pictures are 1 hour around sunrise and another hour around sunset.

I took this at midday a few weeks ago. It can be done but situations are very limited.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zarphag/8046133​579/

Yes, lighting is extremely important. However, soft diffused lighting can work in some instances. On cloudy days, its best to try and avoid getting sky in the picture, unless the clouds have texture. You have done both of these; in the first shot there isn't much sky in the picture and in the others you have either no sky, or nicely textured clouds.

Your last shot stands out the best to me, although the tree could use some more space around it, and especially on the left side. Right now it occupies too much of the frame, making it more a tree shot than a landscape picture. However, for a tree shot you have a bit too much space on the left, yet there isn't really enough space for it to be a good landscape shot. The colours are great though.

I really think you just need to work on your composition and positioning. The first shot has a lot of potential with the rocks and reflection, but you have too much empty space that isn't really adding anything to the shot, and the rocks are just sort of plonked right across the middle of the frame. However, for that type of shot you really do need a nicer sky for some impact in the reflection, so even with perfect composition it might not have been as interesting as it could.

The shots of the mountains are good, but in the first shot the trees are boring and a bit "in the way". I would much prefer seeing the peaks by themselves without anything obstructing them.

Taking good landscape photos at other times of the day than sunrise/set is perfectly possible.

I think you are on the right track in realizing you need to put yourself in position for better light and to work on composition. How long have you been taking pictures? I'm not a pro and nowhere near as good as some of the people on this site, but I've found that with experience and time I've become a lot better at recognizing good light, understanding what kind of pictures to take in what light, and developing an eye for composition. This has come through many, many disappointing pictures. I think landscape can be very difficult sometimes - you stand on a summit or see beautiful scenery, but it can be hard to reduce that to a 2D picture in a smaller frame. I don't know how many times I've seen something beautiful, then look at the pictures after the fact and go "meh". So I totally understand where you are coming from.

Maybe you can find a few books to look through and get some ideas? I read this one a few years ago and liked it: The Photographer's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos by Michael Freeman. It's not just landscape, but some of the principles would still apply. I liked when he would show a series of photographs then say which one he thought was best and why.

I agree with the others with what they have said about the specific pictures. I keep coming back to #3 - I think this is the best one, although light wasn't ideal. Playing around in processing might be able to add a little pop to it.

Keep at it!

Thanks again Rob, Tony, and Sirrith. I'm motivated to go try some more, but working on my positioning and composition. I greatly appreciate the feedback and suggestions everyone has given. I haven't given up on landscapes, just a momentary setback.

I'll have to get back out and give it another go.

Haha, thanks Katherine, I just saw your response right after I posted mine. Great timing. To answer your question, I've actively been taking landscape photos on my motorcycle and backpacking trips for about 3 years now. But only recently did I set out to become better at the actual photography. Mine were more like snapshots. Some turned out very well, I have to admit, but mostly on accident. It's bound to happen with a high enough volume. I've got two good photography books that I've been reading up on. One is something like Digital Landscape Photography, and the other is a book about adventure photography. I also only recently started learning to use a DSLR to it's potential, instead of constantly on "green box" mode. To help make the hobby more fun, I upgraded from a Rebel T3 with kit lens to a 5DII with two L lenses. I have to say, the image quality is shockingly better, if not the actual composition and execution. Since getting the new set-up I've been very impressed with a few of my new photos, although none of them have been landscapes.

^^ I have been on the same boat...when we travelled thru the grand tetons, it was murky and the sun was covered by dark clouds, so I did many close up type images like these ones:

I think you have your answers here already, so I'll just summarize them in different terms. In my view, these are the key virtues of a landscape photographer:


PLANNING
You can improve your keeper rate a lot by doing some planning before going out. Research your location so you know the following about it:

• What sorts of features make it special? Is there one particular feature that really interests you? What would your ideal photo of that feature look like, at least in rough terms? Try to visualize it before you even go there.

• From which vantage point will this feature be most impressive? At what time of day will it get good light from that vantage point? How will the season affect this light and the general environment of this location?

Use programs like The Photographer's Ephemeris and Google Earth to do your research. Look at photos on Panoramio to get a good feel for an area before you go there.

PATIENCE
Once you reach the location, be prepared to wait for an interesting moment. Set up your camera on a tripod, frame your scene, visualize what you want to capture, and wait for it. Would the scene look better if a cloud floated into the empty space in the corner? Would it look better if a cloud moved away and allowed some more light onto the most interesting feature? Watch the scene for a while to see how it's changing and wait for the magic moment if it looks like it might happen.

Wandering around shooting willy-nilly is the hard way to go about things. You can get lucky with that approach, but it's more likely to be frustrating. By all means keep your eyes open for pleasant surprises, but if you head out with a well researched plan, the chances are good that you'll end up with at least one really rewarding photo.

I have been shooting landscapes for about 3 years, yes, the golden hour(s) are lots of fun to shoot in and can result in amazing images. Yet, there are plenty of images to be had at other times of the day, including Noon. Learning how your lens/camera operate, learning what light is and how it affects the image, and composition can go a long way to making great images all day long. Also realizing when the image you may be imagining while shooting is not possible (as of now), is also important. Strengths/weaknesses and knowing what they are, can be learned.
You have two great lenses, so I would now focus on how to get what you are envisioning.
So a question to start with, is what do you envision?

BTW: I see potential in each of your images. Processing, including cropping can and does work. Play with them, do not be afraid to make a mistakes, have some fun.

The shot of the tree is ok, the others lack any composition. Understanding composition is probably the hardest and most important part of landscape. Look up Michael Freeman, he has done awesome books on composition that cover just about any situation.

Best of luck

Forget lenses and megapickles and all that crap, you have bigger fish to fry.
Apart from #5, your compositions lack any sense of focus, and even that one is not quite right.

Try this: Stick with one fixed focal length setting. No zooming allowed!
Now, spend no less than 15 minutes per shot zooming with your feet. Move forward, back, left, right; always paying full attention to what is happening in viewfinder. (Forget all the bells and buttons and endless menus, the viewfinder is the single most important part of your camera.) FIND A SUBJECT, and then keep moving until you've isolated and maximally emphasized it, while eliminating as much unimportant junk as possible. This is the hard part of photography. Learning to do this will take time and practice. Keep at it, and don't allow yourself to become distracted by some technical 'fix' - there is none!

Suggest you study some of Dykinga's work. IMO, he's not much for subtlety or beauty, but boy does he know how to frame strong subjects!

All 'IMO,' of course!