First attempt at a Landscape

After a 30 minute drive up through Tellico Gap from the Nantahala Outdoor Center in Bryson City, NC, a 45 minute hike along the Appalachian Trail in the Nantahala National Forest, we finally arrive at the Wesser Bald Lookout Tower (previously a firetower) at 4600 feet with stunning 360 degree views... The Great Smoky Mountains to the North, the Balsam Mountains and the Cowees to the Northeast, the Little Tennessee River Valley to the East, the Nantahala Mountains to the South (Winespring Bald's radio/tv towers), the Valley River Mountains to the West and the Snowbird Mountains towards Andrews and Robbinsville, NC.

I made the mistake of lugging all my camera gear on my back with a tripod bag in my hand (not sure what I was thinking), and being not-so-in-shape. Needless to say I was about dead when we reached the top

5D + Rokinon 14/2.8 + Tripod @ F11-F16 (forgot), 1/160s, ISO100

Great view!!!

As for the image, the first thing that jumps out at me is you put the horizon across the middle of the image. It needs to across the top RoT's line (less sky). The saturation could use a little bump, especially on the greens and reds.

theantiquetiger wrote in post #16957018
Great view!!!

As for the image, the first thing that jumps out at me is you put the horizon across the middle of the image. It needs to across the top RoT's line (less sky). The saturation could use a little bump, especially on the greens and reds.

Thanks for the feedback. I wasn't quite sure where the horizon was generally positioned. I'll keep this in mind next time!

if the scene, lighting and composition is good then tripod makes a huge difference in
landscapes.for landscape shots try exposer bracketing, exposer bracketing gives lot of flexibility in post processing the shots .

I've attempted to follow some of your feedback, and I do like the image more now. I've moved the horizon to just above the top 3rds line, increased sat in the foreground tones, and I also applied a grad filter to the sky and reduced the exp by 1 stop to try to make it look more dramatic.

Thoughts? Thanks again!

Lighting is everything in landscape photography (not everything I guess, but very critical), and this looks middle of the day-ish and so not successful on that score I'd say. Foregrounds are also important, this one is pretty indifferent. Apart from that, the crop does improve things, less sky is a good thing, most of the time.

Hello Loxley. This shot reminds me of my very first landscape shots in the mid 90's. Before I understood composition. There really two kinds of images in any genre: literal, and artistic. Sometimes an image is both. In this case we have nice literal of a particular location on earth. Graphically the image is weak. But that's only if we contemplate an artistic interpretation.

So now the critique (OP). Buckle up.

The image has no central subject for the eye to gravitate to. We have a fuzzy foreground leading to a blue sky with some texture but nothing really gripping. The eye wants to lock on something but here we scan and scan. This is a flat landscape in terms of objects. What would add a great deal of interest is something in the sky. Like a pair of hang gliders. Or birds.

The frame is chopped in half. I call this a case of split-itus. It's not your fault. This is what the location looks like.

The sky color is over saturated. Subtlety can produce a more realistic interpretation it can also lead to softer and more diverse palette of colors.

Your last print is the best so far.

i'm 100 percent with jetcode.

It's a nice shot but you should aim to include foreground, middle and background elements in most landscapes.


love this area, try to make it down there once a year.

jetcode wrote in post #16958399
Hello Loxley. This shot reminds me of my very first landscape shots in the mid 90's. Before I understood composition. There really two kinds of images in any genre: literal, and artistic. Sometimes an image is both. In this case we have nice literal of a particular location on earth. Graphically the image is weak. But that's only if we contemplate an artistic interpretation.

So now the critique (OP). Buckle up.

The image has no central subject for the eye to gravitate to. We have a fuzzy foreground leading to a blue sky with some texture but nothing really gripping. The eye wants to lock on something but here we scan and scan. This is a flat landscape in terms of objects. What would add a great deal of interest is something in the sky. Like a pair of hang gliders. Or birds.

The frame is chopped in half. I call this a case of split-itus. It's not your fault. This is what the location looks like.

The sky color is over saturated. Subtlety can produce a more realistic interpretation it can also lead to softer and more diverse palette of colors.

Your last print is the best so far.

Actually, the "split-itus" is his/her fault. Sure, that's what the location looks like. But different framing/composition ALSO would have been what the location looks like. The point is to choose the "what it looks like" that works best.

I also have to clarify that I'm not against centered horizons. I'm just against centered horizons in this particular case. There's more interesting stuff on the ground than there is in the sky. The top portion of the sky has no interesting clouds or anything, it's just blank space. And in this case, including it throws off the balance. That part of the image isn't doing anything, so cut it out. That also places the horizon along the top third, which conforms to the rule of thirds. But the same might not apply for future images.

Anyway, this is a gorgeous scene, but I agree...my biggest complaint is that there's just nothing to grab the eye. No identifiable objects that stand out, no interesting relationship between prominent objects, no interesting relationship between foreground/middlegroun​d/ background. It's definitely pretty, but it also seems to not really be about anything. A nice attempt, but I think you should just focus a little bit more on composition and placement of objects.

This shot lacks a good subject, was not shot in very good light and isn't composed very well. You even have very much the same texture in the bottom of the shot and it just ends up looking busy.

Nothing compels me to look at the image further than a glance. There is no emotion in it, nothing for me to latch on to, nothing to interest me.

Clean Gene wrote in post #16960435
Actually, the "split-itus" is his/her fault. Sure, that's what the location looks like. But different framing/composition ALSO would have been what the location looks like. The point is to choose the "what it looks like" that works best.

The scene is naturally split into two halves. For those who don't know how to handle that it can't be a fault. Only those who have been introduced to composition will be afforded a better choice but note that given an audience of amateurs with no background in composition they will most likely be discussing the location not the composition.

This is a location I would pass on in terms of producing a image for display.

I would try to combine the images in forum post #4 and post #5, in particular, take the darkened blue sky in #5 and combine it with the contrasty foreground in #4.

Titus213 wrote in post #16962392
Splitting the image is generally dependent upon your desired focal point, sky or earth. Unfortunately there is really nothing compelling in either the sky or the earth at this particular location.

Jetcode has it pretty well covered but the potential for artistic interpretation is always there. Your second offering is an improvement but it can be pushed quite a bit more.

For example:

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you making a joke about how he/she was trying to fix a flawed image by cropping stuff out?

If so, that's actually funny but I also think it's a bit mean. I prefer straightforward blunt honesty over jokes at a person's expense. Maybe I'm being naive or gullible, but he/she seemed to me to be asking for honest input, and I think it's sort of bad form to turn that into an opportunity to make him/her the butt of a joke.

Granted, that was kind of funny, but it not not be the right time when someone's doing a "first attempt" knowing that it probably won't be well-received.

Landscapes need a "point of interest" or subject. This could simply be a prominent bush or tree if theres nothing more exciting, but something needs to draw the eye.

Hi everybody.

Thank you very much for all the comments and feedback. I'll be honest, it was a little hard to read the same thing over and over about how it lacks an interesting subject. While I agree with you all completely, I didn't think it was necessary to repeat it for 5+ different posts, I got the point lol!

With that said, I've taken one last shot at the PP and I am happy with how the shot turned out. Although I agree it lacks anything to hold interest and no specific subject, I'm happy with it in it's current state and from here I will take what I learned and use it for my next opportunity. It's a shot that I myself as the photographer will look back on and remember, because it is such a serene place to be and feel like you're on top of the world with only the sounds of the birds and the wind and the faint sound of flowing water. This shot will always remind me of that........ and of how I failed to capture anything interesting lol!

Thanks again for all the feedback