# i sucks at landscapes.



## dannylightning (Oct 26, 2015)

they look nice threw the view finder and when i get the photo on my computer i usually always trash it.

there are lots of videos and stuff to read out there but allot of them are kind of lousy.  can any one give me some links to some really good landscape tutorials or some advice.

i always end up using a really wide angle like 18mm or  something like that.   i was reading something saying big wide landscapes are often boring and well i guess they are.   i know there is a time and a place for those wide angle shots but apparently they are not working at the local parks i got to,  i was looking at some landscape photos recently trying to notice how they did it,   i see most of them do not have a big wide scene in the photo like usually try to do.

i have been sticking with my bird photos because i seem to be doing well with that but i wold really like to get some good landscape shots too.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 26, 2015)

Not that I get a chance to shoot a lot of them any more, but a quick stumble through EXIF data shows that most of mine are shot between 24 and 35mm.  I am NOT a fan of using a UWA for landscapes (I'm not really a fan of using a UWA for much of anything, actually), but I am a fan of panos, and I have done lots of images ranging from 3 images and maybe 70 degrees to 12-14 images and almost 180 degrees.  I find that most of the landscapes I like are ones where the sky has a significant impact, and this usually involves at least a polarizing filter, if not a polarizer and various ND & G-ND filters as well. 

Take a couple of your images with which you're not happy and analyze them - figure out what it is that isn't working for you, and then figure out how to change or improve that.


----------



## Designer (Oct 26, 2015)

I consider landscape to be one of the most difficult genres in which to capture the same feeling you had as when you were seeing it in person.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 26, 2015)

Even a landscape has a subject, a reason to shoot it.  Keep that in mind when shooting. What's the 'star' of that landscape?  What's compelling you to shoot it in the first place?  Focus the attention of the composition on it, and try to use the rest of the composition to highlight it, to accent it, to make it look good.

Maybe it doesn't have a 'star'.  In that case, _make_ something the star.  Put something or someone in the scene and make it or them the star, and let the background you like accent them.  It can be as simple as a tree that's closer to you than the rest of the scene, or a vehicle, building, etc.  People often forget when they're shooting a person or thing that the background plays a VERY important role.

When you see landscape photos on the net or elsewhere that you like, take a good long look at them and try to figure out what it is you like about them.  Then, try to emulate that in your own photos.  Copying stuff you like while you work out how to shoot what you like can be very helpful to the learning process.

Keep the fundamentals of composition in mind when composing your photos, including landscapes.  Start by using the so-called 'rules', like the rule of thirds, the golden ratio, leading lines, compositional framing, and so forth.  Keep in mind that they're not really "rules" per se, but guidelines, suggestions.  Break them when you feel it's appropriate, but learn them and keep them in mind.

I rarely use an ultra-wide lens, unless I have a very specific reason for it, like if I'm composing a bridge shot from a particular distance and angle, and it won't fit in the frame without using one.


----------



## Dave442 (Oct 26, 2015)

I think 18mm on the crop sensor works for landscape. Look at the foreground as there will be a lot at 18mm and that background that looked so nice may become too small in the final image. Stay with it, I sure you may have times when no birds show up and it would be good to have something else to shoot.


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 26, 2015)

Here is a link.  Buckster covered it very well.
You searched for landscape - Digital Photography School


----------



## Alexr25 (Oct 26, 2015)

One tip I found useful when starting out in landscape photography was always use a tripod. Not only will it give you sharper pictures but the act of setting it up and finding the right position for the camera it will slow you down and hopefully make you think more deeply about the composition of the final image.


----------



## D-B-J (Oct 26, 2015)

Here's a post I wrote a while ago about landscape photography. It's a broad overview, but I think you should read it. 

Landscape Photography and What I've Learned | Photography Forum

Jake


----------



## MrWrong (Oct 26, 2015)

Designer said:


> I consider landscape to be one of the most difficult genres in which to capture the same feeling you had as when you were seeing it in person.


This is always the problem I have. Very rarely does the picture I took give me the same feeling I had when I was there taking the picture.  A lot of times when I get it loaded on my computer to edit the feeling I wanted to capture isn't there and I end up trashing it.


----------



## JacaRanda (Oct 26, 2015)

MrWrong said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > I consider landscape to be one of the most difficult genres in which to capture the same feeling you had as when you were seeing it in person.
> ...



Don't always trash them.  Flag them in some way so that when you get better at post processing, composition etc. you may be able to still create what you initially envisioned .


----------



## Dillard (Oct 26, 2015)

Post them! Peer critique and feedback is the best way to grow and learn


----------



## KenC (Oct 26, 2015)

Yes, definitely post them because it is difficult to speculate on why (or if) they don't work without seeing them.

In general, one problem with an image not being as interesting as what you remember is that we move our eyes constantly when looking at a large area because there is only a very small area of real visual acuity, so we move our eyes to "map" the entire scene and take in all of its details.  Doing this creates relationships between different objects as you jump from, say a tree in the foreground to a building on the horizon.  Seeing the same scene as a flat image just doesn't give one the same experience unless the composition is carefully planned to make use of different planes.


----------



## jcdeboever (Oct 26, 2015)

dannylightning said:


> they look nice threw the view finder and when i get the photo on my computer i usually always trash it.
> 
> there are lots of videos and stuff to read out there but allot of them are kind of lousy.  can any one give me some links to some really good landscape tutorials or some advice.
> 
> ...


I'm with you buddy... It's like banging my head against the wall.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## runnah (Oct 26, 2015)

Well an good rule of thumb for landscapes is to have a defined foreground, middleground and back ground. A good "subject" will help tie a good scene together by giving the image depth and scale.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 26, 2015)

A number of good landscape shooters use a telephoto lens for much of their work. Seriously. Not kidding. Most UWA stuff is boring...everything in the distance looks tiny and insignificant. Michael Reichmann at The Luminous Landscape wrote an article about his preference for long telephotos about six weeks ago. Try using a more-selective lens the next time you go out.

Try not to include as much as is possible; try to include less!

The telephoto lens has the power to show us things that we can not actually see with our eyes. It visually compresses distance, and changes spatial relationships in a way that the human visual system can not do; the UWA does the same, but in reverse, by creating smaller, more-boring, and less-interesting backgrounds. Instead of an 18-xx lens, think of a 70-xxx lens.


----------



## dannylightning (Oct 26, 2015)

well here are some of the landscapes i have kept, i kind of like them but do not love them.    i think the first 3 were taken at 10mm.  but i was going for that really wide effect on those.   last 2 pare probably around 18mm




 

 

 

 

 





than here is one that i do like.  it was taken at 10mm ..  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## jcdeboever (Oct 26, 2015)

Your a freak, there is nothing wrong with that... Now I will start the banging of my head on the wall with exposed scones. Maybe a little too much sky... bang... bang... You have a lot of talent.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## dannylightning (Oct 27, 2015)

that is only 6 photos I have kept,   I have deleted a few hundred lousy landscape photos that were no way near as good as those..   Compared to allot of landscapes I see others post I think those 6 photos look pretty poor.  

Sent from my XT1028 using Tapatalk


----------



## D-B-J (Oct 27, 2015)

They aren't bad, but the biggest thing I notice instantly is that, in every one, there's no clear subject. Landscape photography is ALL about composition, and these strike me as a "it looks nice with my eyes from here, so let's take a picture." That buildings got potential, but if you're going to shoot so wide, get close! The waterfall is nice, but it's lost in the frame. Get close! I've had my gear inches above the water and inches away from my subject when shooting ultra wide. 

Really, you're at a good starting point; exposure and focus and processing all seem good. Now you just need to practice the composition bit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## runnah (Oct 27, 2015)

D-B-J said:


> They aren't bad, but the biggest thing I notice instantly is that, in every one, there's no clear subject. Landscape photography is ALL about composition, and these strike me as a "it looks nice with my eyes from here, so let's take a picture." That buildings got potential, but if you're going to shoot so wide, get close! The waterfall is nice, but it's lost in the frame. Get close! I've had my gear inches above the water and inches away from my subject when shooting ultra wide.
> 
> Really, you're at a good starting point; exposure and focus and processing all seem good. Now you just need to practice the composition bit.
> 
> ...




Exactly. I pass on so many good scenes because they lack a true focal point. The second photo posted by the OP almost pulls it off because the sidewalk creates nice lines that can replace a good subject.


----------



## dannylightning (Oct 27, 2015)

that's pretty much how i have always tried to do it.  looks nice,  ill take a photo.

i went out this morning got a few shots.   still not super happy,  most were bad.   i do like this one though.     the rest were pretty bad,  not much interesting going on where i was shooting i guess,   good spot for birds but i guess not interesting landscapes.

the second photo is not bad i guess but still not great.


----------



## soufiej (Oct 27, 2015)

Aaaah!  The comedian who wishes to play Hamlet.

Elvis always wanted to be an actor who got roles similar to those offered to James Dean.  He wasn't a James Dean.  Yet, he changed the entire world in ways Dean has not.  Don't know if it's true or not but I recently heard a comment on the music being listened to by the teenagers of today.  According to this source, they still have Elvis on their music players but few have the Beatles or the Stones.

There certainly is nothing wrong and much to be said for developing your talents at something.  When a question comes up as to how to learn a subject, one of my most often used pieces of advice is to find the lesson plan which speaks to you and stick with that lesson plan.  Do not flop around chasing one shiny object after another.

Learning the basics and then developing your "style" within the totality of the subject is not without its benefits.  Constantly trying to be something you have yet to learn about is not so good.  The rough edges show a bit more than we'd prefer.  Therefore, "sticking" to your bird photography isn't something to be seen as, "Cripes!  I'm Elvis, I have changed the world and here I am doing 'Harum Scarum'."

The '68 Comeback was just around the corner.


Looking at your examples, I would tend to say your "problem" with landscapes (which aren't always landscapes) is you suffer from the "Up" syndrome. If you don't remember, here's the often imitated scene that has the dog explaining his ability to speak; 




That's where a lot of photographers are.  "Let's see, I have my camera set to f 2.8 and the exposure compensation to *WATER!!!*"

"OK, I'll try the 18-55 on this scene and maybe set ISO at 1 *TREES!!!!*"

*It's not you, it's the equipment that makes you do it.  Blame the equipment. *

What you see by way of your cognitive perception is not what the camera is going to record.  You see a dynamic range which the camera cannot capture and you see well beyond the limits of your lens' focal length.  You have a sense of what came before and what is occurring as you take the photo.  You see in your mind a perception that will be a great photo when you get to your computer in a few hours.

Your camera, on the other hand, has none of that and is only going to respond to the manner in which you use it.  I find this to be a particularly vexing issue with today's cameras; they have no perception, only a somewhat poor facsimile of reality.  I'm constantly finding reasons to blame my gear for not seeing what I perceive.  Stupid camera!

This "cognition" thing is a bit like the Zen style musician who can play one note and express everything the world is about in that one single note.  The wavering, quivering, bent and unbent, attacked and struck, played and played upon, sustaining and ultimately decaying note.

Then there are the rest of us who can simply play "a note".




There was a question on this forum a while back where a student photographer asked what was wrong with their photos.  They felt they lacked dynamics, particularly in the skies.  "Well", I said, "skies have to have something going on before there can be drama in the sky in your photo."

"Oh, OK, thanks, I never thought of that."

"And one thing you will find with most non-professional photographers is we are on a schedule.  We are not getting paid to be in one location for a week coming back to that same location a dozen or two dozen times to decipher just when during the day that location looks its best for a photograph.  The non-professional tends to walk up to a spot, take a photo and then walk away.  What we get is often not that interesting because we weren't waiting for the materials of photography, the lights and shadows, to develop into something more than a rather mundane image we could form into a something with our tools, the camera and lens."

"Well, I was on vacation and had to get back on the bus."  




Those would be my first comments on your "landscapes".

Next, where do you go to shoot your landscapes?  You live in Ohio if your info is correct.  What's in Ohio as far as landscapes?  Certainly, last time I looked there were no majestic mountain vistas or dramatic 1,000' waterfalls.    There were farms and more farms and a few *WATER!!!*

Sorry, I got distracted.

Ohio is mostly flat with a lot of agriculture and some *HOUSE!!!*

I hate it when that keeps happening.

So let's go back to bird photography which is spur of the moment shooting and speed and quickness *TREES!!!*

OK, this is going nowhere.  Maybe you get my point.




Save the wide lenses for what a wide lens does best; How to Use Ultra-Wide Lenses


Finally, there needs to be a bit of discussion *ROAD!!!*

DAMN!

No, _*DAM!!!*_


_*FORK IN THE ROAD!!!!!!!!*



_

OK, this just isn't going to work out today.

Don't ignore what you can do in post production; 





Good lu *SQUIRREL!*


----------



## vintagesnaps (Oct 27, 2015)

I think you're getting a little too much in the photos, my inclination would be to crop the right or left side on some and bring the viewer more into the picture.

For example I like the one of the lock, but probably would have framed it differently - it could probably go either way, crop some of the water and trees to the right or some of the left side and keep more of the water. It to me almost makes for two pictures. 

Think about what you want someone to see, what's the picture about? Take a minute to move around and see if you get something you like better in the viewfinder.

I think you're on the right track, it takes practice. I actually like the last one but I think it could be better if it wasn't such a wide scene. Or could be two pictures, one with some of the sky to the left or one that emphasizes the pattern of the trees to the right which I like (and I'd like to see the reflection not quite so chopped off, probably framing a little lower, would've gotten more reflection and less boring gray sky along the top of the frame).


----------



## jcdeboever (Oct 27, 2015)

soufiej said:


> Aaaah!  The comedian who wishes to play Hamlet.
> 
> Elvis always wanted to be an actor who got roles similar to those offered to James Dean.  He wasn't a James Dean.  Yet, he changed the entire world in ways Dean has not.  Don't know if it's true or not but I recently heard a comment on the music being listened to by the teenagers of today.  According to this source, they still have Elvis on their music players but few have the Beatles or the Stones.
> 
> ...


Great link on ultra wides. It is everything I was doing wrong. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## encom_ (Oct 27, 2015)

I like the second photo of the first set! Personaly, I would have tried taking it from a lower point of view. Any way, they are better than what I currently get.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## dannylightning (Oct 27, 2015)

soufiej said:


> Aaaah!  The comedian who wishes to play Hamlet.
> 
> Elvis always wanted to be an actor who got roles similar to those offered to James Dean.  He wasn't a James Dean.  Yet, he changed the entire world in ways Dean has not.  Don't know if it's true or not but I recently heard a comment on the music being listened to by the teenagers of today.  According to this source, they still have Elvis on their music players but few have the Beatles or the Stones.
> 
> ...



you lost me here,  not trying to be rude but i read your message 2 or 3 times now and i just keep going  UUUHHHHHHH what... 

i get how to use the wide angle lens.  but being me, i try out all kinds of diffident things to see what i can do with it.   i see something and think maybe this would look cook with the 10mm so i bust it out..   i have not used the lens much yet but with the bit of playing around i figured out what works, what kind of works and what does not really work with it. 

at my local spot i did not really see anyting that could be the star of the photo except for that red house.  in the other photo i guess i tried to make the bit tree the star..    i cropped some of the water out and it looks a bit better. i actually kind of like the sky in that,  boring yet has a bit going on there too.

i do see how i was trying to go too wide on allot of the photos i snapped,  i did not think they looked that wide till i viewed them on the computer.   i was using the 18-200mm lens and i was probably between 50-100mm for most of the shots.   but ill just have to play around a see what works or what does not i guess.

thanks to everyone who posted,  there is some good advice in this thread.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 27, 2015)

You are not the first person to have difficulty making satisfying landscapes. The MAIN reason yuo come back and are disappointed is that you have not yet learned to see and to perceive what your LENS is recording. In your park shots, your ultra-wide angle use is KILLING the shots. Your brain can literally see and enjoy the things in the scene, with the selectivity and the filtering-and-reconstructing that the brain brings to visual perception.

Your first sidewalk shot...boring. Why? A sidewalk that is 4x wider than the trees behind it....that's just NOT any kind of idealized reality...the second sidewalk shot as runnah said _almost_ makes the grade, because the sidewalk is large, but it is also forked, and a substantial foreground element...buuuuut....the focal length is KILLING the backgrounds.

Your waterfall shot...same problem: the concrete area to the left is larger than the whole danged waterfall and creek, because it is closest to the camera and the focal length is too short.

You need to become aware that lens focal length has a huuuuuuuuuge effect on the way the lens renders the world! The very short focal lengths you have at your disposal are absolutely the worst lengths for landscapes of this scale. Using really,really short lenses on full-size outdoor landscapes causes very large things, like 90 foot-tall trees, to appear TINY, and make insignificant things like sidewalks and small patches of concrete larger,physically,measurably, obviously, indisputably, much larger and more prominent than they ought to be.

The very short lens lengths cause tremendous exaggeration of the size of foreground objects, and a significant decrease in the size of mid-ground objects, and a ridiculously exaggerated miniaturizing and diminishing effect on background objects. Using an 11mm or 12mm focal length is one thing when it is done inside of a living room, but at a city park, it leads to scenes where the objects all look small, far-away, and not very engaging. You say you "get how to use the wide-angle lens." But no, you obviously do not yet fully understand how to work with it.


----------



## dannylightning (Oct 27, 2015)

no, i get the wide angle.  i just have not really used it that way yet..  now if you tell me i used it wrong here than i guess i do not know how to use it..     but i am sure i really don't know how to take a good landscape yet lol.

here are a few more wide angle shots where i think i used it correctly and was very close to what i was shooting but was not thrilled with the shots.




DSC_0108 by Daniel Caldwell, on Flickr




DSC_0061 by Daniel Caldwell, on Flickr




DSC_6631-2 by Daniel Caldwell, on Flickr


----------



## dannylightning (Oct 27, 2015)

I fixed this one up and now i actually like it..




DSC_2066 by Daniel Caldwell, on Flickr


----------



## soufiej (Oct 27, 2015)

dannylightning said:


> you lost me here,  not trying to be rude but i read your message 2 or 3 times now and i just keep going  UUUHHHHHHH what...





This probably won't help then; existential | of, relating to, or affirming existence


Existentialism


----------



## Derrel (Oct 27, 2015)

dannylightning said:
			
		

> DSC_0061 by Daniel Caldwell, on Flickr



Is this the kind of image you REALLY wanted to make? That of a building being drawn skyward by the force of the hand of an invisible giant?


----------



## soufiej (Oct 27, 2015)

Derrel said:


> dannylightning said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





It is kind of a nice effect if you're into X-Files style photos.

I'd hate to be inside that place though.  I'd be afraid it was about to fall over on me.


----------



## dannylightning (Oct 27, 2015)

Derrel said:


> dannylightning said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





yes, sort of,  i was shooting that building up close in many different ways to see what kind of weird distortion it would produce,  just kind of having fun with the lens really.

i cant say that i am good with this type of lens yet but i get the concept of how you are supposed to use it,   its probably gonna take me a while to get the hang of it,  so far i have not seen many things that i wanted to shoot that i though would work well with the wide angle except for that shot of a kitchen and that culdesec  in those ones i was trying to use the lens properly,  anything else so far has really just been playing around to see what would happen


----------



## Tim Tucker (Nov 3, 2015)

I think that you are still thinking in terms of your image as a 3D object like the scene, which it is not. Your image is just a 2D representation of the scene and is enclosed in borders which you create. Your objects are just heights and widths in relation to the size of the frame, any depth is just an illusion.
If I deconstruct your image a little it might be clearer, and show the effects of wide angle lenses.
If you are thinking in terms of lines and depth as you would with a 3D object you tend to apply that framework every time you look at your image, so it can be a useful exercise to separate that and see the image as it is, a collection of 2D shapes. One way of doing that is to flip the image vertically as it abstracts it from the framework you are applying.




 

Now you can see the negative space a little clearer. Negative space is not a bad thing because it allows the shapes of your subject to be seen, it is the background with makes the subject visible. Here is marked the negative space and with it I have marked the heights of objects against the height of the frame.



 

So you can see the relationships in the 2D image space we can remove the image:



 

See how small the tree is compared to the frame, see how much space there is above and below it.



 

Here is the negative space in 2D, there is a lot of it around a fairly small tree.

Now we compare it with a cropped version:



 

And in 2D:



 

You can see the difference here. Images are 2D objects, depth is just an illusion as they are only paper thin. There is no such thing as a large object far away in 2D, it's all about the size of your object compared to the frame.

Now look at your original again and try to see it in 2D, as a collection of shapes and sizes on a flat plane and how that image changes as you change these relationships.


----------



## dannylightning (Nov 3, 2015)

Tim Tucker said:


> I think that you are still thinking in terms of your image as a 3D object like the scene, which it is not. Your image is just a 2D representation of the scene and is enclosed in borders which you create. Your objects are just heights and widths in relation to the size of the frame, any depth is just an illusion.
> If I deconstruct your image a little it might be clearer, and show the effects of wide angle lenses.
> If you are thinking in terms of lines and depth as you would with a 3D object you tend to apply that framework every time you look at your image, so it can be a useful exercise to separate that and see the image as it is, a collection of 2D shapes. One way of doing that is to flip the image vertically as it abstracts it from the framework you are applying.



well i kind of get that, i guess there is allot more to landscape photos that i though..,  if there were a bunch of nice clouds in the sky would that still be considered negative space?    see i always though when you saw a nice scene al you really had to do was snap a photo of it and try to use the rule of 3rds for framing. 

i just played around with cropping my image and after about 20 trys i got one that looked descent.  than i looked at your crop and it was almost the same.  i guess i really do not know what i am doing.

i like photos like this.  seems to be lots of negative space in here but these sure look nice.   i dont quite get it,  what makes these work 

Autumn Finale by Rob Blair

Silent Night by Rob Blair


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 3, 2015)

Study the two photos and read again much of the advice you've been given (foreground, middle ground, background, subject, negative space, proper lens for the situation - you will start to understand why they work and why you like them.  Take your time!


----------



## gregtallica (Nov 3, 2015)

dannylightning said:


> well here are some of the landscapes i have kept, i kind of like them but do not love them.    i think the first 3 were taken at 10mm.  but i was going for that really wide effect on those.   last 2 pare probably around 18mm
> 
> View attachment 110507



Everyone else has some really awesome advice, and I don't really have much ground to offer professional critique or advice, but rather just speaking as an onlooker.

When I see this photo, I wish you got lower, showed more sky. It looks like every shot you took is from your regular height. It looks like you have come cool stuff, but I want to see a more interesting perspective - lay down on the ground and snap this, shorten the lake a little and give me some big exciting sky.

Just a thought, good luck in your landscape search man


----------



## Tim Tucker (Nov 3, 2015)

dannylightning said:


> i like photos like this.  seems to be lots of negative space in here but these sure look nice.   i dont quite get it,  what makes these work



Don't mis-understand negative space just because it's called negative, it does not subtract from the image. It is only negative as in the opposite of positive, it allows the positive space to come forward. Look at the stork photo again and ask if the photographer's use of composition has brought the subject to the front of the image and to your attention. Look at the image I de-constructed and run through the text again. Ask the same, has your use of composition brought your subject forward in the image or pushed it back? _You don't need to fully understand this, you just need to be able to see it _(and see when it's not there).


----------



## dannylightning (Nov 3, 2015)

thanks guys...


----------



## sashbar (Nov 4, 2015)

runnah said:


> Well an good rule of thumb for landscapes is to have a defined foreground, middle ground and back ground. A good "subject" will help tie a good scene together by giving the image depth and scale.



This.
If you are using a wide lense, you have to avoid the empty fore/middle ground like plague. Construct you composition so that there is always a focal point of interest on the foreground and lines, leading  to middle ground and further to the main landscape. Wide lense makes your image 3-dimentional, because it exaggerates the depth, and ignoring this dimension is the most widespread mistake committed by wide lenses users. You can not underestimate that. As an extreme example:


----------



## soufiej (Nov 4, 2015)

_"i like photos like this. seems to be lots of negative space in here but these sure look nice. i dont quite get it, what makes these work _

Autumn Finale by Rob Blair

Silent Night by Rob Blair"





More stuff you may not understand ...

I do rely heavily on the concept of personality type when it comes to education.  From all that you've posted here, I'd guess you would not be a predominantly visual personality type.  My guess is you favor the tactile experience of photography and this means you will struggle with the tools of composition employed within photography.

Which leads me to ask, what have you done to strengthen your composition skills?

Relying on the most basic rules of composition, a rule of thirds for example, as your guiding light to composition becomes increasingly boring as each shot becomes simply a minor rearrangement of the last.  The viewer quickly learns all the tricks you know and what to expect with the next image.  Yes, you can use tricks such as flipping the image upside down to view a less simplified image in your own mind, but that's still only a "trick" which can again become tired and worn out once it is over used.

Negative space is also simply another tool though one which has become more well known in recent decades.  As described in the groundbreaking instructional book aimed at students of illustration (Dr Betty Edwards: world-renowned art innovator and educator), negative space is the space which surrounds objects.  It is the compositional tool most often neglected by those students who are not predominantly visual in their assimilation of data.

It is, though, simply one more tool in your kit when it comes to composition.

Both images you refer to employ negative space, as does virtually any image with a defined boundary of something.  Both images even tend to break a cardinal rule of photography which is to not place the horizon at the center of the image.  Yet both images also rely on the centered line of the horizon to direct the viewer's eyes in a manner which keeps them moving from location to location to location.  The image of the stork is in its simplicity almost a pachinko game of visual clues and directional changes.  At the same time, it is a very calming image due to its use of symbols.   

The autumn scene relies heavily on color - obviously - which, along with the drama brewing in the sky, evokes universal emotions of change at the same time autumn always says to us it is time to settle in for a calming period of quiet and solitude.  The peace and tranquility being suggested by the autumn scene is simply brought to the fore in the night scene with its completely quiet waters (also seen in the autumn image).

Therefore, what is the photography and the photographer suggesting to you through use of symbols?  This is yet another lesson in composition.  One well worth study.

Both scenes "work" for many viewers due to the near universal symbolism employed in the photography.   What does the stork symbolize?  Well, to some extent, that specific reference is a cultural one which may suggest very different things to people with different backgrounds.  Place it within an image filled with calm waters and now the symbolism is deepened. 

Next, take a look at the lines of the image and you'll see a scene in each of your examples which is never at rest as your eye continues to move from location to location within the scene.  Now you have a contrast of calm yet busy.

The night scene invites the viewer to look more deeply into the clues being provided.  The autumn scene has elements which are at odds with each other and yet come to a conclusion with the play of colors against one another.

Lines within the images hold the viewer's attention by never allowing a resting point when there is more to inspect.  As in the lessons from the illustration book, we are defining what we see by way of the lines which we follow.  And symbols.  And space not filled which can be either restful or angry.   The space in your own examples tends to miss on these points.  With your images, space tends to be jumbled and meaningless.

Add the manner in which color is used and not used in the night scene and you have high contrast which is always a bit mysterious to the viewer.  No doubt, seeing in your mind's eye where and when to add mystery to your images is a key to making your photos more memorable.  

Therefore, explaining the hows and whys of these images is of use to you as a learning tool on many levels.  I would highly doubt though the photographer had to flip either image upside down to get his shot.   These were simply automatic images he could see as he viewed what was before him. 

The night image is almost an abstract idea which should (IMO) lead you to question why some people prefer non-representational art.  Take that idea and study it for, say, a dozen years and you'll still have only scratched the surface of "composition".


You cannot change your personality type, it is embedded within you and it is how you work and always have worked.   If you begin as a tactile personality, you will not over time learn how to be an auditory personality.  Nor will you become a visual personality.  You can, however, learn the rules and concepts employed by great artists of any generation and place them in your tool kit.  Then you will have them at your disposal when you need them.  They may be a mechanical function at first but over time these tools will become more familiar just as a carpenter learns the various saws and hammers and fastening techniques at their disposal.



One lesson I would say to take away from either of the examples is the photographer expressed "universal emotion".  He did so using rather universal symbols.  None of your own examples demonstrate you have given due consideration to either of these tools.  As I have suggested in my earlier post, photography is not about "SQUIRREL!"

If you care for these two images, study them for why they are appealing to you as a viewer.  What is it you see in them?  What do you not see?  For one thing, you do not see a photographer who has rushed through the process of creating an image and moved on simply to take more less than inspired photos.

Once you have studied, and feel you have understood these images, take the next step and begin to study the tools of composition itself.  Then move to symbolism, then to emotional impact, etc, etc, etc.  They all overlap one another.  For the visual personality type, these are what they experience constantly, one great image to another great image all falling in line every moment of the day.

For the tactile or the auditory personality, these are simply tools you must learn and then learn how to use.


----------



## Malavok (Nov 4, 2015)

You'll get better with practice. It looks like you've gotten a lot of advice on composition but that's only 1 aspect of landscapes; the other two big ones are weather and lighting, which go hand-in-hand. 

Landscape photography is part photography and part meteorology. Getting a feel for the lighting and weather takes tons of practice. It may help to learn more about sun position and weather forecasts, from cloud coverage to fronts, pressure, and dew point. Of course, remember that weather forecasts are often wrong but they're a great starting point. 

To start, pick a place close to you that has the best potential for landscapes. If you don't live in the mountains or hills, try a park, forest, lake, river, skyline, plains, etc. Then explore during the day (bad lighting) to find shots you want to get of certain subjects. Then, to make them interesting, you must go back repeatedly to experience different lighting conditions. Unlike studio photography, you can't control the lighting and in my experience the weather is usually pretty mean to landscape photographers. Just like with bird photography, the only way to get the cool shots is either luck or persistence (and a LOT of it); also, you should accept the many times you will come home with nothing because the weather didn't cooperate. 

Golden hour is best and morning is better than evening (more interesting things tend to happen) but evening can be awesome, too. Back/side lighting  can both be great; front lighting is truly awful, even during golden hour, unless under unique weather conditions (clouds, storms, etc.). Overcast skies are generally boring except in certain situations, such as waterfalls. 

Post-processing can be exceptionally difficult for some types of landscapes. Exposure bracketing at least a little is a good idea, as is liberal use of filters and masks in Lightroom/Photoshop.


----------



## dannylightning (Nov 4, 2015)

working the night shift i do not get much of the golden hour.    most of the time golden hour has passed or is currently going on right about when i get off of work, or i am sleeping during the golden hours.    for the most part i get some shooting in on my days off work.  

i really appreciate everyone's help,  it has definitely made me think about things and realize a few things too.   now next time i go out and try to apply this hopefully it will all come into play for a better image,   but that may be easier said than done.   ill probably try to get a few landscape shots on saturday and see how it goes. 

i really do appreciate all the help.


----------



## gregtallica (Nov 4, 2015)

sashbar said:


> This.
> If you are using a wide lense, you have to avoid the empty fore/middle ground like plague. Construct you composition so that there is always a focal point of interest on the foreground and lines, leading  to middle ground and further to the main landscape. Wide lense makes your image 3-dimentional, because it exaggerates the depth, and ignoring this dimension is the most widespread mistake committed by wide lenses users. You can not underestimate that. As an extreme example:
> View attachment 110996



I don't want to steal Danny's thread here, but I think this pumpkin patch picture is a great example of how to really frame up an interesting landscape - to _me,_ you've hugely created a subject with the composition here. Where I feel like I, and most, would walk up and see a pumpkin batch and beautiful scenery, snap it and move on, I think your angle and focus on the pumpkin up front, the view, really giving an interesting foreground puts much more story to the photo.

In other words - this taught me what I need to look for when I want to make an interesting landscape shot. Maybe not _every_ time, but something more interesting to look at.


----------



## dannylightning (Nov 5, 2015)

walked around the neighborhood to see if i could find any landscape type things to shoot.     this was about the only one that did not totally suck.  still not anything anyone would want to hang on their wall though.

how the competition,    just pretend the mail boxes are not there, i am sure someone will complain about those but this is just about getting a good competition i guess.


----------



## gregtallica (Nov 5, 2015)

Again, speaking as an on-looker rather than an expert - the mailboxes are fine, but the horizon line looks really crooked. Not too bad for not having quick access to any big exciting landscapes in the neighborhood.

Now I'll let the pros chime in, this is just a fun thread to follow.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 5, 2015)

Probably should be thinking of making an image as opposed to finding something to just shoot.  I get what you mean, but your attitude may need to be adjusted so that you can start producing landscapes that are pleasing to you and maybe to others as well.

The exact location you took in this latest shot has lots of potential.  Why not try the same shot with a different lens or at different focal lengths.  I would like to see more of the street leading up to that scene.  I'm okay with the mailboxes, but maybe not the speed limit sign.

People have worked long and hard on figuring these things out.  You can't just expect to automatically be good at it.  If you do, you will continue to be frustrated.


----------



## dannylightning (Nov 5, 2015)

i had a version with more road from what you all were saying sounds more like wasted negative space and i was hearing zoom in tighter..   i did  have a version showing more of the road but i think i liked this one best.    i did take it from a few focal lenghts and all of that.   i was using my 18-200mm lens on this one. 

i have drove down the road a few times and though that might make a nice shot so this is the first spot i hit,  than i walked around teh block and shot a few other things but nothing that interesting.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 5, 2015)

I want to see that street live and in person.    Maybe fly back there and catch a Cavs game in between some landscape and birding    In my dreams.


----------



## soufiej (Nov 5, 2015)

dannylightning said:


> i had a version with more road from what you all were saying *sounds more like wasted negative space *and i was hearing zoom in tighter..   i did  have a version showing more of the road but i think i liked this one best.    i did take it from a few focal lenghts and all of that.   i was using my 18-200mm lens on this one.
> 
> i have drove down the road a few times and though that might make a nice shot so this is the first spot i hit,  than i walked around teh block and shot a few other things but nothing that interesting.




You've been given a buzzword, "negative space", which I don't feel you have fully understood.

This example somewhat relates to a lesson I recall from the "Drawing from the Right Side of the Brain" textbook.  To draw a teacup, do not look at the shape of the actual cup.  If you want to draw the shape of the handle, concentrate on the lines which form and the space encapsulated by those lines which are the inside of the handle as it connects to the outside of the cup itself.  You might want to give this exercise a try to better your comprehension of what negative space is and how to employ it to your best advantage.   

Drawing 3 - Drawing the negative spaces

The idea of using negative space in illustration and design is to free your mind of pre-conceived ideas of how something looks or "is".  Very much like flipping the image upside down for the non-visual personality type, you are seeing reality in a new and unrealistic manner.  

If you are asked to draw an illustration of a chair, most people will rely on their life long concept of "a chair" to do so.  By removing the positive space image of a chair from your memory and forcing you to view only that space/line which defines the negative space not physically occupied by the chair, your mind is freed from its conventional views of how things exist.  This allows you to see those things which you have always accepted as "chair" or "cup" in entirely new ways.  

"Seeing" is the major impediment the tactile/auditory personality has as they approach composition. 



Negative space is not necessarily "space".  And, certainly not always space occupied by something. 

Do not think of the water in either of your previous examples as "negative space".   It is very positive space which is being defined by the negative space which surrounds it.   And vice versa.

As with the optical illusions which flip your brain back and forth between seeing this then that, positive and negative space can be either at any one time also; 50 Mesmerising Designs That Make The Most Of Negative Space – Design School

The water in either image is not negative when it is a very active player in the composition.  (not "competition")  Water has color and texture.  It has life.  It is dynamic and it is calm.  It is pure and it is putrid.  It is rising and it is falling.  

It is, most of all, symbolic. 

It is contained by something with a line.  Once there is a line, there must be space.  Lines keep our mind active or they allow it rest. 

If you looked deeply into either of your previous examples, you could experience your mind slipping into a Theta brainwave pattern.  Theta brainwaves register at about 4.0 - 7.5 Hz which is where your mind settles just before you drift off to sleep in most cases. 

theta brainwave patterns - Google Search

Theta is a state of mind which is highly relaxed yet vividly attentive.   It is the experience many marijuana users report as their perceptual high when, say, listening to music after smoking.  Or viewing a painting or photograph.   Someone drinking moderate amounts of alchohol may also find themself in this same restfully alert state of mind.   Someone listening to binaural or isochronic waves can place their brainwave patterns intentionally in this range of frequencies which can simulate marijuana's relaxed high.   

(More interesting to a neuro-scientist and those who study the cognitive sciences of perception is the fact the Schumann Resonance is measured just beyond this range at 7.83Hz.  Early space travel showed astronauts returning to Earth after a period of time outside of the effects of the Schumann Resonance left them disoriented to some degree.  Eventually, NASA began to include Schumann Resonance generators in the US space capsules to alleviate this problem.  Humans both respond to this frequency and need this frequency.  schumann resonance - Google Search  You asked why those two images "worked".  This is partially an explanation of their effect on your mind, your cognition, and why many people will intuitively respond to these images.) 



Therefore, the elements included in your previous two examples are all hitting on major themes which humans respond to intuitively and naturally.  Negative space is defining the existence of these elements but it is not the elements themself.

*Therefore, "road" = negative space misses the mark. * 







Meet Your Brain Waves — Introducing Alpha, Beta, Theta, Delta, And Gamma

This Is Your Brain. This Is Your Brain On Music

The Schumann's Resonances and Human Psychobiology - extended version


Obviously, you can take excellent photographs without any discrete knowledge of these concepts.  And forcing yourself to find these elements in your viewfinder will typically result in your images looking as though you forced them into the frame.   Visual personality types tend to easily spot these elements while tactile and auditory types must learn to recognize them when and where they exist. 

But do not mis-use the concepts either.  Just as always using the rule of thirds (particularly if you always favor placing objects on the same side of the frame) will quickly become boring, diversity in your photography pays off.

*You are rushing things to get to an end.  That is exactly what you should not be doing.   You are not seeing what it is you are going to take a photo of.*

photography and pre-visualization - Google Search


IMO you would benefit from not trying so hard to "get" landscapes. 

Next time you go out, find an object you feel is photo worthy.  Then take your time, even to the extent of spending several hours in one spot.  Don't take photos just to be taking photos.  Stay and observe how light and shadow change the object through the day.  

*An alternate rule of thirds is this; your first thoughts about an image are always  wrong.  

Your second thoughts about the same image are equally poor.

Your third thought about how to compose an image may be corre*ct.   

Select your one object and take as many photos as you feel you need, in as much time as required, in order to show the object in what you feel is its true essence.  In other words, if you like a park bench, show how many ways that object can display its full "park benchness". 

Think symbols.

Think line.

Think what isn't. 

think contrast.

think color. 

think what was.

think what can be. 

Think why. 

think again.


Where is the negative space in this first image?
Understanding and Using "Negative Space" in Photography | Photography Mad

Your example of a nightime image of the stork is very much like the Japanese woodcuts of The Floating World; Overview - The Floating World of Ukiyo-e | Exhibitions - Library of Congress

Such Japanese art is non-representational.  Realistic (enough) images are used as symbols of themes.  Composition is ruled by the symbolism. 

No need to learn symbolism at this point.  However, show us a photo which you feel contains symbols and symbolism. 

Leave landscapes go by for now.


----------



## UncleSteve (Nov 5, 2015)

Danny,

I am not going to comment on your photos, I think the others have done a good job on helping you explore the area of landscape photography.  I am going to say I see a trend in a lot of your posts....They contain negative words and phrases like "I Suck" or "They Suck" or "No one would hang on their wall." and so on.  This type of language does not lend its self to helpful learning.  Trust me, everyone is there own worst critic and we can all find major flaws with our photos that most other people would simply over look.  I have something like 25000+ images on my computer, I have a total of 25 in my online portfolio, thats a 0.1% success rate.  You are going to take a few that you don't like, and that is the beauty of digital.  But do you ever just say "I like this one because..."?  The next photo you post try and not use a single negative term relating to it.  Say things like: "I like the red building, how to I really make it the focus of the image" or  "the sidewalk lines draw me into the picture, but I think the frame is just a little off, how would you have adjusted it?"  This will help with a positive attitude when you shoot and then want to try the new ideas posted here.  Positive thought process will help drive understanding and acceptance of the images you have produced, and there are some good ones.  Be positive, you have great gear and a desire to learn so enjoy photography.  I will step off my milk carton now.

Steve


----------



## limr (Nov 5, 2015)

I'm not going to add any technical advice because quite frankly, it's never really the kind of thing that has really helped me very much. And you've gotten a TON of it and might be feeling overwhelmed at the moment.

Here's what I will add, fwiw. The way I see it, it all boils down to the same principles as you would apply to any other kind of photography: *include only what is necessary *to capture the feeling or bit of visual interest you want to convey. This is true of any kind of picture, not just landscape. It's just harder, for whatever reason, to apply that lesson to landscapes. I know it's the thing that used to trip me up: my desire to get _everything_ into a landscape. I thought it had to be a wide angle to include as much scenery as I could.

As mentioned, that technique usually flattened the image out, making it difficult to pick out what the subject might be. I think I started getting better (at least I _think _I got better  ) when I stopped being afraid of leaving stuff  and using, as Derrel mentioned, a longer focal length, or learned how to control the proportions of foreground, subject, and background with a wide angle better. 

As for your mailboxes, I personally would have shot only half of the street, gotten low, lined up the mailboxes and made them the subject of the shot, not just something I wish weren't there.


----------



## dannylightning (Nov 6, 2015)

in a reply to the last few post.   and i do appreciate all of this advice.

with my back hurting all the time and the 8lbs + i already carry around for hours i do not take any more gear with me than i need to,  i really enjoy shooting birds so usually all i have with me is my 160-600mm    and if i want the 18-200mm i need to go back to the care and change lenses.   to be honest i do not see that much that i want to shoot as far as landscapes go.    mainly we got some lakes and trees around. 

in my mind as i drive by that street and see the view for the last few days i envisioned the trees opening up kind of like a tunnel of fall colors so i was trying to capture that which i guess i sort of did.

overwhelmed a bit yes..  that is for sure but i am glad to be getting the information..

i use words like i suck,  and no one would hang it on the wall because well that is the truth, no point to sugar coat it, i just realize i am not good at this yet and i could use something help push me a long.   most of the time i am good at what ever i try to do, or get good at it quickly. i seem to be way worse at this landscape thing than i have ever been at anything i have tried to get good at, except for maybe math lol..   not sure saying what i think about the photos would be hurting anything,  i know i can get better at this i just need some help to get to where my landscape photo skills unsuck lol..

i usually at least like photos that i take of anything, except for landscapes,   i do get a landscape type photo here and there where i think its not bad but most of them are horrible.    now i wish i would have saved some of the bad ones to post and show you all just how bad they really are and i think you wold see why i say i suck at it..    

here is something like i would normally take.   some are much worse than this..  i guess this one is not bad but there is nothing special about it.,  i though that was a cool looking tree and shot it.


----------



## dannylightning (Nov 6, 2015)

ok i just went thew all of my old photos,  here is my almost entire landscape collection,   some are pretty good IMO but these are my best work and i have taken lots and lots of landscape shots and i get a descent to good one ocasionally..    
some of them are back when i first got into photography and did not know what i was doing with editing so i slayed them with the processing but you still can get the idea.     these are the very best i have gotten..   the night shot of the tail lights over the highway is a shot that i really like. 

just curious to see what you all think about the ones that i think are good or descent.


----------



## soufiej (Nov 6, 2015)

Very quickly, my initial response is you are simply not very selective in what you shoot "SQUIRREL!!!"  My feeling is what it has been from the start, you walk up and take a shot then walk away.  

*You do not employ the pre-visualization mentioned in my previous link.  *

You find maybe one thing which is interesting and rather than getting in close to examine that object's unique qualities, you simply try to force it into a "landscape".   And, you and I do agree that the area around you is not chock full o'landscapes.  

I mentioned the fellow who didn't understand why the skies in his photos lacked drama, the same rule applies to your not so much landscapes.  You can't make something into what it's not simply by stepping back a few feet.

This is why I suggested you actually take some time studying a single subject.  The tree you found interesting might be, but not from a distance as you have placed it in your shot.   It's that one tree that's interesting, the rest is not.  That means we don't need to see the uninteresting stuff. 

You shoot from the student photographer's perspective of always standing upright.  Any time you always do the same thing, we come to expect the same thing from you.  Great photography, IMO, always surprises the viewer.  Good photography, at the least, makes the viewer go, "Well, that's not what I was expecting."

Get down low and then get down even lower.  Go up high when possible.  Do something different.  

Take your camera and turn it, turn it in any direction other than "landscape" because you think you're shooting landscapes.  You seem to have your rule of composition which is either rule of thirds or completely centered.     You cut off things that shouldn't be cut off but include needless stuff on the sides.  

First shot, top left; you've cut off the edge of the water to show us, what?

You have a lot of centered horizons in the collection of shots.  Know when to use a rule and when to break a rule.  You only break a rule when there is a good reason to do so.  

There are simply a lot of things in your photos which aren't interesting.  That's not meant to sound rude but you are not out snapping shots just to snap shots and then calling them landscapes.  There must be a reason for why you take a photo.  And, once you've decided this subject is photo worthy, you must realize that without sufficient time to study the scene when you can observe more than the casual "Oh, that's nice" look, your camera will not and cannot record exactly what you perceive.  I did mention this in my first post.  

The train tracks are not positioned properly to make them a visual component of the image.  They are almost a distraction but, given the rest of the shot, they become the main focus but lead our eyes nowhere, off the edge of the image never to return most likely.  

The one tree and the arch are obviously subjects you found interesting. Therefore, you felt including other items would turn them into landscapes. 

Should I be looking at the parking lot or the building?  You are not telling us anything about what you find interesting in these images.  There is no story, there is no emotion, there is no point of view.  

There is no Bigfoot.

There is plenty of "SQUIRREL!!!"


----------



## soufiej (Nov 6, 2015)

Using Previsualization to Create Remarkable Photographs


If you have not done so, apply the grid lines to your viewfinder.

What's the minimum and maximum aperture of your lens?  You aren't using either.


----------



## dannylightning (Nov 6, 2015)

well, there is lots of great informaton here,  some of it seems pretty helpfull,  other stuff is just kind of like not really sinking in.

maybe i am not meant to be a landscape photographer.   i don't know.


----------



## soufiej (Nov 6, 2015)

OK, what's not sinking in?


----------



## dannylightning (Nov 6, 2015)

i dont know,  negative space drawing,  and some of the other stuff you guys posted links to,   most of it really..     i have learning disabilitys,  hands on has always been much better for me than reading about stuff..  maybe allot of it is just to technical and goes over my head.   when i read something i don't remember allot of it when i am finished reading, its always been that way for me for some reason which is probably why i never did well in school,   i am a very slow reader and after i get done reading something i could not usualy tell you much of what it said.     i did not really expect so much in dept technical  information about taking some landscapes, 

when i look at a land scape my favorite ones are these big wide angle shots with water,  a nice sky and something nice to look at in the background like this..     i do not see much around to shoot like this though..  here is a link to the type of landscapes i would like to be taking..  so i think i have been trying to create that kind of a scene even though i do not really have that kind of scene to shoot.

landscape photos - Google Search

landscape photos - Google Search

landscape photos - Google Search


----------



## soufiej (Nov 6, 2015)

Silk purse and sow's ear comes to mind. 

First question is, do you feel the photographer in any of these instances simply walked up and took that shot without further thought or preparation?

Pick one of those images and tell me what you are seeing.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 6, 2015)

How long do you look round in an area before you start shooting ? I can be a hour or more, I dont shoot landscapes not in the way you see it, I look for miniature landscapes in the landscape, try going out without a camera and you will see loads to shoot, I also think this is a problem with digital you can shoot and not worry about spending money thats why I shoot 99% film


----------



## dannylightning (Nov 6, 2015)

soufiej said:


> Silk purse and sow's ear comes to mind.
> 
> First question is, do you feel the photographer in any of these instances simply walked up and took that shot without further thought or preparation?



well i figure a good landscape photographer probably does not put that much though into it,  when you good at something in allot of case it just comes natural,  i figure at fist you need to put some though into it but after a while ist just second nature.

i figured there would be a few simple rules to follow and stuff like but i am getting bombarded with stuff that's not really making sense to me after i read it.     maybe if my brain could remember stuff after i read it it would be different.     give me a little bit to read and it usually sinks in.   give me a lot to read and it usually does not.


----------



## JacaRanda (Nov 6, 2015)

I would bet that good or great landscape photographers put way more thought into it than you think.  If it was that easy we would all be great landscape photographers.  You would not be given all the advice if it was easy.


----------



## limr (Nov 6, 2015)

dannylightning said:


> soufiej said:
> 
> 
> > Silk purse and sow's ear comes to mind.
> ...



But it doesn't come "naturally" for most people until _after_ they have put a lot of thought and effort and practice into becoming good. And even then, the thought and effort is there, but it just takes less time for the thinking process to happen.



> i figured there would be a few simple rules to follow and stuff like but i am getting bombarded with stuff that's not really making sense to me after i read it.     maybe if my brain could remember stuff after i read it it would be different.     give me a little bit to read and it usually sinks in.   give me a lot to read and it usually does not.



Okay, give yourself just one job, and when you feel like that's getting easier for you, move onto another job. You said you like water and sky. That first shot of the last set of photos you posted has water and sky. Go to that same place and shoot no other landscape shots except for that water and sky. Shoot it from as many different angles as you can. Shoot with different lenses of differing focal length. Shoot it in different light. Be systematic - for example, shoot one scene with the same composition but with different settings to see exactly how that affects the final image. Stop relating shooting to the thoughts or concepts and start relating it to experience and images. Take notes if you have to so if something goes out of your head, you can be reminded by checking your notes. And they don't have to be written notes. With all the fancy stuff we can do with our smart phones these days, just take some audio notes and replay them as you are looking through your pictures at home on the computer.


----------



## Designer (Nov 6, 2015)

dannylightning said:


> well i figure a good landscape photographer probably does not put that much though into it,  when you good at something in allot of case it just comes natural,  i figure at fist you need to put some though into it but after a while ist just second nature.
> 
> i figured there would be a few simple rules to follow and stuff like but i am getting bombarded with stuff that's not really making sense to me after i read it.     maybe if my brain could remember stuff after i read it it would be different.     give me a little bit to read and it usually sinks in.   give me a lot to read and it usually does not.


1. You might be surprised at how much the pros put into a shot.  It would not be unheard of to hear that a very successful landscape photographer (sorry, his name has escaped me ATM) would spend literally hundreds of hours planning for a shot, and spend thousands of dollars getting to the site (with a crew and provisions) just to get that one shot that he will sell for thousands of dollars.

2. I'm certainly not there, and perhaps most of us have difficulty with landscape, but since you have the desire, you can do it.  In your case, it might be just looking at lots (*NO! I mean; LOTS!*) of landscape photographs that are really good.  While looking, try to see how the composition is put together, what is in, what is not in, the light, the angle of view, everything.  Then try it yourself.


----------



## soufiej (Nov 6, 2015)

dannylightning said:


> well i figure a good landscape photographer probably does not put that much though into it,  when you good at something in allot of case it just comes natural,  i figure at fist you need to put some though into it but after a while ist just second nature.
> 
> i figured there would be a few simple rules to follow and stuff like but i am getting bombarded with stuff that's not really making sense to me after i read it.     maybe if my brain could remember stuff after i read it it would be different.     give me a little bit to read and it usually sinks in.   give me a lot to read and it usually does not.





*First things first ...*

_" ... one of the best ways to improve is to keep trying. As a famous golfer once said 'The more I practice the luckier I get.' Repetition isn’t just about maximizing your chance of finding the right conditions, it also helps you figure out how you want to capture a certain image. *This image from Death Valley took me three visits over the course of about eight years to finally get right. *Between my first attempt and this one, somewhere in the back of my mind I toyed with compositions, took inspiration from images taken by other photographers and ultimately decided exactly how I wanted to capture these sand dunes.

Ultimately I ended up with something that appeals to me."_

The Power of Previsualization in Photography




You are correct when you say you are becoming confused.  That is the danger of forums, too many inputs when your brain simply wants an answer.  We all mean well.  However, we all go about this somewhat differently depending on our experience and our style of working.  You, meanwhile, are still taking your first steps toward your own style of working.  Go slowly and you will get there.

*I'll boil my input down to its simplest concept, you are too impatient. *

It's a very common issue when anyone today approaches a new experience.   What can make things worse is when you fill your head with buzzwords and ideas and tricks and techniques which you do not fully understand.   *You cannot make yourself into a great landscape photographer over night. * You cannot grasp the parts which involve symbols and contrasts.  You cannot force yourself to see line and color and contrast.  So stop trying, you're only frustrating yourself.

Do understand the basic concepts of landscape photography though.  Light, shadow, lines, shapes, color and contrast.

(You may want to place those elements in a short note to yourself.  When you are viewing a subject, look them over to determine which are best emphasized in your next shot.)

Silk purse = Sweeping, colorful, high dynamic range vistas of majestic beauty and grandeur.

Sow's ear = where you can walk to in a few minutes when you live in Ohio and it's early November.  Where is there dynamic range in Ohio in the middle of November?  If it's not there, you cannot make it magically appear in your viewfinder.





You have learned enough with your camera through your bird photography to technically be able to, say, scramble an egg for breakfast.  Now, you want to instantly be able to cook a five course, Northern Italian/Eastern French inspired meal for fifteen food snobs using ingredients found in the "Foreign Foods" aisle at Walmart.  How much distance do you think lies between those two points?  How long and hard do you think someone studies and works to cover that territory?  How many failures will they have?  How many successes?  You do have to stop being so negative about your ability and become _waaaaay _more positive about your potential.

Each bit of information you have received up to this point is nothing more than another tool you may use when it is appropriate.  No one uses every tool every time.  Quite literally, if you want to prepare excellent pasta, it begins by learning to crack an egg and how to boil water.  The depth of preparing pasta is feeling the humidity in the air.  You are still dealing with boiling water so don't get ahead of yourself.

Step back and begin with the simplest skills of a photographer.

You have light and shadow as your materials.   Those materials define color, line, shape and contrast.

Your camera and lens are the tools you have at your disposal to shape those materials.

That's it, that's all you have.  Now you need to make something interesting.



I won't say even a visual personality type finds photography "easy".  The advantage a visual personality has is only that they can see the images and patterns in their mind before they snap the shutter as they have already been formulating ideas once they spot a subject.   This is nothing more than nature for the visual personality.

Where they may struggle is in the technical application of the camera to achieving that image they have in their head.  For some visually oriented people their dominant type is so overwhelming that they have difficulties with the other sides of photography.  If you are a tactile type, you probably find the application of technical skills rather easy to accomplish.  If you are an auditory type, then you need to carry on a discussion with yourself as to what you see and how to capture it in an image.  You can use your smartphone to describe the prevailing conditions and the image you see plus the camera settings.  You can detail these items in a journal.  You can also use the hybrid nature of most modern DSLR's and include a bit of video/audio taken just before you take the photo.   However you achieve the end, slowing yourself down is essential right now.

But, IMO,  you first need to identify what your personality type is and then figure out how to apply your type to your photography.  If you go shopping for a car, what do you do?  Are you attracted by the looks?  The shapes?  The controls?  The features?  The sound of the car at work?  How you shop is typically your personality type.  No one is purely one type, we are all a mix of the three with one being predominant.  It is your dominant nature you want to work from.  The others will follow that lead.



With that in mind, I am still of the opinion you need to simplify.

Yes, you can go out and shoot water and sky.  IMO, that's still a bit more than you need to tackle right now.   You decide.  But do not become even more impatient.  You are learning how to crack an egg, remember?  You don't need to prepare an omelet just yet.

My preference would be for you to only look at one object and to study it.   Your materials are not the object itself, they are the light and shadows as they are seen falling on and around the object.  They are what are making your subject of interest to us, the viewer.  How the light sculpts a shape.  How the shadows define a line.  How color is emphasized or negated.  Strong contrasts vs broad sweeps of low key images.  Make the object stationary, unlike your bird photography.  Show us what you see.

Try a city park.  They are naturally designed to have attractive spaces and elements worthy of photographic study.  Forget grand, sweeping vistas for now.  There are none in the middle of Ohio right now.

Simplify.  Show us a few shots of one thing no matter what it is.  Take plenty, make yourself take, say, at least twenty or thirty shots of the same location and same subject.  Show us five or ten.  We can open up your framing in the viewfinder in time.   Remember to get down low and go up high and to turn your camera.  Moving an inch and saying that's a different view isn't what you're after.

I asked early on and I didn't receive an answer, what have you done to up your composition skills?


----------



## dannylightning (Nov 6, 2015)

i am gonna have to go over all of these new post tomorrow,  thanks everyone.  

hopefully i can get it all down one of these days sooner than later but only time will tell..


----------



## dannylightning (Nov 7, 2015)

soufiej said:


> dannylightning said:
> 
> 
> > You do have to stop being so negative about your ability and become _waaaaay _more positive about your potential.
> ...



1. i do not think i am being negative,  i think i am being honest.  no point to sugar coat it.    my landscapes are not very good, i called it like i see it and asked for some advice.

2. make something the star of the photo,  visualize the composition,  try not to show boring unnecessary things in the photo.  try to spend some time thinking about the shot before i start clicking away,   try to only shoot things that may actually be interesting.  shoot from many angles.    stuff like that is what i will be thinking about for right now..     cant work on too many things at once.


----------



## soufiej (Nov 7, 2015)

dannylightning said:


> 2. make something the star of the photo,  visualize the composition,  try not to show boring unnecessary things in the photo.  try to spend some time thinking about the shot before i start clicking away,   try to only shoot things that may actually be interesting.  shoot from many angles.    stuff like that is what i will be thinking about for right now..     cant work on too many things at once.




No, you cannot.  Don't even try.  Remember, everything you've been given is nothing more than a tool.   Do not confuse these subjective tools with the major objective tools of photography; your camera and lens.

Your camera and lens are your tactile tools, they are what you select to use to shape your final image.  Your lines, color, texture, etc are those things you begin to see in your mind as you study a subject.  What you see (pre-visualization)  determines what tool you will use - what lens, what f-stop, what ISO, etc.  You cannot reverse the process by deciding you will use a wide angle lens and then force everything to fit into that focal length.

*What you are primarily lacking right now, I think we all agree, is the thought process of photography.  As you say, you see something and you take a picture.*

*Slow down.  Have that conversation with yourself about what you see, what changes as you change your position or angle.  Keep a record of these thoughts as the physical act of keeping a journal will force you to slow down your process. *




Here's one thought that I hope won't add to your confusion.  When a sculptor looks at a piece of marble they are about to carve, many artists feel what they must do to sculpt, say, a horse and rider is to remove all those parts which are not "horse and rider".  In other words, they are beginning to see what can be excluded and leave only what must be included.

So far, most of your images have simply been about taking a picture.  * I think we all agree you need to slow down and decide what in the image must be included and what can be excluded.   If the tree is interesting, then show us the tree.  Do not force it into being a landscape where none exists.*

Make a short list of the values you see in this thread which you feel you can work with and then, when you approach a subject, study your list. If you do not have a reason for including one value, then don't force that into your shot.  Be slow and steady and make decisions.  Know what you want the viewer to see and then exclude all the rest.

It all begins, of course, not with the idea you are going to shoot landscapes but with the positive mind set of you are going to find interesting subjects and show the viewer that.


----------

