# Why is this so terrible.....



## JustJazzie (Jun 26, 2014)

I don't always post questions about camera equipment, Sometimes I post horrible pictures too. :Giggle:

I was going through pictures from the lake the other day and Im so disappointed. This was one of the prettiest spots that I found, and I *thought* I was shooting it during a good time, but apparently not. My intention was to attempt another HDR but the clouds moved so that won't work at all. Anyways, it falls pretty flat so I figured it would be a good one to get some hardcore C&C on.

Dont be too nice, Im ready this time.


 

Here is a link to the larger file if it helps to see it bigger.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/33723628@N02/14330542418/


----------



## slimodin (Jun 26, 2014)

I'm just getting into this hobby but for me there's just nothing of interest. I mean the road is nice but it leads to nothing. Maybe if a storm was in the background or something significant it would be better. Fwiw I've taken tons of these pics as well. Like you, they seem to always fall flat. 

Hooefully someone one with more wisdom will come along and chime in.


----------



## tecboy (Jun 27, 2014)

Brighten up the photograph and add a warmer tone.


----------



## Usul (Jun 27, 2014)

Because of the road at foreground the background wich should be the main object of this image looks flat. Personaly I'm not a fan of low points of view so I would crop the bottom part of the image. And the white balance settings is way too cold.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 27, 2014)

Too much rocky road, not enough ice cream...the rocky road at the foreground is soooooo wide,and sooo prominent in this photo that it makes the background look small. I'd say too short of a focal length to make the "scene" really pop. You were seeing with yuor eyes and brain, but the camera's vision was very different.


----------



## WesternGuy (Jun 27, 2014)

I will agree with the comments of previous folks.  My main question that you have to answer is "What is the subject?"  Is it the road or the hills in the background?  Regardless, the image is a bit underexposed and could use some contrast - the trees in the middle ground seem to just fade into the hills in the background.  As Derrel indicates, the camera does not see the scenery the way your eyes do.  Personally, I would have tried the HDR to see what happened with the clouds.  Most HDR programs can handles the "ghosting" that might occur with moving clouds.

WesternGuy


----------



## pgriz (Jun 27, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Too much rocky road, not enough ice cream...the rocky road at the foreground is soooooo wide,and sooo prominent in this photo that it makes the background look small. I'd say too short of a focal length to make the "scene" really pop. You were seeing with yuor eyes and brain, but *the camera's vision was very different*.



I'm thinking that Derrel again puts his finger on the key point.  What we see and perceive has to be translated into what the camera will capture.

Deconstructing the image, the lower third is "rocky road" with the foreground out of focus.  The upper third is sky, more or less featureless.  The middle third has the "meat" but with sunset haven just happened, the whole scene is in shadow - there are no highlights.

The exposure seems to have been set to expose the road and sky properly, but the "meat" is underexposed.  However, if the exposure is boosted, then the sky become "white" or even blown.  So this is where the brain needs to translate what the eye sees, and instruct the camera.  How important is the sky in this image?  How important is the road?  If they are not so important, then choosing a higher vantage point could reduce the amount of sky, and reduce the prominence of the road.  The way the road curves and meanders IS interesting, but you may emphasize the lines by shooting at the edge of the road, where this line will be more clearly visible.

As for the exposure, it's under-exposed for the main subject, which I assume is the middle third.  You could, in pinciple, reduce the sky brightness by using a graduated ND filter, or you could do a composite (sky one exposure, ground a different exposure).  

As for the white balance, the scene is being illuminated by the blue sky, and therefore the overall color cast is blue.  The "shade" setting on the WB dial is intended to compensate for that, or you could do a custom temperature like 7200K or 7600K to tell the camera that the primary light source is very blue.

In these kinds of situations, it helps (me at least), to verbalize what I am seeing, and what I think is important in the scene.  Something like:  " I love the deep rich greens of the hills, and the way the reddish road constrasts with the green.  I love the redness in the rocks that are exposed here and there."  That would then give me a clue as to what I need to put into the image (focal length choice, perspective, orientation), and where I would need to bias the exposure and the white balance.


----------



## PropilotBW (Jun 27, 2014)

If the camera were on a 6' tripod, I think it'd be a totally different picture.  You'd be able to see down the road in the distance, leading to the mountains.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 27, 2014)

As everyone else has stated ...

The detailed rocks up front grabs your attention ... the rest of the photo is no longer the subject.
If taken from the side (off the road) where the road is not so prominent but leads the eye to the distance would help it alot.

Also ... moving clouds could be fun.  with a good ND filter you can take a photo of the clouds moving ... something I've been playing with from this thread.
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...d-filters-anyone-have-various-nds-photos.html


----------



## KmH (Jun 27, 2014)

Already mentioned: Camera perspective - height and focal length.

Light - poor quality and direction. A GND filter for the sky would have allowed correct exposure of the land. Or. You could blend 2 exposures - 1 correct for the sky. 1 correct for the land.

If you allowed edits, someone could edit your photo to demonstrate how a GND could have helped make the land a more integral and interesting part of the photo.

Insights From Beyond the Lens: Inside the Art & Craft of Landscape Photography
Landscape Photography: From Snapshots to Great Shots
National Audubon Society Guide to Landscape Photography


----------



## JustJazzie (Jun 27, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Too much rocky road, not enough ice cream...the rocky road at the foreground is soooooo wide,and sooo prominent in this photo that it makes the background look small. I'd say too short of a focal length to make the "scene" really pop. You were seeing with yuor eyes and brain, but the camera's vision was very different.


MMMM ice cream. We made some homemade cookie dough ice creak the other night, rocky road might be next on the list!

Thanks for chiming in. I hadn't planned on this low point of view. But, long story short DH rolled the 4 wheeler and was very late getting back, so I was walking (and carrying a sleepy kiddo) up the path trying to figure out what was taking so long. By the time I found him, the light was almost gone, and I didn't have my tri pod with me, so I had to use the ground or not shoot at all. At least I have an idea of what to do next time!



WesternGuy said:


> I will agree with the comments of previous folks.  My main question that you have to answer is "What is the subject?"  Is it the road or the hills in the background?  Regardless, the image is a bit underexposed and could use some contrast - the trees in the middle ground seem to just fade into the hills in the background.  As Derrel indicates, the camera does not see the scenery the way your eyes do.  Personally, I would have tried the HDR to see what happened with the clouds.  Most HDR programs can handles the "ghosting" that might occur with moving clouds.  WesternGuy


 all I have for HDR is cs6, if it can handle ghosting, I'm not sure how to use that feature. As for the under exposure, as soon as I saw it in flickr I thought "is that underexposed" it looks slightly different in aperture for some reason. However, I suppose I chose that exposure because it was a "middle ground" between the sky and the mountain. The next exposure up isn't any better though. 





PropilotBW said:


> If the camera were on a 6' tripod, I think it'd be a totally different picture.  You'd be able to see down the road in the distance, leading to the mountains.


  I'll take my tri pod next time and try to go a little earlier!





astroNikon said:


> As everyone else has stated ...  The detailed rocks up front grabs your attention ... the rest of the photo is no longer the subject. If taken from the side (off the road) where the road is not so prominent but leads the eye to the distance would help it alot.  Also ... moving clouds could be fun.  with a good ND filter you can take a photo of the clouds moving ... something I've been playing with from this thread. http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/359770-nd-filters-anyone-have-various-nds-photos.html


  *sigh* a ND filter is on my list, but I am afraid to buy one until I finally get this new camera business settled.


----------



## SnappingShark (Jun 27, 2014)

crop the bottom 1/3 off. call it a panoramic shot. warm it up. add an ND filter in lightroom or something to the sky, add some saturation. see what it looks like


----------



## JustJazzie (Jun 27, 2014)

KmH said:


> Already mentioned: Camera perspective - height and focal length.  Light - poor quality and direction. A GND filter for the sky would have allowed correct exposure of the land. Or. You could blend 2 exposures - 1 correct for the sky. 1 correct for the land.  If you allowed edits, someone could edit your photo to demonstrate how a GND could have helped make the land a more integral and interesting part of the photo.  Insights From Beyond the Lens: Inside the Art & Craft of Landscape Photography Landscape Photography: From Snapshots to Great Shots National Audubon Society Guide to Landscape Photography


  The reason I prefer people not to edit my photos is because I would rather them tell me how to do it myself. I *personally* don't learn best that way! and I will gain so much more knowledge if I can attempt it myself. If you know of any tutorials on how I can apply  a GND filter in post, I would be delighted to give it a shot!   I unsuccessfully attempted to composite a well exposed sky with a well exposed mountain, but I just could not get it to blend correctly. Is there a better way? Or do I just need to improve my technique?


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 27, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Already mentioned: Camera perspective - height and focal length.  Light - poor quality and direction. A GND filter for the sky would have allowed correct exposure of the land. Or. You could blend 2 exposures - 1 correct for the sky. 1 correct for the land.  If you allowed edits, someone could edit your photo to demonstrate how a GND could have helped make the land a more integral and interesting part of the photo.  Insights From Beyond the Lens: Inside the Art & Craft of Landscape Photography Landscape Photography: From Snapshots to Great Shots National Audubon Society Guide to Landscape Photography
> ...



But you would have the before and after photo. AND get instructions on how to get there.


----------



## TWright33 (Jun 27, 2014)

I didn't read the comments.

I think it just had too much road.

I'm bored at work and decided to give it a lick in Lightroom.

This is about 5 minutes tweaking on it.

I think it's a lovely image


----------



## JustJazzie (Jun 27, 2014)

Keith: thanks for the book suggestions! I'm downloading the free one now, and I'll check my library for the others!


----------



## JustJazzie (Jun 27, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> But you would have the before and after photo. AND get instructions on how to get there.


 All right all right Astro. You win. 


TWright33 said:


> I didn't read the comments.
> 
> I think it just had too much road.
> 
> ...


This is definitely a vast improvement. Can you please tell me what you did?


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 27, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> Keith: thanks for the book suggestions! I'm downloading the free one now, and I'll check my library for the others!


FREE!!

downloaded it too  
:thumbup:


----------



## TWright33 (Jun 27, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> This is definitely a vast improvement. Can you please tell me what you did?



Here you go


----------



## JustJazzie (Jun 27, 2014)

slimodin said:


> I mean the road is nice but it leads to nothing.


Thanks for chiming in. However, I was under the impression that the road was leading to the mountain. Perhaps a higher vantage point like another poster suggested would help make that more apparent.


----------



## JustJazzie (Jun 27, 2014)

TWright33 said:


> JustJazzie said:
> 
> 
> > This is definitely a vast improvement. Can you please tell me what you did?
> ...


Thanks! now I just have to go translate that into aperture terms. :Giggle:


----------



## JustJazzie (Jun 27, 2014)

If I post an original, would someone be willing to help me from scratch?


----------



## TWright33 (Jun 27, 2014)

I can help you. I don't have aperture, but there is nothing that I have done that can't be done in any other program.


----------



## a_auger (Jun 27, 2014)

Here's my attempt using Lightroom 5.3:




The crop is pretty obvious, although I left a little more of the road in there than TWright...
As for general tweaks to the image, I kicked up the exposure a little,  added some contrast, some clarity (aka local contrast) and a little  vibrance and saturation. For specific ones, I warmed up the white balance to being back the green colour in the trees, brought the shadows up for the mountains, tweaked the tone curve just a little for more contrast in the darks and added some saturation to the oranges and blues in the sky.

I then added a Grad filter to counteract the exposure changes in the sky that was waaay too bright and white at this point. This GND had -100 on highlights, and little contrast and saturation added to bring back the nice blue colour.

Hope this helps!


----------



## JustJazzie (Jun 27, 2014)

Do you want it posted here? Or emailed to you?


----------



## TWright33 (Jun 27, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> Do you want it posted here? Or emailed to you?


You can email me at twright9627@gmail.com


----------



## TWright33 (Jun 27, 2014)

a_auger said:


> Hope this helps!



I'm going to assume you didn't mean to watermark this :mrgreen:


----------



## JustJazzie (Jun 27, 2014)

Email sent Twright!



TWright33 said:


> a_auger said:
> 
> 
> > Hope this helps!
> ...



:Giggle: I didn't even notice.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jun 27, 2014)

Don't worry about the tripod. Just work on your vertical leap and you should be fine. ISO 400 should net you a fast enough shutter to jump and get it. 


In all srs bsns ns, I.... don't have anything to add because my thoughts have been covered.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 27, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> slimodin said:
> 
> 
> > I mean the road is nice but it leads to nothing.
> ...



Well it could be a road leading to Mount Nothing.  Although I tihnk Mount Nothing is in Colorado somewhere...


----------



## a_auger (Jun 27, 2014)

TWright33 said:


> a_auger said:
> 
> 
> > Hope this helps!
> ...




Whoops! Damn LR export presets! I can remove it or replace it with a non-WM if you want!

Edit: Done! Replaced with a non-WM Sorry about that!


----------



## KmH (Jun 28, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> View attachment 77943



Using PS CC Camera Raw.
Global edits - +1 EV Exposure, +11 Temperature, + 55 Clarity, +40 Vibrance. Sharpen - Amount 25, Radius 1.0, Detail 25, Masking 0 (my standard global capture sharpening).
Local edits - Sky. Graduated Filter tool - Exposure  minus 1.45, Contrast +28, Clarity +21, Saturation +21, Sharpening +20, Noise Reduction +74

Using PC CC.
Local edits - Dodged (Dodge tool settings - Midtones, 50%, Protect tones) the cliffs in the background, parts of the road, parts of the foreground on each side of the road.
Global edits - added a narrow black border.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 28, 2014)

This is stuff I need to learn too .. but I only have LR


----------



## agp (Jun 28, 2014)

I think HDR is a good way to make an interesting photo more interesting, it will rarely make an uninteresting photo interesting. With that said, I do not think the original photo is very interesting. If you had shot this photo from a higher point of view, the road could be an anchor for the eye. Given what we have to work with though, I think the photo could do with less blue, especially in the distant mountains. This is what I came up with after some quick tweaks.


----------



## JustJazzie (Jun 28, 2014)

Thanks everyone for helping with the editing part. Maybe next time I'm there the sky will be more exciting and I can try a different angle.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 28, 2014)

use a 50 ft tall ladder off to the left too  

okay, maybe not.


----------



## KmH (Jun 28, 2014)

agp said:


> This is what I came up with after some quick tweaks.


It has a strong magenta color cast.

Do you regularly color calibrate your editing display?


----------



## JustJazzie (Jun 28, 2014)

KmH said:


> It has a strong magenta color cast.  Do you regularly color calibrate your editing display?


:hide: no. I've tried watching a few videos, but Havent really figured it out. I'm editing on an imac, so perhaps I should bake e.rose some cookies and she would help me figure it out. ;-) 

And I knew this had WB issues, I just couldn't get it right.... Since I knew the shot was scrap anyways, I just gave up.


----------



## KmH (Jun 28, 2014)

I was asking member agp, which is why I quoted the comment I did.

The biggest issue with your photo was the under exposure of the foreground. A GND filter over the sky would have helped that.

You need to learn more about camera metering so you'll know when not to trust the meter and make the appropriate manual adjustments to compensate for the way it works.


----------



## JustJazzie (Jun 28, 2014)

KmH said:


> I was asking member agp, which is why I quoted the comment I did.  The biggest issue with your photo was the under exposure of the foreground. A GND filter over the sky would have helped that.  You need to learn more about camera metering so you'll know when not to trust the meter and make the appropriate manual adjustments to compensate for the way it works.



Sorry, I guess I missed the quote. Just in case you missed- this was one of 5 shots because I originally wanted to turn this into an HDR.  It seemed to me, to be the most "balanced" of the 5 different exposures which is why I chose it for editing. So I suppose I can't blame the cameras meter here, or my lack of metering knlowadge, just my bad eyesight. ;-)


----------



## agp (Jun 28, 2014)

KmH said:


> agp said:
> 
> 
> > This is what I came up with after some quick tweaks.
> ...



No I do not, because I can't count on other people calibrating their display to match my monitor. But I did temporarily adjust my display so that I too see the image as purple so I can tweak it. How does it look now?


----------

