# Post processing landscapes



## Primoz (Aug 15, 2010)

Hello guys!

I need your advice on editing landscapes. I am trying to improve my landscape photos, but I don't want them to look unnatural (because that's what landscapes are about, right? - representing nature ).
I heard that some photographers don't post process their pictures, but mine look so washed out directly from camera, that I have to do some editing. Where's the trick? ND grad filter? Waiting for better lighting? (as I was on a trip I couldn't camp on one location for several days)

So basicly, I would like to know if you think these photos are overedited (contrast, claritiy...), because when I edit one picture for a longer time I kind of loose the feeling for boundaries and would like to know an objective second opinion. Of course also C&C on other topics are appreciated. 

Thanks!

P.S.: There are 4 photos - first the edited and then the original version.

1 - edited






1 - original





2 - edited





2 - original





3 - edited





3 - original





4 - edited





4 - original - I know, I know... this one is underexposed (have another one with right exposure of the foregorund, but I edited this one)


----------



## mwcfarms (Aug 15, 2010)

I am a landscape nut, I know some people on the forum say they are clichéd but I still love them. I like most all of the edits. Im just an amateur so take all this with a grain of salt. Just my 2cp. 

1. Slight edit to my eyes, looks good although your foreground has that yellow/greeny tinge to it.
2. Almost looks a tad underexposed but not by much at all. Sky in upper right corner seemz really blue.
3. I like.
4. Your original was underexposed and looks much better editted. Although the green grass has a yellow tinge to it. 

I like the edits of 2 and 3 the best. Again just my thoughts. Really like 2 & 3 compostion.


----------



## KmH (Aug 15, 2010)

Some of your edits came out looking fairly dark.

An adjustment doesn't have to be done to the entire image, what is termed a global edit.
An edit can be done to just a portion of the image, a local edit, if the software you are using has selection tools.

Here is a quick example. Your original:


Primoz said:


> 2 - original


 

A quick edit. I did a gradient on just the sky, some dodging and burning locally, I sharpened just the cairn in the lower right, I selected all except the sky and made a +1/2 stop exposure adjustment.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Aug 15, 2010)

These are not 'landscapes' by any means. They are just outdoor photos taken with a wide-angle lens. The scenes are not particularly photogenic.

You are trying to take too much in and the lighting is not the best.


----------



## DennyCrane (Aug 15, 2010)

Nice landscapes. 

Have you tweaked the white balance in these? I have a sneaky suspicion they're a little off.


----------



## mwcfarms (Aug 15, 2010)

:lmao:I wish we had an emote for grab someone and stuff them in the closet.  Just kidding Petraio. Ok so thats our none landscape fan I was referring too. But +1 to KmH comment. 

Hey Petraio

*land·scape*

&#8194; &#8194;/&#712;lænd&#716;ske&#618;p/ 

 Show Spelled [*land*-skeyp] 

 Show IPA *noun, verb, *-scaped, -scap·ing. 
*&#8211;noun *1. a section or expanse of rural scenery, usually extensive, that can be seen from a single viewpoint. 

2. a picture representing natural inland or coastal scenery. 

3. _Fine Arts _. the category of aesthetic subject matter in which natural scenery is represented. 

4. _Obsolete _. a panoramic view of scenery; vista. 

Just in case you didnt know.


----------



## clanthar (Aug 15, 2010)

First of all -- some really nice landscape photos, I especially like #3 -- excellent shot.

What software do you use for processing?

As a basic rule a good photo has a full tonal scale: Black to white with as much of everything in between as possible. When editing, the first and last steps taken should be to check and verify the tonal scale by examining the photo's histogram. A photo with a compressed histogram lacks contrast. You've got some of that going on here.

I tweaked #3 and placed it together with your edit and an inset histogram for you to see: http://photojoes.org/landscape.jpg

The histogram shows the problem. I also made a slight shift to the color of your blue sky which was picking up a cyan cast.

That's a nice image.

Joe


----------



## timlair (Aug 15, 2010)

Other than the top left-hand corner of number 1 being a little too dark, I absolutely LOVE them. Kinda wanna make number 1 my background!

And all your edits are better than originals. If you hadnt edited then they just wouldnt have been as good. But heck, if you can get the perfect shot without a little PS, then kudos!


----------



## dxqcanada (Aug 15, 2010)

Hmm, did you have a Polarizing Filter when you shot those ?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Aug 15, 2010)

mwcfarms said:


> :lmao:I wish we had an emote for grab someone and stuff them in the closet.  Just kidding Petraio. Ok so thats our none landscape fan I was referring too. But +1 to KmH comment.
> 
> Hey Petraio
> 
> ...




I have seen landscape photography, and this isn't it. These are snapshots taken of a lake. There is nothing of interest in the compositions or lighting to distinguish them from snapshots..


----------



## Arch (Aug 15, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> I have seen landscape photography, and this isn't it. These are snapshots taken of a lake. There is nothing of interest in the compositions or lighting to distinguish them from snapshots..



Regardless of whether you think these are snapshots or not, they ARE landscapes. Please do not fill peoples threads with obvious attempts at starting disagreements, its called trolling and it is a bannable offense. By all means bring up a discussion in the discussion section if you want to try and debate it.


----------



## Bram (Aug 15, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> mwcfarms said:
> 
> 
> > :lmao:I wish we had an emote for grab someone and stuff them in the closet.  Just kidding Petraio. Ok so thats our none landscape fan I was referring too. But +1 to KmH comment.
> ...


 



Okaaayyyyyy Petraio, just because you have nothing better to do on TPF, some people here actually LIKE photography. These LANDSCAPE photos are nice, good composition on some not so good on other but hey, every piece of art has it's flaws. These LANDSCAPE photos are to be critizised, not butchered, so take your negativity elsewhere. 

Great photo's Primoz love #3


----------



## Petraio Prime (Aug 15, 2010)

Primoz said:


> Hello guys!
> 
> I need your advice on editing landscapes. I am trying to improve my landscape photos, but I don't want them to look unnatural (because that's what landscapes are about, right? - representing nature ).
> I heard that some photographers don't post process their pictures, but mine look so washed out directly from camera, that I have to do some editing. Where's the trick? ND grad filter? Waiting for better lighting? (as I was on a trip I couldn't camp on one location for several days)
> ...



In regard to "I am trying to improve my landscape photos".

The editing-processing is not the issue. You need to get better at scene selection, composition, etc. at the *taking* stage.

You are including too much in the scene and the lighting is not dramatic.


----------



## Primoz (Aug 15, 2010)

@ mrcfarms: Thanks for comments. As I thought, I have gone too far with contrast and gradient underexposure in no.2

@ kmh: Ooo, I like what you did there... not too much editing, but still much better than the original.

@ Petrario Prime: Thank you for the opinion. I know I am far from taking perfect shots and am very much aware these aren't "wow", so would appreciate if you could give an example of a good landscape by your opinion. (I love this photographer's portfolio Matjaz Krivic - Photographer - also a slovenian ) But for such photos you gotta be a pro and take your time to wait for the perfect light. In my case this wasn't an option, as photograpy was not the prime consideration at my trip. Attractive landscape + bad weather? Better luck next time 

@DennyCrane: I might have made them a bit warmer, than they should be (I was shooting in RAW).

@Clanthar: I was using LR. Thanks for the information about histogram... I'll try to keep an eye on it in future

@timlair: I'm glad you like them. Go ahead, I can even send you the full sized image, if you want.

@dxqcanada: Yes, the polariser was on.


----------



## Flash Harry (Aug 15, 2010)

The thing about landscapes for me is to do with timing/light, the most interesting LS are shot when the light is right, to give depth and form to the scene so I'm afraid its either get up early or get home late, best light of the day and I like a good landscape.

noon/overhead sun is not good regardless of PP or saturation. H


----------



## Petraio Prime (Aug 15, 2010)

Primoz said:


> @ mrcfarms: Thanks for comments. As I thought, I have gone too far with contrast and gradient underexposure in no.2
> 
> @ kmh: Ooo, I like what you did there... not too much editing, but still much better than the original.
> 
> ...



  Most large bookstores have photography sections where one can find large-format photography books, many of which are of landscape work. There is such an abundance of this kind of photography that it boggles the mind.


----------



## pdq5oh (Aug 15, 2010)

Landscapes have always been of interest to me. I like to leave them as much as I saw them when possible. Since you couldn't wait for the optimum light, editing was the next best thing. In #2 I think the sky is too dark. Especially on the right side of the frame. I'd probably like to see a little less color added to the ground. I like the edit of #3. The thing with #3 is the rocks in the foreground aren't tack sharp as they need to be. Dominant objects in the foreground need to be tack sharp to really work, IMO.


----------



## Markw (Aug 15, 2010)

:thumbup:







:mrgreen:
Mark


----------

