# Please critique latest river landscapes



## zulu42 (Apr 17, 2018)

I'm learning my gear. I can usually make the camera do what I want, and get the image to have the look I envisioned.

I put myself in beautiful locations, and shoot pretty things, so I've taken a lot of pretty pictures.
The landscape photography I love to view, however, is on another level.

With top tier landscape photographers, such as @Vieri, it is the photograph that is beautiful, not just the landscape. It is the vision of the artist that makes one take interest. The landscape only has to be a somewhat willing subject.

I will never be that good. I'm perfectly happy to aspire. And I want to improve.

Seeking critique, technical and artistic. Critical comments have been so helpful. The ones that have stung the most have spurred the most improvement 

A few from dawn on the Cosumnes River. Northern California foothills of the Sierra Nevadas. 
Starting to find myself taking almost the same picture of different rivers.

Thank you for looking
1



 

2


 

3


 

4


----------



## Sil (Apr 18, 2018)

very nice... i like 1 and 2..


----------



## zulu42 (Apr 18, 2018)

Thank you Sil


----------



## Fujidave (Apr 18, 2018)

Good shots and colourful too, 1 & 3 are my favorites.


----------



## fishing4sanity (Apr 19, 2018)

I wish I was good enough to critique or offer help, especially because landscape photography is what I like to look at and attempt to photograph as well. I really like your first three photos, the fourth just doesn't catch my attention the way the first three do.


----------



## Peeb (Apr 19, 2018)

I'm digging #3.  It's crazy vivid, but it totally works for me.


----------



## dxqcanada (Apr 19, 2018)

I seem to have a personal thing about cutting off of the midground tree ... I would have liked the whole it to be part of the scene.


----------



## zulu42 (Apr 19, 2018)

Fujidave said:


> Good shots and colourful too, 1 & 3 are my favorites.


Thank you Dave. Appreciate the comment.



fishing4sanity said:


> I wish I was good enough to critique or offer help, especially because landscape photography is what I like to look at and attempt to photograph as well. I really like your first three photos, the fourth just doesn't catch my attention the way the first three do.



Thank you fishing. I love your landscape shots.



Peeb said:


> I'm digging #3.  It's crazy vivid, but it totally works for me.


Thanks my Peeb



dxqcanada said:


> I seem to have a personal thing about cutting off of the midground tree ... I would have liked the whole it to be part of the scene.


Thank you for the comment. I often struggle with trees when framing the shot. I always dislike cutting them off, but then including the whole tree makes for a very different shot. I agree, though, for sure. Cut trees introduce tension to a tranquil scene. Thank you again.


----------



## texxter (Apr 20, 2018)

Nice landscapes!

I am also barely qualified to offer suggestions for improvement as I am not much of a landscape photographer, but I can always comment as a viewer and nature lover.

I love monumental landscapes, wide and taking in lots of space.  Looking at your images I find myself wanting to see more and with a wider angle.  The partial trees is telling me there is more I would lile to see.

Another thing I love about some landscapes is how they draw you using devices like perspective, lines and shapes.  So that one is gently invited to step into the scene.  Images 1 and 2 do it well and I could see am opportunity to add those ideas to 3 and 4, perhaps by changing camera height or position, or perhaps introducing a strong subject in the foreground, like flowers or rocks.

My last comment is about light amd color. Love your light and color, especially on images 1 and 3.  Lovely done.


----------



## zulu42 (Apr 20, 2018)

texxter said:


> Nice landscapes!
> 
> I am also barely qualified to offer suggestions for improvement as I am not much of a landscape photographer, but I can always comment as a viewer and nature lover.
> 
> ...



Thanks so much for the kind and thoughtful comments. I find them valuable. I think the elements of the busy composition are leading eyes out of the frame. Maybe the lack of a solid point of interest to keep you in the composition. Nice of you to take the time


----------



## Vieri (Apr 20, 2018)

Hello zulu42, very good job here and what a great attitude towards photography! Can I ask you if you own or if you have used any Grad ND filters here? On my monitor, the first three photos all look like the sky is burned, and that to my eye is a bit distracting; using a Grad ND would have helped you with that. About your compositions, I see texxter's point about a wider angle. To me, the point is not that you necessarily have to get more of a scene in (or less); the idea is to be deliberate in your choice, meaning that the viewer should have a clear understanding of what your intentions were. If I may, let me give you a couple of suggestions about image nr. 1, to show you what I mean. I would not have included the reeds in the river (bottom right), they are too few to add anything to the scene, but their presence is evident and slightly distracting. Same goes for that one branch on the top right, the one that is disconnected from everything. As well, I would not have cut off the top of the main tree in the middle of the image, or - if impossible to include - I would have gone even more into the image: a good principle to follow when composing and when you are not sure about an object is "either in or out", meaning: does it add to the image? If yes, have it in. If not, take it out. The center tree in image nr. 1 in my opinion is too much in to be considered out, but not in enough to be considered in - hope that makes sense.

Sorry about the long message, and I hope you'll take in the spirit I wrote it: just a few general suggestions that you can apply to your work going forward. Best regards,

Vieri


----------



## Jeff15 (Apr 20, 2018)

Nice set but one and three stand out to me.............


----------



## zulu42 (Apr 20, 2018)

Vieri said:


> Hello zulu42, very good job here and what a great attitude towards photography! Can I ask you if you own or if you have used any Grad ND filters here? On my monitor, the first three photos all look like the sky is burned, and that to my eye is a bit distracting; using a Grad ND would have helped you with that. About your compositions, I see texxter's point about a wider angle. To me, the point is not that you necessarily have to get more of a scene in (or less); the idea is to be deliberate in your choice, meaning that the viewer should have a clear understanding of what your intentions were. If I may, let me give you a couple of suggestions about image nr. 1, to show you what I mean. I would not have included the reeds in the river (bottom right), they are too few to add anything to the scene, but their presence is evident and slightly distracting. Same goes for that one branch on the top right, the one that is disconnected from everything. As well, I would not have cut off the top of the main tree in the middle of the image, or - if impossible to include - I would have gone even more into the image: a good principle to follow when composing and when you are not sure about an object is "either in or out", meaning: does it add to the image? If yes, have it in. If not, take it out. The center tree in image nr. 1 in my opinion is too much in to be considered out, but not in enough to be considered in - hope that makes sense.
> 
> Sorry about the long message, and I hope you'll take in the spirit I wrote it: just a few general suggestions that you can apply to your work going forward. Best regards,
> 
> Vieri



Firtstly, I'm very grateful for your time and consideration in taking a look at my photographs. A most sincere thank you.

You are correct about the burned skies, I do not own any Grad ND and often burn the sky in post using adjustment brush or software grad filter. In the case of pic 1 the sky was exposed separately and composited in.

Without addressing each of your suggestions individually, I appreciate each bit of valuable insight, and yes, they do make perfect sense.
It is pretty special to have photographers - for whom I have great admiration - comment and help with my work.


----------



## ac12 (Apr 21, 2018)

I like 1 and 2, but 2 wins.
#1 is kinda confusing to my eye.  Do I look at the ground on the left bottom or the river?  IOW my eye is trying to figure out what the subject is.
#3 is like #1, my eye is trying to find the subject or composition.

Having said that, I admit that landscape composition is HARD, for me.
I was never trained in the arts.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 21, 2018)

If you wish to improve, I think two technical and artistic suggestions would help you the most. The first suggestion is to avoid so frequently defaulting to the 18mm focal length of your 18-35mm zoom lens (I suspected this, and later when I looked at your EXIF, my suspicion was confirmed on the majority of your images in this post). The 18mm focal length setting makes the foregrounds physically large on-sensor, but it also makes the background objects very small, and less-impactful, as well as increases the physical width of the background angle of view in relation to the foreground width. I find wide-angle landscapes often quite boring, with very little detail visible beyond 20 to 50 feet...this is the single,biggest problem I see in landscape photos from many,many people, especially in this type of forest/woodland type of landscape genre.

The second issue is to avoid using long shutter speeds and creating blurry clouds; frequent use of Neutral Density filtration as a way to create drawn-out shutter times is has now fallen into the category of _over-used technique_ in the modern era, and this type of blurred cloudscape rendering immediately injects the photographer's technical decisions right into the heart of the photo, and steals from the realism of the scene, which I think is counterproductive most times. Too much blurring of water and clouds strikes me as contrived and formulaic. There's a fine line between too much, and just right as far as water goes. When clouds start being rendered as blurry...the shutter time's typically too long. IMO.

When people are, as ac12 writes, "trying to figure out the subject or composition", I think this is often because short focal length lenses used in many landscape scenarios create a wide,vast image, with everything that's beyond 20 to 25 feet being rendered as tiny, and with very little visual impact.

If you want to make better landscapes, start thinking about more frequently using a 35 to 180mm focal length range lens selection on the D800.


----------



## SquarePeg (Apr 21, 2018)

I like the light that you captured in these and the scenes are all beautiful.  You got some great advice already. I just wanted to comment that it’s very likely that a lot of the landscape photos that you admire are 50/50 photo/processing.  They’re not one shot using just the right settings.  Many of them are multiple exposures or composites and involve a significant amount of PS technique and creative license. 

I think you’re off to a great start at getting the scene you want but to get that look that many landscape photos have that is stunning, you’ll need to work it from both sides of the process.


----------



## Vieri (Apr 22, 2018)

Derrel said:


> If you wish to improve, I think two technical and artistic suggestions would help you the most. The first suggestion is to avoid so frequently defaulting to the 18mm focal length of your 18-35mm zoom lens (I suspected this, and later when I looked at your EXIF, my suspicion was confirmed on the majority of your images in this post). The 18mm focal length setting makes the foregrounds physically large on-sensor, but it also makes the background objects very small, and less-impactful, as well as increases the physical width of the background angle of view in relation to the foreground width. I find wide-angle landscapes often quite boring, with very little detail visible beyond 20 to 50 feet...this is the single,biggest problem I see in landscape photos from many,many people, especially in this type of forest/woodland type of landscape genre.
> 
> The second issue is to avoid using long shutter speeds and creating blurry clouds; frequent use of Neutral Density filtration as a way to create drawn-out shutter times is has now fallen into the category of _over-used technique_ in the modern era, and this type of blurred cloudscape rendering immediately injects the photographer's technical decisions right into the heart of the photo, and steals from the realism of the scene, which I think is counterproductive most times. Too much blurring of water and clouds strikes me as contrived and formulaic. There's a fine line between too much, and just right as far as water goes. When clouds start being rendered as blurry...the shutter time's typically too long. IMO.
> 
> ...



I completely disagree with this, sorry: your suggestions are just as formulaic as the ones you suggest to avoid.

"Realistic" has nothing to do with the interpretation of a landscape, which is what makes landscape photography interesting for landscape photography of the kind the OP is attempting, IMHO. Photography in never "real", is always an interpretation of reality. Reality is in 3D, is seen through our eyes which are about 50mm lens, and time is constantly moving. A photograph is in 2D, is seen through lenses which are often very different from 50mm and fixes a moment in time: so, a photograph is always an abstraction / interpretation / representation / etc of the real world, but is never real, nor can it be. It can be "realistic" of course, and aiming at "realistic" photography is great for news, PJ, portraits and so on, even necessary for that kind of photography, but much less so for the case in point here.

As far as the "technical", long exposures are a great tool, as are short exposures. Long lenses are a great tool, as are wide-angles. Shooting wide-open is a great tool, as is shooting stopped down. All these tools are great to have in your toolbar of expressive possibilities, in fact the more tools the better, it all depends on how you use them and to express what. Suggesting zulu42 to get rid of some photographic tools just because you don't personally like them is in my opinion detrimental to his or her photographic and artistic development: keeping an open mind and learn how to use as many tools as possible helps artistic development, being close-minded and formulaic never does.

Just my .02 of course.

Best regards,

Vieri


----------



## zulu42 (Apr 24, 2018)

ac12 said:


> I like 1 and 2, but 2 wins.
> #1 is kinda confusing to my eye.  Do I look at the ground on the left bottom or the river?  IOW my eye is trying to figure out what the subject is.
> #3 is like #1, my eye is trying to find the subject or composition.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the helpful feedback, ac12.



Derrel said:


> If you wish to improve, I think two technical and artistic suggestions would help you the most. The first suggestion is to avoid so frequently defaulting to the 18mm focal length of your 18-35mm zoom lens (I suspected this, and later when I looked at your EXIF, my suspicion was confirmed on the majority of your images in this post). The 18mm focal length setting makes the foregrounds physically large on-sensor, but it also makes the background objects very small, and less-impactful, as well as increases the physical width of the background angle of view in relation to the foreground width. I find wide-angle landscapes often quite boring, with very little detail visible beyond 20 to 50 feet...this is the single,biggest problem I see in landscape photos from many,many people, especially in this type of forest/woodland type of landscape genre.
> 
> The second issue is to avoid using long shutter speeds and creating blurry clouds; frequent use of Neutral Density filtration as a way to create drawn-out shutter times is has now fallen into the category of _over-used technique_ in the modern era, and this type of blurred cloudscape rendering immediately injects the photographer's technical decisions right into the heart of the photo, and steals from the realism of the scene, which I think is counterproductive most times. Too much blurring of water and clouds strikes me as contrived and formulaic. There's a fine line between too much, and just right as far as water goes. When clouds start being rendered as blurry...the shutter time's typically too long. IMO.
> 
> ...


Absolutely, I have fallen into an 18mm rut, so I appreciate you noticing and pointing it out. Not to eliminate it, but to be more selective in focal length when the distant objects need full impact. Also see the value in controlling the shutter speed on long exposures. Not just a looooong shutter, the right shutter speed.
Thank you for taking the time to view and offer a considered comment.



SquarePeg said:


> I like the light that you captured in these and the scenes are all beautiful.  You got some great advice already. I just wanted to comment that it’s very likely that a lot of the landscape photos that you admire are 50/50 photo/processing.  They’re not one shot using just the right settings.  Many of them are multiple exposures or composites and involve a significant amount of PS technique and creative license.
> 
> I think you’re off to a great start at getting the scene you want but to get that look that many landscape photos have that is stunning, you’ll need to work it from both sides of the process.


Thanks so much SquarePeg. Agreed on the post process. A learning push on that end would be helpful.



espresso2x said:


> IMO #2 is the best composed.


Thanks espresso!


----------

