Great Smoky Mountains NP - critiques welcome

[Bryon Anderson 0]

Hello All,

 

Here are a few shots I took with my first DSLR on my recent trip to GSMNP. If any of you more experienced photographers here felt like giving me a little feedback on the photos I took, I would love to hear your thoughts. This is my first crack at landscape photography, and I'm looking to learn and improve via all possible avenues.

All of these were shot with the kit lens that came with my camera (Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6) if that's helpful at all.

 

Thanks-

Bryon

[Bryon Anderson 0]

Okay...20+ views and no replies...I hope I haven't committed a forum faux pas by inviting critique...

[mikechell 0]

If any of you more experienced photographers here felt like giving me a little feedback on the photos I took, I would love to hear your thoughts.

The only faux-pas was assuming anyone was a "... more experienced photographer ...".

There are lots of guys on here taking wonderful pictures ... but more experienced ??? Like Jimmy Hendrix "experienced"???

You must be more precise when typing to this crowd.

 

I like the subjects of your shots ... I think they are washed out because of the weather. This same "dulling" of the shots also deprives the pictures of perspective. There's nothing, really, to point out the grandeur of scale.

 

Foggy mornings are hard to capture, and usually require some color filters, amber or polarized lens covers can make all the difference on landscape pictures.

 

That's where my experience ends. I tried getting into photography for a while, but I just couldn't keep up with the costs of new stuff.

[Bryon Anderson 0]

Thanks Mike, for the reply and the advice. I guess I felt pretty safe assuming that there were were some folks on here with more experience than me, if only because my experience as a photographer is practically nil. What I meant by "more experienced" was just "more experienced than me", i.e., guys who have been doing this (photography, specifically nature/landscape photography) for a while, who have more practical knowledge than I of techniques, equipment, light, exposure, etc., and who have enough of an eye for photography to be able to look at my pictures and be able to see what it was I was trying to do and give me some feedback about why it didn't work, and maybe a tip or two on how to make it work better.

 

I agree that my shots of the mountains look dull and lack perspective. I tried getting something--a cottage in one shot, the roof of a cabin in another--in the foreground to help with perspective, but I guess it wasn't enough to show what I was trying to show, which was, as you nicely put it, "the grandeur of scale." A polarized filter is next up on my purchase list. On the long-range list is a super-wide-angle lens to really do justice to landscapes like that, but that's going to take a while to obtain--you're not kidding about the costs of this hobby. My favorite pictures were the ones of Laurel Falls, mainly because I finally figured out how to blur the motion of the water like I often see done so artfully in shots of moving water. The colors in that one don't really pop, either, though.

 

Thanks, again, for the feedback; I appreciate it.

 

Bryon

[mikechell 0]

I guess I felt pretty safe assuming that there were were some folks on here with more experience than me

 

A polarized filter is next up on my purchase list. On the long-range list is a super-wide-angle lens to really do justice to landscapes like that, but that's going to take a while to obtain--you're not kidding about the costs of this hobby.

 

My favorite pictures were the ones of Laurel Falls, mainly because I finally figured out how to blur the motion of the water like I often see done so artfully in shots of moving water. The colors in that one don't really pop, either, though.

I was kidding about the misunderstanding of "experience". I think the lack of responses was just due to cabin fever and jealousy that you could take pictures like that somewhere in the world.

 

There are a few things to think about when doing landscapes.

1) I am basing this answer on a film camera. I've yet to get into digital SLR cameras, which might be completely different.

Wide angle lenses increase apparent distance. If you want an image that encompasses more land than a regular lens, you are thinking of panoramic photos. This requires rotating the camera while the film slowly winds past the aperture ... not a wide angle. Wide angle lenses give that vision of a domed mirror ... what is directly in front is okay, everything to the sides recedes quickly to unrecognizable sizes.

2) A polarizing filter is wonderful, but you still need good lighting. Cloudy, foggy and low light conditions require all kinds of special techniques to get good pictures. Polarization will help, but experimentation here is everything. Different exposure times, different aperture settings ... most photographers will take 4, 5 or more pictures of the same thing, each with different settings, to get the best result. Record everything you do differently so you'll know which settings worked the best.

3) The motion of water. Some of the most magical pictures of moving water, where the water is just a foggy haze, are taken in very low light ... even by moonlight. This allows for very long exposure times. All motion becomes increasingly more blurred, while all still objects get the correct amount of exposure. Given the right settings, you can make a bright moonlit night appear like daytime with all movement of water blurred to mist.

4) If you are using digital photography ... clean those pictures up with the picture editor !!!

 

 

I didn't try to make your picture look perfect, just showing you what digital can do.

[Bryon Anderson 0]

That is good to know about the difference between wide-angle and panoramic. I did know that wide angle lenses increase apparent difference, so I guess the reason they're always being recommended for landscape photography has more to do with perspective, creating the illusion of 3 dimensions, rather than getting more into the frame?

 

I knew the lighting was not great when I was taking those shots. I did get out just at sunrise for my second attempt, hoping for more interesting lighting, but a storm had rolled in; it was totally overcast and there was no visible sunrise. Do what you can with what you have where you are, right? To that end, I do need to get in the habit of taking the same shot with multiple apertures, shutter speeds, etc. That is good advice.

 

Post-production or photo editing is something I still know almost nothing about. All my time and energy so far has been devoted to learning about the camera and about exposure and composition. I have Digital Photo Professional (the software that came with the camera) and I intend to invest in Photoshop or Lightroom at some point. So much to learn; I'm glad I didn't wait any longer to start!

 

I appreciate you taking the time to provide me with some feedback and suggestions. I hope to get out and do some more shooting this weekend.

[mikechell 0]

That is good to know about the difference between wide-angle and panoramic. I did know that wide angle lenses increase apparent difference, so I guess the reason they're always being recommended for landscape photography has more to do with perspective, creating the illusion of 3 dimensions, rather than getting more into the frame?

 

I knew the lighting was not great when I was taking those shots. I did get out just at sunrise for my second attempt, hoping for more interesting lighting, but a storm had rolled in; it was totally overcast and there was no visible sunrise. Do what you can with what you have where you are, right? To that end, I do need to get in the habit of taking the same shot with multiple apertures, shutter speeds, etc. That is good advice.

 

Post-production or photo editing is something I still know almost nothing about. All my time and energy so far has been devoted to learning about the camera and about exposure and composition. I have Digital Photo Professional (the software that came with the camera) and I intend to invest in Photoshop or Lightroom at some point. So much to learn; I'm glad I didn't wait any longer to start!

 

I appreciate you taking the time to provide me with some feedback and suggestions. I hope to get out and do some more shooting this weekend.

First, it's my pleasure. Please keep in mind that I am offering suggestions based on some playing I did back when it was still just film.

 

Multiple exposures is what's called (or used to be called) "bracketing". Out of a 24 exposure roll, I might have 6 subjects, with at least three different settings on each. I threw away a lot of film and photos back then.

 

Definitely research lenses before buying them. Wide angle FILM camera lenses might actually be different than digital camera operation. Auto-correction features on digital stuff is outrageous and very cool. Once our house is paid off and all that money can be used elsewhere, Wife and I will be buying an SLR digital.

 

With digital, you don't waste film anymore.

1) Shoot a bunch of pictures.

2) Keep good records of what you do differently with each shot.

3) Learn how to use your picture editing tools ... with digital, this is as important as bracketing your shots. Sometimes, a edited "bad" shot turns out better than the "best" original.

4) Don't be afraid to throw away bad results. If your records are good, you can return to the settings that gave the best results. Before long, you'll be recalling those settings in your head, and the record keeping can be reduced.

 

Good luck.

[Piker20 0]

I like them, good points from Mike. The only thing that hit me immediately was in second pic. Using manual focus I would have liked the deer to have been in focus and the foreground post would have been out of focus. Some folk dont like to 'lose' any aspect of a shot but I think the deer and the far ground are the main thing in that composition and the post doesn't really add anything to need to be in sharp focus.

[Bryon Anderson 0]

That's a good point Piker - I will sheepishly admit that I'm still relying on auto-focus for all of my pictures, primarily because I'm still fuzzy on the whole question of where to focus for best overall results. Guess I've got some more reading and practicing to do. Good thing I enjoy both. Thanks for your feedback.

[kentuckytroutbum 0]

Every photo should have a main theme that its trying to convey to the viewer, and that should be in focus. When photographing animals, including humans, focus on the eyes. Piker's comments are very noteworthy for future reference.

 

Keep shooting. SD & CF cards are cheap.

 

Bill

[Chase Creek 0]

All good points.

I wouldn't invest a lot of bucks in post processing software. Try some free software. Google has a free processor called "picasa 3", which you can download free off the web. It will do a great job, and it's FREE. Just fool around with it, and you'll pick it up very quickly. It's very intuitive. I use picasa and Photoshop Elements 11, which is Photoshop without all the graphics design stuff, just all photographic oriented. About $125, I think. I like them both.

As far as shots on overcast days, they can come out looking a little flat. In your software, you can play with the lighting and saturation to make them "pop" a little more. Keep playing with the camera settings. Like learning to ride a unicycle, you'll find out what works and what doesn't. But have fun with it.

[kentuckytroutbum 0]

Adobe's Photoshop Lightroom is $149 on Adobe's website. But you can find it cheaper, especially if you go to B&H Photo's website where they bundle it with selected camera gear for a real price of $99 +/-. Lightroom is Photoshop that has been customized for photographers, without the heavy graphics design package.

 

Bill

[mikechell 0]

If you are using PC ... the Microsoft Picture Editor that comes with the computer is all I am using.

[Bryon Anderson 0]

All good ideas on the post-processing stuff -- after my last post to this thread, I went back and tried playing around with the software that came with my camera (Digital Photo Professional) and saw that there are a LOT of adjustments and tweaks that can be made to a RAW file; I just need to read up on what they all are and how to use them.

 

Here are a couple of the shots I originally posted alongside some edited versions that I did with DPP --keep in mind that I don't know that much about editing and I'm basically just playing with things and going by what makes the picture look better to my untrained eye.

[mikechell 0]

Now you're talking !!!

Gotta start somewhere, and it looks like you're off and running.

 

I like the water fall most, but the redone deer picture looks good, too.