Lake shots @ night

[Kevin]

I've been trying to get some practice taking landscape shots before my trip in a couple of weeks. Last night I headed out to the lake to take some sunset shots as the clouds were pretty neat. Turned out to be a dud as there was a huge bank of low lying clouds hiding the sun and not even allowing "the glow" after sunset. :(

So I didn't want to waste the opportunity so took some shots. Since I'm not a landscape photographer I'm not really sure if these are good or not. I kind of like them but I'm not sure why.

So my question to you is: Are they any good? When shooting late (after sunset) or very early (before sunrise) are there things I should do differently? What can I do to improve?

This was just before sunset (1/80 @ f9, 24mm, ISO100, 30D, 24-70/f2.8)
http://www.kevinpaavola.com/PixelShooter/091106LA2Matte.jpg

This was quite a bit after sunset just before I got in my car when I decided to stop and do one more. Long exposure, wind blowing slightly, bottle brush tree and foliage in the foreground. (3.2 sec @ f5.6, 35mm, ISO100, 30D, 24-70/f2.8)
http://www.kevinpaavola.com/PixelShooter/091106LA1Matte.jpg

Thanks for any constructive critiques.

[David Cramer]

I think you'll find landscape shooting is similar to wildlife... the more you do it the more it will begin to feel natural. But it differs in many important ways. Most importantly, I think, is you have to "look" for it. With animals/birds, you know you subject when you spot it. With landscapes, it's often right there in front of you and you don't "see" it. And of course it involves light, just as wildlife does. With landscapes, however, you can make great use of LOW light!
Your first shot is not that good, sort of a snapshot look to it, if you don't mind me saying. As you pointed out, the sky wasn't cooperating. But the tree takes up way too much space. It's more a shot of a tree than a landscape/skyscape. The second shot is much more interesting. You are making good use of the available light, and you have an interesting frame/composition. It's sort of a mini landscape, in that you are capturing a very small area of the fov in front of you, but nicely done. I would suggest you try to include the entire reflection of the bridge.
I'd suggest looking for a larger fov, where you have more room for the eye to roam. These two shots are a little constrained and there isn't much to look around at. It's always nice to have a central subject (mountain peak, forest of trees, seashore) but it's not required. It does help to have layers - a close object that anchors the base (boulder, bush, fence, horse, etc.), a middle area, and a far off area such as a horizon or distant mountain peak. One of my favorite things to do with landscapes is to play with lines... I like to have lines (fences, trees lines, horizons) going in various directions that I find appealing.
http://davidwcramer.smugmug.com/photos/50939543-L.jpg

These are just a few suggestions. There are a 1001 ways to shoot interesting landscapes, even if you don't have snow-covered mountains nearby.:)

[Jonathan]

Firstly Kevin, just like you I just dont shoot much landscape so heed my words lightly:)

One thing that almost immediatly stood out to me was the fact that you liked the images. That being said there are certianly some rules to follow/guidlines etc as in david's great response. I will only add a different view that only shows each photographer having different taste..I prefer the first one by a good bit. With silouttes however you don't want a lot of clutter as david mentions. Composition should be simple. I would clone out the bushes on the left and right of the first image...giving that single palm siloutte with the cloud breakage.

HTH ohh and I don't shoot landscape's soo:D

[Kevin]

Thanks David for the honest feedback. I don't mind anything you have to say. I really want to "learn" how to do this type of photography effectively. I don't want to be a landscape snapshooter. So your feedback is very useful.

I agree about having to "look" for a scene within a scene. I've been trying to practise that whenever I go somewhere. Even just driving to/from work I try to "see" something and try to mentally evaluate whether there's a shot there. This skill, I can see, will take some time to nurture and develop.

As for these shots, I think what I like about them is the color of the blue. That may be all there is. This is the first time I tried to shoot this style of photography and I know in my mind what I'd like to create, I just have to find the right "subject". Specifically, I like the blue in the sky but would have liked to have a giant oak tree silhouetted against it. There weren't any grand one there in the park so I chose this rather spindly palm tree. I think there's merit in me trying to keep an eye out for a better subject.

The 2nd shot I thought about the reflection. Unfortunately, I had the tripod fully extended and had nothing to stand on to get higher. At the bottom of this shot there was a cyclone fence that actually made it into the picture which I had to clone out. So without getting any higher, I was stuck. The bridge isn't even that pretty but I think the light on it is what attracted me to the scene.

Thank you for your feedback. It gives me much to think about, which is what I was hoping for. I had recently been reading about landscape photography and learned of the concept of foreground/middle ground/background subjects. I'll definitely keep that in mind as I continue to practise.

Btw, the shot you embedded isn't showing for me. I'll check back later. Thanks again! This kind of feedback is what I've been desparately hoping to find in a forum. I'm glad it's here and hope it not only stays but continues to grow. ;)

[Kevin]

Thanks Jonathan! I think you offered some valuable advice. I have to think "simplicity" for silhouettes. That's a good thing to remember. I've learned this last year what makes a good bird photograph but don't really know the same about landscapes. Now, after just these two responses, I feel like I'm a little further along (at least in my head). Now I just need to apply these principles.

[Jonathan]

Thanks Jonathan! I think you offered some valuable advice. I have to think "simplicity" for silhouettes. That's a good thing to remember. I've learned this last year what makes a good bird photograph but don't really know the same about landscapes. Now, after just these two responses, I feel like I'm a little further along (at least in my head). Now I just need to apply these principles.

Seems to be where my landscape is at. I believe I know the principles or atleast enough for some decent landscapes but applying them is a different story. Glad to help.

[David Cramer]

It's easy to critique an image when one isn't there when it was taken!!! I've had many people say "Why didn't you do it this way?" and I had to tell them there was a 100 foot drop off a cliff there or a barbed wire fence over here or an angry neighbor with a rifle over yonder. So I always take and give feedback with that in mind. Hopefully Eric will see this thread and chime in. I'm sure you've seen his great landscapes and panos. I'm excited you are doing this. I just started shooting wildlife a couple of years ago and found it thrilling to learn something totally new.

[Jonathan]

It's easy to critique an image when one isn't there when it was taken!!! I've had many people say "Why didn't you do it this way?" and I had to tell them there was a 100 foot drop off a cliff there or a barbed wire fence over here or an angry neighbor with a rifle over yonder. So I always take and give feedback with that in mind. Hopefully Eric will see this thread and chime in. I'm sure you've seen his great landscapes and panos. I'm excited you are doing this. I just started shooting wildlife a couple of years ago and found it thrilling to learn something totally new.

Well said david

[Pete]

Another thing to think about kevin is the human element.
Someone in the scene doing "something" like a couple on the bridge looking out or perhaps embracing.
Or in the Palm tree shot perhaps a boat on the horizon coming into the frame instead of that bush to the left,coming into the frame as opposed to leaving is supposed to be more desirable....I do like it better.
Sometimes you dont get to pick though.

If you look at most any Nat Geo magazine you'll see landscapes and usually you'll also see something going on within them.

This is what Im always looking for BUT its not always possible and if the shot touches my soul in some way I'll still take the shot.

I had this person tell me all the time "a pretty scene is not enough,there must be something happening within the scene." I balked at this at first but over time I do agree.
Having said that its "the goal" and not the absolute.

There are many places on the coast I would love to have a ship passing thru the scene but because of the rocks the ships pass by further out...out of camera range that is.

Like David said there are many ways to shoot landscapes and many people will say coulda,woulda,shoulda with out knowing all the facts.

Go back if you have time and look at my Bandon post.You said you like the one with the jogger in it best...So do I !
Why ??? Because the scene has something going on "within it" and also gives scale because everyone knows how big a person is,right?

The Palm shot could stand on its on with an outstanding sunrise or set IMO and I do like your framing of the bridge!

[Ann]

Well I keep coming back and looking at these pictures! I love the 1st one - reasons - the trees, - probably because I don't see these kind of trees, so I think they are so cool! I love the dark sky with the patterned clouds and the light shining through. This really appeals to me. The second one I think is outstanding. You have the nice blue dark background and the bridge stands out with colour like its gently lit up and Your trees with a hint of colour partially framing the pic. I don't know or understand the rules of landscape photography, I only know if I see something that appeals to me, it is great! maybe that is the emotional response! But If I was to buy a photograph it would be because it struck a chord in me emotionally not because everything in the photo was done properly.
LoL, am I making any sense?

[adoolan]

Hi Kevin I really like both unfortunately it was windy in the trees because you can do so much with water. Water movement can make it look so different this lake seems to be close to were you live so you can play with this maybe? If you get the chance again try something like F16/F22 to try and get above 10 seconds or more it is a lot of fun playing with landscapes and water. but i do really like these photos
Regard Andrew

[Kevin]

Thank you all for your comments.

Andrew, you're right, the wind was blowing slightly. It's noticeable on the tree in the foreground (probably not in a good way). This lake is normally pretty calm and rarely has any type of waves. It is close to home though so I'll go back often and see if I can get some shots when it has more movement in the water.

I've got some other shots from this same area for critique. I just haven't had the chance to get them uploaded.