Three pics of the Cornish Coast

PinkFloyd · 28 Sep 2011 at 21:33

First time I've posted in here for a long, long time. 3 pictures that I took last month in Cornwall but only recently got around to processing.
Was wondering if I could get some feedback on what people think, how they could be improved and such?

Link's below the image are a higher res.

http://www.jfarthing.co.uk/files/Pics/Camera Pics/Cornwall01.jpg

http://www.jfarthing.co.uk/files/Pics/Camera Pics/Cornwall03.jpg

http://www.jfarthing.co.uk/files/Pics/Camera Pics/Cornwall02.jpg

In terms of editing they're just edited from RAW (tweak of contrast etc) and resized in photoshop.

scottmuir424 · 28 Sep 2011 at 21:35

full of detail good quality pictures what camera were they captured with

PinkFloyd · 28 Sep 2011 at 21:36

Thanks

Canon 450D. Middle shot was using a Sigma 10-20mm. The other 2 with a Canon 17-85 IS.

King4aDay · 28 Sep 2011 at 21:51

Plenty of detail for sure, but for me I'm afraid the compositions aren't strong enough to really hold the attention, especially given how busy the sky and water reflections are making the images. Stronger foreground interest and use of a CPL would probably have helped a lot.

Hope you don't mind the honest crit!

PinkFloyd · 28 Sep 2011 at 22:09

Honest criticism is exactly what I'm after! Have you got anything you could give as an example that you'd like to have seen in the foreground? I'm not sure what I could have really done differently in these cases!

I need to have a play about with a CPL, I've got a 77mm one but I'm not sure how usable it would be on my 10-20, and I'd need an adaptor to fit the 17-85. Imagine it would have been a bit of a pain on that day either way as it was so windy and I didn't have a tripod with me.

Definitely a location I'll go back to at some point. My favourite area of Cornwall!

King4aDay · 28 Sep 2011 at 22:41

For example, a shot like this has a lot of reflections in it (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kingger/4768998216/ - not mine!), but the interesting foreground is enough to stop it being distracting.

I agree CPLs are hard to use right on ultra wide angle lenses, you tend to get a lot of banding in the sky, but might have worked to cut off the glare from the waves.

Also, shooting landscapes when the sun is high in the sky is almost always going to make life harder.

theheyes · 28 Sep 2011 at 23:06

I have the Sigma 10-20 as well and the 10mm end is pretty handy for scooping in some foreground, particularly if you get lower to the ground and shoot portrait.

The pictures suggest you walked up to the scene, stood there and took a picutre. Next time you go, kneel or even lie down on the ground and look through the viewfinder - there should be some elements of the foreground which give the scene a bit of depth. If you want everything in focus though you'll need to be using the larger f/ numbers, on a bright sunny day you could probably get away without one but personally I would take a tripod too!

That's not to say your pictures are bad, just for me personally they lack foreground. The link above is a good example. Next time you flick through a magazine and see a landscape photo, have a look at what they have included in the foreground. It's not a hard and fast rule but it will almost always automatically bump your photos up a notch.

Amp34 · 28 Sep 2011 at 23:07

As you are fine with honest criticism I'll have a go...

There are two major things wrong with them to my eye.

Firstly - time of day as already mentioned. It is very difficult to shoot a good, vibrant photo during the midday sun, a CPL is pretty much a must to get those reflections gone and add a little more vibrance to the photo. It's not impossible though and you've certainly made a good stab at it. The best time to really go out are the golden hours, around dawn and dusk (or during a stormy period, all will help reduce the haze that is troubling those photos).

Secondly - the processing. There is undoubtedly a lot of detail and sharpness in those images, unfortunately the processing hasn't brought that out. Processing is a dark art and one that is just as important (and difficult) as shooting in the first place (in many situations at least). Luckily the basics are pretty easy to pick up.

For example when you downsize an image (like you have done for this forum) the process softens the image a lot, so you need to compensate for that by sharpening the image only after you have made it the size you want (there are many different ways of doing this but a simple unsharp mask will work).

You also appear (to my eye) have a colour cast on the photos, a little bit of a play with the filters tool in PS (if you don't shoot RAW) or the whitebalance if you do would remove them. you could also add a touch of vibrance and satuation to help them pop a bit. Then there is the contrast, levels and curves tools... As I said it's a bit of a dark art.

I don't think the composition is too bad in them at all, there is some iffyness but the cornish coast is very difficult to get right IMO, so many bits sticking out. That said, from just a quick look, the third compositionally is a little so so (I want to see what is on the left of the shot, where the water meets the land). The first and second are better though, a little more foreground in the first (maybe shoot a little lower, get some of the cornish flowers in the foreground) and the second I can't help thinking the people are too close to the edge (but then you would have trouble getting the rest in, it's always a hard decision).

Hopefully I don't sound like I'm ripping them apart, i'm not, I think they are pretty nice, however they need some nice post processing done to make what you have look better and a bit more experience to get the timing and composition right. I hope I haven't been too brutally honest.

EDIT: And I agree with theheyes, a wide angle lens is not brilliant for landscapes as such, it is brilliant at shooting foreground interest with the landscape in the background.

So yep, get down nice and low, fill the bottom of the scene with some cornish flowers and let the dramatic landscape let your eye wonder back.

For example:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wildaboutlife/3614439442/in/set-72157619468861337

Both shot on the Cornish coast (at least that's my opinion, others may disagree).

theheyes · 28 Sep 2011 at 23:29

This is a picture I took a few weeks ago in Wales. If I just took it standing, I would have ended up with basically a crap picture of a pretty barren landscape. The only interesting things in sight were the nice flowers at ground level, so I ended up literally lying on my belly in sheep **** to take this one. It's probably not the best example to use in this case and neither is it the greatest picture I've ever taken, but the point is not to take the shot that everybody else walks up and takes and that often you can create something out of nothing - even if it means looking like a prat in the process.

PinkFloyd · 29 Sep 2011 at 13:48

Thanks all for the comments - much appreciated!

King4aDay said:
For example, a shot like this has a lot of reflections in it (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kingger/4768998216/ - not mine!), but the interesting foreground is enough to stop it being distracting.
I agree CPLs are hard to use right on ultra wide angle lenses, you tend to get a lot of banding in the sky, but might have worked to cut off the glare from the waves.
Also, shooting landscapes when the sun is high in the sky is almost always going to make life harder.

Just looking through some of the pictures on the deviantart in your sig - exactly the sort of images I'm wanting to be able to take! Would love to live nearer nice locations like that.
Regarding the time of day, it wasn't through choice in this occasion. It just happened to be the time of day I was at that location with mates. Next time I'm around there I'll try an early morning / late day shot

theheyes said:
I have the Sigma 10-20 as well and the 10mm end is pretty handy for scooping in some foreground, particularly if you get lower to the ground and shoot portrait.
..................
That's not to say your pictures are bad, just for me personally they lack foreground. The link above is a good example. Next time you flick through a magazine and see a landscape photo, have a look at what they have included in the foreground. It's not a hard and fast rule but it will almost always automatically bump your photos up a notch.

Will make an effort to get some more foreground in the shots. Will have a wander about more locally in an attempt to find some non-bland scenery to shoot. Think I may have to invest in a more usable tripod. I've got a huge great heavy thing at the moment and a Gorillapod, need something inbetween!

Amp34 said:
.............
You also appear (to my eye) have a colour cast on the photos, a little bit of a play with the filters tool in PS (if you don't shoot RAW) or the whitebalance if you do would remove them. you could also add a touch of vibrance and satuation to help them pop a bit. Then there is the contrast, levels and curves tools... As I said it's a bit of a dark art.
.......
The first and second are better though, a little more foreground in the first (maybe shoot a little lower, get some of the cornish flowers in the foreground) and the second I can't help thinking the people are too close to the edge (but then you would have trouble getting the rest in, it's always a hard decision).
Hopefully I don't sound like I'm ripping them apart, i'm not, I think they are pretty nice, however they need some nice post processing done to make what you have look better and a bit more experience to get the timing and composition right. I hope I haven't been too brutally honest.
EDIT: And I agree with theheyes, a wide angle lens is not brilliant for landscapes as such, it is brilliant at shooting foreground interest with the landscape in the background. So yep, get down nice and low, fill the bottom of the scene with some cornish flowers and let the dramatic landscape let your eye wonder back.

For example:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2463/3634222940_d8f1e28991_o.jpg[/QUOTE]

Nice pointers Amp. Didn't think to re-sharpen the image after the downsize despite having been given that advice a while back. I've not intentionally put a colour cast on the photos, most likely just be the calibration on my monitor combined with my eye sight!

You say the UWE lense isn't ideal for landscapes - I've always kind of worked on the impression that the more you can get in the better. Atleast in the experience of my shots I've taken I've always prefered the wider shots. Would I be better served by shooting with a 30mm prime at an appropriate aperature?

Really liking that first shot, makes me wish I had had a tripod with me to get a longer exposure whilst there too, with how rough the sea was it would have ended up looking like mist in no time at all!

[quote="theheyes, post: 20178281"]but the point is not to take the shot that everybody else walks up and takes and that often you can create something out of nothing - even if it means looking like a prat in the process. :o
[IMG]http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/6836/img3972800.png[/IMG[/QUOTE]
Haha good point :)

D.P. · 29 Sep 2011 at 14:48

I can only agree with the comments above.
Landscape photography is probably one of the hardest fields and you are at the hand of nature to provide the lighting. Perseverence is key, you can-t usually just go to a place and take a photo - one must plan ahead and then make repeat visiting until the conditions are just right. As above, much easier to be there at sunrise or sunset (usually only 1 of these will work, you need to check where the sun will rise or set and the correct angles). The time of year is also important. Winter can be a great time with a low angle of sun, clearer crisper colours. Spring is good with fresh green collurs, Autumn for the colours. Summer is sometimes not so easy but presents other options. Weather is key as well, hence repeat visit are usually required to get the shot.

Ultra-Wide angle lenses are THE hardest lenses to use from a compositional point of view. I love ultrawide angle shots, but I find it very, very challenging to get pleasing results in most situations. They are specalist tools that need extra care and attention.
The key is to make sure you have both foreground, mid-ground and background image features, and preferably some feature that will lead the eye from foreground to background (classic examples are rivers, fences, ray of sun, ridge of sand dune).

Amp34 · 29 Sep 2011 at 17:19

PinkFloyd said:
You say the UWE lense isn't ideal for landscapes - I've always kind of worked on the impression that the more you can get in the better. Atleast in the experience of my shots I've taken I've always prefered the wider shots. Would I be better served by shooting with a 30mm prime at an appropriate aperature?

Really liking that first shot, makes me wish I had had a tripod with me to get a longer exposure whilst there too, with how rough the sea was it would have ended up looking like mist in no time at all!

Obviously it's all subjective but so many people see UWA lenses as the defacto landscape lens when it shouldn't be. If you want to stand up and take the shot of the area in front of you then I'd suggest a 30ish mm lens and shoot a panoramic. Using a UWA means you just drown the view, it ends up too cluttered, with generally nothing to really catch the eye.

As D.P. Said the UWA is in its element when you get down low and get lots of foreground in and the landscape in the distance.

As I said though its all subjective, have a look on Flickr for shots with UWA lenses and see how the best ones use them (you can search by focal length and lrens).

theheyes · 29 Sep 2011 at 23:30

Assuming UWA == landscapes was my rookie mistake. It didn't take me long to figure out that I preferred taking landscape photos with my 50mm 1.8 (on a crop sensor, so really 80mm). The image I posted above, for example, was taken with my Tamron 17-50 at the 50mm end.

I would have absolutely no problem taking a 30mm prime out for landscape shots.