Sawtooth Range Scene

[Neil]

First of all let me say that compared to the heavyweights who post here it's a bit intimidating posting a pic for critique. However, how's a person to improve if they pass up such a great opportunity? So here goes.

I use a Canon PowerShot A540.
My submission was taken at 1/60 second exposure with an F stop of 2.6

I probably had the camera set to aperture value but don't remember.

We were walking along and had just broken out of the forest. I looked and liked what I saw so I took 5 or 6 shots at various settings and with slightly different compositions trying to juggle 4 elements to best advantage: the creek, the mountain, the trees and the grasses. The pic has not been edited for colour, exposure etc. It is presented "as is".

 

[w7xman]

The sky...

First off, great shot. You saw a great scene and you captured it very well, by utilizing some great compositional techniques whether you intended to or not!

The critique stems from the bane of the landscape photographer...the sky. By composing the scene largely on the land, you have (correctly) forced the camera to meter off of the wonderful foreground tones, and have captured great colors and textures in the sedges and trees. The problem is, that by doing so, the little bit of included sky has washed out to a distracting and featureless white, which by technical standards, is less than ideal. In my opinion does it take away from the shot much...no. Does it detract from your memories of the scene in front of you, probably not, as it really is a nice shot, with a bright sky.

The day looks overcast, which typically is good for photographing vegitation, water scenes, and any land based feature. But to do so, 'the rules' tell you to remove the sky from the scene perhaps with a higher shooting vantage, compose a more intimate scene, or use filtration.

Perhaps for a grand overall scene, a shot of this with the sun at your back or side, in early or late golden light, will help you capture the full expance even better.

 

[yvon]

I like that shot Neil, since the first time I saw it the other day.
I like the color of the vegetation. But like W7xman say, the sky is too bright. The camera or had take the reading of speed and aperture on the foreground but if it had take from the background it shall be to dark on the foreground subject. But even that, it is a great shot.

 

[BorealChickadee]

Neil's shot brings up a question that I've thought of before. First of all I only carry my digital point and shoot in the Adirondacks. The last time I took my 35 mm over the Great Range, I said "never again".

I know there are graduated(and reverse graduated) "gray" filters that can be used to correct the overexposed sky issue. Is there anything that could be handheld over the lens of a point and shoot. This question isn't as farfetched as it sounds. I've had good luck handholding a polarizing filter over my p&s.

I should add that I've never sprung for the cost of the graduated filter so I don't have one for my 35 mm either. But since my 35 mm stays home, it's used mostly for the people shots.

 

[Mark Schaefer]

This is a nice depiction of off trail Adirondack terrain. Being an overcast day there are no distracting dark shadows, and we can see the foreground elements very well.

I have often heard my photography instructors say: "If there is nothing interesting happening in the sky, then keep the sky out of your picture." In your picture the curved stream leads the eye through the picture to the mountain in the distance which becomes the de facto subject of your photo. If you eliminated the featureless white sky, you would also lose the mountain. And then your picture would have no strong element for the eye to rest on. Since I believe you want that mountain in your photo you would need to come back in better light, as Jim suggested for the soft golden light of a morning or afternoon on a sunnier day.

A good photograph will most often have some strong elements in the foreground, midground, and background. I think your foreground could improve with some stronger features. The little spruce sapling in the center bottom of the photo is an example. Its inclusion in the photo appears accidental as we only see the very top. You need to make a definite decision either to include more of the sapling or none of it. The stream is also a little ambiguous, it appears that it could be a winding path through the grasses. If you could include more of it in the foreground, then we could clearly read it as a stream. Perhaps the stream could even become your subject if the mountain and white sky were both eliminated.

Overall I believe this to be an effective photograph that records the scene of your adventure.

I know there are graduated(and reverse graduated) "gray" filters that can be used to correct the overexposed sky issue. Is there anything that could be handheld over the lens of a point and shoot. This question isn't as farfetched as it sounds. I've had good luck handholding a polarizing filter over my p&s.

Graduated neutral density filters are made with the standard screw mounts, and also in larger rectangular filters designed for the Cokin filter holder. The screw mount versions have the graduated change in the center of the filter, and when they are screwed onto a lens they generally force you to place the horizon in the center of the photo, The rectangular filters are more flexible in that the gradation can be placed anywhere in the photo allowing you to be more creative in composition. But either could be hand held over a P&S lens with the gradation off center.

 

[nartreb]

Perfect exposure for the foreground. I get a sense of calm - something to do with very soft, misty light and the color of the grass. There's a bit of fog visible dead center in the distance, which looks mysterious and alluring. The winding creek leads the eye and seems to offer a trail forward toward the bright horizon.

The sky is washed out - try a crop just a hair above the peak at left center. That should leave enough sky to show that there's space in the distance, while reducing distractions. (In particular, I'd crop along a line below the branches of the lone evergreen at center right, because they make the overexposure of the sky very obvious.)

You might also consider cropping out the already half-cropped spruce at left edge, leaving the dark sapling as a framing element.

It's very hard to tell that the creek contains water. I'd be tempted to get right close to it, or find a spot where it's wider, but it'd be very tough to maintain your original composition while doing so.

 

[Neil]

http://neil.webcentre.ca/stuff/index.html

If you follow the above link you will find the original picture posted above plus 2 others. The 2nd is the same as the first excpet I have cropped it as per Nartreb's advice. The sky is improved but I find the result gives me a closed-in feeling and that there is a loss of the sensation of open space.

The 3rd is a different shot that I took to capture the water allthough the overall effect of the first is somehow missed. In the first there is a flow from upper left (trees), through the mountain to the lower right small conifers that I like. That is lost in the 3rd due to the truncated view of the upper left trees. The colour is a little blah compared to the first too.

As is often the case I suppose the pic I like is a compromise. To go back next fall later in the day on a clearer day with a tripod and with no other goal than getting it "perfect" would be the way to go. Btw, the picture is looking a tad south of south east.

Thanks very much for the kind input. I learned more than I already knew. Good pics don't start with expensive cameras, they start in the eye of the picture taker. The gear helps I'm sure but if you don't already see it.....

 

[nartreb]

Yep, you're right - my suggested crop is too severe. Maybe it's because it sacrifices the gaps in the trees on the left, maybe it's because the natural focus (the mountain and its misty slope) is too close to the edge. (I tried to preview the crop by scrolling my screen, but it's not the same.)

The bottom shot accomplishes everything on my wish list (while preserving glimpses of space through the trees on the left), but the creek is not as visible in the middle distance, so you get less of a leading line. Also you lose the added depth of the foreground sapling. Transplant that sapling, reroute the creek a little, and you've got a winner there.

The color in the bottom shot is a little weak though. Have you played with the Levels tool in Photoshop or GIMP? On misty days you can get a good boost in color by using it judiciously. If I have time tonight I'll post some before-and-after examples.

 

[Mark Schaefer]

In the third photo we can now clearly read that the curved line is a stream which helps. The picture is overexposed for some reason. I am not quite sure why. You are picking up the stream which is relatively dark, and the camera's exposure will compensate for that. But the camera should not have compensated that much, as the dark portion of the stream is relatively small. This is an environment where bracketing the exposure is advisable (under or overexposing by 1/3, 1/2, or full stops). Most cameras will provide half stop exposure compensation. By adjusting the ASA (with a film camera) you can get 1/3 stop increments, and the combination of the two will give you 1/6 increments. I expect that adjusting the ASA on digital cameras will be the equivalent of changing to a different ASA roll of film - and probably will not provide 1/3 stop exposure compensation (your instruction manual will help). You might be able to darken the image with software, though it is always easier and better to get the shot in the field.

Like nartreb, I also like the mist in the background and the feathery trees in it. It is very painterly (that is a compliment if there was any doubt).

As is often the case I suppose the pic I like is a compromise. To go back next fall later in the day on a clearer day with a tripod and with no other goal than getting it "perfect" would be the way to go.

You have presented the photography/hiking dilemma. Serious photography and hiking for distance and summit goals are often incompatible. The hiking photographer often has to make tough decisions on which they want to do on a given day.

 

[w7xman]

You have presented the photography/hiking dilemma. Serious photography and hiking for distance and summit goals are often incompatible. The hiking photographer often has to make tough decisions on which they want to do on a given day.

Exactly...I could hike with much sharper and more lenses, but I'd need the back of an ox...or maybe an actual ox. My gear very much reflects the 'go lite' philosophy, except for my tripod, which is worth it's weight in, well, weight! But by timing your hikes right, and with a working knowledge of photography and composition, you can do some very good things with very limited or simple equiptment!

 

[Tim Seaver]

You have presented the photography/hiking dilemma. Serious photography and hiking for distance and summit goals are often incompatible. The hiking photographer often has to make tough decisions on which they want to do on a given day.

So painfully true!

I believe that theme - what folks carry for backcountry photography and how, would be a great thread of it's own.

 

[pudgy_groundhog]

You have presented the photography/hiking dilemma. Serious photography and hiking for distance and summit goals are often incompatible. The hiking photographer often has to make tough decisions on which they want to do on a given day.

I've often said in regards to our pictures that we hike and take pictures, rather than hiking TO take pictures. Often we have to get from point A to point B (esp. on backpacking trips), so we can't sit in one spot waiting for the right light or return to a spot many times to get it just right. This is why we've found the polarizer to be crucial at times when we can't avoid shooting in non optimal light.

 

[darren]

Neil,

I really like the composition of the shot. The colors and layout of the foreground is nice. The S curve of the stream leads you right into the heart of the photo.

The top of the photo is over-exposed, and that is tough to avoid in a scene with so much contrast though. The grey skies actually helped you though. If it had been sunny out then you would have harsh shadows on the foreground and it would not have come out as well.

This phot is a good example of how a graduated nuetral density (GND) filter could have helped you keep the sky balanced with the foreground. A GND like this one:

http://www.singh-ray.com/grndgrads.html

can be held by hand in front of a point & shoot camera lens. They obviously work better in real mount on a SLR camera, but you can still hand hold them if you are careful. Just takes some practice.

- darren

 

[Neil]

I only have the most rudimentary photo editing softwear (Compupic) but I assume there is a program that would allow me to edit the sky and the sky alone. ??
(Just wondering, what's the biggest print you can make with a 6 megapixel camera and have no pixelation?)

 

[yvon]

(Just wondering, what's the biggest print you can make with a 6 megapixel camera and have no pixelation?)

Depends of the quality you did the photo at the origin.
For a 6 MP at the max quality you had a size of 3008 x 2000 pixels. I say for the maximum quality it is between 200 and 300 dot per inch (DPI). So make take 3008px divide by 250 DPI= 12 inch and 2000px divide by 250 DPI= 8 inch. But I saw very nice photo with less than 200 DPI. It also depend of the quality of the store printer.

 

[nartreb]

>I assume there is a program that would allow me to edit the sky and the sky alone. ??

The problem is that once it is badly overexposed, all information about the sky is lost. You can paint it blue (or grey) but you have no way of recapturing the original color.

The basic idea is you select the sky only and you darken &/or color it. A tool like the GIMP will have a few ways of doing that (the simplest would be a Graduated Filter effect), but I'll refer you to online tutorials elsewhere.

--
>what's the biggest print you can make with a 6 megapixel camera and have no pixelation?)

Depends on the printer and how closely you'll inspect the print. I've got a 30" (long side) print from my 7MP P&S (that's about 100dpi), looks great from a foot away. Put your nose on the print and the pixels are there.

 

[darren]

Depends on the quality of hte original photo and of the sensor. Not all 6MP sensors are created equal. Not all photos on the same sensor are created equal. There will be a big difference between a tripod mounted shot at ISO 100 and a handheld shot at ISO 800. A general rule of thumb, I would agree with Yvon and say a decent shot on a decent 6MP camera could be blown up to 8x12.

- d