Canadian Rockies

[yangsimo]

Trying to learn composition as a beginner. I want the focal point to be the mountain in the back, but wanted to maintain 'depth' by including the foreground. How could I have done better?

I also realize the sky is over-exposed. This was taken during mid-day without any gradient filters. Under those conditions, any advice on how I may be able to avoid overexposing?

Thank you all in advance.



Taken with Nikon D40 at f/10, 1/500, ISO 200, 22mm

[junglebear]

Well first of all, nice shot as it is

I think the mountain would be better placed on a third line of the vertical plane, so about two thirds up or two thirds down the whole image. That would mean adding more foreground or sky, helping to maintain the depth of the shot which, as you've deduced, is important for a landscape.

Also I'd suggest shooting it in landscape and getting rid of the foreground land, just keeping the lake and possibly zoom in a tad to make the mountain take up more of the frame.

To get everything perfectly exposed, I'd suggest bracketing 3 or 5 different exposures and combining them (not with HDR software though).

Also, I've got a feeling a black and white conversion could look great.

Just my thoughts, I'd be interested to see any new versions you do.

[isfppoet]

I agree with junglebear about shooting in "landscape" mode.

The "rule of thirds" is something I'm still getting used to, but I find it really does make a lot of landscapes look better, as I've recently learned thanks to a recommendation from on the forum regarding one of my own.

I think shooting in landscape instead of portrait and evenly distributing the land, water (it almost looks silty or icy...interesting), and sky into thirds would look nice. Not that you can do this with 100% accuracy, but I agree that a little less sky and/or foreground would trim up this picture nicely.

In landscape, the hills/mountains to the right and left would make a nice "frame" for the snowy peaks in the distance, also.

As far as exposure, it's hard to say, because I don't know what this scene really looked like, but this scene has a pretty good range of brights and darks, so I'd say you probably made the best of it as is. A little post-processing could even out the shadows and highlights.

Adobe Lightroom has some really easy to use and effective tools, such as "recovery" and "fill light" which, respectively, help tone down highlights and brighten shadows, and both don't "intrude upon" the areas the other touches. So they function not as a global "brighten" or "darken", but instead target areas that need targeting. Definitely not as professional as Photoshop but much easier to use and often all you need. Multiple exposures would be great for scene like this, but if you're not equipped to do it or if you'd like to try something simple, I recommend Lightroom.

Great photo, great scene.

[windrider86]

It would also help if you could post your exif information so we know what your camera settings were. yxs

[yangsimo]

Thanks everyone for your useful comments. I've added the EXIF info.

I've just started playing with lightroom and find it much faster than photoshop for basic processing. However, I find that recovery really never gets back detail in overexposed areas. Is this because I shoot in JPEG instead of RAW?

[karen_s]

I do agree very much agree with the posts above. I do think you still have a very nice image though. I really like the oranges of the foreground against the complimentary blues in the background.

I do think shooting in RAW will give you much better odds of recapturing some of those blown areas but in this kinda shot, sometimes that is not even enough. I would try junglebears suggestions of bracketed exposures, and I would shoot them in RAW :-)

And Lightroom2 has a nice tool that might help you salvage some blown skies. It's called the Gradient tool. Right under the histogram in the Develop module you should see a set of tools. The fourth one from the left is the Gradient tool. You can alter exposure, clarity, sharpness, and a few other things. You can add color too. Check it out.

[Doctor Atomo]

A very nice picture as is. I love the unusual colors. If you want the focus to be on the mountain though, I think a little less foreground would do the trick. I like the vertical orientation. I think you would lose the "pop" of the subject in a wider shot.

[yangsimo]

Originally Posted by isfppoet

I think shooting in landscape instead of portrait and evenly distributing the land, water (it almost looks silty or icy...interesting), and sky into thirds would look nice.

In case anyone's wondering, this was shot at Medicine Lake. Beautiful glacial lake that during fall and winter (when this was shot), literally dries up to becoming a mudflat. This is shy the water looks 'silty'.

Unfortunately, my photography skills do not do the locale justice.

Thanks again for all the input.

[avishek24]

I am no expert but just wanted to say that its a lovely shot. Probably would be better a little more zoomed in. But otherwise, really like it. TFS!!

[SuperDan]

Originally Posted by Doctor Atomo

A very nice picture as is. I love the unusual colors. If you want the focus to be on the mountain though, I think a little less foreground would do the trick. I.

Ditto here... as i love those colors there! And would like to see a little less foreground, but at the same times it gives it some depth, of course

But, landscape would be great and nice capture with a D40!