Crater Lake

NeuralLotusNeuralLotus Registered Users Posts: 43 Big grins
edited August 1, 2015 in Landscapes
Even though I've lived in Oregon for 18 years I only now finally made it to Crater Lake. Didn't have a lot of time to spend there, though, unfortunately. So both of the pictures I am posting were a little rushed when I took them. Fixed them up the best I could in Photoshop.

The first one mainly needed a high pass filter since I had the aperture set wrong and didn't have time to retake it. Besides that, the vignetting, while not intentional, I left because I kind of liked the way the asymmetry leads the eye; pushes it towards the peak in my opinion. I also felt like making it a brighter picture than a lot of people make do, and with less contrast in the rocks. I felt like it was a picture which should be overwhelming in a subtle way. A slight assault on the senses, I guess. In some ways I feel it makes it more lifelike, but it also feels ethereal. In my opinion, at least.

I'm still not sure about the way the foreground transitions to the background on the bottom right. So I might mess with that a bit later. But I'm not sure. Opinions are plenty welcome!

rFQaWTS.png

The second one is probably more what people would expect to see from Crater Lake. Although it is shows a part of Wizard Island I don't see in pictures often. The sky was hard to get right. I think it might still need to be darkened a bit. But at the same time, I kind of like the contrast between the sky and the lake. This one also needed a high pass filter. But that's more due to the limitations of my lens and my camera than any shooting mistakes, this time. I really need to invest in some new equipment soon. But the issues are only really noticeable when zoomed well past 50%.

This one I was wanting to accentuate the colors of the water near the island and the clarity of the lake in general. I also wanted to create many layers in the photo; foreground, island, lake, rim, sky. I wanted to keep the parts together, while separating them enough to show the variety of scenery that the area affords. Although I am now thinking that maybe the blue of the rim should be toned down a bit. It's hard to decide. I do kind of like the semi-harsh separations. But I usually soften that kind of thing up, so I'm not sure.

NFvUb8S.png

Again, any criticism is welcome! I feel like these photos still need something. But I'm having trouble fine-tuning it. And I've already done quite a bit of fine-tuning as it is.
Hmmmmm... blarrgh...

Comments

  • ThelensspotThelensspot Registered Users Posts: 2,041 Major grins
    edited July 31, 2015
    What a great photography environment!
    I would like #1 better if there was a focal point of interest in the foreground and the rocky face of the mountain was more of a background rather than trying to be the subject of the image. For example, if there were a small cabin or unique animal native to that environment standing closer to you.
    The second shot needs some work on the sky to give it more definition and not appear so "blown out". It steals my eye away from the gorgeous subject material in the foreground. Did you utilize a polarizing filter here? If not maybe next time expose for the sky and then lighten up the foreground in post processing or even merge a couple of images in post processing.
    I really like the composition in the second and framing in the second.
    Thanks for posting your efforts! You should post more often,.
    "Photography is partly art and partly science. Really good photography adds discipline, sacrifice and a never ending pursuit of photographic excellence"...ziggy53

  • NeuralLotusNeuralLotus Registered Users Posts: 43 Big grins
    edited July 31, 2015
    What a great photography environment!
    I would like #1 better if there was a focal point of interest in the foreground and the rocky face of the mountain was more of a background rather than trying to be the subject of the image. For example, if there were a small cabin or unique animal native to that environment standing closer to you.
    The second shot needs some work on the sky to give it more definition and not appear so "blown out". It steals my eye away from the gorgeous subject material in the foreground. Did you utilize a polarizing filter here? If not maybe next time expose for the sky and then lighten up the foreground in post processing or even merge a couple of images in post processing.
    I really like the composition in the second and framing in the second.
    Thanks for posting your efforts! You should post more often,.


    Yeah, I wasn't really thinking with the exposure. I had people wanting to go get some food. But I tried darkening the sky a bit more now. But I'm losing detail. So I went ahead and made an image from the RAW, lowering the exposure to get the sky better and fine-tuning it to make the sky look good. Then I blended the two images together (added new image to old PSD as a layer on top of the old image and masked to delete everything under the sky). It's better. But I'm not sure if it's perfect.

    w3aYF20.png
    Hmmmmm... blarrgh...
  • ThelensspotThelensspot Registered Users Posts: 2,041 Major grins
    edited July 31, 2015
    Yes...there is a little more definition but generally "blown out" aspects of a picture are hard to salvage.
    The clouds are there but appear a little "metallic" for lack of a better word. You really have a good eye and the composition itself is excellent! I wish I could tell you how many of my shots I've taken in which I just can't get everything to be correctly exposed ...but on the other hand maybe not. rolleyes1.gif
    "Photography is partly art and partly science. Really good photography adds discipline, sacrifice and a never ending pursuit of photographic excellence"...ziggy53

  • NeuralLotusNeuralLotus Registered Users Posts: 43 Big grins
    edited July 31, 2015
    Yes...there is a little more definition but generally "blown out" aspects of a picture are hard to salvage.
    The clouds are there but appear a little "metallic" for lack of a better word. You really have a good eye and the composition itself is excellent! I wish I could tell you how many of my shots I've taken in which I just can't get everything to be correctly exposed ...but on the other hand maybe not. rolleyes1.gif

    Yeah, it's about as good as I can probably can get it. Maybe with some heavier editing I could get it to be more usable. But, ah well. Really just means I need to get around to getting some filters, lol. I keep putting it off.

    Thanks for the compliment, though! I really appreciate it.
    Hmmmmm... blarrgh...
  • EaracheEarache Registered Users Posts: 3,533 Major grins
    edited July 31, 2015
    Imo, both images appear harsh and over-exposed... both compositions seem cut-off because of the portrait orientation...
    both compositions contain too much sky, which is completely blown-out, even in the re-work...
    the process' and choices for such that you describe in the text don't make sense to me... and imo, you seem to be over-thinking it.

    Thelenspot has some good suggestions, to which I would add; when shooting landscapes, shoot in landscape orientation more often than not - excellent compositions in portrait are hard to find.
    When out shooting, focus on the basics - exposure, lighting and composition... it has less to do with what kind of gear you have, and more to do with how you use what you've got.
    Try to eliminate distractions and get the shot with the camera - processing (even RAW) has it's limitations... tell hungry companions to go wait in the car ;-)

    These opinions are my own (you asked for opinions), and I don't say these things to be discouraging, rather to be constructive feedback... albeit not sugar-coated.
    Good luck, I hope you get a chance to return there sometime.... and are blessed with better light!
    Eric ~ Smugmug
  • ThelensspotThelensspot Registered Users Posts: 2,041 Major grins
    edited August 1, 2015
    Earache wrote: »
    Imo, both images appear harsh and over-exposed... both compositions seem cut-off because of the portrait orientation...
    both compositions contain too much sky, which is completely blown-out, even in the re-work...
    the process' and choices for such that you describe in the text don't make sense to me... and imo, you seem to be over-thinking it.

    Thelenspot has some good suggestions, to which I would add; when shooting landscapes, shoot in landscape orientation more often than not - excellent compositions in portrait are hard to find.
    When out shooting, focus on the basics - exposure, lighting and composition... it has less to do with what kind of gear you have, and more to do with how you use what you've got.
    Try to eliminate distractions and get the shot with the camera - processing (even RAW) has it's limitations... tell hungry companions to go wait in the car ;-)

    These opinions are my own (you asked for opinions), and I don't say these things to be discouraging, rather to be constructive feedback... albeit not sugar-coated.
    Good luck, I hope you get a chance to return there sometime.... and are blessed with better light!

    The landscape vs portrait recommendations per Eric are words to live by. You should seldom use portrait orientation when shooting landscapes. Get as much "panorama" feel as you can which each shot.
    "Photography is partly art and partly science. Really good photography adds discipline, sacrifice and a never ending pursuit of photographic excellence"...ziggy53

Sign In or Register to comment.