Question for all you Landscape shooters

jenniferann

Hello Everyone,
I have been admiring all your wonderful pictures posted here and
wondering why my landscape shots never look as good. Everything
is so crisp and sharp, my pictures fall short, I cannot seem to get
everything so sharp... I was wondering what F shot you all shoot at
mostly? Maybe I am not going up high enough, I usually shoot at
F8 or 11, should I be going higher?
Any tips would be appreciated...
Some of my landscapes can be seen here:

http://jenniferann.smugmug.com/Landscapes

Thanks!

ront

I am still pretty new at all of this but I think your Av settings are good. Are you using a good tripod? That alone can make a world of difference. Also, knowing what equipment you are using would be good to know also for help.
I looked at some of your photos on your smugmug site. I think you have some very nice photos there!



Ron

Art Scott

The trick is, at least for me, to find the SWEET SPOT (Aperture) that my lens is best at...aperture wise...my landscpe camera is a Konica Minolta A2 - prosumer p/s with a 28-200 lens....its smalles aperture is f11 but normally I am at f8 with it.....when I do use my D300 it is again around f8-f11 and I have configured my camera to only allow for standard apertures and shutter speeds....just like film cameras had.........

anwmn1

I am not on a real good monitor right now but I looked at your link and many of your photos are quite good.

Your settings look correct shooting between F8 and F18 for wide angle scenes. For sharpness it could depend on your focus point and how good of a tripod you have.

There is also quite a bit of post process work in the great work you see on here.

Just keep shooting, reading, and sharing your work.

kwalsh

You have a nice collection of images there!

F8 or F11 is perfect for an XTi, going too much higher will make things more soft due to diffraction (certainly F16 is still good if you need the DOF).

That said, I guess an important question is what makes you think the shots posted here are "sharper" than yours? Most folks here are posting resized images, you know maybe 800x600 pixels. At these web resolutions things like minor motion blur, aperture settings and what not are not contributing a whole lot to percieved sharpness. Rather post processing (global contrast, saturation, local contrast enhancement) and resize sharpening are the critical things that will make something look "sharp" or as people sometimes say "pop".

Two things you might try first. Try out "local contrast enhancement". I don't know what PP tools you have, in some this might just be a slider (like "clarity" in Lightroom) and in others it is done as a sharpening technique (high radius/low amount in USM). Read a bit about it here:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/techniques/local-contrast-enhancement.htm

And a google search will turn up a lot more. LCE, while "local" occurs on a scale that is definitely noticable at web resolutions.

Next, it appears your smugmug account is customizable. You can alter the sharpening settings they will use on creating your smaller sized images. They need to strike a balance between wedding/portrait (soft please) and landscape (razor sharp please) and thus the defaults may make your smaller images softer than you'd like. These are applied on import so you have to do some shenanigans to get it to reprocess existing photos and what not, head over to the smugmug support or customization forums on this site and do some searching and you should get pointed in the right direction.

Ken

jenniferann

Thanks everyone, I appreciate your comments.
I am using a Sigma 17-70 2.8/4.5 lens for my landscape shots, I do
use a tripod, but tend to shoot without it if I can, I guess I should also
use remote shutter release.
I have Photoshop CS3 and shoot raw and try to do most of my adjusting
in raw, then open in PS3 to do more editing if needed. I will check out
the links provided.

nightpixels

Hi Jennifer,

You have already received some great advice. Two things I wanted to add were, take advantage of the "mirror lock-up" feature in your camera. Let the vibrations caused by the mirror flipping up die before you press the shutter. Also, use a remote controller so you don't have to physically touch the shutter on the camera when taking landscape pictures, because this could cause additional motion to the camera and affect the image sharpness.

Qarik

nightpixels wrote:

Hi Jennifer,

You have already received some great advice. Two things I wanted to add were, take advantage of the "mirror lock-up" feature in your camera. Let the vibrations caused by the mirror flipping up die before you press the shutter. Also, use a remote controller so you don't have to physically touch the shutter on the camera when taking landscape pictures, because this could cause additional motion to the camera and affect the image sharpness.

In addition make sure you have good sharpening flow in post.

Thwack

If you don't like lugging a tripod around, consider bringing a beanbag. Much lighter and it can give you very steady support. It also helps you shoot from lower which can be handy for some landscape shots.

You can buy commercial beanbags or make your own from an old pair of jeans. Cut the lower leg portion off, sew up the bottom, fill about half to two-thirds with small plastic beads (fabric or craft stores should have them), and sew up the top.

When I'm hiking, I rarely bring a tripod. Even a carbon-fiber tripod gets clunky on long/steep trails.

I can flop it over a rock, log, top of a fence post, hood of a car…sometimes even on top of my camera bag (to get the shot a little higher).


You have some very nice shots in your gallery.

squirl033

hi Jennifer,

i looked at some of your landscapes, and they seem reasonably sharp to me. the advice already posted here - tripod, remote shutter release, and perhaps some added sharpening in PP - should get you even better results. there is one other thing that plays into the equation... your lens. the Sigma 17-70 is not a bad lens by any stretch, but it is still a "consumer" grade lens, and simply won't deliver the same sharpness and clarity - especially in the corners and edges - as the top grade glass many of the landscape shooters here use. don't think you have to rush out and spend hundreds or more on an "L" lens right away - try some of the other tricks and tips first. but if you do all those things and still are not satisfied, it might be time to consider upgrading your lens.

acowan

Jennifer,

Reducing vibrations through use of a tripod/beanbag along with a cable release and mirror lock-up really help. I've gotten into the habit of using a tripod/cable release/MLU for almost every shot (at least the more intentional shots). This helps but there is still the necessity to properly sharpen in post processing. I know all the big Photoshop How-To books include sharpening techinques in them but I recently bought Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw and Lightroom by Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe. Its not the lightest read and there are sections I've had to reread to make sure I understood them but it helps show the difference between high frequency and low frequency images and the techniques required to properly sharpen.

For a while I ignorantly slapped a USM mask on my pictures (without changing the radius and amount, and I didn't change the Camera Raw settings that much) and some of my pictures came out too sharp. Don't get caught up in oversharpening...its better to undersharpen than oversharpen, IMO. Its also important to look over the image at 100% magnification to make sure things look acceptably sharp to you. Anyway, I'm stumbling over a synopsis of the book.

(P.S. Another technique that I've found to be good and I use all the time is sharpening with a midtone mask. This is a bit more intensive (at first) but if you go here and read about creating the midtone mask, this allows for sharpening to be done while not effecting the edges as much (at least from my experience.) This site is also a great resource for learning how to make smooth changes to your picture's luminosity and has drastically changed my workflow for the better.)

ront

Thwack wrote:

If you don't like lugging a tripod around, consider bringing a beanbag. Much lighter and it can give you very steady support. It also helps you shoot from lower which can be handy for some landscape shots.

That bean bag idea is really great!! I have not heard of it before but sounds like a very good idea.

Ron

Art Scott

ront wrote:

That bean bag idea is really great!! I have not heard of it before but sounds like a very good idea.

Ron

I have always used real dried beans left in their original bag and then covered with an outer cloth bag.....that way if you are ever caught out in nature with no food....open the bean bag.....:D :ivar

Thwack

ront wrote:

That bean bag idea is really great!! I have not heard of it before but sounds like a very good idea.

Ron

A buddy taught me that trick (I can't claim credit for figuring it out on my own).

Thwack

Art Scott wrote:

I have alkways used real dried beans left in their original bag and then covered with an outer cloth bag.....that way if you are ever caught out in nature with no food....open the bean bag.....:D :ivar

Open the beanbag, soak the beans in water for several hours (you did bring spare water, right)....then eat.

I'll stick with plastic beads (they don't sprout if you get the beanbag wet).

hawkeye978

I looked at your gallery and I think you have some really nice shots. Good lighting and composition. They may be lacking a little depth, which requires some post processing. One trick I learned (thanks Marc) is to apply two separate gradients to the top and bottom of the picture. For the sky, have a gradient that is darker at the top and then is gone around the horizon. There would then be a corresponding gradient from the foreground to the horizon that would be somewhat brighter in the foreground then tapering off at the horizon. You can also try boosting the clarity/contrast slightly in this foreground gradient, also.

What I have learned is that your brain responds to the brighter areas in the picture and we also like contrast. By making small local adjustments in clarity, contrast, and exposure you can bring back the depth you saw in the original scene. Our brains can't reproduce that feeling with a 2D picture so we need to nudge them along a little.

jenniferann

Again, thanks everyone for all your helpful tips - I do get a bit stumped
when it comes to sharpening, probably taking the easy way with the
USM in Photoshop. I will look into this a bit more.

I was also wondering what lens you would recommend (without
breaking the bank - say keeping it under $1000 if possible)

When you mention adding the gradients to the image, is there a
tutorial out there anywhere to show me exactly what you mean?

Thanks again, everyone, your comments are much appreciated!

Jenn

Oobers

jenniferann wrote:

Hello Everyone,
I have been admiring all your wonderful pictures posted here and
wondering why my landscape shots never look as good. Everything
is so crisp and sharp, my pictures fall short, I cannot seem to get
everything so sharp... I was wondering what F shot you all shoot at
mostly? Maybe I am not going up high enough, I usually shoot at
F8 or 11, should I be going higher?
Any tips would be appreciated...
Some of my landscapes can be seen here:

http://jenniferann.smugmug.com/Landscapes

Thanks!

You are having a laugh aren't you

astockwell

I didn't get into the sharpness of your shots. Part of it is apeture, but some of my work has been as high as f/5.6, or even f/4 if I need it for low light. F8-11 is typically the sweet spot of most lenses, especially zooms in the 17-70 range. Use a tripod religiously, if you are shooting landscapes. I won't think about not using one. You want great landscape shots, then get used to it. You have some great work. Curves adjustments and contrast in LR or CSx can add a ton to your shots, but make sure you check your histograms while you do it, unless you intend to blow the highlights, or block up the shadows. Some bodies can manually adjust focus for each lens. I wouldn't upgrade your lens, unless one, you can afford it, and you can justify it. I shot a long time on my kit lens, and I sometimes wish I had it back, because I took some great stuff with it, and it did a good job for what it was. Get a shutter release. Use slight sharpening in post, and if you have Lightroom, use clarity. It is a great sharpening tool, without over-doing it.

I will post some stuff from your site, that I thought was really outstanding stuff, but maybe just needs some processing help.



I like this composition alot, as it reminds me a lot of where I live. Contrast this a bit without blowing out the sky, so maybe contrast mask the sky, and then adjust to bring out contrast in the foreground. Another thing is to check on the Chromatic Aberations caused by the lens, and see if you can adjust them out in post. Shoot in RAW, as a good free RAW editor like RAWtherapee can pull out C/A.




Another great shot. I like it, one because I want to shoot this lighthouse really bad, and the light and comp are great. Here I would have stopped all the way down actually to emphasize the star effect on the beacon. So it depends on the situation what f/stop to use in this case, to make the comp unique.



And this one I love. Throw some more contrast at it. The fog is wonderful, and really puts the lighthouse in it's element here. It looks sharp to me, but I am not pulling these down, and blowing them up, just looking at the web ones. Contast in this shot would make it "pop" more, especially since it is monochrome.

I can get more into your work if you want, and if you are ever in southern New England, and want to shoot locations down here, drop me a line.

-Andrew

squirl033

jenniferann wrote:

Again, thanks everyone for all your helpful tips - I do get a bit stumped
when it comes to sharpening, probably taking the easy way with the
USM in Photoshop. I will look into this a bit more.

I was also wondering what lens you would recommend (without
breaking the bank - say keeping it under $1000 if possible)

When you mention adding the gradients to the image, is there a
tutorial out there anywhere to show me exactly what you mean?

Thanks again, everyone, your comments are much appreciated!

Jenn

hi Jenn,

i'm thinking the 17-40 f/4L would be a good lens. it offers good sharpness and color rendition, distortion isn't bad, even on a FF camera (both should be even better on a crop body), and the price is less outlandish than many of Canon's "L" lenses... around $700. it may lack a bit of the range of your Sigma, but the optics are better, and the focal range (28-64mm equivalent) is suitable for most landscape work. it isn't as "fast" as your Sigma is wide open, but if you're shooting at f/8 on a tripod, which you really should be for landscape work anyway, that f/2.8 aperture on your Sigma isn't doing you any good anyway.

Hikin' Mike

Qarik wrote:

In addition make sure you have good sharpening flow in post.

Yep, I think it's more sharpening then anything else. For posting on the web I use something like this: http://pacificnw.naturephotographers.net/tips/photoshop.htm

The_Fat_Zebra

Just wondering if the 2sec shutter release is as good as remote shutter release, or would there still be vibration after two secs?

Interesting thread, and I'm loving this forum. Great place to learn.

Art Scott

The_Fat_Zebra wrote:

Just wondering if the 2sec shutter release is as good as remote shutter release, or would there still be vibration after two secs?

Interesting thread, and I'm loving this forum. Great place to learn.

Both give better results than the shutter release button....both can still introduce a small amount of cam shake due to the mirror movement......to stop all cam shake, one need to use mirror lock up.......so frame, focus, lock up mirror and then either 2sec timer or the more convienent remote shutter release.....I prefer a 16channel Radio Frequency release.......I do not like being tied to my camera with cords, cables and wires........that is just me...................