Need help with taking good landscape pictures
onel_m...@my-deja.com
skies. I just returned from Yosemite National Park and shot nine rolls
of film (Kodak Royal Gold 100 ASA). In general, the sky appeared white
in most of the pictures instead of blue. I shot the same scene multiple
times using different zooms (same lens) and the wide angles showed more
blue sky than the zoomed shots, but not always consistent. I was using
a Nikon N70 with a 24mm to 120mm lens. What is the trick to shooting
landscape pictures that have areas of multiple brightness (i.e. bright
sky with mountain bakground and rocks / trees in the foregroud)?
Should I be using special filters (I beleive I have a UV filter on each
of my lens)?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
KevinONeil
just returned from Yosemite>>
Go this this site for information on using split neutral density filters. They
are other sites that discuss this filter, just go to a search engine and look
it up.
http://members.aol.com/kevinoneil/nd.html
One additional issue you face is the printing of your negatives. Since most
automatic printers expose the images for "normal" prints, rather than for the
sky, you will almost always have washed out skies. Also, if you are shooting
contrasty situations (i.e., shooting at mid-day on a bright sunny day), no film
can hold that range of contrast. If your foreground is properly exposed, then
the sky will wash out. If the sky is properly exposed, the foreground will be
black without detail. Shoot at low contrast times/situations.
There are great books out there that detail this issues as wellas others.
Check out John Shaw's books, especially the Nature Photographer's Professional
Field Guide and his Landscape's book. Both will provide you with enough
information to help speed up your techniques and shorten your learing curve.
Nature photography isn't easy.
Try using slide film
Kevin...@AOL.Com
Nature Images and Articles on Techniques at:
http://members.aol.com/kevinoneil
PBurian
That will not turn a white sky blue, but if the sky was blue, it will often
help make it a richer color.
Peter Burian
KevinONeil
Peter -
Remember that he was shooting in Yosemite.
Although I don't necessarly disagree with your advice on a general basis, I
didn't offer it because using a polarizer at higher altitudes like Yosemite in
contrasty situations can more often than not ruin good images by turning the
sky an unnaturally looking black or deep blue. This is especially true when
you don't understand the physics and use of a polarizer filter, which
apparently the person asking for advice does not.
chris kelly
little more color from wet plants.
I was unaware that altatude made a difference. Could you explain a little more?
The last thing I need is to kill a picture like that.
Chris
Bob Flood
> Remember that he was shooting in Yosemite.
>
> Although I don't necessarly disagree with your advice on a general basis, I
> didn't offer it because using a polarizer at higher altitudes like Yosemite in
> contrasty situations can more often than not ruin good images by turning the
> sky an unnaturally looking black or deep blue.
The elevation in Yosemite Valley isn't high enough to result in the extreme
darkening described above, but it certainly will happen at the higher elevations
like Glacier Point. HOWEVER, it's not likely to be a problem at all in Hawaii.
Granted, there are some mountains, but most of the typical visitor's shots will be
taken near sea level.
Using split neutral density filters is a good solution, but it takes practice. Do
you have time between now and the Hawaii trip to 1) find and purchase the filters
(and associated bits), 2) shoot some rolls in the midday light, 3) get the film
processed, 4) evaluate the results and draw conclusions about how best to use the
filters, and 5) repeat the whole test using what you learned to confirm your
conclusions? Otherwise, using the split filters in Hawaii will be a real gamble
that could very well result in a boatload of poor pictures when you get back home.
A polarizer should help considerably, but understand its limitations. With an SLR
you should be able to assess the value of a polarizer on a given shot before
shooting.
Be careful not to take the advice about sunrise/sunset to extremes. I've seen
vacation photos that avoided the harsh midday sun so effectively that viewers of
the vacation photos remarked about how dark everything was. Those shots are
terrific, but don't focus on them (yeah, I know - very punny) exclusively. What
you really need to avoid is shots with the sun overhead. That's why mornings til
around 10 AM and afternoons after about 3-4 PM work rather well for scenics - the
sun is at a low enough angle to afford shadows that help define the depth of the
terrain, but still show the location in daylight. Look through travel books and
brochures. There's usually a mix of daylight and sunrise/sunset photos. Those
daylight shots are generally obtained in the 10 AM or 4 PM timeframe. Look at the
length of the shadows in the daylight pictures - if the shadows indicate overhead
sun, the photographer probably used the split filters to get a decent looking sky.
But mid-morning or mid-afternoon shadows indicate lighting that can usually be
handled by a polarizer.
Have fun.
KevinONeil
>The elevation in Yosemite Valley isn't high enough to result in the extreme
darkening described above, but it certainly will happen at the higher
elevations >>
Bob, have you ever shot in Yosemite Valley with a polarizer? If you have, it
isn't apparent from your statement.
I have on many occassions and I guarantee you that the Valley is high enough to
have this problem. I've gone through a lot of transparency film in the Valley
(4x5, 120 and 35mm) and know that using a polarizer there can be tricky if you
don't know what you're doing. It is also a location that can benefit from the
use of a warming filter when the sky is very blue, again due to the elevation
and the scattering of blue light.
I don't throw answers out onto the web unless I have direct experience with the
situation. I wish everyone who volunteers information or calls into questions
advice given by others would do the same.
Bob Flood
> > Bob Flood stated:
>
> >The elevation in Yosemite Valley isn't high enough to result in the extreme
> darkening described above, but it certainly will happen at the higher
> elevations >>
>
> Bob, have you ever shot in Yosemite Valley with a polarizer? If you have, it
> isn't apparent from your statement.
>
Not since last fall.
> I don't throw answers out onto the web unless I have direct experience with the
> situation. I wish everyone who volunteers information or calls into questions
> advice given by others would do the same.
At an elevation of about 4,000 feet, my shots from the valley floor using Kodak and
Agfa (including Ultra 50) print film haven't shown the extreme darkening that I
think you are talking about. I have seen it in shots from Glacier Point and the
Tioga Pass part of the park, generally above 7,000 feet. But from the valley I get
just a blue sky that's somewhat darker than reality but hardly problematic. The
non-uniformity of the polarizing effect in a wider angle shot is more of a problem
than the darkening. Didn't mean to cause a stir.
KevinONeil
At an elevation of about 4,000 feet, my shots from the valley floor using Kodak
and Agfa (including Ultra 50) print film haven't shown the extreme darkening
that I think you are talking about. >>
Well, we're comparing apples and oranges (slides and print film). If you're
using print film you may be experiencing the same plight as the original
poster. What you are seeing in your prints may not show the effect of the
polarizer.
Unless you're printing your own work, you may be hard pressed to know how
strong the effect is from the polarizer. Most commercial printers wash out the
sky because the printing process averages out the printing time based upon the
negative density. Only by shooting slide film can you be absolutely certain
that "what you shot is what you get."
Also, it will only happen if you use too much polarization. With proper
control, you can avoid it.
I'd be glad to share with you some images from the Valley floor shot with
Velvia where the skies are a dark black-blue. I'm glad to say it only happened
to me on one roll where I was shooting some climbers on El Capitan who had
gotten into trouble. Due to the nature of the event, I was not paying
attention to the angle of the sun. The polarizer helped cut down some
reflections of the rocks and isolate the climbers, and in the view finder it
appeared to only slightly darken the sky. I was wrong and the images are only
good for showing the effect of too much polarizer at that elevation. It was a
lesson well learned.
C Lanier Benkard
film and a polarizer (a few times a year anyway) and found you have to
be really careful or you get the "black sky" effect. I still remember
the first pics I ever shot there I overused the polarizer and ended up
throwing pretty much the whole roll in the trash as a result.
My guess is that the original poster had a high contrast image and the
lab underexposed the sky in the print to keep from overexposing other
parts of the photo, assuming the sky was blue to start with of course.
Lanier
KevinONeil (kevin...@aol.com) wrote:
: > Bob Flood stated:
:
: >The elevation in Yosemite Valley isn't high enough to result in the extreme
: darkening described above, but it certainly will happen at the higher
: elevations >>
:
: Bob, have you ever shot in Yosemite Valley with a polarizer? If you have, it
: isn't apparent from your statement.
:
: I have on many occassions and I guarantee you that the Valley is high enough to
: have this problem. I've gone through a lot of transparency film in the Valley
: (4x5, 120 and 35mm) and know that using a polarizer there can be tricky if you
: don't know what you're doing. It is also a location that can benefit from the
: use of a warming filter when the sky is very blue, again due to the elevation
: and the scattering of blue light.
:
: <snip>
Bob Flood
> Most commercial printers wash out the sky because the printing process averages
> out the printing time based upon the negative density.
And that is quite evident in the machine proofs I get. Enlargements made by hand (a
good lab, not by me, of course) always show a darker sky than the proofs, and it is
on those prints that I based what I said about the darkening effect.
> Only by shooting slide film can you be absolutely certain
> that "what you shot is what you get."
And I do not shoot slides, so I will defer to your experience on that.
> I'm glad to say it only happened to me on one roll ...
You learn faster than I do!
onel_m...@my-deja.com
Bob Flood <bfl...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> KevinONeil wrote:
>
> > Remember that he was shooting in Yosemite.
> >
> > Although I don't necessarly disagree with your advice on a general
basis, I
> > didn't offer it because using a polarizer at higher altitudes like
Yosemite in
> > contrasty situations can more often than not ruin good images by
turning the
> > sky an unnaturally looking black or deep blue.
>
extreme
> darkening described above, but it certainly will happen at the higher
elevations
I really appreciate all the information and advice I have received. I
have about 30 days before Hawaii and should have enough time to
purchase and experiment with these filters. I live in Chicago and
experienced the same sky whitening effect when shooting skyline.
Hopefully the weather will clear up over the next 30 days.
I would like to post a followup question - I originally posted this
question on the Rizt forum (before I discovered this forum which I
think is great!) and I was told to use ISO 400 film instead of 100 in
order to get more color saturation. I originally chose ISO 100 for the
finer grain and in hopes of enlarging a some of the pictures. Any
thoughts on this matter??
NYIPhoto
Hi,
You might want to check our website at
for tips on shooting landscapes.
<http://www.nyip.com/tips/topic_landscapes0999.html>
Billy Stone
New York Institute of Photography
http://www.nyip.com
Two23
saturation. I originally chose ISO 100 for the finer grain and in hopes of
enlarging a some of the pictures. Any thoughts on this matter??>>
ISO 400 for MORE color saturation? I think not. For print film, the most
saturated films I've found are: Agfa Ultra 50 (in a class by itself!), Kodak
160VC Portra, and Fuji Reala 100. Run of the mill Kodak Gold 100 is also
pretty saturated.
Kent in SD
mber...@popd.ix.netcom.com
use of print film.
"Hello, my question concerns taking pictures of landscapes with bright
skies. I just returned from Yosemite National Park and shot nine rolls
of film (Kodak Royal Gold 100 ASA)."
Your answer.
"I don't throw answers out onto the web unless I have direct experience with the
situation. I wish everyone who volunteers information or calls into questions
advice given by others would do the same."
So what is your experience with print film in Yosemite? Bob has volunteered his
direct experience.
Marc
KevinONeil wrote:
> > Bob Flood stated:
>
> >The elevation in Yosemite Valley isn't high enough to result in the extreme
> darkening described above, but it certainly will happen at the higher
> elevations >>
>
> Bob, have you ever shot in Yosemite Valley with a polarizer? If you have, it
> isn't apparent from your statement.
>
> I have on many occassions and I guarantee you that the Valley is high enough to
> have this problem. I've gone through a lot of transparency film in the Valley
> (4x5, 120 and 35mm) and know that using a polarizer there can be tricky if you
> don't know what you're doing. It is also a location that can benefit from the
> use of a warming filter when the sky is very blue, again due to the elevation
> and the scattering of blue light.
>
> I don't throw answers out onto the web unless I have direct experience with the
> situation. I wish everyone who volunteers information or calls into questions
> advice given by others would do the same.
>
ellis
>I would like to post a followup question - I originally posted this
>question on the Rizt forum (before I discovered this forum which I
>think is great!) and I was told to use ISO 400 film instead of 100 in
>order to get more color saturation.
It usually works the other way around.
KevinONeil
>If you read the original post you would be aware that the discussion was about
the use of print film.
>
>"Hello, my question concerns taking pictures of landscapes with bright skies.
I just returned from Yosemite National Park and shot nine rolls of film (Kodak
Royal Gold 100 ASA)."
>
>Your answer.
>
>"I don't throw answers out onto the web unless I have direct experience with
the situation. I wish everyone who volunteers information or calls into
questions advice given by others would do the same."
>
>So what is your experience with print film in Yosemite? Bob has volunteered
his direct experience.>>
Well Marc, what can I say?
If you'd bother to read the first two postings in the thread maybe you'd know
what you were talking about.
Here is my response to the post, which was the first response:
<<Hello, my question concerns taking pictures of landscapes with bright skies.
I just returned from Yosemite..>>
Go this this site for information on using split neutral density filters. They
are other sites that discuss this filter, just go to a search engine and look
it up.
http://members.aol.com/kevinoneil/nd.html
One additional issue you face is the printing of your negatives. Since most
automatic printers expose the images for "normal" prints, rather than for the
sky, you will almost always have washed out skies. Also, if you are shooting
contrasty situations (i.e., shooting at mid-day on a bright sunny day), no film
can hold that range of contrast. If your foreground is properly exposed, then
the sky will wash out. If the sky is properly exposed, the foreground will be
black without detail. Shoot at low contrast times/situations.
There are great books out there that detail this issues as well as others.
Check out John Shaw's books, especially the Nature Photographer's Professional
Field Guide and his Landscape's book. Both will provide you with enough
information to help speed up your techniques and shorten your learing curve.
Nature photography isn't easy.>>
Any chance you'd want to issue another public statement about knowing what
you're talking about before posting?
Sorry for wasting the bandwidth by even answering this post.
Tony Galt
have less saturation. For over the top saturation try Agfa Ultra (this
stuff is dangerous!) for prints and Fuji Velvia or Kodak Elitechrome
Extra Color for slides. For slightly less, but still enhanced color,
try Fuji Reala for prints and Kodak Elite Chrome 100 for slides.
Tony Galt
Matt
allow you to see the true photo as it was exposed for? That is, if the
lab follows through with your instructions.
Matt
In article <7srfaa$5qv$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
lan...@gsb-stigler.Stanford.EDU (C Lanier Benkard) wrote:
> I can confirm this. I've shot a fair amount in the valley with slide
> film and a polarizer (a few times a year anyway) and found you have to
> be really careful or you get the "black sky" effect. I still remember
> the first pics I ever shot there I overused the polarizer and ended up
> throwing pretty much the whole roll in the trash as a result.
>
> My guess is that the original poster had a high contrast image and the
> lab underexposed the sky in the print to keep from overexposing other
> parts of the photo, assuming the sky was blue to start with of course.
>
> Lanier
>
> KevinONeil (kevin...@aol.com) wrote:
> : > Bob Flood stated:
> :
> : >The elevation in Yosemite Valley isn't high enough to result in
the extreme
> : darkening described above, but it certainly will happen at the
higher
> : elevations >>
> :
> : Bob, have you ever shot in Yosemite Valley with a polarizer? If you
have, it
> : isn't apparent from your statement.
> :
> : I have on many occassions and I guarantee you that the Valley is
high enough to
> : have this problem. I've gone through a lot of transparency film in
the Valley
> : (4x5, 120 and 35mm) and know that using a polarizer there can be
tricky if you
> : don't know what you're doing. It is also a location that can
benefit from the
> : use of a warming filter when the sky is very blue, again due to the
elevation
> : and the scattering of blue light.
> :
> : <snip>
ellis
>Won't asking the lab to not correct the prints for color or density
>allow you to see the true photo as it was exposed for? That is, if the
>lab follows through with your instructions.
It might be better to get them scanned onto a cd first. That way you'll
know if the negatives are good.
Omega Loo
slides and films). Is this true ?
mber...@popd.ix.netcom.com
If you had followed the thread you would know that my post, #13 in this thread, was
in direct response to your post, #6. In this sanctimonious post you stated,
"Bob, have you ever shot in Yosemite Valley with a polarizer? If you have, it isn't
apparent from your statement."
I have on many occassions and I guarantee you that the Valley is high enough to
have this problem. I've gone through a lot of transparency film in the Valley
(4x5,
120 and 35mm) and know that using a polarizer there can be tricky if you don't
know what you're doing. It is also a location that can benefit from the use of a
warming filter when the sky is very blue, again due to the elevation and the
scattering of blue light.
I don't throw answers out onto the web unless I have direct experience with the
situation. I wish everyone who volunteers information or calls into questions
advice given by others would do the same."
Bob stated his personal experiences in shooting at Yosemite with negative film in
message #5.
He reiterated it in message #10.
"At an elevation of about 4,000 feet, my shots from the valley floor using Kodak
and
Agfa (including Ultra 50) print film haven't shown the extreme
darkening that I think
you are talking about. I have seen it in shots from Glacier Point
and the Tioga Pass
part of the park, generally above 7,000 feet. But from the valley
I get just a blue sky
that's somewhat darker than reality but hardly problematic. The
non-uniformity of the
polarizing effect in a wider angle shot is more of a problem than
the darkening."
You finally realized that in message #11.
"Well, we're comparing apples and oranges (slides and print film)."
So the original poster is talking about negative film. Bob is talking about
negative film. You are trying to limit his discussion.
Now you are trying to limit mine.
"Any chance you'd want to issue another public statement about knowing what
you're talking about before posting?"
I have obviously been following this thread. I have asked for your direct
experiences with negative film at Yosemite.
Please follow the thread more closely and don't try to limit the discussion.
Marc