How in the world can naturescapes posters get such

How in the world does everyone post such amazing landscapes? The post processing has got to have something to do with it right? where can I learn how to process? I have tried watching youtube tutorials..

Get Lightroom 5. Set aside a small group of RAW image captures to practice on. Learn all you can at Youtube.com tutorials and read a few good books you can order from amazon.com about Lightroom 5. Practice on your set aside images every day using the things that you have learned, and most important, learn from your mistakes.

Well post processing can certainly make an image look better but the great images start out great in camera and are taken with everything set perfectly to begin with.  then the post processing is used to get the most out of the file or files.  A crappy photograph taken in crappy light with crappy technique will not become a masterpiece through post processing.  But a great photo taken with great technique might

Getting Lightroom 5 and doing a bunch of tutorials is not going to generate a masterpiece but it might help you if you have taken a good photo to begin with.  And you don't need LR, you can do it with Photoshop, Elements, Aperture, Capture One, PaintShop Pro, DXO or any of about a dozen other packages but they all start with a good photo to begin with.

Most of my best landscape photos have had little done to them other than some levels, maybe pulling the highlights down a bit and boosting the shadows some.  Nailing the exposure and composition in camera is the starting point.   Some have been the result of two or more frames to insure I capture the dynamic range of the scene when the scene is beyond the capability of the sensor.

I am not a landscape photographer but here are some basics I think. All good landscape images start with a pleasing composition of an interesting subject along with good light. Many landscape photographers follow certain "rules" such as having something interesting in the foreground, background and composed in such a way that it leads a viewers eyes through the image but with a focus on your main subject, etc. Many landscape photographers use filters such as polarizers, graduated neutral density filters, colour enhancing filters, etc. Some are using post processing (bracketing exposures and blend them in post, using a HDR feature found in some software) to replace the physical gear just mentioned. But you always try and start with as perfect an image as you can in camera. Some gear can't be replaced though such as a neutral density filter for shutting out the light so you can get a very slow shutter speed, say on a bright day, to create the dreamy water effect). You'll see most images with water in it has this dreamy water effect. It just adds a certain mood to a landscape image. The average person starting out in landscape photography does not use these filters so images do not look as good (or as they see or remember the scene in person) simply because the camera is not as good in capturing as wide a dynamic range as the human eye can. So the above mentioned filters or post-processing features help in this respect.  

I wouldn't know off the top of my head which book to recommend. Forums are good for learning.  If you see a good image, ask the photographer what methods or techniques they used to create the image or ask why they composed it in a certain way. I am sure there are many forums where you can ask questions about post-processing questions including this one. One that I have found to be very good is over at DPReview. They'll answer just about any question you have on post-processing or link you to a thread that dealt with your question from another interested person.

I think even if you have all the above, you still need a "good eye". Some people just have it and others can be trained in what to look for.

PS.  Not to disagree with EJ as he's pretty much right on what he said but here's an extreme example and we're getting into the very skilled Photoshop post-processing and artistic side of things. I would say maybe 6 years ago I was flipping through one of those big Photoshop landscape magazines. They used a dull overcast image that 99% of people would put to the trash.  They used this image as a start to show the power of post-processing using Photoshop. The end result was an incredible image that looked nothing like the original. I was so impressed with what Photoshop could do. But keep in mind, this kind of post-processing is reserved for the very or extremely knowledgeable post-processor. It's not even reality as it is more a digital creation. For most every other landscape photographer this is not something they would do. I only brought it up to show how powerful Photoshop can be.

OntPhoto wrote: PS.  Not to disagree with EJ as he's pretty much right on what he said but here's an extreme example and we're getting into the very skilled Photoshop post-processing and artistic side of things. I would say maybe 6 years ago I was flipping through one of those big Photoshop landscape magazines. They used a dull overcast image that 99% of people would put to the trash.  They used this image as a start to show the power of post-processing using Photoshop. The end result was an incredible image that looked nothing like the original. I was so impressed with what Photoshop could do. But keep in mind, this kind of post-processing is reserved for the very or extremely knowledgeable post-processor. It's not even reality as it is more a digital creation. For most every other landscape photographer this is not something they would do. I only brought it up to show how powerful Photoshop can be.

Yes definitely but I bet that image still started with a good subject with interesting elements unless they created something by placing new items into an image (I reserve that for digital photo art, not photography).  I should have made that clear.  We do have tools today that allow you to really extract a ton of detail out of a gray sky making what might be an uninteresting picture due to the drab sky much more dramatic.

But, being in a great location when the light is great before dawn through the first few minutes after dawn and just before sunset to about 40 minutes after sunset is key.  Composing the image well, exposing it well so that the sensor records the maximum amount of information, having your focus settings and/or hyperfocal settings right, using the appropriate aperture and shutter speed, etc.  Shooting on days when atmospheric haze doesn't kill all of the detail, etc, etc, etc....  Those are the foundations of a great photo.  then the digital darkroom and it's modern tools allows us to create what our eye with it's incredible dynamic range and continuous depth of field saw and represent it as well as possible given the limitations of what our cameras and lenses can record.

I agree with pretty much all that the last posters have said. The only thing I might add for success to those formulas is persistence. I can't count the number of times I've been to a local landscape spot and the weather just isn't co-operative. I have been to the same location (in my own locale, for instance) sometimes 6-8 times and never got the "right" conditions; sometimes the scene is too hazy, sometimes the scene is too cloudy, sometimes the scene is cloudless, sometimes it's too windy, sometimes the light just sucks, etc. (you get my drift?). Most of the time I think that landscape photography is much harder to get good images than wildlife photography is! I think for every one great landscape shot you see posted, they're were many more failure days on either side of the great one!

1234 wrote:How in the world does everyone post such amazing landscapes? The post processing has got to have something to do with it right? where can I learn how to process? I have tried watching youtube tutorials..

Believe me, you came to the right forum for this question.   I also follow a few other forums, but this has the most knowledgeable and creative group I've seen anywhere.

My advice is to read all the other posts carefully (read this one first then take the advice and move on to the others).

The advice might seem to conflict at times, but more likely, it will just be different ways of saying the same thing.

Glenn

Back in the day of (cough, cough) film, we nature photographers learned some by how to books like the John Shaw series, studying images that we thought were great, some learning by workshops, but mostly by going to local places near our homes and shooting images on a regular basis over and over again. We would get home and see what worked and what didn't and then go back to the same place and try to improve on our images. Going to the same places over and over afforded us the opportunity to begin to 'see' so much more. And as the saying goes "you can't photograph what you can't see". The least of what we did was in photoshop. Although I think it's possible to take a mediocre image and make it much better in photoshop, I believe its much better for our artist soul to do most of our creative work in camera and in the field. But like others have said, once you have a good image you can then polish it up in the photoshop programs and make it even better.
 
Robert

E.J. Peiker wrote:Well post processing can certainly make an image look better but the great images start out great in camera and are taken with everything set perfectly to begin with.  then the post processing is used to get the most out of the file or files.  A crappy photograph taken in crappy light with crappy technique will not become a masterpiece through post processing.  But a great photo taken with great technique might

Getting Lightroom 5 and doing a bunch of tutorials is not going to generate a masterpiece but it might help you if you have taken a good photo to begin with.  And you don't need LR, you can do it with Photoshop, Elements, Aperture, Capture One, PaintShop Pro, DXO or any of about a dozen other packages but they all start with a good photo to begin with.

Most of my best landscape photos have had little done to them other than some levels, maybe pulling the highlights down a bit and boosting the shadows some.  Nailing the exposure and composition in camera is the starting point.   Some have been the result of two or more frames to insure I capture the dynamic range of the scene when the scene is beyond the capability of the sensor.

Oh Heck EJ!!!  Post-processing makes every image a masterpiece!! 

Its funny how in this modern world of digital photography that everyone seems to forget the photographer and praise the "gadgets"!!!!!! No one seems to praise the photographers anymore!  Especially the ones who have "paid their dues" through years of dedication and mastering their craft!!

Jim

1234 wrote:How in the world does everyone post such amazing landscapes? The post processing has got to have something to do with it right? where can I learn how to process? I have tried watching youtube tutorials..

1. Go to amazing places (as Scott Kelby would suggest and it certainly would help if nothing else).
2. Pressing the shutter button is only half the battle. Post-process - Ansel Adams himself also did that a lot - your photographs or don't complain about why other people's images always look prettier than yours (and the real scene).
3. As part of 2 above, learn to shoot HDR ( which is essentially bracketing and merging to let you have all the tone there is for you to use to make your final image). It can do magic to your images.

All of the above assume that you can "see" to begin with

As a large format film photographer for many years, I'll take some exceptions to what has been said. In my view, post processing is the least important. With all the post processing and HDR claims one would think that there were no great landscape images before digital processing. Yes, there was post processing with film (e.g. Ansel Adams). But for those using color slide film )35mm, medium or large format), it was all about getting it right in the camera. The transparency laid on a light table was the finished product, and no post processing besides film development. Slide film's dynamic range was only 5 to 7 stops. Yet spectacular images were made. Photographers basically got it right in the camera, and that meant the light had to be perfect.

One can go to a spectacular location, use perfect technique and still get lousy images. It is all about the light, as E.J. said, although I would expand the time interval to just about any time of day if the light is right.
Just that when the sun is high, it is rare to have great light. Exceptions often come with interesting clouds and weather.

Having said all that, post processing does play a role with digital because the standard characteristic curve of digital camera output is a variable gamma function designed over half a century ago for vidicon television tubes, and that function is not like film, and not like the characteristic curve of the human eye. Also, most digital cameras have a larger dynamic range (often 11+ stops) so the image data must be compressed for the output (e.g. print or monitor). So in my view, a great image, made with great composition and great light on digital needs some post processing, but this is less critical than having the great light in the first place. And without that great light, no post processing can make a great photo unless some not reality processing is added in.

Roger

Take a dozen photographers to the same location and you'll get as many different results. Some good. Somme bad. Some amazing. Composition, perspective (camera at eye level, camera near the ground, camera above eye level, etc.) and execution (exposure, aperture choice, lens choice, etc.), time of day all play a very big role in the final results. "Getting it right in the camera" includes all these kinds of considerations. Post processing is just icing on the cake.

I do disagree with the idea that landscape photography is inherently harder than wildlife photography. Spend a few hours in a hide in sub-zero weather and get back to me on that thought. Maybe spend a few days in a row waiting on a particularly elusive subject to show its self... cold, damp, hide wind howling... it's just so easy! There are locations where finding cooperative wildlife is easy (Cades Cove comes quickly to mind) but such locations are the exception, not the rule. Similarly there are iconic locations where it's hard to walk away without a decent landscape photo, but I would never suggest that quality landscape photography is easy based on such places.

Questions:

Getting in right in the camera? What does that mean? Get what right in the camera? How do you get it right in the camera?

Great light? What is it? Is it something objective or subjective?

Back then it's not easy to combine different images. Nowadays technology allows us to do it quite easily. Bracketing is one way to get the exposure you want even in the old days (used by the pros and many others). Back then most likely one could only pick and use the one frame with the "right" exposure. These days we can use data from all the frames and combine them into one final image. Is there any objective reason not to take advantage of the technology of today if the circumstances allow it, or we still have to do it like we were shooting film?

If any of you hasn't tried HDR yet, I'd recommend trying it. It's fun

It may be helpful to identify the posted images you admire here and simply ask the poster (in the comments section under the image) if, what type, and how much post processing was done to the image. Some may respond, others harbor "secrets" they wish to keep to themselves, but likely you will learn something. Photography is not like washing a car (do this, get that), it is a ever changing world of light, movement and technology. I think most who do it well have a thrust for study, learning, and experimentation, versus being told how and what to do. Photography can also be a peerless tool of self discovery attached to the most prominent of all human senses.

My approach is remembering that all photographs are fantasy. They are contrived versions of what the eye sees, distortions caused by the perspective of lenses, the limitations of sensors, and other factors. Post processing provides tools to aid the photographer in their creative interpretation of what the camera was looking at, creative interpretation being the highest goal to which any photograph can subscribe.
Good luck, it's a great ride.

DChan wrote:Questions:

Getting in right in the camera? What does that mean? Get what right in the camera? How do you get it right in the camera?

- Properly exposed: no blown highlights, no blocked shadows... or at least as minimally as possible.  Don't forget the oft quoted "expose to the right" concerning the histogram. (Obviously this changes a bit when shooting with the goal of combining images to increase dynamic range.)

- Good composition:  You should need minimal tweaking in post.  The better the comp is in camera the fewer pixels you have to cut away in post.

- Proper framing:  Vertical or horizontal?  What are you including at the edges of the frame?  Again, the more you have to crop the less you have to work with.

- Straight horizon: Unless a tilt is a compositional choice.

- Perspective/POV: Camera low to the ground, at eye-level, up high.  At the time of capture is the place to make that decision.

These are the attributes I'd relate to "getting it right in the camera."

Great light? What is it? Is it something objective or subjective?

Most people would apply that term to "soft light."  Lighting where the transition from shadow to highlight is gradual, not hard edged.  The light is even, but not so even as to be flat and boring.  Exposure fits well within  the dynamic range of the camera... it is possible to avoid blowing the highlights while also not blocking the shadows.  Many folks equate the term with golden toned light found early in the morning or near sunset.

Personally, I don't mind the term "good light" or "great light."  I do have a bit of an issue with the use of the term "bad light."  There are images that dramatic, harsh, hard light works for.  When we start talking about "bad light" we discourage people from continuing to shoot outside of the "golden hours" in the morning and evening.  They need to learn to think, compose and expose a bit differently, not to stop shooting entirely.

Back then it's not easy to combine different images. Nowadays technology allows us to do it quite easily. Bracketing is one way to get the exposure you want even in the old days (used by the pros and many others). Back then most likely one could only pick and use the one frame with the "right" exposure. These days we can use data from all the frames and combine them into one final image. Is there any objective reason not to take advantage of the technology of today if the circumstances allow it, or we still have to do it like we were shooting film?

There's nothing wrong with embracing technology.  Just don't expect to take a poorly composed, improperly exposed, badly framed image shot from a less than desirable POV then use technology to make a great image.  "That dog won't hunt."

If any of you hasn't tried HDR yet, I'd recommend trying it. It's fun

It can be over done and not everyone likes the look. As artists we have choices.  HDR is one of them.

Oh, you asked... even though I suspect the questions were somewhat tongue in cheek.

Mark Picard wrote:I agree with pretty much all that the last posters have said. The only thing I might add for success to those formulas is persistence.

Yup, and practice, and being outside in nature. Personally, I think you can't force a photo and have it look like something that is inspired. I spend a lot of time not shooting these days, and when I do go out and shoot, I can still come away with some pretty nice images because I tend to really know the places I am visiting. I am more inspired by my local landscapes and think I get better shots of New England scenes than I do when I travel, because I am emotionally connected to them and understand them better. And before that, I photographed a lot of landscapes and took a lot of rather boring images. So the four P's of landscape photography (as invented by me this second): practice, patience, persistence, and personal connection to the landscape. If you want to add a fifth, processing - it helps for sure, but it isn't going to save anything that didn't have potential to begin with.

This thread made me try something just for fun this morning.  I have a completely non detailed image from Patagonia that was taken in a complete white out.  About the only thing the image has going for it is that I exposed as far to the right as humanly possible without blowing any highlights.  Here is that image - this is just straight through ACR without making any adjustments at all: Then I did some adjustments in ACR - many at extreme levels.  I did nothing in Photoshop except for resizing and adding my signature - everything was done in the RAW converter... It shows the power of exposing to the right and getting everything right in the camera as much as possible given the really awful conditions of winds at 80MPH with a wind chill of -50F in a thick rapidly moving cloud and some of the worst conditions you could imagine.  Just a little exercise for the thread (maybe an exercise in futility) that I thought might add to the discussion.

You can click on the pictures to see a bigger version on a dark background.

EJ - I think your image is a real good example of both good field/in camera technique and the good use of digital editing via ACR in this case.
As you said, exposing to the right was very helpful. And both peaks are at the opposite 2/3 points of the frame and the densest clouds occupy the lower third of the frame - both of these of course are well known compositional techniques that strengthen images by creating a visual dynamic. Put the larger peak in the middle and the image becomes weaker - usually, and all the post processing in the world may not have done much for the image then. But again, you applied sound compositional and exposure technique despite the conditions in the field which made this resulting image possible with some post processing - and I personally like it, well done.
 
Robert

Unless I missed it there is one thing that I don't believe was mentioned:

Training.

While some argue that you can't be taught to be great, you can be taught to be technically proficient. And you can have someone expose you to new ideas and technique that you would never have thought of on your own.

Someone told me a long time ago, budget a dollar for training for every dollar of equipment.

BobD wrote:

There's nothing wrong with embracing technology.  Just don't expect to take a poorly composed, improperly exposed, badly framed image shot from a less than desirable POV then use technology to make a great image.  "That dog won't hunt."

You never know. With high megapixel cameras these days, one can crop a lot and still get a decent image (depending on how that's to be viewed of course) even though the original image may not be perfectly composed or framed. Darn, isn't that's one of the reasons for buying those cameras? As for improperly exposed, that can be fixed, too, you know

It can be over done and not everyone likes the look. As artists we have choices.  HDR is one of them.

That's for sure. But, you can get a natural looking image from a merged HDR file, too. To me, that's the fun part of HDR: you can get different looks from the same scene. Still, the idea that you can have all the tune that's available at your disposal just make me think that it's actually a good idea just shoot every scene like you're shooting HDR. What you do with the frames afterwards is up to you. After all, it's just bracketing and it's a time-proven method to get the rightly exposed shot.

Oh, you asked... even though I suspect the questions were somewhat tongue in cheek.

Well, I just thought that it was easy to say great light, great image and all that, but to define it actually is difficult if not impossible. I'd say most people are simply after pretty-looking images. And I don't think great image necessarily needs great light or that it needs to be pretty. 

I think the bottom line is this, to get it right in the camera, don't take one shot. Shoot it again and again. Once you get that right shot, to make it pretty, do post-processing. Why? If you want a scientific explanation, read mclark. In layman's terms: raw file image just looks lousy