Im really into nature/landscapes and was hoping I could get some feedback on my first serious attempts.
The photos are hopefully good at eliciting an eerie feeling, or a sense of uneasiness. They might come off as underexposed, but I really like that style.
here are a few examples.
Very nice pics, felt they were unexposed a tad also, but my favorite is most def the third image :) Nice composition. Was the underexposure done in post ?
I usually lower exposure by 1 in camera. otherwise i purposefully underexpose by metering for the sky and taking the shot.
If anything the exposure was increased for a couple when in lightroom
So, you're saying for every scene you have a -1 formula? How did you come up with that? Why wouldn't you expose for the most important element in your scene? Realize that when you meter a landscape shot, your aim is to expose correctly for the part(s) of the scene you deem must hold detail. For instance, if you expose for the clouds, you want the clouds to hold detail, but not have them overexposed. Your camera will give you a middle gray reading, which means your clouds are already underexposed by as much as 2 stops or more (depending on the dynamic range of your camera) before you do anything. I think most of your shots are underexposed. Shot 5 is my favorite, but even it seems to not be exposed correctly. If you like that feeling - then you achieved your goal. However there are other ways to get that look without people thinking you made a mistake in exposure. Anyone can underexpose a shot to get a "dark" feeling, but it takes a real photographer to expose correctly, capture detail, and still pull off what you're attempting. Here's a shot by Peter Essick where he achieved an "eerie" look as you say, but he retained detail in most of the photograph. If he had followed your formula, it's likely he would have lost detail in the entire lower section of the shot. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/10/ansel-adams-wilderness/essick-...
good advice ill look at all your suggestions.
for these shots though, i love the silhouette look, and seeing the gradients in different mountain peaks (such as 4, being my favourite). I certainly feel that getting the detail of the trees would have ruined the silhouettes, number 5 was exposed normally though, exposed for the forest and highlights reduced in the sky t get out the clouds.
If you like your shots then they are fine. It's all about satisfying yourself, unless you're in commercial photography. Please don't take my comments as harsh criticism, as we all have different goals when we shoot, and it sounds like you achieved what you were going for - so it was a successful outing!
dont worry haha, the criticism is good. I've actually started reading Ansel Adams Examples 40, so im glad you brought that up.
I certainly do like how he captures details in the shadows, but i guess my biggest weakness atm is in photoshop. Usually I stick to lightroom, and very rarely do exposure stacking as im pretty clueless on that
No worries. But think if you had kept the
silhouettes , but the snow was paper white instead of blue gray... see what I mean? You're on track with Adams. Study his zone system technique. You can achieve much of that in post. Good luck! - check out photoserge.com for post techniques in black and white.
I think your images are great. I like the striking contrast, it is a refreshing portrayal of nature seldom seen. I like the 2nd image and the last one, especially.