Looks good in B&W! I might try cropping it to turn it into more of a pano look. There is also a rock or something bottom left the could be cropped out. That's just my opinion of course. I find wide panos to be more dramatic
ya I love that! When it comes to landscapes I always look to the rule of thirds, lots of sky or lots of foreground, or completely balanced to create a nice, calm, balanced image. Your second crop is perfectly balanced, and the angle of the peaks is perfect.
Can you just lighten it a one third stop? It may contribute to the details that catch your eye as you scan the print with your eye following the mountain's beak line on the sky and drop you down where the mtns go out of focus.
Santa Barbara, California, US
Fist Full of Ish wrote: I thought it was widely understood that the main reason to shoot early in the morning is color. That aside, it really doesn't compare with a good landscape photo.
That is true but early morning also allows for clean contrast and colors that translates on black and white film (or digital conversion) nicely, that contrast in "color" tones in raw makes it easier to work with in conversion channels.
OP, Nice work. My recommendation is to read up on Ansel Adams work and see how he approached his landscapes and how he brought that into the darkroom [you can sub for photoshop]
Concentrate on capturing a great range of the gray scale of your scene in the camera so you have plenty to work with in post.
For me this image has a limited dynamic range, it seems to be composed of mostly middle gray.
[You also have a dirty sensor, note the spots in the sky photo left]
Composition, the sky has no detail so it has minimal interest, clouds give interest, so much of the sky could be removed. [Cropped off]
The thing photo left bottom corner, rock, wall or what ever is a distraction as is that logo being bright white
A good landscape has a foreground, mid ground and background, so this image has a mid ground of the mountains, but lacks an interesting background [no clouds or bright sunrise color] it also has no foreground, large interesting rock, log or tree to anchor the image.
Would be interesting to see the original color version of this image
I think you could brighten the image a touch, adjust the curve a little bit... Others have brought up good points to what is typical of a good landscape, however as with any aspect of photography it is up to you to make it your style. For being a genre out of your norm, I would say you did a good job. Something that might help, shoot in portrait and take multiple shots panning across the area, then photo merge them using photoshop. Also shoot in raw if you didn't, it allows for more adjustment. Remember to use your in camera meter and balance between the reading of the sky and foreground. But remember to have fun with it...
If you must crop, crop out the sky, not the foreground land. There aren't any interesting clouds or something else to warrant its inclusion. But, it's not hurting the image either. Cropping up the land DOES hurt the image. A lot.
It also needs to be brightened a bit.
It's a very nice image to remember the day, but I don't see selling too many of this.
I'm not seeing anything interesting in it. It's bland, it's dark, it's poorly exposed, and there's no sense of composition. Basically, it just looks like a big rock or simply an image that's been cut in half.
Landscapes need either good composition, or something to catch the viewer's eye. Just look at the thumbnail in the first post. Do you see anything there that stands out, or makes you want to look closer? All I see is a jagged split between dark and light. There's no interesting cloud formations; No striking contrasts; No beautiful colors; etc.
Not meaning to toot my own horn, but maybe these examples of stuff I've shot will help.
Here you have symmetry, as well as a lone house that adds contrast to the dark green of the trees...
The eyes have a place to go, which is the house, but also move up and down to see the reflection in the water. The point of a photo is to get the viewer to see all of it by creating visual cues the brain will lock in on.
In this one...
The clouds provide the contrast and the ground is set low to create the rule of thirds. I really wished the road I was on would have somehow led to the rock formation to give it guiding lines to the subject, but sometimes you just gotta' work with what'cha got. (edit - GAAHHH! I missed that dust spot!)
Even something as simple as a rock can make for a nice photo...
if you just wait for the right moment and frame it up correctly.
Study composition more and apply the rules to what you're shooting; because if you do, in a year from now you'll look back at your photo and ask yourself what you ever saw in it in the first place.
As others have said a good LS has a foreground, mid, and background.
Wide angle shots need visual depth and interest. That usually starts with something interesting right on top of the camera. Background is usually no brainer so look to compose the mid/for back together.
When shooting wide get low....Really low.
Shoot at sunrise and sunset.
You could try cropping the sky near the top of the right mountain and let the mountain's leftward taper create visual interest. Get rid of the distracting white thingy bottom left.
I would burn the mid ground, the base of the mountains, and they sky (its boring) then dodge the mountains (make them look brighter as if the sun is setting) and maybe the foreground hump...Worth a try.
I can give it a shot if you like?