I bought a Canon Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens and was going to sell it because I didn't really do landscape ... but then I tried to give it a shot and see what happens. The following are a few shots I took of some Florida beaches and woodlands ...







I would appreciate any comments, suggestions, or friendly criticisms

Thank you,

Jack



.

...

Thank you very much for your kind words and encouragement

In the last photo, I thought about cropping the palm trees out of the right element, but just posted it "as is" for now. I have always been really into macro, and never thought I'd get into landscape, but after trying it this last week (and seeing the colors pop out like that), I am hooked

Jack


.

Hi Jack:

1) This is pretty well done, but I'm always a bit leery of images that lead the viewer out of the frame - from right foreground to left background in this case.

2) Great rainbow - the horizon seems a bit tilted to me, and if you could lighten the shadows a bit in the lower right it would help.

3) Absolutely my favourite. Again, if you could bring up a bit of detail in the foreground rocks I think it would add rather than detract.

#4/5 don't do much for me, but everyone gets an opinion.

Mike.

I love the light in the second, but I agree with Mike - the third is the best.

Jeremy

Thanks Mike. Interesting advise on it being undesireable to lead the viewer out of the frame. I was actually trying to do that, thinking it was good, in taking the viewer from the shallow simplicity of a pond out into the infinity of the world beyond, with the sky shot.






Thanks again! I had to edit-out a sign on the land (and a raindrop off my lens ), but I will go back and see if I can straighten-out the horizon and pull some detail out of the shadows, as you suggest. My girlfriend is the one who spotted this rainbow while we were on our way to Horseshoe Beach. There were actually two rainbows, one on top of the other, and the field colors were nicely-illuminated by the sunlight.






Thanks, and it is mine too. This photo (for me) shows the benefit of digital photography over film. I had taken 6 different shots of this same pier, but because I was able to immediately see the results, in the first two I was able to see I had a tiny speck of 'someone's home' sticking-out in my left framing, so I moved my composition over to get it out of the photo. The next 4 shots I experimented with the lighting, and on this one there seemed to be the best and most interesting blend of the cool blue of the ocean and sky merged with the warm glow of the sunset ...







I agree, #4 is pretty ho-hum, but it was the first lighthouse I ever photographed I was really just trying to experiment with the 'stretching' effect of a super-wide lens ...

My girlfriend actually took #5 and I thought she took a better shot with her G9 than I did with my 50D. I agree with the previous criticism of the palm leaf in the right side (she even said this also), but what I liked was the depth-of-field generated by the little point-n-shoot and how it captured the texture of the marshland, from front-to-back.

Thank you very much for taking the time, Mike, and thank you too Jeremy for your kind words.

Jack

.

Hi Jack,

For me the third is the best, too. It's nice to see that you can photograph things that are more than three inches from the front of your lens! Keep it up (and the closeup stuff as well, of course.)

Eric

The second and third are quite nice.

I second and third that.

Cheers,
Bernard

Nicely done, and a good example of why the 10-22 is one of my favorite lenses.

OK, here's my take on this issue...

The sentiment is laudable, but it's best to accomplish this by leading the viewer to infinity via distance while remaining inside the frame. To try to lead the viewer's eye past the edge of the frame is an annoyance to the viewer because they're running into a visual roadblock (the frame edge), and once their eye has run outside the frame it may never come back (i.e. they give up and go on to the next photo). To lead the viewer to infinity successfully, you need to set up a view that starts with the foreground and then draws their eye more and more into the distance, until the haze and blur of distance (or a horizon) turns into that infinity you're looking for.

It's a really good sign that you're thinking about what effect you want to have on the viewer, and consciously setting up your image to try to achieve that. It took me years of snapshots to get to that point.

Lisa

Thanks alot fellas


.

Thank you, and I am really starting to enjoy this lens too. I bought it several months ago but just never used it. I was even going to sell it, essentially unused, but then I decided to give it a whirl ... and wow ... it really pops the colors out. I am now finding more and more uses for it and am glad I decided to keep it

.

Thank you Lisa for taking the time with a detailed explanation. The next time I go back to St. Marks I will try to re-compose the shot with this in mind. St. Marks not only has beautiful landscapes, but it is also home to several nesting sites of bald eagles, and in addition it is also a stopping place for migrating monarch butterflies on their way to Mexico ... so I shall be returning within a month

Jack


.

I'll have to say, that's great advice- thanks, Lisa, I just learned something.

I'll throw in my vote for #2 and #3. The color and lighting are stunning!

John

Interestingly, it led my eye to the bright moon above and to the right. At least that's what I think it is. These shots are too small on my computer to really make it out for sure.

I'm a huge 10-22 fan. I use it all the time.

Thank you very much


.

Yes, on the image with a pier there is a small moon in the sky ... and I also lightened the shore rocks as Wolfnowl suggested.

I too am really beginning to enjoy this 10-22 lens immensely ... and here are a couple more photos I have taken with it:







The first shot was of the spot Tina and I parked at Horseshoe Beach ... and the second shot was at sunset in the back yard of our 50-acre proterty ... where the last rays of the sunlight lit-up some looming clouds.

It's a tough job driving and hiking around taking photos of the natural beauty of the area, but somebody has to do it

Enjoy.

Jack


.

The watermarks kill them all. 

Aww shucks, Eric, I think they're still kickin'

Just to prove I can compromise, I changed my avatar and have no watermarks on this ... LOL ... and, hey, I will even offer another 'olive branch' to appease you with the following shot, of my girlfriend Tina and me, which was taken by tripod and self-timer on Horseshoe Beach, FL last night ... no watermark here either







We had a great time takin' shots Eric and we hope these will suffice and meet with your 'approval'

Jack


.

Nice! I'd better download it before you change your mind.  

I don't plan to steal your avatar, though, so you can watermark that if you want.

-Eric

The 10-22mm is a great and fun lens. Definitely keep it, specially if these are your first landscape efforts. Very nice series. Keep going...

In your defense, Jack, this is the primary purpose of copyright laws - to be able to batten down the hatches and prevent any unauthorized copying in any way. You are just exercising the full extent of your rights under the law.

On the other hand, is it possible you are simply adopting this mentality due to the availability of copyright laws (i.e. the government's given you a hammer, so everything's...)? There are alternatives.

On the other hand, since you're likely to stick with the watermark, then you should avoid the semi-transparent version. It is well documented that the original image is easy to reverse engineer, because all the information is still there.

On the other hand, a community is compose of many individuals. Others have a right to their opinions too, and may exercise the full extent of their rights by voting with their feet.

On the other hand, I noticed Jeff posting recently. If I say something annoying enough, he can come on and rudely defend the rights of all professional photographers everywhere.

Sean

Thank you Thomas, I appreciate it.

And, yes, I have had a lot of fun with this lens

I have taken some unusual angle shots with it recently also, kinda playing with the depth of field it gives, that has produced some unusual effects as well.

Jack

.

Jack,

It may be better if the watermarks were smaller and placed at the bottom of the image.
Just thought I'd chime in here with my 1st post.

Nice images though.

Dang, I don't have enough "other hands". Now what do I do ...

Well move aside and let me plop my 2 cents on the table here and give an honest opinion of what I 'think' !!

Horizon line crooked ? so what !! big deal !! That has never hindered a sale of any of my photographs !!

What is really important in any image ?? If you like it - that is all that really matters. I dare say - there is no such thing as a perfect photograph. So many people point out 'flaws' or whatever that seem to express their (opinion).

What turns me completly off - when viewing any photogrpahers image is when they plaster a copyright notice on their photograph.

it ruins the image if it is too big or placed in the wrong spot. It should be barely visible. (my opinion only).

I don't care how careful you are in placing or making a water mark or copyright notice. It can always be taken away - by any thief that wants to steal your image.

There is one comment that I totally dissagree with - IT IS OUTRIGHT SLANDER AND FALSE !! DIGITAL provides better results than FILM. LOL !!

For over 80 years NOW - there is nothing on this earth that can compare with the COLOR(S) of a dye transfer print !! DIGITAL cannot compare - it can come close - but it is 'different'. Until you stand up close to a dye transfer print - correctly processed in 30 x 40 or larger sizes. NOTHING on this earth can compare to that quality and color saturation !!

Lenses - what ever lens you use - it doesn't matter - what does matter is that you learn how to use that lens to IT'S FULL POTENTIAL and you seem to have that down pat !! Great outstanding job in creating some truely spectacular stunning images- Great composition. the copyright notice(s) ruin the image(s) in my honest opinion.

The most IMPORTANT aspect - Now that you have created something extremely beautiful and saleable. Whatcha gonna do with them ???

I must admit it has been quite some time ( I view images all day every day) and it is so refreshing to see 'something different'. quite spectacular indeed.

I am an expert - in marketing images. I support my family from sales of my images for 30 years. (same images every year). Out of the many tens of thousands of images I have created - I only sell or market perhaps 25 of them - year in and year out.

According to some people - quite frankly - my images (suck) they have no technical merit and they are only snapshots !!
ANY PHOTOGRAPH that is framed and matted and mounted inside of any gallery is ALWAYS referred to as : FINE ART !!

When you can generate six figures every year consistently marketing / selling your images - I don't care what they are photographs of. that is the one true test !! ( in my opinion)

You have great potential to becoming a successfull photographer indeed. But what are you going to do with your images ??? Creating the image is just one small part of photography.

When the public hands out money - for copies of your work - THAT IS THE ULTIMATE test of a good photograph(er) !!

This is only my opinion - and it is worth - 2 cents !!

Thank you very much for your kind words Majik_Imaje.

Your thoughts on what is what in terms of fine art are true: in the end it only matters if people will buy the work. I understand that the copyright symbols ruin the image: in a sense that's what they're supposed to do. Maybe I'll get around to re-doing them at some point, toned down a bit, so that I can deflect the admonishments of the senior members here

But I do appreciate your encouragement on some of my photos. Here are a couple more for kicks. They were taken in various locations in Florida (which offers quite a bit different climate from what you're used to!). Hopefully, you can see past the watermarks







The sunbeam light in the center photo is real, not Photoshopped.

Hope you enjoy them,

Jack

.

Well my friend - I would highly suggest that you obtain a copy of "Photographers Market Book" and learn how to market your images.

The public's perception will always be different than anything you would ever think of as being saleable !!

It is important to conduct a market survey of some type to discern which images the public will pay for.

This is easily accomplished by displaying post cards & notecards in pubilc locations in your area.

Once you can determine which photo(s) the public purchases - then you are (safely) on your way to make larger prints.

An Epson printer w/ Red River paper is an awesome combination that can't be beat !!

You have what it takes to become successfull in business !! And .. it has nothing to do with the camera or lens. !!!!! It has EVERYTHING to do with -

yur 'INITIALS" !!

I could easily write a book on this subject ( and I just know many will dissagree) BUT HISTORY proves this as TRUE. I can cite thousands of examples.

People that have 'double' initials ' seem' to EXCELL above others in their field(s). Ansel Adams (for instance) & People that have initials that come together in the alphabet - seem' to excell in what ever they do. I have been watching this for over 50 years now and I have never heard of anyone else making this connection !!

Lets take two well known historical figures that lend some credence to my 'theory' !!

Benedict Arnold & Judas Iscariot Both individuals have something unique in common - their initials are exactly backwards in the alphabet

Each one is forever BRANDED as a traitor. So what does that have to do with PHOTOGRAPHY ??? plenty ( in my experience)

I posted a photo essay - on over 60 forums such as this one. Only two people out of millions - lashed out at me and repeatidly attacked me

One person - claims that I did not create these images - that I stole them all, that they were created in the 1970's by someone else.
The other person claims that I am lying about everything I have typed.
Each person got me banned from the web sites I was posting on by making such a fuss over my simple story.

What do these two individualsl have in common ?? They are from two different parts of the country.

They each have a web site that appears to have been created by a child !!

BUT WHAT IS SO INTERESTING is the lack of photographic talent and skills they each possess. They each possess top of the line DSLR's and cannot create an image to save their life.

They each have INITIALS that are backwards in the alphabet also . (F.D. & M.J. ) I find this too much to be a mere coincidence at all.

The greatest Music band the whole world admired was without a doubt The Beatles - Just look at their initials -

G.H. - J. L. - R.S. & who ?? screwed that whole group up ?? P.M. !!

SORRY for my off track rant !! but food for thought - for some !! REMEMBER - there are exceptions to every RULE !!

Not only should your eyes be observent in photography. Pay attention to (details ) and you will notice much more than what you see in the viewfinder !!

GOOD LUCK !!