In the early days of photography, some photographers sought to emulate painting. There is still something to be said for studying paintings for their composition, treatment of lighting, tone, and inspirational value. More to the point, painters that seem to have nothing to do with photography may still have much to teach.

I recently found a book entitled American Vision: Landscape Paintings of the United States. In commenting on one of Mark Rothko’s signature works of bands of floating rectangles (Four Darks in Red, 1958), the author noted that “[t]he broad sweep of Rothko’s delicately textured color bands are immediately and intentionally reminiscent of landscape forms.” He concluded that “Rothko’s paintings thus take the American Dream landscape in its spiritual/religious form to its natural conclusion—no longer ‘figures in a landscape,’ but rather that landscape within all of us.” You can view the painting discussed at this link: https://whitney.org/collection/works/897

With this in mind, consider this Carnegie Lake image. The sunrise colors are diffused in the early morning fog.

The idea of bands of diffused color resting on each other is discernible. I left in the branches to the left to anchor the image but if they were removed, the resemblance to a Rothko painting would have been more readily apparent.

Another example is this sunset image in the Adirondacks.

I find it useful to look for common elements of various artists in order to improve my own photography. Without overanalyzing the painting or the photographs, it’s fairly easy to see how light, color, luminosity and bands of color or fog might add a new dimension to photographic expression and composition.

What do you do when you find an attractive spot that is marred by fencing and other man-made structures that are simply not appealing in a landscape photo? One solution is to crop and frame the photo, focusing on what is essential. Even if it means sacrificing some of the subject, the entire image may be improved.

This is Buttermilk Falls in Washington Valley Park in Bridgewater, New Jersey. It is the result of a dam of Middle Brook. It is in the valley along the First Watchung Ridge and has a certain picturesque appeal.

If I had shown the entire face of the waterfall with virtually all of the fence and concrete dam portions eliminated, the rest of the brook would not be seen from that angle. By focusing on a significant portion of the fall to give a sense of its height and force, I placed it in context and showed other natural features of the area—particularly the trees and the ravine through which the brook flows.
 
The photo shown below is the original image. What do you think?

There are ways to create the effect of snow in your images using software, but nothing beats the real thing. The problem is capturing the falling snow so that it is visible.

First, you want to get the right background. Leafless trees standing in a thick woods will do; shooting against a whitish overcast sky will not be as effective. Dark buildings or bridges as structures provide interest and enough contrast to catch the snow.

Another issue is shutter speed. The faster the shutter, the more it will freeze action. It depends on the kind of look you want. At 1/60th of a second, you get mostly distinct flakes as tiny round objects, although some may be bigger and slightly blurred as they are in motion. I have tried even faster shutter speeds, but if the flakes are too small and you freeze them in motion with no movement, you may not see them. At 1/13th of a second, you can still manage a hand-held shot comfortably and keep the image sharp, but wind-blown snowflakes will streak and blur a bit, making them longer, if not larger. In the two images below, the first was shot at 1/60th and the second at 1/13th. Judge for yourself which you find more effective or pleasing.

Photographs can be manipulated in many ways. With excessive manipulation, however, the image might not be believable. I generally want to accurately capture the scene before me, but sometimes brightness and other factors can obscure significant details. Yet there are ways to enhance those details without overly manipulating the original image.

Below is a photograph of the snow-covered Princeton Battlefield at sunrise. It is exactly as I photographed it.

I never look directly at the sun, but I detected it out of the corner of my eye. I liked the way the light brightened the snow in a graduated way. The sky was interesting as the rays shot out. I focused the camera without looking at the sun, closed my eyes, moved the camera to the left, and pressed the shutter. 

Now consider the next image.

Through the use of the filters in Lightroom and certain specialized plug-in filters in Photoshop, I created a very different photograph. It is dramatic and more accurately reflects the reality of the scene rather than what my eyes could see. I did not bring out anything that wasn’t already there. I actually consider this the more realistic image of the two since it captures colors and contrasts that my eyes could not detect. It has not been overdone with saturation, but the increased contrast has made it more interesting overall. I removed the bluish cast of the snow, increased the contrast in the sky, and brought out some detail in the trees. 

In other words, manipulation may add legitimacy to the image when it comes to being able to present accurately what might sometimes be invisible to the naked eye.

We love to give names to inanimate objects. One might look at a natural rock formation and see an old man in the mountain, for example. Often these names are reflected on a map; many have persisted for decades. If you think in terms of making your own associations, an otherwise ordinary photograph could potentially tell a story.
           
Take this example.

I was hiking in the Sourland Mountain Preserve, a place filled with boulders and rock formations. I found these two formations and my initial thought was they resembled a married couple. I then thought that they could be a parent and child or just two friends. Regardless, I saw a relationship that had human qualities.The key is to frame it correctly so that the viewer might see a connection.
           
I made several images from different angles and opted for one that allowed the two entities to be shown with virtually no overlap. I avoided branches and brush interfering with a full depiction of the formations. The apparent leaning of the formations is how they were, as you can see the incline of the mountain behind them.
 
Be creative. What might not be especially interesting initially can result in an intriguing and unusual image.

We have all experienced the “wow” effect of driving along a road and suddenly a blaze of foliage captivates us. Unfortunately, when we stop and go back, we can’t always seem to find that same vision. Either we are too close to the trees, or the leaves don’t seem as bright as they did, or something else keeps us from capturing the image as we originally saw it. Consider the philosophy that less is more, and sometimes one can capture the fall foliage by focusing on the details.

Here is an image from Fiddlers Creek, a natural preserve in Central New Jersey adjacent to Baldpate Mountain. 

The trees to the right are still mainly green with some yellow, and many of the leaves have already fallen. Still there were sufficient leaves remaining to make the image appealing, and I could see the reflection in the water of the orange leaves. It’s like putting a mirror in the room to give the impression of a room twice the size. Even if it’s not completely filled with color, you can still get a good foliage shot by focusing on where the color is.

Also, make ample use of the filters in your software program. I found that by adjusting the hue of yellow I could obtain more orange than yellow. I adjusted other colors, such as the blue, and made use of filters to increase the luminance and light. Even if you don’t have editing software, you can still capture color by selective framing.

Prior to the Covid-19 lockdown, I was often on planes and traveling internationally. As a result of travel restrictions, I began to explore and reconnect with some parks in New Jersey that I hadn’t visited in years. The experience holds two lessons for the photographer. Never disregard the familiar in favor of the exotic, and rethink the traditional landscape photograph.

In terms of the first point, consider this image of a dragonfly in flight in a state park called Six Mile Run. It is not a close up you would find in National Geographic, but nonetheless a capture of an otherwise unremarkable moment. This required an adjustment of shutter speed and a quick decision as to suitable background. I do have to admit to a certain liberty taken. I selected and slightly enlarged the dragonfly and pasted the larger version over where the smaller one was. It’s the same scene with the same dragonfly but with a slightly enlarged version to make it more visible. Suddenly, an ordinary scene in a state park becomes a little less familiar.

The second lesson is rethinking what may be considered traditional landscape photography.  Not all of us are fortunate enough to live near the Alaskan glaciers or the Rocky Mountains or Niagara Falls. Sometimes a small, tightly cropped portion of a forest or natural area can be as appealing as a panorama. Below is an image of the waterfall at Schooley’s Mountain in Morristown, New Jersey,

It is an opportunity to hone skills in terms of creative effects.

In looking for interesting places to photograph, always remember that something can be interesting even if it's local.

Landscape photographs do not have to be of the most dramatic and exotic places. John Constable built a career and lasting renown for his landscapes of his home countryside, often focusing on details and finite space. We can learn a lot from him as photographers, and I encourage you to go on museum websites (National Gallery in London, e.g.) and study how he treated the subject.

New Jersey is often derided for its industrial landscape, but it has many pockets of beauty. Beauty alone is not enough, however. You need to pay attention to how it will look. You may take ten pictures and hope for the best, but a good photograph depends upon the elements of composition— where things are placed in relation to each other, what is included and excluded, vertical versus horizontal, etc.  There is no substitute for composition. You can improve a lot of things but there are limits on what you can do once the image is captured.

Here is the unedited image of a small segment of the Musconetcong River in Bloomsbury, New Jersey.

I took many images of the river and at least a dozen of this scene, both as portrait and landscape, and with shutter priority as well as program (letting the camera decide speed and aperture). First, I wanted the boulders in the foreground, and though the one in the lower left is slightly cut off, I didn’t care. I wanted these rocks to anchor the image. They are taken at a strong diagonal, a technique that pulls you into the image. Second, I wanted to capture the rapids. I set the shutter speed as slow as I could, given that I was shooting hand-held and not with a tripod or monopod. I shot at 1/10 of a second in order to get the water to blur and become smooth. I wanted to create the sense of motion. I essentially divided the picture into three parts, all angled: the lower part being the rocks and shore where I was, the middle being the river, and the top third being the trees on the other side. I felt this was a good balance.

Using both Lightroom and Photoshop, I adjustments to increase contrast, decrease glare in the water, sharpen and warm up the scene, and to bring in detail. I have learned through much trial and error to use these filters subtly in order to preserve the natural effect and avoid the artificial look that comes from overuse. Here is the final product:

Much can be done to improve contrast and sharpening using software, but they are not for wholesale repair. You can’t take a bad picture (subjectively speaking of course) and turn it into a good picture based on software.

Kingston Mill is an atmospheric place close to where I live and is therefore convenient for photography. There is a 19th century mill, an 18th century stone arch bridge, a canal built in the 1830s, and the Millstone River, all providing opportunities for landscape imagery. It is also a place that provides opportunities to shoot the same scenes in different weather conditions and seasons.

This image was made in the morning when the fog was heavy. It was shot in color but given the fog,  leafless trees, and brownish stones, color did not add anything to the image. By converting the image into black and white, I focused on the subject of the heron on the dam framed by the trees. In the original image, the detail in the upper right corner was blown out. I brought it back essentially by using the dehazing filter. Regardless of what software you use, there are certain filters that allow you to decrease the highlight in an area to allow the details to emerge.  However, since the point is to capture the fog in the scene, you want to balance bringing out the details with maintaining the effect of fog.

The image would have worked without the bird, but I think the bird makes the image. I also decided to keep the bird as a smaller part of the overall image, rather than just do a close up. The point after all was to capture the scene and atmosphere and not do a nature photograph of just the bird.

You should never be discouraged to go out photographing in inclement weather. Sometimes fog and overcast clouds allow you to create moody images. Not everything has to be the bright blue sky.

This photo of English Bay in Vancouver, taken a few years ago, reminds me a bit of Stonehenge (without the megaliths) and an ancient gathering of people. What are your thoughts on it?