Learning Thread — Landscape Photography

04/27/2006 01:38:23 PM · #376

Originally posted by stdavidson:

I like landscape photography a lot so I'd like to followup Robert's comments with some of my own...

1-Plan your outings around known or expected lighting conditions and weather for a site.

2-When possible return to the same site numerous times over many years and during different seasons and weather.

3-Most important of all, preplan your shots but take what nature offers.

etc....

Thanks very much for these comments, Steve. I'd love it if you stayed with us here and continued to offer your insights. You're one of our best landscape shooters on DPC, no question about it. I'll "assume" you have some thoughts re: vertical landscapes per my previous post :-)

R.

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/27/2006 02:14:04 PM · #377

...

I apologize for using images I have already taken, but I wanted to explain why I used the vertical orientation for some "landscapes". :) Hope you can see them, my security prevents display on my own machine.

I live in the Sonoran desert very famous for the Saguaro cactus. That cactus is very tall with nice vertical lines so I often photograph them vertically because of that. The picture I display here is one of my favorite saguaro cacti sites.

Another is of Antelope Canyon. Some might not categorize it as "landscape" but I do. It is almost always best photographed vertically because of the very narrow canyon.

The last is of the Yuma Territorial Prison. I'd driven to California to take pictures of the Imperial Valley Sand Dunes. Though not part of my original plan I took pictures of the prison on the way back. I used a vertical orientation here because I wanted to emphasize the dramatic sky in the image and thought it made the scene seem more foreboding like a prison should be.

Message edited by author 2006-04-27 14:22:36.

04/27/2006 02:16:01 PM · #378

Steve, the antelope canyon shot is showing as a link, the other two are showing as images, FYI.

R.

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/27/2006 02:24:37 PM · #379

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Steve, the antelope canyon shot is showing as a link, the other two are showing as images, FYI.

Thanks... hope I fixed it. I can't find out what in my secruity is a problem with PBase. It only affects some pictures, but ticks me off they don't do things right there. :(

04/27/2006 02:30:53 PM · #380

Yes, it's fine now.

In your three images you have listed three reasons for shooting in vertical mode: "cacti are tall", "slot canyons are narrow", "I wanted to emphasize the sky".

There is, however, something that all 3 images have in common, that is a function of their verticality. Do you, by chance, have handy a HORIZONTAL image of a similar saguaro scene you could add to your post? It might help us narrow in on this commonality I am discussing.

R.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/27/2006 02:32:45 PM · #381

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Okay, let's have it. Talk about "vertical landscapes", their strengths and weaknesses, whatever you've been able to glean by looking at these shots. Just for two talking points among the latest posts, why is nshapiro's Zermatt shot a very good use of the vertical, and what is the "weakness" I am alluding to in Error99's crop? Why is that weakness multiplied, so to speak, in the vertical orientation?

But don't restrict yourselves to just these two shots.

I see the goal of the vertical orientation as trying to actively lead the viewer from the foreground to an important element in the distance, while a panoramic shot invites the viewer to stand in one place and swivel around to take it all in (pan horizontally).

Zermatt has a detailed foreground, prominent back element (snow-covered peaks/clouds), and a strong diagonal (ridge) line leading from one to the other.

The sunset shot has a kinda blank foreground with a strong rear element (the sun), but the diagonal edge leads the viewer out of the frame and away from the sun; tightening the crop may accentuate this effect. Overall, it doesn't "pull me into the picture" as much as it might if the sun was nearer the upper-left side. Also, the horizon seems pretty centered vertically; I think that suggests a state of balance or rest, whereas using the vertical composition can induce tension and a sense of almost leaning forward into the picture.

I tried to apply these principles to my shot of the California Coast (posted near the beginning of this thread -- I'll try and post something new soon.

wheeledd

Panasonic LUMIX-DMC ZS100

04/27/2006 02:35:54 PM · #382

One of the differences between vertical and horizontal landscapes is the direction of motion. In a horizontal landscape, the natural direction of motion is across the scene. With a vertical landscape, the viewer is walking into the scene.

--DanW

04/27/2006 02:38:30 PM · #383

Go, GO! Keep 'em coming people! I'm deliberately not stating my position here so as not to prejudice things, but I will, later.

R.

04/27/2006 02:41:03 PM · #384

...why is nshapiro's Zermatt shot a very good use of the vertical?

The vertical, or near vertical lines and height of the mountains are emphasized. Not only the mountains running up the middle to the right, but also the mountains to the upper left and right. The vertical orientation just works here.

...what is the "weakness" I am alluding to in Error99's crop? Why is that weakness multiplied, so to speak, in the vertical orientation?

I'm going to say the crop stuck the horizon pretty much across the center of the shot. The cropping also seems to have emphasized the horizontal band of clouds. I probably should have cropped the band of clouds out instead to take away one of the horizontal components and left the beach, giving more balance, or weight, to the lower portion of the shot. The clouds seem to be a brick wall in the sky that stops the eye. They would have worked better if the shot was taken with a horizontal orientation.

Message edited by author 2006-04-27 14:41:51.

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Panasonic LUMIX-DMC ZS100

04/27/2006 02:42:03 PM · #385

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

OK... here is one of Saguaros that is horizontal entered in a recent challenge:

This one is horizontal because there were many saguaros in the scene and makes that orientation more natural in my opinion for this particular image. My experience is that Saguaros are better photographed vertically unless there are are lots of them in the scene. The down side of that is they are much smaller in the frame.

Not sure if this helps but here is another "vertical" landscape:

This was taken in Northern Califonia in the Redwoods National Park. In this image I wanted to take advantage of the mist and also emphasize the great size of the trees compared to us humans.

wheeledd

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

04/27/2006 02:47:01 PM · #386

Here is a vertical/horizonal pair taken at the Baylands Nature Preserve, Palo Alto, California:

--DanW

Mambe

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

04/27/2006 02:48:43 PM · #387

Do people want me to continue doing PP demonstrations?

Please continue with those fantastic lessons !
It's a pleasure to follow them , a "normal" or "common" photo can turn out and become more interesting and with a good photo ...
PP demos are very interesting , I'm learning a lot !

It's very kind of you !

Message edited by author 2006-04-27 14:57:23.

04/27/2006 02:51:05 PM · #388

Originally posted by wheeledd:

Here is a vertical/horizonal pair taken at the Baylands Nature Preserve, Palo Alto, California:

--DanW

Which works better, and why? Compare and contrast with Steve's two saguaro shots...

Robt.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/27/2006 03:00:47 PM · #389

I have to go to work ... here's a couple of older ones to rip apart:

Mambe

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

04/27/2006 03:04:36 PM · #390

Personally I prefer

, I see nothing very interesting in the vertical one , maybe because of the big shadows zone.

Panasonic LUMIX-DMC ZS100

04/27/2006 03:04:43 PM · #391

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by wheeledd:
Here is a vertical/horizonal pair taken at the Baylands Nature Preserve, Palo Alto, California:

--DanW

Q: Which works better, and why? Compare and contrast with Steve's two saguaro shots...

A: The horizontal shot works better, for me. The water leads into the shot the off to the left and right, which opens up into strong horizontal lines with the horizon and vast sky. Because it's a horizontal shot the eye has room to move in the direction the water leads them to.

With the vertical shot, my eye just kind of stops AT the horizon. The water way leads off to the right, but, the right isn't there. The shot feels a bit cramped due to this.

Message edited by author 2006-04-27 15:28:23.

wheeledd

04/27/2006 03:05:09 PM · #392

I don't think it is a matter of working better for either the Baylands or the saguaro shots. The images are about different things. Vertical shots are often more about the relationship between the close and the far. My Baylands vertical has the drainage pipes in the foreground and speaks to the relationship between the human activity on shore and the baylands beyond. The horizontal shot is more about the flat feel of the baylands and the paths of the water in the land.

Steve's vertical saguaro shows the individual plant standing like a person. The horizontal group turns the plants into social beings with relationships to others. I get very different messages from them.

--DanW

04/27/2006 03:17:51 PM · #393

I prefer the vertical shot. Again, as in Nshapiro's shot in the Swiss Alps, it emphesizes what's already there. Rendering the trees even more majestic.

Message edited by author 2006-04-27 15:25:39.

04/27/2006 03:19:59 PM · #394

We're narrowing in on something here. Keep it coming :-)

R.

Error, can you edit your post so it doesn't look like your remarks are part of my quote?

Message edited by author 2006-04-27 15:21:39.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/27/2006 03:20:34 PM · #395

Zermatt is the mountain, not the photographer.

04/27/2006 03:23:27 PM · #396

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Zermatt is the mountain, not the photographer.

Nit-picker, LOL. If you really want to pick nits, do it right: the MOUNTAIN is the Matterhorn, the place where it is at is Zermatt, the photographer is Nshapiro :-)

R.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

04/27/2006 03:24:45 PM · #397

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Zermatt is the mountain, not the photographer.

Doh!

David.C

04/27/2006 03:27:15 PM · #398

I took the image I posted earlier vertically because the bands (or strata) of the scene were emphasised more that way.

In general, the vertical orientation seems to emphasis height or linear motion away from (or toward) the viewer -- giving more emphasis on the height and depth of the image instead of the breadth and depth of a horizontal.

The main difference I see is the horizontal leads the eye back and forth while the vertical leads the eye up and down -- both can lead the eye into the depth of the scene.

David

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/27/2006 03:30:09 PM · #399

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Nit-picker, LOL. If you really want to pick nits, do it right: the MOUNTAIN is the Matterhorn, the place where it is at is Zermatt, the photographer is Nshapiro :-)

R.

My lack of detailed knowledge of Alpine geography is staggering ... the only Matterhorn I've seen is in Anaheim : (

Actually, I think I have some decent photos of that one ... now where are those ...