What makes a good wide angle shot?

[casper]

I have recently returned from a holiday in the UK. I took along my reasonably new wide lens, but only put it on a few times and took about a dozen shots. Reviewing the shots, I have realised that I don’t really know what constitutes a good wide angle composition. I would appreciate it if anyone can tell me if any of these examples are good or bad, what they have or lack, or how I could have improved them. If possible, I would like to see some of your wide shots that you are happy with, and your reasons why. I have read that foreground is a factor, so I have picked some with varying amounts. Apologies if there a few too many, but I was quite unsure which to include. All with Canon 7D, Sigma 10-20mm f3.5.
1. Whitby Abbey: f16, 1/30s, ISO100, -1/3EV, FL 20mm


2. Vindolanda - Hadrian’s Wall: f11, 1/80s, ISO 100, -2/3EV, FL 17mm


3. Berwyn, Llangollen: f11, 1/60s, ISO200, -1/3EV, FL 12mm


4. Forth Bridges: f18, 1/125s, ISO200, -1/3EV, FL 10mm


5. Edinburgh: f4, 1/40s, ISO100, FL 18mm


6. Edinburgh: Manual, f5, 1/125s, ISO100, FL 16

[Shadowman]

Nice photos. Getting that wide angle effect, if that's what you are after, depends on whether or not you are using a full frame or cropped sensor camera. If you are using full frame then you should be able to get that effect at any focal length, if shooting cropped sensor then you'll need to shoot between 10-16mm focal length. To really get a dramatic effect of the wide angle you need to move a little closer to your subject. In photo #3 you have a dramatic horizon, but the foreground lacks interest. In photo #4 the same thing regarding the dramatic horizon, however this image works for me as the jagged coastline somehow helps lead the eye towards the bridge. It would work even better if there was some foreground object of interest to complement the bridge.

[AB26]

Noel,

None of these shots is a bad shot. They are all fine and you seem to have a very good idea of when to use the wide angle. Well done.

With practise and experience you will look at different angles of view and different compositions to give your images more impact. You will also experiment more with camera settings to increase contrast and saturation when needed.
Good shots that you can play around with in doing different crops.

Remember, the closer you get to the ground the more you will be able to include more foreground. You can try many different angles with a wide angle lens. Lying on your back shooting up into trees, shooting up at buildings, getting in very close to your subject, the opportunities are endless.

[Mike Buckley]

Another style of using a wide-angle focal length is to plan before you release the shutter on cropping at the top and/or bottom. If the crop is aggressive enough, it can result in a panorama-like aspect ratio. That can be done at any focal length but is especially common when using a wide-angle focal length because the perspective of the scene may not make it possible to fill the entire frame with compelling content. The photo shown below is one example of an image that has been cropped at the top and bottom, though not in an aspect ratio that I would call a true panorama style.

You might consider cropping your second photo at the top and bottom to bring stronger attention to the subject.

This was shot at 12mm mounted on a camera with a 1.5 crop factor.

[chauncey]

I am not a fan of WA glass...a simple peruse of the MTF characteristics will show that you get more image degradation as you move from the center of the image as compared to a lens over, say 85mm. Additionally, my ability to compose in the viewfinder leaves a lot to be desired and cropping in PP drastically reduces image sizes.

My two lenses of preference, 185 macro and 300mm f/2.8, lack the cited MTF degradation...I simply use either lens and take overlapping images of the subject and photo-merge...it gives me initially a huge image and allows me to crop at will in PP without significant loss in image size.

[dje]

Nice set of shots Noel. Looks like you got around a fair bit.

I think I got my Sigma 10-20mm around the same time as you so I'm still experimenting too.

I think shots 2,3 and 4 have the best wide angle effect and agree with John's comments.

Here is one I took at Byron Bay in which I thought the foreground provided a reasonable leading line.

Dave

[Polar01]

Noel here is what is wrong with your shots, you are of about average height, so you lift the camera with that wide angle on to you eye and take an image. Now you look at that image and say that something is missing. So what you do is you go out and purchase a bubble level that fits on to the hotshoe of you camera, now with the level lower the camera to waist height, level it and take the shot, now standing in the same place take another but at eye level. Ok which one is more interesting, I will bet it is not the eye level one. With the use of an ultra wide it is a whole new mind set, low is better and tight in is also better. Most of the ultrawides I take are on a tripod that is about 18" off the ground. So get that level, take shots from waist to knee height or lower and do not be afraid to get in close.

Cheers:

Allan

[Donald]

Don't disagree with anything written above. And I particularly agree with:-

With the use of an ultra wide it is a whole new mind set, low is better and tight in is also better.

It should be compulsory that to buy an ultra-wide angle, you have to prove that you own at least two very old and dirty pairs of trousers/pants that you don't mind ruining and that you demonstrate a willingness to lie flat on your stomach on wet, muddy and cold ground (the Angle Finder-C I bought has been a godsend).

Get in close. And once you think you're too close, get closer.

[casper]

Nice photos. Getting that wide angle effect, if that's what you are after, depends on whether or not you are using a full frame or cropped sensor camera. If you are using full frame then you should be able to get that effect at any focal length, if shooting cropped sensor then you'll need to shoot between 10-16mm focal length. To really get a dramatic effect of the wide angle you need to move a little closer to your subject. In photo #3 you have a dramatic horizon, but the foreground lacks interest. In photo #4 the same thing regarding the dramatic horizon, however this image works for me as the jagged coastline somehow helps lead the eye towards the bridge. It would work even better if there was some foreground object of interest to complement the bridge.

hi John, thank you for your helpful comments. I have a Canon 7D, which is a crop sensor (so it is really a 16-32mm). What I was hoping for from the lens was to be able to get a wider field of view, but I am not keen on the wide angle "effect" of making objects appear distorted and even more distant. #3 was from our hotel balcony (any closer and I was in the river) - there was much more foreground interest when the kayakers were going past. I took other shots with my 24-70 and could not get the railway station and viaducts all in one shot, so I was happy that the wide angle got it all in and not too disappointed with the effect on that shot. Similarly with #4, I just thought it was so cool that I could get both bridges in one shot - they are a fair distance apart. Again, I was behind a railing and couldn't get any closer. It appears that there has to be compromise. I either get in closer and give up a bit of field of view, or get back far enough to include what I want and accept the consequences - although it seems that if I include something large in the near foreground this will mitigate the effect. Thanks again for your help.
- Noel

[casper]

Noel,

None of these shots is a bad shot. They are all fine and you seem to have a very good idea of when to use the wide angle. Well done.

With practise and experience you will look at different angles of view and different compositions to give your images more impact. You will also experiment more with camera settings to increase contrast and saturation when needed.
Good shots that you can play around with in doing different crops.

Remember, the closer you get to the ground the more you will be able to include more foreground. You can try many different angles with a wide angle lens. Lying on your back shooting up into trees, shooting up at buildings, getting in very close to your subject, the opportunities are endless.

hello Andre, thank you for your encouragement and suggestions. I agree, there is a lot of creative potential available once I learn how to use the lens correctly. I would like to be able to take shots of wide vistas and still be able to see the detail, and also want to able to get more in from up close when I am unable to back up. You are correct that developing strong composition skills is the key to achieving these objectives successfully. Regards, Noel

[John 2]

I bought a super wide a few years ago and went through the same growing pains in using it. I took to looking at a lot of photos published on various sites to see what I thought was effective use of WA lenses. I came to the conclusion that the trouble with a WA lens is that if you are not careful, it includes a lot in your compositions making them too busy with any focal point being diluted as a result. My answer therefore, is to look for simple subjects with strong lines and choose a viewpoint to maximise impact (Donald's point about dirty trousers). Having said that, none of that necessarily applies when you are on holiday and want to include as much as possible for the scrap book. To my eye, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the shots you have posted.

[casper]

Another style of using a wide-angle focal length is to plan before you release the shutter on cropping at the top and/or bottom. If the crop is aggressive enough, it can result in a panorama-like aspect ratio. That can be done at any focal length but is especially common when using a wide-angle focal length because the perspective of the scene may not make it possible to fill the entire frame with compelling content. The photo shown below is one example of an image that has been cropped at the top and bottom, though not in an aspect ratio that I would call a true panorama style.
You might consider cropping your second photo at the top and bottom to bring stronger attention to the subject.

This was shot at 12mm mounted on a camera with a 1.5 crop factor.

hi Mike, this is an excellent example. It seems a little counter-intuitive to include non-subject matter so it can be cropped back out, but I understand what you mean. I like that it is less panoramic and more faithful to the original aspect ratio. Here is a case where you could not shoot or crop any tighter without losing the context of the occasion. Thank you for the explanation. A crop on #2 just below the road bridge and just above the station house would certainly be an improvement.
- Noel

[Mutley]

Get in close. And once you think you're too close, get closer.

^^ This

[HAZZA]

Nice shots Noel, especially like 3 and 4, have recently bought a wide angle lens as well and still experimenting, well done

[HAZZA]

Hi Noel - here are a few I took in Singapore, not totally happy with them but a different approach, Canon 10-22mm Lens. 2nd one foreground a bit out of focus, had to get in an awkward position to take so not so steady
1.

2.

3.

[casper]

I am not a fan of WA glass...a simple peruse of the MTF characteristics will show that you get more image degradation as you move from the center of the image as compared to a lens over, say 85mm. Additionally, my ability to compose in the viewfinder leaves a lot to be desired and cropping in PP drastically reduces image sizes.

My two lenses of preference, 185 macro and 300mm f/2.8, lack the cited MTF degradation...I simply use either lens and take overlapping images of the subject and photo-merge...it gives me initially a huge image and allows me to crop at will in PP without significant loss in image size.

hi William,
Nice suggestion. I did actually try to do something similar a few times, but not successfully without a tripod. I think a big advantage with this approach is that you can use telephoto to compress background objects, as opposed to decompressing with WA (e.g. my #4, and back rows of mourners in Mike's photo above). It would obviously require that nothing in the overlap moved between shots. I wasn't aware of the image degradation, it may be an idea to keep the subject close to centre where possible. Thanks for your comments.
- Noel

[nimitzbenedicto]

I guess it's your photo of the scene which includes all the things/people you want included in your photo.

Obviously, although it's crystal clear but it doesn't have the items you wanted in it, it may not be the good wide angle shot you wanted.

HTH

[casper]

Nice set of shots Noel. Looks like you got around a fair bit.

I think I got my Sigma 10-20mm around the same time as you so I'm still experimenting too.

I think shots 2,3 and 4 have the best wide angle effect and agree with John's comments.

Here is one I took at Byron Bay in which I thought the foreground provided a reasonable leading line.

Dave

hi Dave, nice to hear from you. Yes, first trip over for me, so we tried to cover as much territory as possible. You're learning curve is much steeper than mine, you are way ahead with the shot above. This is the creative use of wide angle that Andre was referring to above, not to mention the beautiful light. I will add it to my dossier of what mine should look like. When (if ever) I learn to stop and think beforehand, I am sure everything will fall into place.
- Noel

[casper]

Noel here is what is wrong with your shots, you are of about average height, so you lift the camera with that wide angle on to you eye and take an image. Now you look at that image and say that something is missing. So what you do is you go out and purchase a bubble level that fits on to the hotshoe of you camera, now with the level lower the camera to waist height, level it and take the shot, now standing in the same place take another but at eye level. Ok which one is more interesting, I will bet it is not the eye level one. With the use of an ultra wide it is a whole new mind set, low is better and tight in is also better. Most of the ultrawides I take are on a tripod that is about 18" off the ground. So get that level, take shots from waist to knee height or lower and do not be afraid to get in close.

Cheers:

Allan

hello Allan,
I appreciate the comments. You know what, I had a hot shoe level in my kit, and never used it the whole trip. In fact, I have only ever thought of using it for ensuring the tripod was level and never considered using for getting down low (duh!). Also a good tip for sneaky-cam street photography. Thanks, from me and my knees.
- Noel

[Ken MT]

Here is a 12mm FF image on the Hooker Track near Mt Cook. I got as close as possible to the spaniard plant as reasonable, as it is really prickly, (30cm) and use the better apparent DOF to get the background and sky in focus.