Framing a Landscape Shot

I just wanted to follow up with the results from an outing I took last weekend where my goal was to get some interesting compositions shooting wide. I took only the one lens and left it at 18mm (crop) to see what I could come up with. The lighting was very harsh and as a result most of the shots weren't keepers although I did learn a lot from the exercise. I positioned myself low and high and angled the camera up and down and just had a good play :)

This is the best that I could come up with:

http://i57.tinypic.com/6tifj5.jpg

There is minimal cropping here. Just a bit of straightening and a change to the aspect ratio that knocked out some of the sky. I know that the tree is not particularly photogenic due to the way it was pruned and some of the shadows but I thought that I would share it here for those who are interested.

And another view that I don't really love but it gives you an idea of what I was working on. There is foreground interest and the horizon is definitely NOT centered :)

http://i58.tinypic.com/11b3yu0.jpg

Thanks again to everyone who participate in this thread!

First one works very well. The second one, I think you would need to get knee deep in the surf as the best subject is probably inland.

I agree with John. The first one is a keeper and the second one, is less interesting.

Is there any particular reason you went B&W on these two shots?

Thanks John & Manfred. I agree that the second shot is a not a keeper. Below is the color version of the tree.

http://i60.tinypic.com/efflly.jpg

Good question about why I chose black and white and I don't have a good answer. My initial gut response is that I find the image more dramatic without color. I would be interested to hear the preferences and reasoning of others on that choice.

Thanks Shane. Now that I see both, I would have to agree with the B&W direction working better. The harsh shadows are an important compositional element in this image and the B&W conversion brings that out. The mix of warm tones of the sand and tree clash with the cool tone of the sea and sky.

Great, great thread to come home to after being away for a couple of weeks!

The only two things I can add: You're being too hard on yourself about your use of horizons, at least based on my overly quick view of your website. The "rule" about not placing the horizon in the middle is way overblown in my mind; Sam Abell made a living working for National Geographic for 30 years and he explained at a lecture there that one of his three main compositional goals is to find a scene that places the horizon dead center.

Cue centred horizon

http://philpage.zenfolio.com/img/s5/...88870455-5.jpg

UWA for landscapes - get lower, then get lower still, then really wallow around in the dirt - get down and dirty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dubaiphil

Cue centred horizon

---

Exactly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShaneS

Good question about why I chose black and white and I don't have a good answer.

---

'cause it's a far, far better image and makes the case about losing colour in order to focus in on line, shape, texture and tone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dubaiphil

UWA for landscapes - get lower, then get lower still, then really wallow around in the dirt - get down and dirty

---

Absolutely. A pair of old trousers/pants that are already caked in mud, or which are okay to get caked in mud, is as important as what's in the camera bag. Many an enjoyable hour or two has been spent lying in wet and muddy fields. And if you don't have a back screen that swivels, then your greatest friend is an Angle Finder (even when you lose it in a field and have to buy another one!).

Totally on Phil - UWA shooting means you have to get something of interest in the foreground (and reducing the amount of foreground) and reducing the amount of sky.

Great advice.

A corrollary of this is "get up high and shoot down"; same effect, but slightly different approach.

This shot was taken with a 14mm lens on a full-frame body, standing on a bridge, shooting down at the river.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5547/...98a425ba_h.jpg

You guys/gals are awesome! I think that this thread is developing into a good resource for helpful tips and great photo examples and I would encourage others who have questions or examples to add to the thread.

This has given me new eyes when analyzing a scene and the work of others in terms of how a shot was accomplished. As an example I will cite Manfred's shot directly above. Without analyzing this great image with a critical eye and noticing the way the trees lean in one might not have guessed that the camera was angled downward.

I am a bit of a tomboy and have no problems whatsoever with getting a bit dirty for the sake of a good shot, in fact I find it quite fun! I have also been known to stand on my tippy toes on occasion but I'm not very graceful and it often ends badly :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

This shot was taken with a 14mm lens on a full-frame body, standing on a bridge, shooting down at the river.

---

I'm confused. If the lens was pointing downward, shouldn't the trees be leaning outward rather than inward, unless you changed their perspective during post-processing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donald

"a far, far better image and makes the case about losing colour in order to focus in on line, shape, texture and tone."

---

I don't think I have looked at monochrome images from that perspective. Thank you Donald for helping me appreciate better the difference between the two and when and why mono might be a better choice than a colour image.

Mike who said trees always grow perfectly vertical, a lot of the time they lean in towards a river bed.

Cheers: Allan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polar01

Mike who said trees always grow perfectly vertical, a lot of the time they lean in towards a river bed.

---

That could explain some of the trees but not any of the tall trees that are leaning rather than growing upward toward the sun.

Great advice by Phil: "UWA for landscapes - get lower, then get lower still, then really wallow around in the dirt - get down and dirty."

However, I often use somewhat longer lenses when I shoot landscapes/seascapes. I like the compression of distance that the longer lenses provide. I also like being able to isolate interesting portions of the landscape/cityscape/seascape...

55mm on crop camera, 88mm equivalent
http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Other/Dub...0leaving-L.jpg

89mm on crop camera, 142.4mm equivalent
http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Other/Dub...20harbor-L.jpg

38mm on crop camera, 60.8 mm equivalent
http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Landscape...K%20copy-L.jpg

70mm on crop camera, 112mm equivalent
http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...0smugmug-L.jpg

31mm on crop camera, 49.6mm equivalent - I think that this is an example of how you can place the horizon mid-way in the frame without resulting in a boring image. The shoreline of the island is an implied horizon and is about 1/3 up from the bottom of the frame...
http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Architect...nd%2001a-L.jpg

70mm on crop camera, 112mm equivalent
http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Other/Ist...0traffic-L.jpg

46mm on crop camera, 73.6mm equivalent
http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Other/Ist...%20Tower-L.jpg

121mm on crop camera, 193.6mm equivalent
http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Other/DES...on%20010-L.jpg

42mm on crop camera, 62.7mm equivalent
http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Other/DES...ert%2001-L.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donald

'cause it's a far, far better image and makes the case about losing colour in order to focus in on line, shape, texture and tone.


Absolutely. A pair of old trousers/pants that are already caked in mud, or which are okay to get caked in mud, is as important as what's in the camera bag. Many an enjoyable hour or two has been spent lying in wet and muddy fields. And if you don't have a back screen that swivels, then your greatest friend is an Angle Finder (even when you lose it in a field and have to buy another one!).

---

Except when I arbitrarily assume that the right angle finder which works on my 40D will fit my 7D and find out that it won't at sunset when trying to shoot from the Rialto Bridge in Venice. Too Late! Too Late!

Thank you for your insight and beautiful examples Richard. I think that I need to take you, and many other CiC'ers as little imps that sit on my shoulder whisper tips in my ear :)

I wonder how much cropping Manfred's shot had.

It's interesting to note that Richard has scarcely gone below a full frame standard lens view and except when moderate telephoto compression worked out hasn't gone past the other one that relates to an eye view 100mm.

As I see it objects become more important as the view gets wider. Even 35mm equivalent needs an object some where in the view and not too far away and things get more and more like that as the view is widened. In some ways these aren't landscapes more objects in a scene. In the extreme the tree shot that was posted is a photo of a tree. Cityscapes are a different matter, a jumble of objects.

To be honest I hardly take any these days as when I look around where I tend to go in the UK all I usually see is misty horizons and that would be included in the views I like. When the actual shot is taken I then find that the mist is causing problems at much shorter distances than I thought. :o :) So anything I shoot usually needs an object and would benefit from not including the horizon what ever the focal length is.

John
-