Framing a Landscape Shot

[ShaneS]

Overall, I think that I must be doing something wrong in my framing of the wider landscape shots.

When I position myself low to the ground I get a great vantage point but a lot of sky/background which is sometimes desirable and sometimes not so so much.

Standing, I seem to have a tendency to put the horizon dead center and can't seem to figure out how to do otherwise without angling the camera up or down which seems wrong to me somehow?

I know angling the camera intentionally can distort perspective which can be used to your advantage but maybe I need some tips on when it is used effectively (with examples if you have them or can link to them).

In either case I tend to have to crop (I'm getting better at minimizing this) to get the image to look right.

If I zoom in I lose the vastness that is the point of using a wider view in the first place.

Am I missing something so simple that I will go "duh!" and slap my forehead when I read your responses?

[Steve S]

Overall, I think that I must be doing something wrong in my framing of the wider landscape shots.

When I position myself low to the ground I get a great vantage point but a lot of sky/background which is sometimes desirable and sometimes not so so much.

Standing, I seem to have a tendency to put the horizon dead center and can't seem to figure out how to do otherwise without angling the camera up or down which seems wrong to me somehow?

I know angling the camera intentionally can distort perspective which can be used to your advantage but maybe I need some tips on when it is used effectively (with examples if you have them or can link to them).

In either case I tend to have to crop (I'm getting better at minimizing this) to get the image to look right.

If I zoom in I lose the vastness that is the point of using a wider view in the first place.

Am I missing something so simple that I will go "duh!" and slap my forehead when I read your responses?

I like to think of a wide angle lens as.........a macro lens for big stuff. It works best, when you keep your subject in the foreground, get close and fill the frame.

[Mark von Kanel]

Hi Shane.

I had a look at your website and you are right you do tend to put the Horizon on the center line.... The ones on your site that work best have used the rule of thirds (remember that rules are for the obeyance of fools and the guidance of wise men) i personally like shots in which a wide angle has been used because of the better DOF and the perspective of a large forground and smaller distant objects but sometimes a longer lens works better depending on a scene. What im never afraid to do is crop i often find that a letterbox format for landscapes work really well for me.

Hope that helps, im not much of a landscape shooter!

[FrankMi]

When I position myself low to the ground I get a great vantage point but a lot of sky/background which is sometimes desirable and sometimes not so so much.

Hi Shane! Here are some generalities that you might find will work for your composition but it will depend on the elements of the scene. If there is an interesting foreground, then a low shot can bring out the depth in the scene. If the sky is more interesting than the fore and middle ground then give it 2/3rds of the composition, otherwise give it 1/3rd. Having the horizon split the image in half can work, but usually it weakens the image.

Standing, I seem to have a tendency to put the horizon dead center and can't seem to figure out how to do otherwise without angling the camera up or down which seems wrong to me somehow?

I know angling the camera intentionally can distort perspective which can be used to your advantage but maybe I need some tips on when it is used effectively (with examples if you have them or can link to them).

Angling the camera up or down is less noticeable when there are few or no vertical lines in the scene, and even then it may not detract from the image. When in doubt, snap several shots using both level and various angles for composition. When you compare the results on your monitor you can decide which works best of the available choices. When you are in doubt, shoot at least one extra image with a little more space around your in-camera composition and you'll have additional options for changing the crop in post processing.

In either case I tend to have to crop (I'm getting better at minimizing this) to get the image to look right.

If I zoom in I lose the vastness that is the point of using a wider view in the first place.

When you are out shooting, don't hesitate to 'work the scene'. That is, consider as many viewpoints as practical for the subject at hand then carefully plan and capture each of them. When appropriate, shoot low, high, from the left, from the right, zoom into several interesting parts of the scene, back out and take it all in, etc. Consider returning to shoot under different lighting or sky/weather conditions. Often I find that as I am looking for better ways to capture the scene I trip across a very interesting viewpoint that I wouldn't have captured if I quit after taking just one or two images.

Back in post processing I then have many views of the same scene to compare and choose from and often find things that I didn't notice that can make or break a particular capture. In the end, I rarely publish more than one of the 10-30 images of a particular scene that I shot but it tends to be the best of the crop.

Am I missing something so simple that I will go "duh!" and slap my forehead when I read your responses?

You are in the process of training your eye to SEE the potential of the scene and that takes experience. You may benefit from guidance in developing your Vision. The best book I've seen on that subject is Vision and Voice by David duChemin. With vision, you bring direction and intention to both the creation and development of all your images. David's book has excellent images that clearly demonstrate the points being made.

Hope this helps!

[Manfred M]

Shane - Let me try to do the "a picture is worth 1000 words approach", and perhaps you can see what was in my head when I did these shots.

Landscape shots, like any other image need a "subject". A typical issue is that the stereotypical landscape shot rarely works unless there is something compelling to draw the viewer's eye, and quite frankly, landscape photography is often more than the stereotypical shot. In my view, the photographer has to look at three key elements; foreground, mid-ground and background.

Let me throw up some landscapes I've taken over the past while and suggest why I:

(a) decided to take the shot; and

(b) the compositional choices I made.


I expect these shots may not be to everyone's taste, but they do represent the way I been shooting landscapes over the past few months.


Ile aux Coudres - here the interesting pattern of clouds caught my eye. The tide was out, so that offered something for the mid-ground and the pathway and rocks in the breakwater were the foreground elements that I used.






Sageunay Fjord - Sunset / "blue hour" shot, taken just after the sun dropped below the horizon. This is more of a "classic" landscape. The foreground is the water, the mid-ground are the hills and cliffs of the fjord and the background is the sky. The blue overtones hold this image together.




Point-aux-Pic at sunset - The lighting of the setting sun is what does the heavy lifting in this shot. The foreground is rather boring; but the church, with it's steeple work as the subject. The St Lawrence River and the hills are the middle-ground and the clouds provide the background.




Niagara Falls at night - No mistaking the subject here. The swirling patterns in the water make an interesting foreground; the middle ground is the illuminated falls and the sky and trees are the background.



Niagara Falls - Abstract view - Sometimes we don't need to show the whole scene to give the viewer an idea of the volume of water and the majesty of the falls. Note the compositional element of the "S" curve in this image.



Ste-Anne Falls - Another waterfall shot; done in portrait format. The foreground, middle ground and background are still there, but not as clearly defined as some of the other shots.



Ste-Rose-du-Nord - Another view of the Saguenay Fjord, but from above looking down. Here the village is the foreground, the hill and river are the middle ground and the sky and river are the background. I like shooting from above, as it gives a different perspective of the scene (and some perspiration for me doing the climb).

[Donald]

What you've got there above is some of the best advice and guidance that you could lay your hands on ... and have to pay quite a lot for in some places. So, I have have only one comment to add. And that's about training yourself to see as a photographer.

More often than not, that awesome scene before you that makes you go 'wow', will not make a good picture. What you're seeing is in 3D with all the mood and atmosphere and context there for you to soak up. Translate that into a flat, 2D rectangular (or square) image and it often loses that 'wow' factor that made you want to take the picture in the first place.

Like the guys have suggested above, you've got to construct what you put in the viewfinder. Look at the scene in that way, because that's all that's going to be in the picture ... what you see through the viewfinder. So, really study that view through the viewfinder. Take your time. Look at what is where inside that rectangle. Look at what's NOT inside that rectangle. Is there something not there that needs to be included? Keep asking yourself lots of these sorts of questions whilst your looking through that viewfinder. With self-training like this, you will get so that the questions (and answers) become much faster and almost automatic.

And stick with it. Because once the results start coming, you get a real kick out of it.

[LocalHero1953]

Someone made the comment "why have all that sky in the picture if there's nothing happening there?" Since then, I've become very sensitive to the flat grey skies we get a lot of in the UK, and I now try to minimise, or totally avoid sky areas in landscapes by picking my angles, and by cropping. There are exceptions: our East Anglian fens can have wonderful skies, in which case I minimise the land area. I think it is well worth asking oneself the questions: why do I want the sky in my landscape? Is it an essential element? Or just a conventional one?

[Shadowman]

Someone made the comment "why have all that sky in the picture if there's nothing happening there?" Since then, I've become very sensitive to the flat grey skies we get a lot of in the UK, and I now try to minimise, or totally avoid sky areas in landscapes by picking my angles, and by cropping. There are exceptions: our East Anglian fens can have wonderful skies, in which case I minimise the land area. I think it is well worth asking oneself the questions: why do I want the sky in my landscape? Is it an essential element? Or just a conventional one?

I've been shooting in portrait mode using an UWA lens just to grab more of the sky. It all depends on what's there to draw your eyes, a good cloud formation against a deep blue sky adds a lot to an image, especially if there is some foreground objects of interest.

[ajohnw]

I feel Steve's point aught to be stressed when using wide angle. Another way of putting that is to make sure there is some interesting object in the foreground - a common example might be a fairly large log. Maybe stones. The shooting low method often doesn't work out any other way.

I have shot a lot of landscape in the past and can well remember the first time I got my hands on a wide angle lens. A mere 28mm for 35mm film. After using up several rolls of film I realised that there is a big problem with it in many instances that relates to the point Donald made about 3D and 2D. Also that when we view a scene we tend to form conclusions based on looking around in it. In that respect when it's transferred to an image via a wide angle it's not likely to work out. We are not likely to enlarge is sufficiently for us to look round it in the same fashion. At realistic sizes we look at all of it in one go and that has an entirely different effect.

I suspect many people would find pure landscape a lot easier if they used suitable focal lengths. A suitable lens for a crop camera might be 24-70mm but longer even much longer can be effective in some cases and 24 may well be too wide. This is also likely to help judge the results via the viewfinder. If some one wants to shoot wide and really wide and the usual foreground object is included it's effective but is that a landscape? Not really. It's an interesting and very effective way of shooting some objects, camera high or low.

Rather than show a great shot I played around in a cove recently in the rain. 9mm on m 4/3. This is probably the best result.



Not very good in several respects but I can go there some time when the weather is more suitable or the lighting conditions are entirely different. In one of these it might make a good shot even though I haven't really obeyed the usual low wide angle ideas. It always worth bearing in mind how things might look under different conditions when taking shots.

Haze really is a big problem in this area but there are several areas that one day I will manage to get a decent shot of - hopefully.

John
-

[Shadowman]

I think we need some examples of UWA landscapes. I'll search for some of mine, but I tend to shoot architecture with mine.

[Polar01]

Here is on shot I thing dis with a 16-35mm on a D600, most of my UWA landscapes are shot with the camera in portrait when stitched together. The second is a 5 shot stitched, I think I was in the lower 20's when I did it.

Cheers: Allan

Single Shot



5 Shot

[Steve S]

Here is one at 10mm. I was only 20 or 30 feet from the trees....................

[Shadowman]

Here is on shot I thing done with a 16-35mm on a D600, most of my UWA landscapes are shot with the camera in portrait when stitched together. The second is a 5 shot stitched, I think I was in the lower 20's when I did it.

Cheers: Allan

Single Shot



5 Shot

Allan, your first shot's horizon line is almost dead center. I think explaining your setup might help Shane with her concern about her compositions.

[Shadowman]

Here is one at 10mm. I was only 20 or 30 feet from the trees....................

Steve, I think your setup might help Shane also, although your horizon is off center, your subject is dead centered.

[ShaneS]

As usual you folks blow me away with your great suggestions and I really appreciate that and the examples that you have shared. My imagery is getting better but I know there is improvement to be made so these tips will come in handy - in fact I'm going to try and get out this weekend a give it a all a try at least compositionally if the light doesn't cooperate.

I have derived this list from your great advice:

1 - A wide angle lens is a macro lens for big stuff (thanks Steve - that is catchy and I will remember it for a long time )
2 - Consider the foreground, mid-ground and background (thanks Manfred and everyone else who alluded to this)
3 - Work the scene (thanks Frank)
4 - Study what is in the viewfinder and what it not (thanks Donald)
5 - Consider stitching multiple images together (thanks Allan)

I will report back and will hopefully have some images to share.

Thank you so much!

[jcuknz]

First thing which struck me with Allan's Cityscape was the leaning buildings and I'd suggest with stitches it is worth considering adjusting individual frames prior to the stitch if you are sensitive to LBs. With PSP I would probably use the Warp Mesh tool on the finished stitch but not everybody has PSP.

[ajohnw]

First thing which struck me with Allan's Cityscape was the leaning buildings and I'd suggest with stitches it is worth considering adjusting individual frames prior to the stitch if you are sensitive to LBs. With PSP I would probably use the Warp Mesh tool on the finished stitch but not everybody has PSP.

I think Hugin will do that and align on the fly. The verticals etc just need marking.

John
-

[Polar01]

John you are right I should explain my setup as to my thinking. First until now never noticed the horizon is almost dead centre as I was never looking at it I was looking at where some say the story is. It was a windy later winter day the winds blowing between 70-80 kph (45-50 mph) and I was tucked down in a depression behind some rocks using them and myself to shelter the camera from the wind. What I was wanting was the sweep of the breakwall to just out pass the lighthouse with the waves spilling over, that to me was the story. So the only way to get that was with a wide angle and as I was on a tripod about 2 feet of the ground I originally had lots of foreground, and as it was a wide angle I wanted to keep it as level as possible (no pitch). As a result of all of that I knew that to get the final image would be in the crop. If I moved the breakwall up then too much foreground, down too much sky. So how did I select the bottom crop, the 4 large stones in the lower right hand corner they made that corner work, as for the sky If I increased it there would be more white of the clouds showing which could lead you eyes out of the image with that blue spot on the right corner combined with the dark cloud on the left it helps to keep the eyes from wandering out of the image and with the bright water spilling over the wall keeps your eyes drawn in to where the story is.
Now this shot took me over 45 minutes to get as it is a composite of 5 shots, as you will never get the water to spill over the wall the way you want it. So you sit and listen to the power of the sound of the waves hitting the rocks to the right out of view to warn you that this wave might spill over the wall giving you a heads up to shoot. As for the sun's movement during the time of shooting with the fast moving clouds the light was always changing. I never knew this much stuff went through my brain when making a shot until I start to explain the setup.

Cheers: Allan

[Shadowman]

Allan, nicely explained and I think it will help Shane and me as well in thinking through a setup. I was looking at a few of my UWA shots and with the rare landscape/nature shots that I have, I then to center the subject as well.

[ShaneS]

Thank you for that explanation Allan. Composites and stitching images are just a bit out of my league right now but something worth playing with and considering when the image calls for it.

You certainly got a great image for all of your effort and i sure hope that there was something or someone waiting at home to warm you up after braving the wind and the cold