Landscape photography: doing it differently.

posiview

posiview

Messages
19,461
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, now I have no problems at all with cliches, I've taken many, many, many of them :)

On a recent tip I was talking to a friend @blondie606 about what could be done to produce a different take. I considered getting higher, getting lower, moving left, moving right, getting in closer, wider, longer shutter speeds, shorter shutter speeds. Including a person/s. Photographing in the day/night time.

Is there anything else one can do to produce something different or I do I lack the creative ability?

I guess this is one of them: discuss posts :)

Cheers.
 
I've just looked through your website Andy and its clear you're a very good Landscape Photographer, and with quite a wide variety of techniques used well too

I wouldn't worry about cliches either, a good shot is always a good shot however familiar it may be

One observation though, they are all a bit f11-ish, in that the majority of your images have sharp focus from foreground to background, so I'd suggest you aimed for a set using your lenses wide open to place more emphasis on elements within the landscape which is especially effective if you have a fast telephoto, but anything fast will do

That said, I wouldn't ignore the max DoF images on a trip, I'd just suggest that once you have those in the bag you switched technique entirely

I'm putting together another lecture for the YPU based on shooting at f2 on a variety of focal lengths from 20mm to 85mm, its both challenging and rewarding too

Other than that - ICM is popular at the moment if you like more abstract faffing about :D

Dave
 
I'm with Dave :D

Nowt wrong with your photography. There's some cracking shots on your smugmug pages.

The only thing missing, as Dave said, are isolated detail shots. I don't know how successful they would be, but for instance, the first shots of the tree in the water - does the background/landscape need to be in focus?

Have you thought about model photography in landscapes? That could give you a few headaches :)
 
Saw a cool picture in Flickr yesterday that was a landscape shot but shot at f4. It had a person as forground interest but the landscape was a lovely soft creamyness to it. Maybe look at more intimate shoot. Pick out fine details.
 
My personal favourite at the moment is the inclusion of models or subjects within three frame.

Not enough to make it a portrait shot per sé, but enough to add that extra dimension and extra interest to the shot. A lot of different takes on it too depending upon the subject and their position so wide open creatively speaking.
 
Ian W said:
My personal favourite at the moment is the inclusion of models or subjects within three frame.

Not enough to make it a portrait shot per sé, but enough to add that extra dimension and extra interest to the shot. A lot of different takes on it too depending upon the subject and their position so wide open creatively speaking.
Click to expand...

Have a look at @minnnt stuff then for this idea.
He has ahem! been a 'model' in his shots recently :rolleyes:
 
Back OT :)
I agree with what's been said above about including detail shots, or something else into the frame but would guess this is only for specific scenes where it would be allowed/possible. I would guess it'd be difficult to include details in a wide aspect sunrise/sunset shot?

It's a good idea though, could all be part of your workflow to 'work' a scene and not just take it from the standard position eh Andy ;)?
 
DG Phototraining said:
I've just looked through your website Andy and its clear you're a very good Landscape Photographer, and with quite a wide variety of techniques used well too

I wouldn't worry about cliches either, a good shot is always a good shot however familiar it may be

One observation though, they are all a bit f11-ish, in that the majority of your images have sharp focus from foreground to background, so I'd suggest you aimed for a set using your lenses wide open to place more emphasis on elements within the landscape which is especially effective if you have a fast telephoto, but anything fast will do

That said, I wouldn't ignore the max DoF images on a trip, I'd just suggest that once you have those in the bag you switched technique entirely

I'm putting together another lecture for the YPU based on shooting at f2 on a variety of focal lengths from 20mm to 85mm, its both challenging and rewarding too

Other than that - ICM is popular at the moment if you like more abstract faffing about :D

Dave
Click to expand...

Cheers, Dave, widest I have is my Samyang 2.8. Might give that a go to isolate and emphasise elements. Will your lecture be available for wider viewing?

ICM, did a few years ago and see one now and again that I liked, by @Neil Burnell can't seem to find it, though.

Cheers.

minnnt said:
You could do a series where you jump off a cliff just as the shutter opens.

It wouldn't be a very long series though, probably just one shot...
Click to expand...

Parachute :)

kendo1 said:
I'm with Dave :D

Nowt wrong with your photography. There's some cracking shots on your smugmug pages.

The only thing missing, as Dave said, are isolated detail shots. I don't know how successful they would be, but for instance, the first shots of the tree in the water - does the background/landscape need to be in focus?

Have you thought about model photography in landscapes? That could give you a few headaches :)
Click to expand...

Cheers, I've watched Thomas Heaton and others talk about intimate landscapes over the last few months and it does pique my interest. He uses a 70-200mm that I don't have, guess I could use my 105mm.

Cheers.

MrDrizz said:
Saw a cool picture in Flickr yesterday that was a landscape shot but shot at f4. It had a person as forground interest but the landscape was a lovely soft creamyness to it. Maybe look at more intimate shoot. Pick out fine details.
Click to expand...

Creamyness, wonderful word :) I'll be giving that a go (y)

Ian W said:
My personal favourite at the moment is the inclusion of models or subjects within three frame.

Not enough to make it a portrait shot per sé, but enough to add that extra dimension and extra interest to the shot. A lot of different takes on it too depending upon the subject and their position so wide open creatively speaking.
Click to expand...

Cheers, Ian, I have a willing victim, er, model and it won't be me :)

blakester said:
Back OT :)
I agree with what's been said above about including detail shots, or something else into the frame but would guess this is only for specific scenes where it would be allowed/possible. I would guess it'd be difficult to include details in a wide aspect sunrise/sunset shot?

It's a good idea though, could all be part of your workflow to 'work' a scene and not just take it from the standard position eh Andy ;)?
Click to expand...

Cheers, Iain, food for thought and some research needed in advance of next weekend's trip with @blondie606 (#willmakeagreatmodelinmylansdcapes :))

pjm1 said:
Along the lines of detail shots, how about using other times of the day (e.g. Midday) to go for some striking shadow & light shots, or something else which isn't obviously "landscape"?
Click to expand...

Cheers, Paul, now that idea I like, shooting at midday, harsh shadows in harsh light, contrary to the popular way of photographing landscapes.

I'm doing a 'project' ATM and have been for a few years. Nothing special and some of the processing on the originals will burn your eyes. I keep forgetting to ad to the project, though.

Here it is, no feedback needed.

Appreciate the comments chaps and much food for thought.

Cheers.
 
posiview said:
Cheers, Dave, widest I have is my Samyang 2.8. Might give that a go to isolate and emphasise elements. Will your lecture be available for wider viewing?

ICM, did a few years ago and see one now and again that I liked, by @Neil Burnell can't seem to find it, though.
Click to expand...

F2.8 is fine, but treat yourself to a nifty fifty and get f1.8 for hardly any dosh :) I'd suggest you did your normal photography then slipped on the nifty and shot at a given number (mine's f2 as my lenses are a tiny bit sharper than at f1.8 or even the f1.4) and produce a separate gallery of images all with that one lens and one aperture. Its one of the challenges I set people often and it does make you think a bit more about what & how you're shooting - even if afterwards you just think "I'm happy with what I do" :D

The lecture is only to YPU (Yorkshire Photographic Union) camera clubs where I'm on the 'circuit'

I've seen some amazeballs ICM, but mostly it looks like really bad Parkinson's giving camera shake! I watched a lengthy YouTube vid about it once where the end results, some of which were great, seemed to be pure luck

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
F2.8 is fine, but treat yourself to a nifty fifty and get f1.8 for hardly any dosh :) I'd suggest you did your normal photography then slipped on the nifty and shot at a given number (mine's f2 as my lenses are a tiny bit sharper than at f1.8 or even the f1.4) and produce a separate gallery of images all with that one lens and one aperture. Its one of the challenges I set people often and it does make you think a bit more about what & how you're shooting - even if afterwards you just think "I'm happy with what I do" :D

The lecture is only to YPU (Yorkshire Photographic Union) camera clubs where I'm on the 'circuit'

I've seen some amazeballs ICM, but mostly it looks like really bad Parkinson's giving camera shake! I watched a lengthy YouTube vid about it once where the end results, some of which were great, seemed to be pure luck

Dave
Click to expand...

I had a nifty 1.8 but gave it away as never used it. Might look at at 1.4 :)

Food for thought.

Cheers and I'll post some results..if they work :)
 
I like to spend my time composing landscape shots, using a tripod to get the ISO right down, checking the focus carefully, and so on. This is an example where I only had moments to snatch the shot, a quick hand held grab shot where I simply had to shoot wide and compose later by cropping. I only managed to get it because he was having difficulty lighting his cigarette in the breeze.

I'm pleased with the way it turned out. If you click through to the Flickr image you'll see my comments about how I processed the image. Because I focused on the smoker the background hill and cliffs were a little out of focus. It was taken in 2009 with my first DSLR, a Sony A350, and I was in my "everything must be sharp" phase. So I deliberately downsized the image to improve the pixel level sharpness of the background rocks etc.. What a dork! I've now grown out of that silly phase :)

He was sitting on top of Calton Hill in Edinburgh, a popular cityscape and landscape viewpoint. The hill in the background is Arthur's Seat. The cliffs are Salisbury Crags. The weird tent thing in the middle which looks like an upside down giant dead insect grub houses the interior part of "Dynamic Earth", a permanent largely geological exhibition.

Nether Hill in line with circular stone on Calton Hill: 2 by Chris Malcolm, on Flickr
 
Just checked your profile page - 105mm is a cracking lens for landscape work - one of my favourite lenses is my old Nikon 105mm f2.5Ais which I use from 2.5 to 5.6 - I can quite happily go out with just that one lens. I'd play about with that for a while before buying something new (although the 50mm f1.2Ais is stunning).
 
posiview said:
Cheers, Dave, widest I have is my Samyang 2.8. Might give that a go to isolate and emphasise elements. Will your lecture be available for wider viewing?

ICM, did a few years ago and see one now and again that I liked, by @Neil Burnell can't seem to find it, though.

Cheers.



Parachute :)



Cheers, I've watched Thomas Heaton and others talk about intimate landscapes over the last few months and it does pique my interest. He uses a 70-200mm that I don't have, guess I could use my 105mm.

Cheers.



Creamyness, wonderful word :) I'll be giving that a go (y)



Cheers, Ian, I have a willing victim, er, model and it won't be me :)



Cheers, Iain, food for thought and some research needed in advance of next weekend's trip with @blondie606 (#willmakeagreatmodelinmylansdcapes :))



Cheers, Paul, now that idea I like, shooting at midday, harsh shadows in harsh light, contrary to the popular way of photographing landscapes.

I'm doing a 'project' ATM and have been for a few years. Nothing special and some of the processing on the originals will burn your eyes. I keep forgetting to ad to the project, though.

Here it is, no feedback needed.

Appreciate the comments chaps and much food for thought.

Cheers.
Click to expand...


This one?

Connection by Neil Burnell, on Flickr

I've still not done any since, should make the effort really!
 
Neil Burnell said:
This one?

Connection by Neil Burnell, on Flickr

I've still not done any since, should make the effort really!
Click to expand...

That's the one. So much detail in the buildings, yet not IYSWIM.

Thanks.

minnnt said:
Funny you should mention ICM... I turned my back for a second whilst reaching for something from my bag and the camera decided it wanted to try and make a bid for freedom. Managed to capture the shot along with the tripod. :D


Bid for freedom by David Raynham, on Flickr
Click to expand...

That's one of them photographs you couldn't get if you tried :(
 
chris malcolm said:
I like to spend my time composing landscape shots, using a tripod to get the ISO right down, checking the focus carefully, and so on. This is an example where I only had moments to snatch the shot, a quick hand held grab shot where I simply had to shoot wide and compose later by cropping. I only managed to get it because he was having difficulty lighting his cigarette in the breeze.

I'm pleased with the way it turned out. If you click through to the Flickr image you'll see my comments about how I processed the image. Because I focused on the smoker the background hill and cliffs were a little out of focus. It was taken in 2009 with my first DSLR, a Sony A350, and I was in my "everything must be sharp" phase. So I deliberately downsized the image to improve the pixel level sharpness of the background rocks etc.. What a dork! I've now grown out of that silly phase :)

He was sitting on top of Calton Hill in Edinburgh, a popular cityscape and landscape viewpoint. The hill in the background is Arthur's Seat. The cliffs are Salisbury Crags. The weird tent thing in the middle which looks like an upside down giant dead insect grub houses the interior part of "Dynamic Earth", a permanent largely geological exhibition.

Nether Hill in line with circular stone on Calton Hill: 2 by Chris Malcolm, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Yeah, think I'll experiment getting someone in the frame...yes @blondie606 I'm looking at you :)

Eljay said:
Just checked your profile page - 105mm is a cracking lens for landscape work - one of my favourite lenses is my old Nikon 105mm f2.5Ais which I use from 2.5 to 5.6 - I can quite happily go out with just that one lens. I'd play about with that for a while before buying something new (although the 50mm f1.2Ais is stunning).
Click to expand...

50mm 1.2, not heard of that lens. One on Amazon for £600 :)

Cheers.
 
posiview said:
Yeah, think I'll experiment getting someone in the frame...yes @blondie606 I'm looking at you :)



50mm 1.2, not heard of that lens. One on Amazon for £600 :)

Cheers.
Click to expand...
f1.4 are about a 1/3 of the price. Samyang, Sigma and Nikon are easily available.
 
posiview said:
Cheers, Paul, now that idea I like, shooting at midday, harsh shadows in harsh light, contrary to the popular way of photographing landscapes.

I'm doing a 'project' ATM and have been for a few years. Nothing special and some of the processing on the originals will burn your eyes. I keep forgetting to ad to the project, though.

Here it is, no feedback needed.

Appreciate the comments chaps and much food for thought.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

I really like that project, Andy!
 
I got the 50 1.2Ais for £300 brand new from Amazon, although the point of the post was that the 105 is a great focal length for landscapes. Teaches you that sometimes what you leave out is more important than what you put in.
 
IMG_0014.JPG IMG_0015.JPG

Stand in front of something interesting and you'll be hard pressed to take a poor shot. But to avoid all the endless visual cliches is damned hard to do. Either just do them better than everyone else or invent a technique that's original. Easy huh?
Two shots here that illlustrate both ideas perhaps. The first is traditional monochrome and relies on a good eye for detail, the second for a good creative idea which in this case I s a composite of three shots. One at dawn, one at dusk and one at night. You pays your money and you take the shot.
 
Last edited:
Get off the beaten track, I'm going to try this approach to see if its possible. Easier in Scotland because of right to roam laws.
 
posiview said:
I've watched Thomas Heaton and others talk about intimate landscapes over the last few months and it does pique my interest. He uses a 70-200mm that I don't have, guess I could use my 105mm.
Click to expand...
I've got a photo album called that. Details are part of a place as well as the wider scene. But it should all come naturally out of how you relate to the land. What do you notice? What engages you? How do you feel about it?

In the album that I've just mentioned, most of the photos were taken, as it happens, with an 85mm lens. But equally I could've used a 35mm, say, because the aim wasn't to bring distant things closer, but more to do with tight framing. But the reach of the 85mm in the circumstances was often useful.

Pedalman said:
Get off the beaten track
Click to expand...
I'd have thought this was a given. It opens up a whole world, links you with the land.



There's a popular urge to seek what I call glamorous light - and yes, glamorous light might turn us on, but it's only a component of the photographable whole. I couldn't imagine a whole album of sunsets - the poor viewer would soon have sunset fatigue. And I often suspect that those who seek glamorous light are hoping to bask in its reflected glory as if they made it themselves. Allowable, but don't make it relentless, please.

So it's back to what do you notice, what engages you, and how do you feel about it? Are you in a place just to mine it for possible photographs? Or are you in that place because you like being in that place? Are you trying, consciously or subliminally, to copy someone else's work? What is it that you're trying to portray? And what might others see, when they look at your photographs? What might they feel? This will vary with what they bring to the table. Some might see very little, according to their capacity or (lack of) experience. Some may register something of what you saw and felt, and something of the nature of the place.

Avoid trying to copy the postcards that can be seen in many shops. Forget about stock libraries (do they still exist in this digital age?). Try to make it personal. Do it for yourself. Not because you're feeling boastful, or want to be popular.
 
Last edited:
Nick Owen said:
View attachment 100197 View attachment 100198

Stand in front of something interesting and you'll be hard pressed to take a poor shot. But to avoid all the endless visual cliches is damned hard to do. Either just do them better than everyone else or invent a technique that's original. Easy huh?
Two shots here that illlustrate both ideas perhaps. The first is traditional monochrome and relies on a good eye for detail, the second for a good creative idea which in this case I s a composite of three shots. One at dawn, one at dusk and one at night. You pays your money and you take the shot.
Click to expand...

Hi, the first looks like a huge snake crawling over the land.

Interesting points, appreciated.

Cheers.
 
droj said:
I've got a photo album called that. Details are part of a place as well as the wider scene. But it should all come naturally out of how you relate to the land. What do you notice? What engages you? How do you feel about it?

In the album that I've just mentioned, most of the photos were taken, as it happens, with an 85mm lens. But equally I could've used a 35mm, say, because the aim wasn't to bring distant things closer, but more to do with tight framing. But the reach of the 85mm in the circumstances was often useful.


I'd have thought this was a given. It opens up a whole world, links you with the land.



There's a popular urge to seek what I call glamorous light - and yes, glamorous light might turn us on, but it's only a component of the photographable whole. I couldn't imagine a whole album of sunsets - the poor viewer would soon have sunset fatigue. And I often suspect that those who seek glamorous light are hoping to bask in its reflected glory as if they made it themselves. Allowable, but don't make it relentless, please.

So it's back to what do you notice, what engages you, and how do you feel about it? Are you in a place just to mine it for possible photographs? Or are you in that place because you like being in that place? Are you trying, consciously or subliminally, to copy someone else's work? What is it that you're trying to portray? And what might others see, when they look at your photographs? What might they feel? This will vary with what they bring to the table. Some might see very little, according to their capacity or (lack of) experience. Some may register something of what you saw and felt, and something of the nature of the place.

Avoid trying to copy the postcards that can be seen in many shops. Forget about stock libraries (do they still exist in this digital age?). Try to make it personal. Do it for yourself. Not because you're feeling boastful, or want to be popular.
Click to expand...

Some cracking points there, read it several times and I'm sure I'll read it again.

Cheers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top