Most overused landscape techniques

Messages
15,795
Edit My Images
Yes
I came across the article below on Petapixel.

https://petapixel.com/2019/07/29/5-of-the-most-overused-landscape-photography-techniques/

For those that do no want to click through the ones listed are:
  1. Long Exposures Using Water
  2. Panoramas
  3. Always Including Foreground Interest
  4. Only Shooting at Golden Hour
  5. Sky Replacement
While I have never done #5, I definitely like the doing first 4. I was just interested in discussing the topic and how people here felt. Is it now over used? Are those almost a cliche in landscape photography now?
 
I only get myself worked up for Number 4, otherwise the rest is done and dusted... not necessarily required for landscape. I also ditched most of the filters with exception of CPL and 10-stops.

5. Sky replacement - comes in due to Sky Luminar AI auto sky replacement?

Well I guess the 10stops is for #1 :D

Sky replacement isn't a new concept in general (it is for luminar I guess). I don't think it's overused tbh or rather don't see any decent landscape photographer using it.
 
The thing i find myself doing too much of is using lakes in landscape shots to the point where i am actively trying to move away from shooting them. Not always easy since most of the places i enjoy going to have watercourses but i am certainly trying to move away from it.
 
Not a technique but I hate when people ask for the best place to take a landscape shot and do what has been done thousands of times already instead of using their own initiative. Its like they don't want to put any thought or scouting of their own at all or do anything new.
 
Not a technique but I hate when people ask for the best place to take a landscape shot and do what has been done thousands of times already instead of using their own initiative. Its like they don't want to put any thought or scouting of their own at all or do anything new.
Whilst a landscape shot may have been done a thousand times, it may well be new to me.
 
Not a technique but I hate when people ask for the best place to take a landscape shot and do what has been done thousands of times already instead of using their own initiative. Its like they don't want to put any thought or scouting of their own at all or do anything new.
Guilty as charged but its not because I don't have any initiative but more because I am restricted for time and I would really like to know some good spots. So the initiative is asking for some tips before hand and preparing as much as possible to save time in the field. Its not like I will be copying someone else shots its more to get an idea of good locations inc. places to park, stay, etc. If the place is close enough to me and I can visit multiple times I would do my own scouting etc.
 
How can anything photographic be "overused"?
I suspect they mean used even if it isn't needed, all water must be milky, there must be exactly 3 rocks in the foreground on the bottom third

Not a technique but I hate when people ask for the best place to take a landscape shot and do what has been done thousands of times already instead of using their own initiative. Its like they don't want to put any thought or scouting of their own at all or do anything new.
If someone is on a family holiday and may be reasonably can only take a day or a couple of mornings or evenings faffing about with "proper" photography, should they spend that time scouting or photographing? If pretty landscapes are what you are after there are only so many "good" locations in a given area.
 
perhaps but I hope not anyway
Well, its not something I'm that interested in doing, but I'm not too bothered about what other people do with their pictures. Unless, the photographs are being presented as a representation of reality e.g documentary/photo journalism.
 
I came across the article below on Petapixel.

https://petapixel.com/2019/07/29/5-of-the-most-overused-landscape-photography-techniques/

For those that do no want to click through the ones listed are:
  1. Long Exposures Using Water
  2. Panoramas
  3. Always Including Foreground Interest
  4. Only Shooting at Golden Hour
  5. Sky Replacement
While I have never done #5, I definitely like the doing first 4. I was just interested in discussing the topic and how people here felt. Is it now over used? Are those almost a cliche in landscape photography now?

I guess lots can be said to be 'overdone' but I partly think it's more what is the current 'trend'

For me......
  1. Long Exposures Using Water - Very rarely, usually only like it if it's a 'minimalist' type of shot.
  2. Panoramas - Occasionally as I often go out with just a 40mm prime.
  3. Always Including Foreground Interest - 50/50 there. It' doesn't bother me if there isn't a foreground object!
  4. Only Shooting at Golden Hour - It is nice, but not essential.
  5. Sky Replacement - Never!
 
I saw the video on my YouTubes feed. Huge click-bait title like a lot of this garbage so didn't bother clicking. Then I saw who it was from and I wished I could find how to block channels again like I used to. He is not someone I like to watch.
 
I saw the video on my YouTubes feed. Huge click-bait title like a lot of this garbage so didn't bother clicking. Then I saw who it was from and I wished I could find how to block channels again like I used to. He is not someone I like to watch.
It came on my browser feed and I guess I feel for the click bait. I don't know the guy but he has a Lumix ambassador according to the article. Brand ambassadors are generally good photographers.
 
Nothing is overdone, just in or out of fashion

And if you've never done any of them, or anything else that's supposed to be a cliche, then just crack on and enjoy yourself :)

Dave

Agree with this. If you've never tried any techniques, how do you progress as a photographer? Personally I hate ICM, but it seems very "in" at the moment, as do landscapes in B&W.
 
It came on my browser feed and I guess I feel for the click bait. I don't know the guy but he has a Lumix ambassador according to the article. Brand ambassadors are generally good photographers.
Like a lot of the things in photography and arts, 'good' is subjective.
 
Personally I hate ICM, but it seems very "in" at the moment

Some I like as I like abstract, most is just pratting about IMHO

I did actually LOL at one chap who had a clip of a Workshop he was offering on ICM - the clip said it all though as he was just stood waving his camera about and saying its all hit & miss !!! I'd defo NOT pay for that :D

Dave
 
No landscape photographer worth their salt would replace a sky......
Why not?

As i said, its not something I would do, but can't see why other people shouldn't use it if it fits in with the image they are trying to create.
 
Like a lot of the things in photography and arts, 'good' is subjective.

indeed and hence I said they are generally good (you can't just walk into these positions). Perhaps its not to your tastes :)
p.s. still don't know about this guy or his skills.
 
indeed and hence I said they are generally good (you can't just walk into these positions). Perhaps its not to your tastes :)
p.s. still don't know about this guy or his skills.
And in some cases it is to do with the exposure you can help give the brands rather than particularly good photography.
 
And in some cases it is to do with the exposure you can help give the brands rather than particularly good photography.
That's probably always the case I guess. If you shoot brilliant photographs but aren't any good at marketing them then they probably don't make good brand ambassadors.
 
I think like many things there are fads, like HDR what a pain that was, and out of frame, glad that died a death but remember, there is nothing new, it has all been done before, and like the magazine Which, it all goes round in a circle, repeated and repeated.

Always shoot at the golden hour, so far I see fer images shot in the blue hour, just wait, it will happen you will have magazines full of it soon

But in reality who cares and why do people care enough to moan about what is overdone, nothing better to moan about I suppose.

I am sports, but have just started landscape, I used filters 20+ years ago and started again, I will use a 10 stopper, I willshoot how I want and what I like, I don't care what others think or like, and why should we, it is almost as though we have to be better than everyone else on every forum, my technique is better than yours and I know better than you, well NO ONE knows better than you, the single person actually taking that image and if YOU want to shoot fluffy water go for it and ignore everyone else

Also I don't see photography as art, I said "I DON'T" so not comebacks please, I do photography and astronomy because I love it, I am never happier than I am with a camera or telescope or both shooting Ha, blow the artistic, it is relaxing and enjoyable, why be in to just to kill yourself to try to out shoot the others, I chose to set up a tripod, camera, filters, because it relaxes me and gives pleasure, not spend time in Photoshop after, sometimes being Autistic....... not Artistic, has its benefits :)
 
Last edited:
Guilty as charged but its not because I don't have any initiative but more because I am restricted for time and I would really like to know some good spots. So the initiative is asking for some tips before hand and preparing as much as possible to save time in the field.

I agree with this view ... photography is my hobby and I Iike to photograph wildlife but I'm not a wildlife tracker so don't waste hours of my time trying to find said wildlife, I go where I know there is a fair chance I will be able to photograph it.
Same with landscapes when I have done them, I don't walk for miles in the hope of finding a good landscape (rambling isn't my hobby), I go where I believe there will be something interesting to photograph, (and how I do it is up to me).
 
Why not?

As i said, its not something I would do, but can't see why other people shouldn't use it if it fits in with the image they are trying to create.


There's a one word answer to your question -

......cheating.

That might seem to be a purist view but I have always felt that a landscape photograph has documentary value and replacing a sky removes that element completely. The same goes for removing major landscape features like telegraph poles and pylons.
 
......cheating.

That might seem to be a purist view but I have always felt that a landscape photograph has documentary value and replacing a sky removes that element completely. The same goes for removing major landscape features like telegraph poles and pylons.

Artistic licence? ;)
 
There's a one word answer to your question -

......cheating.

That might seem to be a purist view but I have always felt that a landscape photograph has documentary value and replacing a sky removes that element completely. The same goes for removing major landscape features like telegraph poles and pylons.

I don't disagree - but what about composing them out. There are a few of my tripod holes I take a specific perspective to hide signs of pylons, poles and such like.

For instance I chose this angle of the Torren Lochan to hide the man made walk way to this point - and the little poles/nets around newly planted trees. In this shot you can see a gate behind the trees and a telegraph pole. Careful composition puts the pole behind a tree trunk and a judged crop hides the trees with the gate behind it. You wonder why all my pictures look the same - I get caught up in minutia like this.

_DSC1726 - Version 2 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

All visible in this frame

_DSC0815 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

At this tripod hole I put the camera just at knee height - any higher a few telegraph poles appear in the distance and the same shot taken a few places to the left will see bit to the left a chimney appears from a distant cottage. Don't crop square - say hello to the road to Elgol. This however looks as god made the view....

_DSC2237 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

At head height road signs appear at this one - it's composed out the road sign to signal the turn to Glen Etive. Not an entirely honest depiction of the view unless you are 1 foot tall.

_DSC3225 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

A hiking trail scar line is cropped/composed out of this. The Alps are full of them, it is a big problem.

_DSC2918 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

A trace of road is composed out of this and a bird hide I didn't spot until I was checking in 100% preview cropped out of this. Subsquent shots composed around a 1x1 and 5x4 to hide the bird hide on the mountain side.

_DSC3120 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

In all of these I've tried to show the area in the best light - but I've cheated in a more honest sense - careful composition and cropping.

Removing something might be seen as lying - what I do might be seen as not telling the full truth. Is my strategy entirely honest....no...it is not.
 
Last edited:
I don't disagree - but what about composing them out. There are a few of my tripod holes I take a specific perspective to hide signs of pylons, poles and such like.

For instance I chose this angle of the Torren Lochan to hide the man made walk way to this point - and the little poles/nets around newly planted trees. In this shot you can see a gate behind the trees and a telegraph pole. Careful composition puts the pole behind a tree trunk and a judged crop hides the trees with the gate behind it. You wonder why all my pictures look the same - I get caught up in minutia like this.

_DSC1726 - Version 2 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

All visible in this frame

_DSC0815 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

At this tripod hole I put the camera just at knee height - any higher a few telegraph poles appear in the distance and the same shot taken a few places to the left will see bit to the left a chimney appears from a distant cottage. Don't crop square - say hello to the road to Elgol. This however looks as god made the view....

_DSC2237 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

At head height road signs appear at this one - it's composed out the road sign to signal the turn to Glen Etive. Not an entirely honest depiction of the view unless you are 1 foot tall.

_DSC3225 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

A hiking trail scar line is cropped/composed out of this. The Alps are full of them, it is a big problem.

_DSC2918 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

A trace of road is composed out of this and a bird hide I didn't spot until I was checking in 100% preview cropped out of this. Subsquent shots composed around a 1x1 and 5x4 to hide the bird hide on the mountain side.

_DSC3120 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

In all of these I've tried to show the area in the best light - but I've cheated in a more honest sense - careful composition and cropping.

Removing something might be seen as lying - what I do might be seen as not telling the full truth. Is my strategy entirely honest....no...it is not.
Think that's called composing ;)
And you have certainly done brilliantly well with these shots and enjoyed seeing them. Thanks for sharing :)
 
Think that's called composing ;)
And you have certainly done brilliantly well with these shots and enjoyed seeing them. Thanks for sharing :)

Thanks - an incredible amount of care and thought goes into how I compose my images and hiding man made clutter is a big part of it.

I tell my clients when I talk to them about this on their workshop they're getting a composition master class because once you really start to slow down, take care framing your subject, chosing a natural feeling perspective whilst hiding things than shouldn't be seen, or chosing a perspective to include certain things - giving full consideration to what is and is not in the frame and where it is relative to other things in the frame - only then are you properly composing rather than taking snap shots.

The live view in the camera helps - as you can blow up things way beyond what you can see in the view finder. Getting to know a spot works well, the better compositions always come the second, or even third time around. It's why I tend to take the same pictures over and over again.
 
There's a one word answer to your question -

......cheating.

I don't see landscape photography as necessarily a documentary activity, but a creative one. I therefore feel a photographer, can do anything they want to, if it creates the feeling they want to convey through the photograph. Unless that image is clearly being presented in a documentary context of course. But even then, the simple act of "choosing" what to include or exclude in an image, through viewpoint and framing, questions the documentary value of any photograph.

Having said all that, I'm still not sure how its cheating: processing skills are just as much part of a photographers skill set as getting the exposure right. I don't see adding a sky as an act of deception, just one to make a "nicer" photograph.

And its up to the photographer where they draw their personal line. I can't see me ever adding a sky, even though I am of an age, when adding skies to black and white prints was often recommended by camera club judges. However, if I had a strip of sunlit woodland, that could be any woodland edge anywhere in the country, I would happily clone out a pylon, if it was spoiling my vision for the photograph.
 
I don't disagree - but what about composing them out. There are a few of my tripod holes I take a specific perspective to hide signs of pylons, poles and such like.

In all of these I've tried to show the area in the best light - but I've cheated in a more honest sense - careful composition and cropping.

Removing something might be seen as lying - what I do might be seen as not telling the full truth. Is my strategy entirely honest....no...it is not.

I assume you are selling these as stock, which in spite of my arguments earlier, is a good example of where I don't think cloning out man made features would be acceptable, as you don't really know how the photographs might be used.

But as you point out careful composition, or cropping is misleading the viewer into believing the photographs are from a pristine environment, which I'm not sure is really that much different from cloning things out. In either case, it is likely to lead to the same disappointment from anyone encouraged to visit the area because of seeing your photographs. So is it really in a "more honest sense"

BTW I'm not having a go at you, I really am just bouncing the idea around, as over the years, I've thought about this, I find it very difficult to logically define boundaries of acceptability.
 
There's a one word answer to your question -

......cheating.

That might seem to be a purist view but I have always felt that a landscape photograph has documentary value and replacing a sky removes that element completely. The same goes for removing major landscape features like telegraph poles and pylons.

Obviously it would be disingenuous to take so a milky way from the Sahara desert and put it on a Welsh mountainscape but within reason, how different is it to going to the same place on a different day to get a better sky? At what point would you draw the line, is it OK to clone out a car, a person , a sheep or birds in the sky or does every shot have to be a faithful rendition of what the camera captured?
 
Back
Top