Most overused landscape techniques

What about clone out man?

48417377506_3ae6147160_b.jpg


I have cloned out a number of people in this :D
 
I don't see that any particular way of taking a photograph of any kind, not just landscape can be "overused".
As has been mentioned, it's kind of what is fashionable at any given time the tends to get folk to follow similar compositions etc.
If that's what folk choose to do then I'm fine with that.
What i dislke however is if someone has a differing view ( punn intended!) of how to compose a regularly used scene and they get pulled apart for it.
That photographer has as much right to shoot the scene in a different manner just as much as the sheep have a right to follow each other.
As has been said many many times, photography is subjective and providing the end results are what you as the photographer want ( or indeed are what your clients want should you be sooting pro) then that is the only important aspect imo
 
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.

In my opinion there is a real difference between cropping something out and removing it digitally, so we are in agreement here.

A "wild" landscape with a man-made feature - whatever it is - deliberately included (and I don't mean as an aid to composition) makes quite a different type of image to my mind.

This is one I posted a few months ago. I'd like to think that it asks a question - even if it is only "what the *** is that?IMG_0161.jpg
 
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?

I would say there was a whole world of difference between the two scenarios in your first sentence.

There are always going to be grey areas between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable and we probably all draw the line somewhere slightly different. Personally, I'm happy to clone out something that wouldn't have been there on another day so Graham and I are in agreement about that!
 
In my opinion there is a real difference between cropping something out and removing it digitally, so we are in agreement here.

A "wild" landscape with a man-made feature - whatever it is - deliberately included (and I don't mean as an aid to composition) makes quite a different type of image to my mind.

This is one I posted a few months ago. I'd like to think that it asks a question - even if it is only "what the *** is that?View attachment 252200

Yeah what the hell is that?

Nice B&W
 
There are no rules to break unless you are entering images into a competition, which may have rules on processing at least. Doing it for yourself, do what you want. Want three stones in a foreground of a panoramic long exposure water scene in the golden hour with a different sky! Go for it. If it is an image for yourself, which all images should me imho, do whatever makes you happy. :) I go through phases of doing different things. I'm planning on some long exposure traffic trails on my next trip because I will have views over a city. Cliched! I don't care. :)

Like most people I have my own limits of what I'm willing to do when it comes to processing an image, even if it is just me seeing the images. I got the changing sky thing out of my system very early on, so it is not something I would do, but if anyone else wishes to do it, go ahead. :) But do it well or expect some 'feedback' from people you show your images to. ;) :LOL:

That said, that doesn't mean it is nice to be fooled and disappointed by an altered image, as I was went to Manarola in Italy, only to realise that an image I had seen online with a nice Milky Way behind the town was not possible without replacing the sky, and not a sky from the same place either because of the light pollution. :( :rolleyes: Luckily the town was nice enough with a normal sky. :)

There is also an image of the light streaming through the whole in the roof of the Pantheon in Rome that is sold on fridge magnets, postcards and posters that I had seen in tourist shops on my first visit that I wanted to try and do myself, only to be told by a guide there that the light in the Pantheon never comes down vertically as it is not on the equator of course. Doh! :rolleyes: :LOL: It makes a nice fridge magnet though. :) The building itself made up for that minor disappointment.
 
Last edited:
What I hate is the line of 'photographers' (usually Chinese tourists) lined up behind a PHOTOSHOT sign waiting patiently to stand next to the sign and get the same shot as the people before & after them. I see that a lot.
 
What I hate is the line of 'photographers' (usually Chinese tourists) lined up behind a PHOTOSHOT sign waiting patiently to stand next to the sign and get the same shot as the people before & after them. I see that a lot.

What's wrong with that? :thinking::thinking::thinking:

When I'm a tourist I take the same photos pretty much every other tourist has taken

Dave
 
I guess its each to their own. My personal opinion is replacing an entire sky is over the top and misleading. If I learnt a photo had a sky from a different photograph and location I would immediately loose interest in that photo. I can usually tell though if a sky has been replaced. It hardly ever matches the foreground in a natural looking way.

Saying that I do exposure blending from bracketed shots which I guess is as much fabrication as just replacing a sky. I also enjoy a bit of astro photography, star trails and milky way which come out far more vivid than the naked eye would ever see.

In other techniques, I seem to becoming more and more bemused by the always including foreground interest. I always used to do this myself, but the lake or seascape photos with a single rock in the middle of the foreground with no significance other than forcing something in the foreground seems increasingly pointless. Funny how your preferences change over time.
 
Last edited:
What I hate is the line of 'photographers' (usually Chinese tourists) lined up behind a PHOTOSHOT sign waiting patiently to stand next to the sign and get the same shot as the people before & after them. I see that a lot.

It amused me earlier this year on a three week trip to New Zealand. Ourselves and most other Brits, Aussies and New Zealanders we saw, would enjoy wandering off doing our own thing and getting away from any crowds. Then there were coaches of Chinese tourists however, who seemed to always stay together in big groups and as you say queue up to get a photo at well known viewing areas. Then get back on the coach and move on.

No disrespect at those tourists but more a difference in culture perhaps.
 
It amused me earlier this year on a three week trip to New Zealand. Ourselves and most other Brits, Aussies and New Zealanders we saw, would enjoy wandering off doing our own thing and getting away from any crowds. Then there were coaches of Chinese tourists however, who seemed to always stay together in big groups and as you say queue up to get a photo at well known viewing areas. Then get back on the coach and move on.

No disrespect at those tourists but more a difference in culture perhaps.

My parents went on such a trip across Europe 15 years back (no they are not Chinese).
Basically when you are on a couch group trip or similar, they try to cover as much as possible in a short time. So the in the time given to you by the organisers there isn't much else you can do.

This is why I don't personally go on such trips and patents have since not been on one those coach trips either.
As they put it it's a great way to tick boxes for places to see but not a great way to see the places. So nothing to do with culture IMO and more to do with your aim.
 
Self and my pal were cycling down the Loire valley about 15 years ago - typical lunch was to stop in a layby, preferably opposite a photogenic chateau, tan a bottle of wine etc.

Without fail, on approximately 15 minute cycle, a coach would roar in, disgorge a cargo of Japanese tourists who would all queue up, take a picture of the castle, take a picture of the castle with them/the wife in front, back on the bus and it roared off again,to the next chateau.

Quizzed the bus driver of one and he confirmed they were down from Paris on an afternoon tour of the Loire.
 
Self and my pal were cycling down the Loire valley about 15 years ago - typical lunch was to stop in a layby, preferably opposite a photogenic chateau, tan a bottle of wine etc.

Without fail, on approximately 15 minute cycle, a coach would roar in, disgorge a cargo of Japanese tourists who would all queue up, take a picture of the castle, take a picture of the castle with them/the wife in front, back on the bus and it roared off again,to the next chateau.

Quizzed the bus driver of one and he confirmed they were down from Paris on an afternoon tour of the Loire.

First time I saw it I found it funny, a 20 meter section with a good view point and the odd 2 or 3 people taking photos along the gap. The bus turns up and everyone get off and queues up behind the sign saying Photo Spot waiting their turn to take a photo when there is more than enough space for another 10 or so to fill the spaces (and probably get a better photo). Now it just seems crazy to me.
 
In other techniques, I seem to becoming more and more bemused by the always including foreground interest. I always used to do this myself, but the lake or seascape photos with a single rock in the middle of the foreground with no significance other than forcing something in the foreground seems increasingly pointless. Funny how your preferences change over time.

This - I to a point make a point of avoiding foreground “interest” as it’s almost always less interesting than the distant view. In a lot of locations I spend time trying to find angles that have little to nothing in the immediate foreground to make the shot less cluttered.

Why clutter up an image needlessly is my view. Focus on the distant view or scene as a whole rather than look for pointless stones, rocks or branches etc. Also makes for a technically easier shot to focus too.
 
Back
Top