USING FOREGROUND INTEREST

THE AVOCET

THE AVOCET

Messages
53
Edit My Images
No
Starting to dabble in landscapes but was wondering is it always a must to always require
a foreground interest in photo
 
THE AVOCET said:
Starting to dabble in landscapes but was wondering is it always a must to always require
a foreground interest in photo
Click to expand...

No.

It all depends on the shot really and whether there is anything worth putting in the foreground. Too many photographers just find a massive rock to class as foreground interest and it just ends up being distracting.

That being said it can work very well. Nigel Danson talks a lot about why and how it works in his videos. Stuart McGlennon has also got a YouTube channel where talks through compositions. You may find them very useful.
 
The thing with landscapes is generally that you require a subject and/or a way to lead the eye through the image. A foreground rock etc may provide that, but it can also be a large, awkward lump at the bottom of the frame that doesn't belong.
 
The thing about foreground interest is that it should be interesting!

With any picture, you are telling a story. Part of that story might be emptiness in which case leave as much foreground empty as you can.

Or fill it with texture, or with colour, or with shapes. Just don't find a pointless rock and put that in the way.
 
That's the problem with 'rules' of composition. There are no rules, just consequences. Foreground interest gives a landscape apparent depth and can help to lead the eye through an image in a satisfying way. Ultra wide angle shots tend to rely on foreground interest for much of their impact because the background details are so small and it helps create that exaggerated perspective. However that doesn't mean it is essential. Not having foreground interest distances the viewer from the scene and often results in calmer, flatter, more graphic images. This isn't bad at all but can be more exacting to pull off.
 
Landscapes are subjective- take the shot - nothing to loose, then experiment with different lenses different pov's

I love your AVOCET handle- here's one you can use as an avatar if you like :)

DSC05259 Avocet by Les Moxon, on Flickr

welcome to the forum

Les
 
Landscapes are a lot to do with depth of image. Whether that is the trees 10 metres in front of you, or the mountains 5 miles away.
Using a wide angle lens (ie 24mm or wider) the things in the background will be much smaller and having something in the foreground provides interest and draws the eye in and through the image.
Using a longer lens (say 50mm +) the eye still gets drawn in by the larger objects but by comparison objects in the distance aren't quite so small.

You also shouldn't get hung up on trying to shoot any image just because there's a foreground interest, you have to think about whether it adds to the image at all.
Just an example, shot at 17mm (full frame), it's mostly about the water around the rocks in the foreground and the coloured clouds, with the rising sun being small in the frame.
The sun will always rise by Alistair Beavis, on Flickr

I did try different compositions, zoomed in a bit, zoomed in a lot, changing the orientation, different exposure times...
It's all about trial and error. Get out and shoot, see what works for you. Take a look at shots from other photographers and a) decide whether you like it or not then b) try to figure out why.
Then see if you can apply that to your own shots.
 
Wish to thank everyone for there kind assistance and advice with was greatly appreciated,
especially on my initial posts.
Stay safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top