Learning Landscapes - Please post your BIG picture dramatic landscape images

[Brownbear]

I know I've seen landscape images that are vast and all encompassing of an overwhelmingly gorgeous scene but for some reason these scenes are difficult to photograph and I can't figure it out.

So I would like to ask those with beautiful BIG picture scenes to share them, with a number of scenes within a scene, ideally with a comment as to why the image works (as compared to zooming in on a specific portion of a scene)

Thank you.

[Donald]

Without seeing any of the beautiful big pictures that are sure to follow, I'd bet money that the best of them contain the elements that allow a wonderful scene to be translated into an effective two-dimensional image - strong lines, shapes, tones, colours, textures.

The 'problem' with the "vast and all encompassing overwhelmingly gorgeous scene" is that we are there and all our senses are operating to take in the scene, not only our sight, but our smell, touch, even taste. And they all act to create our emotional reaction to the image.

What the 'beautiful' images will do is capture so much of that in only one of these elements - sight.

So, the 'secret key' to this? Composition.

I think one of the most important skills is in being able to look at a scene that is stirring all your senses, sweeping you up in emotion and still be able to say, "That would make an awful picture".

[rpcrowe]

Is this something like what you mean?



Valley Overlook, Yosemite National Park, California
Canon 30D; ISO 100; 17-55mm f/2.8 IS @ 37mm (50.2 equivalent); 1/250 second (it was quite windy) @ f/6.7



Canon 30D, ISO 100, 70-200mm f/4L IS @ 70mm (112mm equivalent); 1/350 second @ f/8



Canon 30D, ISO 100, 70-200mm f/4L IS @ 180mm (302mm equivalent); 1/750 @ f/8

These images were not shot at the same time, thus the difference in exposures...

Note: I have a hunch that many times photographers use wide angle lenses to get wider left to right coverage of vistas. This often results in a lot of sky and foreground with a small strip of interest through the center portion of the image.

Often our "selective vision" will allow us to isolate the portions of the scene as we look at it. The camera does not do this and the photographer must be the one to isolate or include elements.

If I cannot cover an image, left to right, with other than a very wide angle lens (the original shot was done at 35mm which is pretty much a normal focal length for a 1.6x camera), I will most often do a pano of several frames. I like to shoot my panos with the camera in the portrait position so I can use a longer focal length and get equal top to bottom coverage. My left to right coverage will be predicated on how many images I shoot. (Hint: the RRS L bracket makes it very easy to shoot a pano with the camera in the portrait position. The camera will rotate correctly for a pano while using a standard ball head, with the camera hanging cantilevered over to the side, will not provide correct rotation).

I will only use a very wide focal length when I include a distinctive foreground object (tree, rock, etc.) in the foreground of the image...

[Bobobird]

Like this?

[Brownbear]

Richard,

Indeed that is a drop dead gorgeous image but I'm hoping to see some larger scenes that work, say one with an entire mountain range, lake, sky, field of flowers or any combination thereof... Or photo from the air that shows water, islands, mountains, all in one shot... for sure I've seen some of those.

Donald...

Thank you for sharing your words of wisdom, albeit I'm not keen on hearing this (:


I think one of the most important skills is in being able to look at a scene that is stirring all your senses, sweeping you up in emotion and still be able to say, "That would make an awful picture".

[Brownbear]

Yes!

Like this?

[MrStyles]

Olympus e-5-England
http://i44.tinypic.com/2hmqbf5.jpg

[Donald]

Or this?

[MrStyles]

Olympus e-5 England
http://i44.tinypic.com/2hmqbf5.jpg

[IzzieK]

Ah Cristina, from the onset of your post, I was already thinking of what you mean like a whole landscape view of a scenic place perhaps? My thought is a whole vista. You can achieve that by panning and taking photos as you scan the whole scenery. Of course you will have several shots that you can merge together to make it into one photo...It is called a panorama shot. Is my understanding of your question correct?

I cannot give you an example as I am in between packing for my trip and learning portrait photography (as per tips I got from the last post I started) and taking care of every one here in the house. I have to really sit down and look for them in my hard drives. Sorry. I just want to confirm your thoughts...

[FrankMi]

Would this one qualify for what you are thinking of Christina?



or, perhaps, something more along these lines?

[Brownbear]

Donald, that is closer but the first image of Frank's here is exactly what I am thinking of... It works beautifully... Can we say why? (the 2nd image works, too)

It has gorgeous mountains, water, and a story in the people in the foreground... I can see that the rule of 1/3rds is perfect... And I bet if there were a rainbow in this image or a whale leaping out of the ocean, or dolphins, it would still work.. So it shows that one can capture what one sees in a photograph with competing points of interest.

Thank you.

Would this one qualify for what you are thinking of Christina?



or, perhaps, something more along these lines?

[bambleweeney]

I think in the case of Frank's images the competing points of interest are absolutely required to make the image.
Both images contain something 'foregroundish' that give us a sense of scale and add a story element to the first one.
The foreground(ish) elements help lead us into the picture. Good/interesting light helps a lot and as Donald pointed out composition is the key.
In any image you should have a point of interest (dead tree in the foreground or patch of light on a mountain that stops your eye from wandering all round the image looking for something or lines that lead you through or around the image.

[ajohnw]

Might Christina be looking for tips on when wider angel lenses say sub 50mm in FF terms can be used?

It's a tricky subject. Very wide shots are often taken from low down with something interesting in the foreground.

I don't know if I am the only one but I remember my 1st 28mm lens bought just before a holiday in Italy. Scenes looked great by eye but ..... and a lot of film wasted.

John
-

[Mike Buckley]

one with an entire mountain range, lake, sky, field of flowers or any combination thereof

Hopefully you'll allow me to substitute the Indian Ocean for your requirement of a lake.

The image works for me because:

--the white flowers provide foreground interest and the shape of their collection leads the eye (almost points) to the middle and upper areas of the frame
--there are many layers (foreground, line of rocks, ocean, mountains, sky) that complement rather than compete with each other
--the clouds cast shadows that make the light more interesting even though it was captured in between the ideal daylight hours. (I waited for the best areas to be brightly lit and for the best areas to be in shade. I didn't have the luxury of being able to shoot at sunrise.)

Focal length: 35mm mounted on a camera with a 1.5 crop factor
1/80 second, ISO 1400, f/22
Polarizer was used

[Mike Buckley]

I think one of the most important skills is in being able to look at a scene that is stirring all your senses, sweeping you up in emotion and still be able to say, "That would make an awful picture".

Your point is well taken. However, that's only important because it also confirms that you have the skill to look at such a scene and know that, indeed, it will make a great photo. As an example, I left my camera in the car while my wife captured the image shown below. It required considerable post-processing by me to eliminate the haze and lack of contrast, but it's one of our favorites that I didn't "see" because the light was so awful.

Focal length: 22mm mounted on a camera with a 1.5 crop factor
1/125 second, ISO 560, f/8
Don't know if a polarizer was used.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Frank,could you give the exif values of these very very nice shots

Would this one qualify for what you are thinking of Christina?



or, perhaps, something more along these lines?

[Brownbear]

Yes,

Strong lines, the road leading to the mountain?

textures, the foreground?

Shapes and textures, clouds and the trees on the hillside in the foregound?


and wide tones?

I think I am seeing a strong foreground in all of these images...


Thank you

Or this?

[bnnrcn]

Hi Bobo ,can you share the exif please?

Like this?

[bnnrcn]

Hi Mike,can you share the exif please?

Hopefully you'll allow me to substitute the Indian Ocean for your requirement of a lake.

The image works for me because:

--the white flowers provide foreground interest and the shape of their collection leads the eye (almost points) to the middle and upper areas of the frame
--there are many layers (foreground, line of rocks, ocean, mountains, sky) that complement rather than compete with each other
--the clouds cast shadows that make the light more interesting than would be the case when shooting in between the ideal daylight hours. (I waited for the best areas to be brightly lit and for the best areas to be in shade. I didn't have the luxury of being able to shoot at sunrise.)

Focal length: 35mm mounted on a camera with a 1.5 crop factor