Shijuhachi Ike Swamp (48-lake swamp)

[lunaticitizen]

I really need to lose weight

My lens (24-120 mm zoom) felt too heavy

I created 3 masks using Lightroom: subject, sky, and background. It was so fast and effective.

[escape]

Hi Leo. I like it. Especially the main subjects facial expression
and stance. I would go with a tighter crop. Otherwise it all looks good to me.

[Geoff F]

Yes this looks OK but I wonder about a crop. If the intention is to show a person with an interesting background, then I would crop from the top and left side. However, if it is meant to be a good landscape scene, plus a person, with the landscape being most important, then I would crop less but still a fraction from top and left side.

[Manfred M]

I agree with the others; for a landscape, the person is a distraction and as an environmental portrait, the person takes up far too little space.

While you say you have done some work on the sky, it is still to bright and distracting. Cropping it out would likely work better here.

[lunaticitizen]

Thank you everyone for the critiques!

Now I see that I am far too small in the image

Is there any rule regarding an appropriate size for a person on an environmental portrait?

I'll try cropping tighter. I think my wife also took tighter crops of this image 🤔

Pity about the sky, I agree it's too bright.

[Manfred M]

Leo, a portrait (even an environmental portrait), is primarily about the subject and the environment should complement the subject (i.e. tell us something about what they are doing). The subject should fill a significant part of the frame.

Here is an environmental portrait I did at a machine shop a few years ago, to give you an idea of how that genre looks. This is a posed shot. I used a large soft box / studio light and silver reflector to do this image.

[lunaticitizen]

I understand that. How big should the subject be though?
E.g., if it's a full-body shot should the subject cover at least half of the height of the frame?
Is there such convention?

In your example I absolutely agree that the size of the subject is significant relative to the whole frame.

[DanK]

I understand that. How big should the subject be though?
E.g., if it's a full-body shot should the subject cover at least half of the height of the frame?
Is there such convention?

In your example I absolutely agree that the size of the subject is significant relative to the whole frame.

I'm certainly not an expert, but I doubt there are rules. For example, I've seen lots of landscapes that include very small people to give a sense of scale. I did one myself that was intermediate, a silhouette of a young couple against the background of a sunset on Lake Champlain, where the people were big enough to be the obvious subject but far smaller than in Manfred's example. I think a lot of it depends on specifics.

In your case, you were centered right to left and staring right into the camera, so clearly not there just to provide a sense of scale.

My starting point for this would be: what's this about? Is it about you in a beautiful setting? Then you should be large. Is it about the scenery? Then I don't think scale is needed, and I'd do it with no one in the frame.

Again, I am not an expert about either landscapes or environmental portraits, so take this for whatever little it may be worth.

[escape]

Is there any rule regarding an appropriate size for a person on an environmental portrait?

If you asked us each to provide you with an appropriate crop, you would have several variations. I cropped it, and the secondary focus was the walkway he was standing on. It looked balanced to me. I suggest you try a variety of crops and see what makes the best overall image for you.

[Manfred M]

To the best of my knowledge, there are no rules on what makes a strong (environmental) portrait nor are there any regarding landscape images. In the end, the only thing that counts are how well your image works.

For an image to work well, you need to ensure that the viewer gets the same impression of the person (portrait) or scene (landscape) that caught your eye. In the image you have posted, your probably take up 1% - 2% of the visual space. That's too much to give a sense of scale and is to the point where you are more of a distracting element in a landscape than anything else.

In portraiture, we tend to concentrate on the subject's head and face. The subject's eyes tend to be the draw. We often concentrate on the subject's head and shoulder's (known as a head and shoulder shot) where those part fill the frame. A 3/4 shot, where we include the head and torso, down to just above the knees is another common shot (known as a 3/4 shot). Whole body shots become more common in group images.

To get a better idea of what works well, I tend to steer people to look at Yousuf Karsh's portraits, to study how he photographed people. He is generally viewed as the most influential portrait photographer of the 20th Century and his works are studied by most people trying to get into portrait photography. The website i: https://karsh.org/

If you want a more contemporary take on the subject, look at the work of Annie Leibovitz https://annieliebovitz.com/

Her website is a good place to start looking at her work, although the image content is quite limited.




I looked a lot to Ansel Adam's work when I was in my landscape photography phase. Studying his work is what got me on the right track. https://www.anseladams.com/


If you want a contemporary look at landscape photography, study the work of Edward Burtynsky.

https://www.edwardburtynsky.com/


I found that studying the works of the masters is where I learned how to create strong images in those genres.

[lunaticitizen]

Sorry guys, I had to go to Bukhara at ridiculously short notice I couldn't even properly pack my pants 🤮

Thanks so much for the comments, I've read every word of them but haven't had time to properly respond.

Let me re-process this image once I get back from this trip 🫡