Landscape Composition

[Walter]

Any thoughts on composition in landscape photography?

What goes through your head?

How much importance does a subject carry for you?

Is the scene interesting enough not to have a subject?
- And how do you determine if it is or not?

-

[Alex]

The scene itself can be the subject, even emptiness can be a subject, but sometimes there is a single body, such as a plant or some other life form, or a particular rock, which is the subject, and the remaining landscape just provides the framework.

I personally often only see the entity of scene and subject. I often do not separate both in my brain.

I think the idea could be, to either have a strong bodily subject the image is all about, and the scene/landscape just provides the framework to embed the subject in, or you want to show mainly the landscape. In the former case, find a composition that works. In the latter case, find a composition which does not need a bodily subject and still works - if you cannot, do not take the shot ;)

There might also be mixed cases, where you want to show/work with the interaction of both.

Now I am confused ;)

[Fox Paw]

Walter, please share your thoughts. I'm still working on this and I haven't made enough progress to have a valuable opinion.

[Fox Paw]

On second thought, my response wasn't constructive. It's inappropriate to suggest that only the more advanced photographers should share thoughts on this.

At this point, I look for something that grabs my eye. If it's a scene, I try to figure out what it is about the scene that grabs my eye. Move around--left/ right, closer/farther, kneeling /standing--to try to find the vantage point that best brings out whatever it is. It's sort of like Luke Skywalker trying to aim at the target...the force tells you when the elements click. I'm also trying to remind myself, at that point, to study everything in the viewfinder. That's from taking too many shots with a decent composition in general but with some scene-spoiler I didn't notice until later.

[René]

Landscapes can be hard, depends on the feeling, emotion and thoughts going through your head at the time, thats why I think no-one can really judge a photo other then give an opinion, because they do not know the exact motive behind the image. For me, generally first rule I do is look around the edge of the frame for composition, make sure there is nothing sticking out or shouldn't be in the shot. Secondly, know the rule of 2/3rds then break it! Sometimes a good photograph doesn't need a subject, just needs to be pleasing to the eye.

Also I only really shot when possibly with cloud formations, certain shots just dont work if the sky is bland, but hey, thats just me.

[Fox Paw]

"Also I only really shot when possibly with cloud formations, certain shots just dont work if the sky is bland, but hey, thats just me."

Shooting only when there are clouds would rule out two-thirds of the year for some of us. :) But I check weather forecasts and try to pick days when there will be some clouds.

[Hertz van Rental]

I don't go out looking for a landscape to photograph - they tend to find me. And I rarely photograph on the first date.
My landscapes are a personal response to something I see. Sometimes I can get it straight off the cuff but often it can take weeks or months or years figure it out and wait for the right weather and certain planets to become aligned.
Then I can usually get it in one shot.
Or possibly two.
But just as often I won't bother and go to the pub instead. Some people claim I do this when the weather is wrong or the light isn't right or I'm wearing odd socks.
I prefer to think it's because I'm Zen.

[Hertz van Rental]

But does it still respect you the next morning?
I like the thrill of the chase.

[René]

he he Fox Paw, I am referring to just me shooting in Ireland, clouds are as common as Guinness here!

[Alex]

If I re-read my post in this thread, I am amazed, I must have been drunk when writing ;)

It is interesting to read about the different ideas and concepts people connect with the question ...

[invisible]

If I re-read my post in this thread, I am amazed, I must have been drunk when writing ;)
Really? Your post made perfect sense to me... Now you're making me question my sanity!

[Alex]

Really? Your post made perfect sense to me... Now you're making me question my sanity!

I am not questioning what I tried to say, but the way I phrased it ;)

[lvcrtrs]

Landscapes can be hard, depends on the feeling, emotion and thoughts going through your head at the time, thats why I think no-one can really judge a photo other then give an opinion, because they do not know the exact motive behind the image. For me, generally first rule I do is look around the edge of the frame for composition, make sure there is nothing sticking out or shouldn't be in the shot. Secondly, know the rule of 2/3rds then break it! Sometimes a good photograph doesn't need a subject, just needs to be pleasing to the eye.


+1

[Mohain]

I keep going to write my take on this ... but it's a difficult subject to tackle!

Some quick thoughts:

There are some obvious elements that I do try to capture, like elements of the scene that relate to each other.

I don't think you need to stick to the 'rules' too rigidly though, like I rarely bear in mind the 'rule of thirds' and I'm not a firm believer that 'foreground interest' is always important.

The compositions that work the best for me are the ones that control the movement of the eye across the scene in a fluid way.

I think composing scenes is often 'instinctive' for me, but my instincts are not always right ;) I don't usually think long and hard at the time and I might not have been aware of every single element of the scene at the time of composition but sometime you just know what is right and what isn't at the time.

Sometime I can spend a long time at a certain spot shooting various takes on a scene, convinced that it's going to be the 'shot of the day' only to find out when I get home and have a close look on the PC I find that all those shots were a waste of time and the quick shot you got on the way back to the car of 'that-scene-you-saw-on-the-way-to-this-amazing location' is the one you end up keeping!

Sometimes I have to revisit the same location over and over again until I've got the shot I'm happy with.

My new aim is to make my landscapes 'neater'. I went to a seminar in December hosted by some of the top UK landscape photographer and what struck me was how 'neat' their landscapes are!

[Fox Paw]

"Sometime I can spend a long time at a certain spot shooting various takes on a scene, convinced that it's going to be the 'shot of the day' only to find out when I get home and have a close look on the PC I find that all those shots were a waste of time and the quick shot you got on the way back to the car of 'that-scene-you-saw-on-the-way-to-this-amazing location' is the one you end up keeping!"

I can certainly identify with that. Interesting thoughts.

[Hertz van Rental]

Sometime I can spend a long time at a certain spot shooting various takes on a scene, convinced that it's going to be the 'shot of the day' only to find out when I get home and have a close look on the PC I find that all those shots were a waste of time

This actually raises the question of 'pre-visualisation'.
Pre-visualisation, for those that don't know, is being able to look at a scene and know how it will photograph. Or, to be more accurate, seeing the final print in your mind and then applying knowledge and technique to make it happen in the camera.
Pre-visualisation means that you don't have to take a picture of a scene to know if it is worth photographing. You can tell just by looking. And it also guides you as to if you have to wait for different weather, time of day or different season to get what you want.
And you make the decision as to wether it will look better as black and white or not before you take the picture meaning that you shoot is as b&w (and not later in post-processing as in 'this shot's a bit iffy - let's see if it looks better in b&w').
Pre-visualisation develops with practice, experience, knowledge of your equipment and an understanding of what you are trying to do.
It was an important skill to have when shooting film - particularly large format - because it saved a lot of wasted time and material (as well as expense). The convenience and the 'instant' nature of digital has made people lazy in this respect and it doesn't appear to be a skill that people bother with any more.
Maybe a discussion on it needs it's own thread...

[KMann]

Hertz a dit: "My landscapes are a personal response to something I see. Sometimes I can get it straight off the cuff but often it can take weeks or months or years figure it out and wait for the right weather and certain planets to become aligned."

So what else is there to say?

I take fewer photographs all the time. I say less all the time.

Good thread.

[anwmn1]

This has been a great read and I have read the comments a few times over the past days.

I do think some topics brought up in this thread deserve a thread of there own. Pre-visualization being one and critique being another (I disagree with Rene but will not do so in this thread) :-)

On Composition and the questions Walter posed (in reverse order):

1. Is the scene interesting enough not to have a subject? Yes- a scene can be interesting enough to not have a particular subject. In these cases the wide scene and most often the light hitting it is the subject. Whether it is rolling hills, vast desert, or a series of mountains a wide view of a large scene can easily be interesting enough. Every little thing in the image becomes an intricate detail to the entire scene.

2. How much importance does a subject carry for you? Well in reality even if you do not think there is a subject- there is still a subject. As described above- the scene, the light, the lines, the colors, and even motion can be the subject rather than a single specific subject. These types of shots may be lost on many people but a good one will often invoke emotion in a viewer and cause them to stay an view this type of shot longer than a shot with a clearly defined subject.

3. What goes through your head? For me each location and each time I go out it is a little different. It can vary based on if I have been there before or not, do I have a pre-visualized shot, who am I with or am I shooting alone, what is my current attitude- in life and towards photography, and what are the conditions- light, weather, season, etc. All of these have a direct impact on how I will view and shoot the scene.

In general I take several lenses and filters with me whenever I am shooting a landscape. I try to shoot wide and narrow, vertical and horizontal, the details, the light, different levels (standing, kneeling, camera hoisted above me, laying down), and really try to shoot as many different compositions as I can. This usually leads to at least a couple postable shots each time but more importantly sets up success for future trips. Even if I have been to a location 4 times- the 5th time is still a scouting trip as much as it is a shooting trip.

Visually for me- the shots that 'naturally' lead you throughout the scene and bring you back are the most powerful. When viewing others work and especially in a critique that is a huge factor. "Where do my eyes go naturally"

[Chiller]

:thumbup::thumbup:

[Hertz van Rental]

Walter, I think you are mis-understanding 'pre-visualisation'.
It has nothing to do with forward planning as such. It's about being able to look at a scene and immediately knowing how it will photograph (with film it would be knowing where the tonal values will fall on the characteristic curve etc) so you see the finished print before you take the picture.
The Zone System was a way of doing it for B&W and I believe the blessed Saint Ansel wrote about it in conjunction with his system.
It can be used on location or in the studio and removes most of the guesswork and trial and error that most amateurs go through. You can turn up on spec and just by looking know wether it is worth taking a picture or not - and it can also be used to indicate how to tweak the technical aspects to get a picture.
In short, it moves the act of creating a picture to a point before you release the shutter.
A painter doesn't need to paint a picture before he knows what it's going to look like - the creativity happens in his head, not with the brush. The application of the paint becomes just a mechanical process - a means to an end.
Why should Photography - which has pretensions to being an 'art' form - be any different?
A question: who creates a photograph? The camera or the photographer? ;)

[Walter]

You're right. I got to stay out of these things..

[Walter]

...
A question: who creates a photograph? The camera or the photographer? ;)

:)

I should stay out, but since I probably won't I'll try to keep the damage to a minimum.

To answer your question; I don't care. For me it's a method of expression. When I think about it, it doesn't get any deeper. It's just what it is.

I'm not sure if I pre-visualize or not. There's something I go through, whether it's planning, pre-visualization or whatever, I'm not going to sweat it though. I have fun doing what I'm doing. I get what I want. It feels good.

& that's not to discount anything you've said Hertz. I'm a fan.


-

[Fox Paw]

All the comments have been very interesting.

[Hertz van Rental]

:
To answer your question; I don't care. For me it's a method of expression. When I think about it, it doesn't get any deeper. It's just what it is.... I get what I want. It feels good.

What you are saying there is that it is the photographer who creates the photograph.
The camera is merely a tool that the photographer uses.
The next step is to realise that you actually do think about what you are doing and what you want the end product to be - it just doesn't happen at a conscious level.
Why do you take this view and not that? Why do you stand here and not there? Why do you frame it this way and not that?
Because it looks/feels right.
And it seems right to you because your subconscious is making a lot of choices and decisions for you.
All you need to do now is to pull some of this process into your conscious mind. That way you will find you have way more control over what you do and the end product you produce - and you will get a whole lot more pleasure and satisfaction out of your work.
But it's something that happens when you are ready - and it doesn't have to happen at all.
If you are happy doing what you do then that is OK by me. However if there ever comes a time when you start feeling vaguely dissatisfied then think more on what I am saying.
Or don't - it's your choice, your work, your photographs. I don't tell people what they should and shouldn't do - I only show them possibilities. :hmm:

[Walter]

Good stuff. Thanks.

-

[bigtwinky]

This has been one of the better photo reads I have had in a few weeks.

[Hertz van Rental]

You can actually get aids for pre-visualisation. Lighting cameramen in the motion picture industry use various viewers to make their job easier. Density viewers reduce the tonal range of a scene to nearer that of film and they can be very useful - but I don't use them myself.

http://www.overlandfilms.com/cinematographer-contrast-viewing-lupe--filter.html

[jbylake]

This has been one of the better photo reads I have had in a few weeks.
Yep! I have to agree. Alot of it is pretty thought provoking, and has given me some ideas that I would like to expand on and experiment with.

J.:big grin: