5 of the Most Overused Landscape Photography Techniques

[Theo Sulphate]

Is photography more rules-conscious than other disciplines/hobbies?

In music, not everyone tunes their guitar to EBGDAE, although that's probably where everyone starts. No one fusses about the use of other tunings.

However, I think someone said to Thelonious Monk that he couldn't play a particular sequence of notes because it was out of the scale or jazz chord progression and he said, "What do you mean I can't play it? I just did!"

 

[Arklatexian]

Thick? Seriously? His "accent" was very mild. I wonder what you'd think of a Yorkshire or Geordie accent (my favorite - though I think most Brits think it's awful).



From my perspective, English is weird with the word "take". I've heard people say they're going to "take a haircut" (whaaat?) or "take lunch" (take whose lunch?). So, "taking a photo" seems like they're going to take it off the wall or table. When I'm holding a camera and pressing the shutter release, I'm making the photo. As for shooting, aside from "shooting one's cuffs" (a delightful phrase), I reserve shooting for my firearms, of which extremely long range target shooting is another hobby of mine.

Anyway, to the subject:

* I definitely liked his comments about water and they make sense, though I'll plead guilty to wanting to blur waterfalls.

* Foreground interest. Yep. Guilty of that. Sometimes it does add a sense of scale. The key, I think, is knowing when to use it.

* Panoramas. Ultimately, after making many bad photos, I came to the conclusion he did: trying to get everything in just makes the image weak unless the entire panorama is spectacular. By selecting individual aspects out of the entire scene, the result is several photographs, each of which are more interesting than a single panorama.

* Golden hour. Is it about the quality of the light itself? Maybe I misunderstand, because I thought early morning or late afternoon light was about texture and shading on the subject. Here in the Pacific northwest, or even the desert around Palm Springs, mid-day light is so flat and everything seems washed out.

Returning to the use of the word "take". If you go to South Louisiana to Cajun Country, you might, indeed, hear someone say they are going to "take a haircut", and maybe even "take lunch". They did not learn that from photographers. That is the way that they talk. As for the rest of us, especially us older types. the question of using or not using "take" in making a photograph has only come up in my lifetime. I guess before I was born, no one really gave a damn (most people still don't). It really is just something to talk about. I personally prefer "making" a photograph. Now, something really important: at what point does a "photograph" become a "Picture". To me, not all photographs are pictures. To me, if it is good enough to hang on a wall (any wall), it is a "picture". Until then it is a photograph..........Regards!

 

[StepheKoontz]

Well, let's see now. DO NOT EVER use a slow shutter speed to shoot "running water" or better yet "moving water" even when they is the best way to make a "static" water scene "interesting" and for gosh sakes DO NOT INCLUDE interesting skies that might make the image "more interesting". Why not save time and DON'T DO ANYTHING THAT MIGHT MAKE THE IMAGE "INTERESTING AND NOT BORING TO LOOK AT". Thanks F64 and I'll have you know that I am NOT feeble minded, only old, real old Thats why I know when and where to use sarcasm........Regards!

I think what he is talking about, and he even says it, is people who use those 10 stop ND filters for a 2 minute+ exposure of water. I like the way around 1/2 second or so looks, 2+ minutes it turns into a white blob. And he said "replacement sky" as in photoshopping a sky into a picture. If I'm going to go out shooting landscapes, I general try to pick a day where the sky is interesting. If it's not, I compose to make the sky that is there work.

 

[Arklatexian]

I think what he is talking about, and he even says it, is people who use those 10 stop ND filters for a 2 minute+ exposure of water. I like the way around 1/2 second or so looks, 2+ minutes it turns into a white blob. And he said "replacement sky" as in photoshopping a sky into a picture. If I'm going to go out shooting landscapes, I general try to pick a day where the sky is interesting. If it's not, I compose to make the sky that is there work.

Regarding skies, in the old days when this was done regularly (some even had negatives on file of skies with pretty clouds, (no Photoshop then), they were very proud of their photographs where no-one could tell that the sky had been added. Just finished reading a book about A. Aubrey Bodine, who kept such a file.I have worked in Salons where when a Bodine print went into the box for judging, everyone knew who had made the image. He had his own "style". We see very few people making pictures today with a recognizable "style"......Thanks F64.........Regards!

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

Thinking this over, ND/ slow shutter speed water shots are common because they are easy, and challenges or experimentation are not considered appealing.

In my own experience, so far I find skies are a better background than focal point.

 

[BMbikerider]

It I is a classic midlands English accent. What do you mean 'thick'?

I think he was meaning very very strong. I was born and grew up in the North East of England and I have no problem with people speaking in my area, but go to somewhere not to far away (no more than 20 miles) where they have a slightly different accent that can be almost unintelligible to an outsider, including myself!

 

[foc]

I think he was meaning very very strong. I was born and grew up in the North East of England and I have no problem with people speaking in my area, but go to somewhere not to far away (no more than 20 miles) where they have a slightly different accent that can be almost unintelligible to an outsider, including myself!

If you want to hear some unintelligible English spoken, then come to my neck of the woods.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... I have no problem with people speaking in my area, but go to somewhere not to far away (no more than 20 miles) where they have a slightly different accent that can be almost unintelligible to an outsider, including myself!

That's one of the aspects that I love about the UK!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Forgot red filter to make sky darker! Oops that is for black and white film though can be used in digi to BW conversion.

I'm a sucker for black sky photos with thick white bulbous cumulus clouds ever since I was 12 years old.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Having been 'making' photographs using LF cameras for some 65 years (starting off under the 'eagle eye of a semi-retired "Master" who 'thoroughly enjoyed 'yanking my chain' as often as possible...but he was more than somewhat strict about "good photographs' being 'taken' ...or 'shot" he always insisted that good photographs were MADE... thus ... to this day I still 'cringe' when I hear...or read about photographs being "shot".. or "taken".

Your mileage may vary...

Ken

Having never owned a darkroom, I always thought the lab "made" the picture. I only "shot" it or "took" it. Mostly I only "snapped" it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well, let's see now. DO NOT EVER use a slow shutter speed to shoot "running water" or better yet "moving water" even when they is the best way to make a "static" water scene "interesting" and for gosh sakes DO NOT INCLUDE interesting skies that might make the image "more interesting". Why not save time and DON'T DO ANYTHING THAT MIGHT MAKE THE IMAGE "INTERESTING AND NOT BORING TO LOOK AT". Thanks F64 and I'll have you know that I am NOT feeble minded, only old, real old Thats why I know when and where to use sarcasm........Regards!

+10,000

 

[Vaughn]

Is photography more rules-conscious than other disciplines/hobbies?...

Just on forums occupied by grumpy old men...(from the age thread...).

I try to listen to myself...If I say "I always, or usually do "X", then it is time for me to examine why and perhaps try something different. For example, I remember me saying that I usually do not include skies in my images...so time to try some sky images, or at least so images with skies.

I have never been a fan of black skies -- for my images, black skies disguise the light that I want to celebrate. But then I began photographing in the land of gray skies...

Moving water -- using LF at f64 and slow film, my moving water is usually creamy. The important thing is to make the water part of ones imagery and not just accept it. My last visit to Yosemite, I was trying some exposures around 1/15 to 1/4 of a second for moving water on some 11x14 images. The negs look good.

From a 4x5 negative with 150mm lens and red filter to extend the exposure time. (16x20 print. New Zealand, 1987).

 

[Sirius Glass]

Regarding skies, in the old days when this was done regularly (some even had negatives on file of skies with pretty clouds, (no Photoshop then), they were very proud of their photographs where no-one could tell that the sky had been added. Just finished reading a book about A. Aubrey Bodine, who kept such a file.I have worked in Salons where when a Bodine print went into the box for judging, everyone knew who had made the image. He had his own "style". We see very few people making pictures today with a recognizable "style"......Thanks F64.........Regards!

I have never replace a sky. I am happy with the skies that are given to me.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The "golden light" one hits home with me. I've read so many photography books talking about getting up super early, shooting, then go back to the hotel until late in the day. Like there is only an hour of two of usable light in a day. I shoot at all times of the day and while for certain subjects you need to be there when the light is right, you simply look for other subjects if the light on one of them isn't right.

I agree that shooting at "magic hour" is magic. Problem is I don't like getting up early. When I went on a cruise throughout Hawaii, in Maui, you can visit the Haleakala Crater at sunrise or sunset. We went for the sunset tour after a great day of others sightseeing. To see sunrise,we'd have to meet the tour bus at around 330am. Gads!

I once traded off a longer walk, though, for getting up early. In Bryce Canyon, the parking spot for Sunset View was right next to the parking lot while the spot for Sunrise View was a much longer hillier walk and it was freezing cold. So I took a shot of the sign "Sunset View" and got up early and shot the sunrise views which follows the "Sunset View" sign picture in my slide show. So far no one's picked up the fact that all the sunset shots are really sunrises.
Here's one of the sunset, er, sunrise views.
Bryce Hoodoos by Alan Klein, on Flickr

 

[Sirius Glass]

There is nothing wrong with photographing for long shadows, however there is something seriously wrong with the article author writing such blather.

 

[Wallendo]

Having linguistics as a hobby, I find accents fun. You are correctly describing what's referred to as standard American English which is indeed ubiquitous throughout the country thanks to coast-to-coast radio and TV networks since the 1940's.

Several times I've driven across the U.S. from Washington state all the way to Maine (visiting relatives) and back, staying in small towns to hear accents. Sadly, standard American English was dominant everywhere: local radio, in restaurants, in stores - even in Massachusetts and Maine. The only stronghold of distinct regional accents was among older people. Young people had grown up with TV, movies, YouTube, etc., so their regional accent never developed.

Yet there are places in Texas, Louisiana, and especially South Carolina, where I delightfully cannot understand a complete sentence.

Having grown up in South Carolina I can verify that the accent varies widely by county, and sometimes by zip code. Even within families, younger people often have very different accents from their grandparents. The old Charleston families at one time gave up completely on trying to speak English. Oyster was pronounced EYE-ster. Most educated southerners can actually speak Standard American English and can turn the drawl on-or-off as desired. I also lived in Louisiana for 5 years, so I can understand just about anything. The only English dialects with which I struggle are those from parts of India where they speak in a monotone. If I can't see the lips moving, I quickly get lost.

The accent of the guy in the video is easily understandable. Unfortunately he really needed a script and an editor. He expressed 5 minutes worth of ideas, but it took him 15 minutes to do so.

 

[alanrockwood]

Having grown up in South Carolina I can verify that the accent varies widely by county, and sometimes by zip code. Even within families, younger people often have very different accents from their grandparents. The old Charleston families at one time gave up completely on trying to speak English. Oyster was pronounced EYE-ster. Most educated southerners can actually speak Standard American English and can turn the drawl on-or-off as desired. I also lived in Louisiana for 5 years, so I can understand just about anything. The only English dialects with which I struggle are those from parts of India where they speak in a monotone. If I can't see the lips moving, I quickly get lost.

The accent of the guy in the video is easily understandable. Unfortunately he really needed a script and an editor. He expressed 5 minutes worth of ideas, but it took him 15 minutes to do so.

I once knew an older gentleman from South Carolina. As I recall he was from a coastal region. He was self conscious about his accent because he said it was not a typical Southern accent that people expected to hear from him.

I spent a little bit of time in the South, and a couple of years in Texas. I agree with you that there is not a single Southern accent, but accents vary from region to region.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

Part I-
if I may, I will use some of my random water shots as a discussion point.

Testing out a ten stop filter

Experimentation, Four stop filter

Action

Parody. Using the ten stop once again after two years.

 

[Eric Rose]

I'm pretty tired of all this talk about accents. Are we really this shallow?

 

[foc]

I'm pretty tired of all this talk about accents. Are we really this shallow?

Sorry, I didn't understand one word you said.

 

[Vaughn]

... Now, something really important: at what point does a "photograph" become a "Picture". To me, not all photographs are pictures. To me, if it is good enough to hang on a wall (any wall), it is a "picture". Until then it is a photograph..........Regards!

Well, the way I look at it, I expose film, or perhaps better...selectively expose film to record the light reflecting off objects or or otherwise emitted towards the lens/camera. At this point, I have created a latent image on film. I then develop the film to create an actual image on film, a negative. If I print the negative onto light sensitive paper or other substrate, it then becomes a photograph.

So I take light, store it, manipulate the storage material, then make a photograph. YMMD, and probably should.

Edited to add:

"I am not a fan of _______." Dang, even I am using this phrase these days. Gad, what awful language.

I couldn't watch the whole video -- I had to skip forward a bit here and there. Anyway, the fellow has his way of seeing and photographing -- and any technique can become over-used. He was pretty up-front that he has his biases and was less pushy about his ideas than many here are on this forum. If I was to name one concept from his video that was significant, I would say that it is to be conscience of the image one is trying to make.

 

[Arklatexian]

Not exactly replacement, but for years I've been wanting to try making a calotype à la Gustave le Gray by exposing one normally and then flipping the DDS over and making another very short exposure for the sky. Then they would be printed one after the other after masking out the non-sky portion of the sky calotype.

It's probably not all that well known, because most people who work with paper negatives or calotypes or blue-sensitive film ( like x-ray film ) would make the exposure for the subject and let the sky fall where it may. That's part of the "atmospheric" look of the old blue-sensitive photos from before around 1920 with the white skies. But if you use that same film or paper and intentionally expose for sky and clouds ( like a silhouette or sunset photo ) it can be very dramatic and seem to have huge depth. Somewhat like using a red filter on pan film, but with a different look to it -- hard to explain in words. You can get the same look on pan film by using a blue filter like a 47B.

( I might be wrong, but I also have a sense that it produces a sky that is more like what you see with your own eyes than most photographs, color or BW, made w/ UV filters and such )

I really need to get around to trying it!

A lot of what the was said in the video relates to what you see on Instagram and Facebook these days. Plus images being sold in tourist type stores. He is not saying never do it, and in fact says he uses all the techniques when appropriate. I feel what he is trying to do is dissuade people from becoming one or two trick ponies.

If all you ever do is take photos for your own enjoyment and all you want is Kenna type compositions and treatments then fill your walls with them.

I hope Sirius is just pulling our leg about youtubers accent. I am sure he is. I find many American accents almost incomprehensible but I don't slight them for it. Although I will try my level best to understand them. Being half deaf doesn't help much either lol.

Years ago I use to add nice puffy clouds to my B&W prints by using one of my stock "cloud" negatives. Worked really well. I also had a bunch of moon negs as well.

It's pretty easy to see the same old image treatments in our own Photrio gallery as well. Very few different and creative applications of photographic vision but lots of f64 genre stuff. I fall into that category as well. It's safe and better accepted by our membership than the more creative images posted. The stuff I create that I know wouldn't fly here I don't both posting. It's for my own consumption or friends I know would appreciate it.

First and foremost since I am no longer trying to satisfy clients, I create images that please me. No one else.

The message I take away from the video is no matter why you are creating images, try not to get stuck in a rut or follow the crowd.

Eric

Eric, you don't see photographs "improved" by adding "nice puffy clouds" to their prints because people don't know how any more. Ansel and F/64 did too good a job advocating an end to such things. If you want to see it done and done well, look at prints made by the late A. Aubrey Bodine during the middle to late 20th Century. You can find them on G_____. I do hope you have not gotten rid of your stock "cloud or moon" pictures. People don't seem to realize that adding elements to a photograph is not done as "trickery" but done to make your photography more "interesting", something that far too many are not. There. I have said all that without a "you-all or y'all" which I have noticed is being used more and more for "you plural", north of the Mason-Dixon Line!...........Regards!

 

[KN4SMF]

Eric, you don't see photographs "improved" by adding "nice puffy clouds" to their prints because people don't know how any more. Ansel and F/64 did too good a job advocating an end to such things. If you want to see it done and done well, look at prints made by the late A. Aubrey Bodine during the middle to late 20th Century. You can find them on G_____. I do hope you have not gotten rid of your stock "cloud or moon" pictures. People don't seem to realize that adding elements to a photograph is not done as "trickery" but done to make your photography more "interesting", something that far too many are not. There. I have said all that without a "you-all or y'all" which I have noticed is being used more and more for "you plural", north of the Mason-Dixon Line!...........Regards!

I could have done without the reference of drawn geographic lines from 160 years ago. Youse guys just won't let it go.

 

[removed account4]

Eric, you don't see photographs "improved" by adding "nice puffy clouds" to their prints because people don't know how any more. Ansel and F/64 did too good a job advocating an end to such things. If you want to see it done and done well, look at prints made by the late A. Aubrey Bodine during the middle to late 20th Century. You can find them on G_____. I do hope you have not gotten rid of your stock "cloud or moon" pictures. People don't seem to realize that adding elements to a photograph is not done as "trickery" but done to make your photography more "interesting", something that far too many are not. There. I have said all that without a "you-all or y'all" which I have noticed is being used more and more for "you plural", north of the Mason-Dixon Line!...........Regards!

sometimes when i add color/colorize/hand tint with paints, crayons, ink or photosoup i add puffy clouds and i have no problem with it at all. if you ever look at POST CARD photography from
the early 1900s you will see post card publishers never had problems either ( chromolithography ). there were 2 camps, one took a black and white photograph and added scrawled words like " jones street looking south" using an autographic stylus or just graphite in the dark, others took a photograph added people walking the streets, clouds in the sky, the sun, smokestacks in the background they took liberties and created something interesting to look at. I've got no problem making something interesting for me to look at, and if someone else doesn't like it its their problem LOL.
the whole rules of composition and rules of landscape i think is kind of good ( and a dead horse people like to beat on), it gives people rules and boundaries to follow it lets people make things that are pleasing. i think it is great that the article the OP linked to is attempting to get people to break rules that might be overused ( like using tilt swing to get from the photographer's toes to infinity and beyond in focus ) or whatever. lots of people with cameras and using them to express themselves these days and that is good, the people race has been making images to look at and tell stories and to decorate things for tens of thousands of years from caves to pottery to masterpieces on the internet. authors like the one the OP referenced telling people it's OK to bushwhack is fine by me.
btw up here we don't say you-all we say youz and we have 2 or 3 dictionaries to help the unlocal translate the local dialect. like "youz gonna have a couple of ptomaine sticks all the way with a scituate cocktail."

 

[Hubigpielover]

Returning to the use of the word "take". If you go to South Louisiana to Cajun Country, you might, indeed, hear someone say they are going to "take a haircut", and maybe even "take lunch". They did not learn that from photographers. That is the way that they talk. As for the rest of us, especially us older types. the question of using or not using "take" in making a photograph has only come up in my lifetime. I guess before I was born, no one really gave a damn (most people still don't). It really is just something to talk about. I personally prefer "making" a photograph. Now, something really important: at what point does a "photograph" become a "Picture". To me, not all photographs are pictures. To me, if it is good enough to hang on a wall (any wall), it is a "picture". Until then it is a photograph..........Regards!

Being from Grand Isle, La (south south) I can confirm I use take. I also ask people if they are going to get down (get out) when we arrive somewhere.