5 of the Most Overused Landscape Photography Techniques

[Eric Rose]

I know I have gotten lazy every once in awhile and just went for the default composition and didn't put enough effort into looking for something better. It's something I am working on. After 55+ years of making images it gets too easy and comfortable to just do it the "usual way". Same goes for printing my images. Got to get back into learning mode.

https://petapixel.com/2019/07/29/5-of-the-most-overused-landscape-photography-techniques/

Let's try very hard to not let this devolve into a digi vs analog thread. Nor do we need any asshat comments about petapixel. Unlike some sites they encourage various views. Remember sarcasm is for the feeble minded.

 

[faberryman]

I read another Petapixel article a week or so ago advocating using the same five techniques discouraged in this article. I wish they would make up their minds.

 

[Luckless]

I read another Petapixel article a week or so ago advocating using the same five techniques discouraged in this article. I wish they would make up their minds.

There is of course a difference between knowing how to do or use something, and using it to excess.

 

[faberryman]

There is of course a difference between knowing how to do or use something, and using it to excess.

Really?

 

[Sirius Glass]

1. His accent was so thick I had to use Google Translate to get it in English
2. WTF was this jabber about shipping lens in a box that had nothing to do with the title.
3. Maybe he overuses those motifs or maybe he thinks he sees too much of those but who died and made him god?
4. I will shoot what I want and when I want.

 

[mshchem]

I never liked long exposure waterfalls. I very very shoot landscapes, ie nature. He makes some good points. When I shoot Panorama shots I do a lot of handheld stuff with a old Fuji G617. Tends to be used for ultra wide shots of cityscapes etc. I don't stich.

 

[Eric Rose]

I don't feel he thinks he a "god" and it's presented as a discussion point. However I do agree some techniques are over used. But like I always say, that's why they make chocolate and vanilla.

Do what you want if it makes you happy.

 

[Peltigera]

1. His accent was so thick I had to use Google Translate to get it in English

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

 

[removed account4]

I think its kind of interesting to say the least what people think works and doesn't work. I also think people get in a groove and they like making photographs
all one way. Most of photography is a gimmick anyways, do something one way or another because it's fashionable or .. not
After all if you ever go to present a whole bunchof images to a gallery or portfolio review or whatever they want to see 20 images that all look the same.
why not show them all panoramic slow exposed waterfalls with swapped ot skys and looming forgrounds all shot at f128.. ( or .. not )

 

[nmp]

I don't know about the other techniques, but I wonder about sky replacement. Is this "overused?" I never do it myself and never will. I guess some people do it all the time. How about folks here?

:Niranjan.

P.S. I just got me a little gadget for pano work. Darn, I can't do it anymore!

 

[Focomatter]

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

 

[KenS]

I know I have gotten lazy every once in awhile and just went for the default composition and didn't put enough effort into looking for something better. It's something I am working on. After 55+ years of making images it gets too easy and comfortable to just do it the "usual way". Same goes for printing my images. Got to get back into learning mode.

https://petapixel.com/2019/07/29/5-of-the-most-overused-landscape-photography-techniques/

Let's try very hard to not let this devolve into a digi vs analog thread. Nor do we need any asshat comments about petapixel. Unlike some sites they encourage various views. Remember sarcasm is for the feeble minded.

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

 

[Eric Rose]

..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".Ken

Funny thing is, when I hear someone emphasizing "making" a photo rather than taking it I cringe lol.

 

[nmp]

Funny thing is, when I hear someone emphasizing "making" a photo rather than taking it I cringe lol.

When you are out with your camera, you take a photo. Then when you go home, you make the photo. Once you have learned the craft, you know how to take the photo so you can make the photo.

 

[Eric Rose]

When you are out with your camera, you take a photo. Then when you go home, you make the photo. Once you have learned the craft, you know how to take the photo so you can make the photo.

There we go, makes both camps happy

 

[Ian Grant]

I think I'd agree partially.

1 Multiple exposures can be better than one long exposure.

2 Panoramas should be limited to hen that's the best o often only way to shoot the subject matter.

3 That's personal choice but subject to exageratiion, which is I guess the comment here.

4 We should shoot all times of day and season.

5 I've done this with film many times but not for maybe 40 years.

Ian

 

[Theo Sulphate]

1. His accent was so thick I had to use Google Translate to get it in English...

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).

... to this day I still 'cringe' when I hear...or read about photographs being "shot".. or "taken".
...

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Any approach can be over used. The question we should ask ourselves is if we over use them.
I am careful about using the red filters, other than for infrared, because too many black skies gets boring real fast.
I use a panorama camera for panorama photographs and not very often.
I have never replaced a sky.
If there is a foreground interest object I may choose to use it if it adds. I do not go out of my way to find a foreground object. I do not ever insert a foreground object. [Have we ground the foreground object into the ground and can we consider it grounded?]
I take photographs when I want to take the photographs and I will wait for the right light for a composition.

That accent could have been cut with a cheddar cheese knife.

 

[jim10219]

The issue with any technique is trying to force it's implementation in an inappropriate situation. Techniques are tools to be deployed for problem solving. Not identifying the problem first, is the first problem. When presented a landscape you wish to capture, you should be asking yourself what it is about the scene that compels you and what story you'd like to share. Approaching it with the mindset of wanting to implement a specific technique beforehand is a recipe for Xeroxed mediocrity. Instead, you should approach it with an open mind and clear vision of what it is you are attempting to convey. Then, after you know what you're trying to accomplish, you mine your brain for techniques that help you to achieve your vision.

Therefore, no technique should be judged as overused or underused, because they are all only applied when most appropriate.

For example, if you're taking in a waterfall, and the serenity of the white noise and dappled reflections of the sun calms your jittery, office weary soul, then maybe you want to blur the waterfall with a long exposure, because it helps to convey the passage of time and the opportunities that provides for self reflection, as well the sounds and life that surrounds it and breath life into you. However, if you're staring at the waterfall and find yourself diminished by it's raw and wreck less power and are suddenly awakened to your own fragile mortality and insignificance then you might choose to shorten the shutter speed to capture the individual droplets of water, since they serve as a metaphor for yourself and humanity's subjugation to the might and endurance of nature. You can't fight nature's will, because you ARE nature's will. And when nature wills you no longer, then no longer shall you be.

 

[nmp]

The issue with any technique is trying to force it's implementation in an inappropriate situation. Techniques are tools to be deployed for problem solving. Not identifying the problem first, is the first problem. When presented a landscape you wish to capture, you should be asking yourself what it is about the scene that compels you and what story you'd like to share. Approaching it with the mindset of wanting to implement a specific technique beforehand is a recipe for Xeroxed mediocrity. Instead, you should approach it with an open mind and clear vision of what it is you are attempting to convey. Then, after you know what you're trying to accomplish, you mine your brain for techniques that help you to achieve your vision.

Therefore, no technique should be judged as overused or underused, because they are all only applied when most appropriate.

For example, if you're taking in a waterfall, and the serenity of the white noise and dappled reflections of the sun calms your jittery, office weary soul, then maybe you want to blur the waterfall with a long exposure, because it helps to convey the passage of time and the opportunities that provides for self reflection, as well the sounds and life that surrounds it and breath life into you. However, if you're staring at the waterfall and find yourself diminished by it's raw and wreck less power and are suddenly awakened to your own fragile mortality and insignificance then you might choose to shorten the shutter speed to capture the individual droplets of water, since they serve as a metaphor for yourself and humanity's subjugation to the might and endurance of nature. You can't fight nature's will, because you ARE nature's will. And when nature wills you no longer, then no longer shall you be.

Absolutely on the mark. Thanks for articulating it so succinctly!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... Instead, you should approach it with an open mind and clear vision of what it is you are attempting to convey. Then, after you know what you're trying to accomplish, you mine your brain for techniques that help you to achieve your vision.

Therefore, no technique should be judged as overused or underused, because they are all only applied when most appropriate.

For example, if you're taking in a waterfall, and the serenity of the white noise and dappled reflections of the sun calms your jittery, office weary soul, then maybe you want to blur the waterfall with a long exposure, because it helps to convey the passage of time and the opportunities that provides for self reflection, as well the sounds and life that surrounds it and breath life into you. However, if you're staring at the waterfall and find yourself diminished by it's raw and wreck less power and are suddenly awakened to your own fragile mortality and insignificance then you might choose to shorten the shutter speed to capture the individual droplets of water, since they serve as a metaphor for yourself and humanity's subjugation to the might and endurance of nature. You can't fight nature's will, because you ARE nature's will. And when nature wills you no longer, then no longer shall you be.

That makes so much sense to me. I'm copying that and saving it. Thank you.

 

[pentaxuser]

1. His accent was so thick I had to use Google Translate to get it in English

Sirius, DT surely can't be serious about a trade deal with people who speak like this, can he. Most us over here have thicker accents.When I read your post but hadn't heard the video I certainly wasn't expecting a speaker who was almost without an accent and had such clear diction. He'd get a job on the BBC news, no problem. I started off trying to be funny but the more I read what I have said the more I realise it isn't funny. From the second sentence I am describing the reality. This was well enunciated English. It was not stuff like: "Here Sirius, I'd love a butcher's at the geezer's gaff"

Gor blimey and love a duck I fought( as in forty fousand feathers on a frush ) the geezer made some good points. His voice didn't grate on me and I am Scottish

pentaxuser

 

[NedL]

I don't know about the other techniques, but I wonder about sky replacement. Is this "overused?" I never do it myself and never will. I guess some people do it all the time. How about folks here?

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!

 

[kevs]

I kind-of agree with his points; some 'clever' techniques lend themselves to easy copying and rapidly become naff clichés.
I notice he didn't mention wooden jetties.
Or cross-processed Venture-style portraits.
Or 'Lomography'.
Or HDR imaging....
No sarcasm here, or course. Pass me the graduated tobacco filter...

 

[Eric Rose]

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