How would you compose this picture to add depth? What you see here is a car crash/fire last night, crappy IPhone photo but it's all I had. What you don't see and the basis of my...

Resqu2 Loc: SW Va

What you see here is a car crash/fire last night, crappy IPhone photo but it's all I had. What you don't see and the basis of my question is that the car went over a guard rail and what looks like a simple walk to the car was anything but that. From the road to the car was a nearly vertical 50ft drop. Me and my partner had to be lowered down with the hose to get to it, no way to stand up without falling all way down and landing on a fully involved car fire. I took a bunch of pics trying to show the steep drop but all of them look like you can walk right up to the car.

Maybe what I was trying to convey in my photo isn't even possible or maybe it was just the grass, had it went over a rock wall you may of been able to convey that.

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

Get down lower.

Haydon

Agree with dirtpusher. Also, simplify the composition and exclude in the shot unnecessary clutter that doesn't add to what you wish to convey. If you wish to include something that depicts a steep drop, I've found it more useful to shoot up instead of down sometimes. It seems to accentuate depth more at times.

Resqu2 Loc: SW Va

dirtpusher wrote:

Get down lower.

I had finished my part of the job and was taking the pics from above after the incident was over, I see now how taking them from down below the car could of helped. Thanks!

nedell Loc: Holland NY USA

A shot from below the car looking up with someone at the top would convey the drop and distance. Not sure it could be done from the top looking down. One photo alone may not convey what you want.

GrumpyOldBeardGuy

How about moving down the road so you can see both positions? Maybe 100 or 150 feet.

Resqu2 Loc: SW Va

GrumpyOldBeardGuy wrote:

How about moving down the road so you can see both positions? Maybe 100 or 150 feet.

Yea that would of helped also, need another reference point. Plus having my dslr would of gave me more options to.

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

Resqu2 wrote:

I had finished my part of the job and was taking the pics from above after the incident was over, I see now how taking them from down below the car could of helped. Thanks!

Well they may work too. But the more foreground you have more depth. Squat on even on belly. Standing up you loose depth.

CO

The large expanse of grass in the foreground takes away from the image. It would have been better to make this a horizontal shot instead of vertical. You would still want to apply the rule of thirds and have the the vehicle placed at the left one-third line. To make a photo even more dynamic, the golden spiral can be used. There's a great article called "Beyond Basic Composition" that was in Outdoor Photography magazine. I still have that issue. They put it online. Look at the difference in the lighthouse photo when they composed using the rule of thirds and when they composed using the golden spiral.

Here is a link to the article:
http://www.oopoomoo.com/2013/12/beyond-basic-composition-line-shape-and-form-in-photography/

IBM

Really good focusing, if you had a long lens on a DSLR zoomed away from you , it may have conveyed the depth of the slope , ??

olsonsview

If a human could be included in the picture, shown lowering to the scene. A live person would provide scale, and along with a side view, might show the steep wall to a better advantage. Those two changes would allow a viewer to better appreciate the difficulty of the situation?

Resqu2 Loc: SW Va

olsonsview wrote:

If a human could be included in the picture, shown lowering to the scene. A live person would provide scale, and along with a side view, might show the steep wall to a better advantage. Those two changes would allow a viewer to better appreciate the difficulty of the situation?

Yea I wish I had took more time to of though about it. I am usually the only one that takes pics and it's always after the incident is over. Lots of good suggestions here for my next time. Thanks guys!

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I would have gotten down--not directly behind the car, but behind the lower headlight at an angle--and used a very wide rectilinear lens, so that you could have seen the position of the car on the hill and included the hill up to the road level, with maybe some sky. This is different, but here's a rough idea of what I mean (though not front on, but a bit more around the right side (facing it) of the car, and looking a bit more up.)

(Download)

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

Resqu2 wrote:

What you see here is a car crash/fire last night, ... (show quote)

Both depth and scale are missing. I would have tried to put two humans in the photo, one down by the car and one - or even a part of one, at the top of the cliff. The eye, comparing sizes of the human forms, develops a sense of depth and scale.

twowindsbear

olsonsview wrote:

If a human could be included in the picture, shown lowering to the scene. A live person would provide scale, and along with a side view, might show the steep wall to a better advantage. Those two changes would allow a viewer to better appreciate the difficulty of the situation?

Don't you see the two live humans in the scene???