Back Up..Or Move Closer (Hope you'll add your own images)
Jul 31, 2015 16:32:38 #
When shooting nature, do you find yourself backing up to get "everything in" or moving closer to get a more intimate portrait? I keep waffling. These are at Sawback Burn, site of an old forest fire area in Banff NP. I wanted to show the contrast between the destruction and the new growth which is dependent on it. Which do you think tells the story better?
If you feel so moved, please add your own shots, two of the same scene, one close in and one from more distance showing the "big picture" of the same scene. I'd love to learn more what other people think about this shooting dilemma.
If you feel so moved, please add your own shots, two of the same scene, one close in and one from more distance showing the "big picture" of the same scene. I'd love to learn more what other people think about this shooting dilemma.
Jul 31, 2015 17:31:59 #
minniev wrote:
When shooting nature, do you find yourself backing... (show quote)
Those are both spectacular. Fireweed is so beautiful. The first one is something special, extraordinary, and definitely tells the story. The second one suffers from the "in between" problem. Most snapshots people take are "in between" - not close enough for an intimate view, or not far back enough to portray the scene. When I started out, before I pressed the shutter I would say to myself "move back, or move in, (sometimes move up or move down) but don't shoot from here." There is something about the distance (and height) at which we are comfortable when looking at a scene that rarely works in a photograph. I would say "move in" for the second one, if I were to critique it at all. Vertical orientation and just two or three plants is the way I would have done it. That would make the background less distracting as well.
Mike
Jul 31, 2015 18:11:16 #
Super idea for a topic, Minnie! I'll look through my stuff to see if I have anything appropriate.
Your first shot is a breathtaking composition and wonderful study of nature's cycles.
Very interesting comment from Mike. Hadn't heard it expressed like that. Excellent tip!!
Your first shot is a breathtaking composition and wonderful study of nature's cycles.
Very interesting comment from Mike. Hadn't heard it expressed like that. Excellent tip!!
Jul 31, 2015 18:22:18 #
Blenheim Orange wrote:
Those are both spectacular. Fireweed is so beautif... (show quote)
Thanks for your comments! Good point about getting close, one of my weaknesses is trying to back up too much (because I'm trying to get too much in the frame). Interesting suggestions that can help me and others too I think. I shot this one with a long lens, any special hints about using a long lens for quasi-close ups? Do you have some examples you can share with us of this close/far away kind of thing?
Jul 31, 2015 18:22:42 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
Super idea for a topic, Minnie! I'll look through my stuff to see if I have anything appropriate.
Your first shot is a breathtaking composition and wonderful study of nature's cycles.
Very interesting comment from Mike. Hadn't heard it expressed like that. Excellent tip!!
Your first shot is a breathtaking composition and wonderful study of nature's cycles.
Very interesting comment from Mike. Hadn't heard it expressed like that. Excellent tip!!
Thanks Linda, look forward to seeing what you rustle up!
Jul 31, 2015 18:59:27 #
minniev wrote:
Thanks for your comments! Good point about getting close, one of my weaknesses is trying to back up too much (because I'm trying to get too much in the frame). Interesting suggestions that can help me and others too I think. I shot this one with a long lens, any special hints about using a long lens for quasi-close ups? Do you have some examples you can share with us of this close/far away kind of thing?
My tendency was to the "middle," neither backing up nor moving in.
I briefly tried a 600 mm lens and decided that it was too bulky and heavy for me. I use a 100 mm macro and a 180 mm macro now. I use the 180 later in the season with the larger subjects.
I probably have examples of every mistake that it is possible to make :lol:
Mike
Jul 31, 2015 22:23:43 #
This may not be anything like what the response would be that you would expect because... it would be not how far into a scene you would go but what is the purpose, how would you use this, or who would be especially interested?
The 1st pic. is not really scenic nature or ideal nature, but the record of a big burn and beginning of recovery in a specific place. It is a pic. that would interest a forester. It might also be a reminder to be careful not to be the cause of such destruction....e.g. a poster or illustration for an article about forest fire etc....
The 2nd pic,, well Minnie, I don't like those downloads scrolling down the monitor and I'm not a pixel-peeper. I just use that little gear icon in the upper right corner of the monitor to enlarge. Plenty of good resolution there for a close up of fire weed with the horizontal log behind it well blurred out but still identifiable as such and close-up of a few flowers and their leaves for identification of fire weed.
It doesn't grow everywhere. Some people don't know what it is. Again, good illustration for something.
The 1st pic. is not really scenic nature or ideal nature, but the record of a big burn and beginning of recovery in a specific place. It is a pic. that would interest a forester. It might also be a reminder to be careful not to be the cause of such destruction....e.g. a poster or illustration for an article about forest fire etc....
The 2nd pic,, well Minnie, I don't like those downloads scrolling down the monitor and I'm not a pixel-peeper. I just use that little gear icon in the upper right corner of the monitor to enlarge. Plenty of good resolution there for a close up of fire weed with the horizontal log behind it well blurred out but still identifiable as such and close-up of a few flowers and their leaves for identification of fire weed.
It doesn't grow everywhere. Some people don't know what it is. Again, good illustration for something.
Jul 31, 2015 22:43:53 #
jenny wrote:
This may not be anything like what the response wo... (show quote)
Thanks for dropping in and commenting Jenny! Do you have a particular way that you like to capture nature shots? Do you prefer close-up or from-a-distance? Do you want to share some nature shots of yours?
Jul 31, 2015 23:11:46 #
Too many other things have required my attention to attend to whatever causes the error msg.that wouldn't allow sending a pic/ couple days ago. LIfe gets in the way of time to fix computer glitches.
Jul 31, 2015 23:18:24 #
jenny wrote:
Too many other things have required my attention to attend to whatever causes the error msg.that wouldn't allow sending a pic/ couple days ago. LIfe gets in the way of time to fix computer glitches.
Sorry you're still wrangling with that gremlin Jenny, wish we could find a solution for you. Computers can be so aggravating. Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em. I've spent most of today fixing the problems caused by yesterday's Adobe CC update. Finally got it done in time to go out for a night hike to see the "blue moon".
Aug 2, 2015 01:15:47 #
I'd have to agree with jenny that both pics tell a very different story, and further, I think that both together tell a more complete story.
If I'm using a longish zoom lens, I often find myself shooting "zoom series" shots, to reveal what may be going on in a little speck of the wider image. Here's a series I did at Smith Rock (Oregon), a popular rock climbing site. I wanted to somehow show those little tiny climbers rallying waay down there below this great big rock, and a series seemed to work better than any single shot. (I wasn't about to zoom with my feet on this one, since it would have entailed a steep 2-hour hike on a 105-degree day!)
If I'm using a longish zoom lens, I often find myself shooting "zoom series" shots, to reveal what may be going on in a little speck of the wider image. Here's a series I did at Smith Rock (Oregon), a popular rock climbing site. I wanted to somehow show those little tiny climbers rallying waay down there below this great big rock, and a series seemed to work better than any single shot. (I wasn't about to zoom with my feet on this one, since it would have entailed a steep 2-hour hike on a 105-degree day!)
Aug 2, 2015 08:29:05 #
This is just a crop, not a change of perspective or focal length. But I think it speaks to the dilemma of how much to include in the frame.
People often suggest that I crop out some of my big skies :) For landscapes taken around Yakima, it's so natural to include them because we have long, unobstructed views in many directions - and I love that.
For this image, shot in the Cascades at elevation 5,400', I included a lot of the sky because I was feeling like I was up in the clouds.
People often suggest that I crop out some of my big skies :) For landscapes taken around Yakima, it's so natural to include them because we have long, unobstructed views in many directions - and I love that.
For this image, shot in the Cascades at elevation 5,400', I included a lot of the sky because I was feeling like I was up in the clouds.
Aug 2, 2015 11:00:56 #
minniev:
Beautiful photos, but I think neither accomplishes your stated goal: "I wanted to show the contrast between the destruction and the new growth which is dependent on it."
The landscape photo is gorgeous, but I don't see enough destruction. The flower photo is pretty, but the fallen wood behind it isn't enough to describe the trauma of the situation.
I think the colorful flowers distract from the goal.
Regarding close or far: If we saw a swath of burnt trees with new saplings, without the beautiful mountain view and the flowers, I think that image would be more effective. If we saw dead logs with mini-flowers poking through, I think that kind of image also would be more effective.
Beautiful photos, but I think neither accomplishes your stated goal: "I wanted to show the contrast between the destruction and the new growth which is dependent on it."
The landscape photo is gorgeous, but I don't see enough destruction. The flower photo is pretty, but the fallen wood behind it isn't enough to describe the trauma of the situation.
I think the colorful flowers distract from the goal.
Regarding close or far: If we saw a swath of burnt trees with new saplings, without the beautiful mountain view and the flowers, I think that image would be more effective. If we saw dead logs with mini-flowers poking through, I think that kind of image also would be more effective.
Aug 2, 2015 11:10:35 #
Dr.db wrote:
I'd have to agree with jenny that both pics tell a... (show quote)
Dr.db:
I think that both photos taken from afar are better. I don't find the close-up of the tourists particularly interesting; neither they, per se, nor their surroundings. On the other hand, the longer view is beautiful. The people add dimension and a human element to the beautiful scenery.
In the other set, the closer view does not show the immensity and massiveness of the rock formation as the farther view does.
Aug 2, 2015 11:12:22 #
Linda:
I like your big sky photo better. The cropped version is too neatly divided into thirds to make me feel comfortable.
I like your big sky photo better. The cropped version is too neatly divided into thirds to make me feel comfortable.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.