Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Because of the sky?

I don't know why I clipped the edge off the right side of the river - inattention or I couldn't step back far enough, can't recall. Thanks!

Bob Locher Loc: Southwest Oregon

Great picture! I completely agree with Juan.

juan_uy Loc: Uruguay

Not sure, probably the additional sky gives "more breath space" (not sure if that translates my idea). Also, may be the small bush on the right adds distraction on the horizontal one?

I agree with clipped edge on the right, although it didn't bother me the first time I view it.

kenievans Loc: Dallas

Here are two shots I took within seconds of each other of the Yellowstone river. The landscape has always been my favorite for its breadth and depth but I think the second one gives more of a sense height and makes the river more prominent.

(Download)


(Download)

Bob Locher Loc: Southwest Oregon

The first shot is great - until you see the second shot - which is really stellar! But both are very worthy.

Nice!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Juan, thanks for the additional feedback.

High impact for me. Having that close tree in #2 helps me feel more "there" while at the same time you're far enough away to include much of the setting, and the depth is fantastic. It's a gorgeous viewpoint + looks like perfect weather and time of day - hard to go wrong either way, but yep, #2 for me also.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I find that my normally dependable sense of composition can be caught out when I use portrait orientation.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Perhaps it is easier when most elements in the frame are oriented north to south? The simplicity and organization?

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Or maybe you get distracted by the vertical elements and end up not paying enough attention to the sides.....

kenievans Loc: Dallas

I think vertical elements do make a difference. In the case of my two images the very vertical tree in the foreground would not have worked in the landscape version. I think it would have been distracting. I know we sometimes use natural framing but most often they have a curved element to them not straight up and down.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

I hesitate to critique these pics - but I think the landscape needs more sky and the vertical has too much. Perhaps a square format or 4/3 would be better?

JayemCO Loc: Colorado @ 9000 feet

First off many thanks to Linda for suggesting in a previous post that maybe a topic such as this would be a great idea, she was right and thanks to the many that have provided great thought provoking comments.

Several have mentioned that a vertical element is necessary for a vertical format to be effective and I agree completely. However in Kenievans beautiful pictures of the Yellowstone River, I saw very little vertical element in her horizontal picture. A great shot, but typical landscape photo. When I saw her vertical image, I realized that the flat top hill was a vertical element and that the washed out (from water runoff not overexposure) white base was trying to climb the vertical hill to turn the entire hill white. I saw it because the lone pine tree top in the lower left pointed to it.

Sometimes (many times?) what we see is not what turns up on the digital image. Since a second or third digital image is really cheap when I am standing on a ridge taking pictures, I will be taking vertical as well as traditional horizontal images in the future.

Again thanks for all the wonderful comments.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

No need to hesitate; all is good! Yes, I would have cropped some from the sky on the vertical, but for the thread's purpose I decided to leave as shot. I do sometimes like more sky just because we have these long views all around Yakima and it seems so natural. In this case, the canyon with the river has a different feel - more intimate. Many thanks.
Appreciate your running with it!

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Yes - the vertical shot has that something extra that makes it a winner.