Vertical versus Landscape (Page 3): This topic has discussed vertical and horizontal landscapes, but actual dimensions have been ignored. I think we should also be looking at the...

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

This topic has discussed vertical and horizontal landscapes, but actual dimensions have been ignored. I think we should also be looking at the merits of square format and my favourite 4/3 - 3/4.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Both are very good images. For my particular taste I prefer the first one but interesting enough in the case of the two images posted by Linda the vertical format is more appealing to me. It could be because of the contribution of the two trees to the visual design.
There is a place for both format.

Anvil Loc: Loveland, CO

kenievans wrote:

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.

These two shots are very interesting (not to mention excellent). The orientation changes the story. In the vertical shot, the river takes on much more prominence. In the horizontal shot, the river is more of a bit part player. Each one works well, in its own way.

Anvil Loc: Loveland, CO

I looked back through some of my shots, over the past few years, and found what I thought was an interesting pair. The scene is Bridalveil Fall, in Yosemite. The two shots were taken about three minutes apart, in April of 2016.

A tall waterfall, such as this one, certainly supports a vertical orientation. Each shot tells its own story. The vertical shot is more of an attempt to show the power and might of the waterfall, itself, whereas the horizontal shot is an attempt to place that power and might in its rightful context. In the vertical shot, the waterfall is the central figure in the story, so it is the largest and most powerful force in the small world of that photo. In the horizontal shot, that large, impressive waterfall is placed alongside several other, large, impressive players in the scene. The waterfall, while still powerful and magnificent, is seen as only one of many powerful players. The world of the horizontal shot becomes quite large, when other players are included.

(Download)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Anvil wrote:

A tall waterfall, such as this one, certainly supports a vertical orientation... The world of the horizontal shot becomes quite large, when other players are included.

Gorgeous photos with very well expressed comparisons of their strengths.

Anvil Loc: Loveland, CO

Linda From Maine wrote:

Gorgeous photos with very well expressed comparisons of their strengths.

Thanks! It's always better when you are in a spot that, no matter where you look, you have beautiful scenery to enjoy and photograph.

kenievans Loc: Dallas

"I looked back through some of my shots, over the past few years, and found what I thought was an interesting pair. The scene is Bridalveil Fall, in Yosemite. The two shots were taken about three minutes apart, in April of 2016." - Anvil

They both are beautiful shots. While the vertical shot does show off the waterfall in its beauty and the power of the falls, I think the second one enhances the waterfall, giving you a true perspective of the height and its place in the world around it. I would like to see one more shot even further away shown with this these two. That would be an interesting story to me.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

JayemCO wrote:

Yesterday Anvil posted some beautiful pictures of Rocky Mountain National Park and commented on vertical vs. landscape orientation. Then Linda commented on the fact that maybe we needed a share topic of vertical vs. landscape.
So here is my contribution to Vertical vs Landscape. Both of these are SOOC and taken in Rocky Mountain National Park on the West side of the Continental Divide from the Kawuneeche Valley
Please feel free to post your own comparisons.

IMHO the portrait orientation has far too much placid plain blue sky with nothing of interest.

Just Fred Loc: Darwin's Waiting Room

Here's an older photo of Yosemite Falls. Many people don't realize that there are three separate falls that make up this waterfall. The highest part can be seen from many places in the park, but viewing all three together requires one viewpoint. Getting it all in makes using portrait orientation almost a must!

Yosemite Falls
Yosemite Falls...

(Download)

photophile Loc: Lakewood, Ohio, USA

JayemCO wrote:

Yesterday Anvil posted some beautiful pictures of Rocky Mountain National Park and commented on vertical vs. landscape orientation. Then Linda commented on the fact that maybe we needed a share topic of vertical vs. landscape.
So here is my contribution to Vertical vs Landscape. Both of these are SOOC and taken in Rocky Mountain National Park on the West side of the Continental Divide from the Kawuneeche Valley
Please feel free to post your own comparisons.

I prefer the horizontal version.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Both are effective at making their individual statements. The landscape - the beauty of the expanse. The vertical ( actually portrait mode) - the beauty of the soaring heights. To me there is no "either" "or" - both make separate statements. Beyond archiving factual objects, is not photography about making statements of some kind.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Just Fred wrote:

Here's an older photo of Yosemite Falls. Many people don't realize that there are three separate falls that make up this waterfall. The highest part can be seen from many places in the park, but viewing all three together requires one viewpoint. Getting it all in makes using portrait orientation almost a must!

Congratulations Fred. This is a wonderful and awesome picture without comparison.. It is exciting. It would not work the same in landscape format. It should be hung on a narrow section of wall, further complementing the format.

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

Off topic a little here but responding to the OPs settings. I can't see any reason this was shot at ISO 1600. and 3000 of a second. In case you don't understand the relationships, (and you may), a quick explanation. If you halve the ISO (1600 to 800) then do it again (800 to 400) than do it again (400 to 200) this is 3 stops under exposure. Count em. Now you need to let in more light, three stops worth, so halve the shutter speed, (3000 to 1500), then do it again (1500 to 750), then do it again 750 to around 350). You now have the same exposure, just achieved in a different way and settings that get you out of the ISO noise zone.
...Cam

JayemCO wrote:

Both were taken at with an 80mm-400mm lens at 135mm, f/8, 1/3000, ISO 1600

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

Interesting conversation. Of these two I am bothered by the vertical. Too mush sky that doesn't add anything for me, and I don't like the chopped off corner of the river. In this case, even though the vertical doesn't make it for me, I really like the horizontal.
...Cam

Linda From Maine wrote:

Great discussion thread, Jayem! br br I found two... (show quote)

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

I think this is a very interesting pair. So much the same but so different. In the horizontal my eye goes right over the river and looks at the distant mountains. In the vertical, it's all about the river. Both nice but different.
...Cam

kenievans wrote:

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.