Richard1947 Loc: Knoxville, TN

Vertical compositions are good for publications in magazines, if you choose to submit for that. I try to make it a habit to shoot both horizontal and vertical shots of the same scene. Here are a few verticals that I have taken.

The Robe....Louisville, CO


The Capital Buidling in Washington, D.C.


My Youngest Son At Dinosaur National Monument


Just Another Lighthouse

yorkiebyte Loc: Scottsdale, AZ/Bandon by the Sea, OR

..Very nicely composed!!

jpgto Loc: North East Tennessee

Very nice series. I am really liking the Capital building and it's reflection. Well done.

MrMophoto Loc: Rhode Island "The biggest little"

I teach photography in an public school art dept., composition is one of the underlying themes I stress in my classes. I often tell my students that composition is the one thing that will seperate your great photo from everyone elses great photos.
While a applaud your concern for compostion, IMHO, I don't use "vertical" as a compositional form. To me this is just a matter of orientation, Portrait or landscape. I will say you do have some nice compositions and some very nice photos. To me, "youngest son" is more a diagonal composition with a foreground interest element. "lighthouse" is more thirds with a leading lines element. nicely done.

photosbytw Loc: Blue Ridge Mountains

.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

What are "magazines"?

Just kidding...

You're right!

You can get more money licensing a nice big, full page illustration than a smaller one. And that typically means a vertical shot.

But, someone who shot a lot for publication pointed out to me... You can get even more for a "double truck" or a two-page spread, which is a horizontal/landscape composition. With the two-page illustration, you'd probably get 150% the licensing fees for "just" a full page. Maybe more if it's a truly fantastic shot.

He also recommended shooting both vertical and horizontal.

Plus he suggested trying for shots that have a lot of negative space and/or off-centered subjects, so that text can be laid over the image. When possible, leave room at the top for headlines or mast heads, too. That might get you a premium value cover shot! These things may also make an image more useful for advertising, which pays a whole heck of a lot better than editorial usage! (Model/property release req'd.)

Since he made a seven figure income off his travel & assignment photography *and* was one of the top five stock photographers in the world (as a secondary income source), I took heed of what he had to say.

Some of this may be at odds with a more artistic composition, though. Other times images work both ways... or can b made to work both ways with different crops or other tweaks.

Richard1947 Loc: Knoxville, TN

I think it’s a shame you don’t use vertical as a compositional form. I think you would get a lot of feedback on that from the likes of Galen Rowell and many other professionals. Teaching photography doesn’t necessarily mean you’re an expert on the matter. I’ve been taking pictures since 1983 but I don’t consider myself to be an expert. In fact, the more experience I have, the more I realize we never stop learning. Thanks for your feedback, it was much appreciated.

Fred Harwood Loc: Sheffield, Mass.

I agree. Take shots both ways. One never knows...

For example, this vertical shot was selected for a local magazine cover, redone for 11 x 14 # 300 dpi.

D7000, ISO 400, 550mm, f/10, 1/200, handheld.

(Download)

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I don't think MrMophoto was suggesting to not shoot verticals or discouraging doing so in any way...

Maybe I'm wrong, but as I read his response I thought he was simply suggesting and using different terminology: "portrait" for "vertical"... and "landscape" for "horizontal".

Hey, I've been at it for a little longer than you... And I'm learning new stuff almost every day (though I'm beginning to think the new stuff might now be pushing some of the old stuff out of my head )

Richard1947 Loc: Knoxville, TN

Awesome shot!

Fred Harwood Loc: Sheffield, Mass.

Thanks, Richard.

Richard1947 Loc: Knoxville, TN

I guess I misunderstood him. If so I apologize. No worries here!

Richard1947 Loc: Knoxville, TN

Quote: “IMHO, I don't use "vertical" as a compositional form”. Again, I might have missed something?

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

I will jump in to reinforce MrMophoto - I also taught photography for one year and ran photo clubs for many years.

He is talking about using "vertical" composition and "horizontal" composition both.
In art(including photo) and graphics "vertical" is called PORTRAIT and "horizontal" is called LANDSCAPE. And those are the terms he uses. Even photographers who used square format film (like 120) cameras often cropped to portrait or landscape for prints. If it is taller than it is wide than it is Portrait, no matter the ratio (4x5, 8x10, 11x14 etc) and if it is wider than it is is tall it is Landscape. And of course you had plain old Square plus oval and other different shapes.

So you are arguing from a misunderstanding of vocabulary/word choice and not the actual format.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

That is because the correct term in art etc is Portrait - not vertical. All he is saying is that in his lessons he uses the correct term "Portrait".

Examples: #1 is Portrait composition-aka vertical, #2 is Landscape composition-aka horizontal.

And don't bother getting off on how good or bad they are - they are snaps of a tree our "special needs" son decorated in the living room because his sister did the big one in the Fire Place room and I just used them because they are the two forms of the same subject.