R.G. Loc: Scotland

Foregrounds can be used to provide a sense of perspective and scale. Their closeness and familiarity contrasts with the far off remoteness of the background and/or mid-field. And as some like to put it, a foreground gives the viewer somewhere to stand - which helps the viewer to connect with the scene as a whole. That, combined with elements which lead the viewer into the scene, turn the viewing experience into a mini-journey*.....

.....which suggests that the ideal foreground is one that leads the viewer into the scene. The techniques for doing that are well known - natural framing, leading lines and clear channels can be used compositionally along with more general techniques such as having eye-attractors or objects of interest in strategic positions.

Brightness, contrast, sharpness and colour can all be used to add vividness to attract the eye to specific objects or areas of interest, and if those attractors are off in the distance they will add to the sense of depth. The point I'm making is that foregrounds aren't the only way to lead or direct the eye into the scene. However, it's not an exaggeration to say that a good foreground can be the difference between a snapshot and a wall-hanger. Foregrounds can be key compositional elements and they deserve whatever time and effort we devote to finding good examples.

(I've suggested that the ideal foreground is one that leads the eye into the shot. I'm not suggesting that it's the only option worth considering, but I am suggesting that it's one of the stronger options).

*(I think the first paragraph may be a quote from the internet. If it's not mine then it does a perfect job of summing up my thoughts).

The choice of foreground is one of the few composition elements that a landscape photographer has any control over. I'm inviting you to share landscape shots where the foreground played a key role in making the shot as effective as it is. In particular I'm hoping for examples where the foreground is used to lead the eye into the shot, but since there are many effective ways to use foregrounds, all relevant examples are welcome.


I'll start off by including two examples where the background (also the main subject) is similar in both, but the shots are fundamentally different because of the choice of foreground. In#1 the foreground creates a fairly typical landscape composition with the banks on the left and right acting as framing elements while the clear channel up the centre and the reflection lead the eye to the main subject - the mountain. The reeds and the distant house add interest.

In#2 I wanted a more "arty" feel to the shot, which is why I allowed the reeds to dominate the foreground. However, they aren't so substantial that they act as a barrier to our further exploration of the image. They also add a welcome simplicity to the shot, which for arty shots is very often a favourable characteristic.

Please share your own examples of effective foregrounds with a description of why you composed each shot with that specific foreground.
.

#1

(Download)

#2

(Download)

jimcrna Loc: indiana/florida

Interesting topic. In the first photo I was trying to have some foreground object to focus on so I chose the small rock rock in the foreground which led to the small white patches on the next set of rocks which led to the river which led to the castle. There is also the river as the leading line but tried to think beyond the obvious..Not paying attention the the left of the photo I was cutting off the top of the mountain and the dead tree to the left was distracting as well..So I moved a bit and simply let the river be the leading line while getting the full mountain in the photo. While the second photo still has a rock as foreground its a better photo in my opinion because it encompasses the subject be it the castle or the mountain. To the point I was focused on the foreground too much in the first and sacrificed the complete picture. Appreciate the topic..Thanks for starting. Jim

(Download)


(Download)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thanks for posting, Jim. To me they are both equally valid and both good shots. The main difference between them is the emphasis. In #1 the main subject is the building and in #2 the subject is the mountain.

I would say that the foreground is more of a player in #1. I'm not averse to using objects that line up with the main subject. Plus the river bank on the left and the path on the right all start off in the foreground and support the overall composition which channels the viewer's attention towards the framed building. The foreground is definitely the best place for leading lines and clear channels to start from (but definitely not the only option).

jimcrna Loc: indiana/florida

Thank you for the comments.Appreciate the topic and your expertise.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

You're welcome. Thanks for participating.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Your topic couldn't have come at a better time, R.G. I've already enjoyed re-visiting and re-editing some older photos, so this morning I had a new purpose thanks to your challenge. Also, Washington State has extended our "stay home" order until May 4, another sobering reminder of the challenges many are facing, both economically and health-wise.

#1 - An argument could be made that this is a photo of Avalanche Lilies with Mt Rainier as backdrop. I wouldn't argue against that reasoning Any black specks you see in sky are insects that have just feasted on my blood. Bloody buggers!

#2 is representative of how many ranch lands here are bordered by barbed wire fences. I had not previously edited this 2016 photo because I had a different viewpoint I liked better. I'm glad I kept it because I believe the foreground helps understand the vast space surrounding the home (in the trees) and barn. I added a crow to top of the pole, then decided against sharing that version

#2 is also representative of many of my landscapes with horizontal layers of stuff and space, leading front to back.

Going to post a couple more in new entry. Looking forward to your sharp eye and feedback; I know my compositions are often unfocused
.

#1

(Download)

#2

(Download)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thanks for joining in. I'm glad I've given you a sense of purpose .

Going by memory I'd say quite a few of your shots have significant foregrounds but I get the impression it's not something you consciously plan for. From what I remember, your use of foregrounds fits into the category of "pleasant composition" and I suspect that that's as intentional as it got. Obviously you have a good eye for composition in general, but hopefully with this thread (and perhaps a few more like it) you'll see foregrounds in a different light. They really do have the potential to lift a shot to a whole new level. They're not an essential ingredient of all worthy landscape shots but they're worth whatever time and energy we devote to finding them.

In your #1 photo the foreground is prominent because that's where the main subjects are. However, the whole of the rest of the shot could be classified as "setting", so the foreground isn't playing an active role in leading the viewer into the shot. The viewer will end up exploring the rest of the scene but not because of the foreground. For that to happen I'd expect either natural framing or leading lines or clear channels to be based in or to exist predominantly in the foreground. As I said in the opening post "...the ideal foreground is one that leads the viewer into the scene". That is where foregrounds get their power and effectiveness from.

None of that is to distract from the fact that your foreground is an effective and pleasant eye attractor. The shot can be summed up as subject (the flowers) plus setting (the scenery).

Looking at #2 I agree with your assessment that "the foreground helps understand the vast space surrounding the home". In other words the foreground sets the stage by "providing a sense of perspective and scale" (to quote my opening post).

I'm beginning to see a pattern emerge in your shots. Many of your compositions consist of an object or objects of interest in the immediate foreground, and they serve the purpose of drawing the eye into the foreground where our attention is left to proceed further into the shot. So in that sense they are definitely foreground-centric. It looks like you're aware of the fact that you can't have too many obstacles preventing the viewer's attention from proceeding further into the shot. Even with objects of interest where the interest is strong, a distracting intervening barrier will undermine their effectiveness as attention attractors.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Insightful, well expressed feedback - much appreciated, R.G.!

I've gone through pretty much the rest of my catalog (it only goes back through 2016). Of my landscapes, most are similar to what I've already posted as far as the foreground playing a more prominent role and/or not really leading anywhere.

Four final offerings:

1. I believe I offered this for critique in For Your Consideration in 2017. It's my usual disorganized view, and I can't recall what solution was offered unless it was Frank re-arranging the position of the log, or removing it altogether

2. Loved it four years ago, find it boring now - mostly because of the light and that it's just your basic framing. Probably needs a crop, but nothing seemed right (the trees are leaning the same direction, for one thing).

3. Depth and a "channel," I believe, but leads to nothing-ness

4. One I've shared many times - a favorite. Foreground establishes "being there." Curve of the canal leads us to the few seconds of perfect winter sunrise on the distant mountain.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Hi, Linda,
IMO #s 1 and 4 best demonstrate the value of close FG detail in emphasizing the palpable mass of space between the viewer and the most distant compositional elements. That, after all, is the essence of an image’s perceived depth.

Dave

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Thanks very much, Dave!

R.G. Loc: Scotland

It's occurred to me that I'm not giving sufficient credit to your input. Your posted images are all good examples of the first three sentences of the opening paragraph -

"Foregrounds can be used to provide a sense of perspective and scale.

Their closeness and familiarity contrasts with the far off remoteness of the background and/or mid-field.

And as some like to put it, a foreground gives the viewer somewhere to stand - which helps the viewer to connect with the scene as a whole".

In addition to that, if your intention is to have a "subject plus setting" type of composition, you don't want the setting to have too much in the way of attention attractors or attention directors. In other words you don't want the setting to be too distracting.

(There's a subtle difference between "setting" and "context". If you're deliberately including context it becomes part of the storytelling and as such will inevitably command some of the viewer's attention. It may also unavoidably have objects of interest. Setting, on the other hand, is fulfilling much the same role as a frame, border or matte. You don't want it to be uninteresting but you wouldn't want it to be too distracting either. You want the viewer's attention to dwell on the intended subject. In that scenario the immediate foreground is a fully appropriate place for the subject).

In your #3 above, the clear channel does lead to "nothing-ness", but in a mist or snow shot, the nothing-ness becomes part of the story and the mystery. And without that attention-channelling effect (which starts in the foreground) the sense of depth and mystery would be diminished.

In#2 there's nothing wrong with the subject or the framing, but if the foreground centre had some interest value in its own right, preferably in a form that directs the viewer's attention into the shot and on towards the mountain, the shot would have a whole new aspect to it. Something like a stream heading in that direction or a gap through some smaller trees would have worked nicely. In that situation the extra interest provided by the foreground is very welcome, but you don't want it to arrest the viewer's attention completely. The foreground then becomes part of the pleasant journey from where the viewer enters the scene on to the distant subject/s.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Talking about oft-shared favourites, here's one you may have seen before .

Landscape photographers are very much limited to what circumstances provide so it's always a big bonus when composition elements come together. This one's a combination of objects of interest (some of which line up nicely), natural framing, a clear channel and a bright attention attractor off in the distance.

We're dependent on circumstances to provide us with appropriate opportunities, but if we're not looking for those opportunities we're depending on luck to present them to us. Actively looking for the right composition elements greatly increases our chances of finding them. Finding a good subject or scene should just be the start of the process. And working the scene should always be part of our workflow.
.

Kyleakin Harbour.

(Download)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

A lot to enjoy in this photo, R.G.!

Thanks so much for your additional observations and feedback on my photos. A terrific conversation with much to "take home."

R.G. Loc: Scotland

You're welcome. Thanks for contributing.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

I always look for a strong foreground when I'm out shooting. Here, I waited for the crowd to thin out and caught a good shot of Peggy's Cove Light as the sun was setting.

Golden Hour

(Download)