I think this question and image qualify for this section.
How does one handle people in landscape images that you want to capture? Here is an image of a series of falls in Yosemite.
I think the image is pretty cool. However, I decided to include a person in the image for scale.
Any opinions on whether and if so when to include a person to add scale??
JimH
Loc: Western South Jersey, USA
In this case I don't think it added a lot. I understand your desire for 'scale' but the person is SO small here, and almost unnoticeable, that it doesn't work. That said, since there are no other elements in the shot, there's no scale at all. You can't tell whether this is a six-foot section of creek in the Adirondacks, or Yosemite in the Sierras.
Plus, I think a scale object really wants to be in the foreground of a shot anyway - not hidden in the background.
JimH wrote:
In this case I don't think it added a lot. I understand your desire for 'scale' but the person is SO small here, and almost unnoticeable, that it doesn't work. That said, since there are no other elements in the shot, there's no scale at all. You can't tell whether this is a six-foot section of creek in the Adirondacks, or Yosemite in the Sierras.
Plus, I think a scale object really wants to be in the foreground of a shot anyway - not hidden in the background.
Can you post some examples of how you use people for scale?
greymule wrote:
JimH wrote:
In this case I don't think it added a lot. I understand your desire for 'scale' but the person is SO small here, and almost unnoticeable, that it doesn't work. That said, since there are no other elements in the shot, there's no scale at all. You can't tell whether this is a six-foot section of creek in the Adirondacks, or Yosemite in the Sierras.
Plus, I think a scale object really wants to be in the foreground of a shot anyway - not hidden in the background.
Can you post some examples of how you use people for scale?
quote=JimH In this case I don't think it added a ... (
show quote)
Here are a couple of other ones to analyze and discuss for scale-
The Ones Left Behind
A Person Close
Persons Farther Away
This one Looks Up the Chains- Which works better, Up or Down View
greymule wrote:
JimH wrote:
In this case I don't think it added a lot. I understand your desire for 'scale' but the person is SO small here, and almost unnoticeable, that it doesn't work. That said, since there are no other elements in the shot, there's no scale at all. You can't tell whether this is a six-foot section of creek in the Adirondacks, or Yosemite in the Sierras.
Plus, I think a scale object really wants to be in the foreground of a shot anyway - not hidden in the background.
Can you post some examples of how you use people for scale?
quote=JimH In this case I don't think it added a ... (
show quote)
Do you mean something like this ? I don't think this would work in your shot.P.S. Now it does work in your added shots.
JimH
Loc: Western South Jersey, USA
greymule wrote:
Can you post some examples of how you use people for scale?
Ooops. Ya got me. I rarely use people in my landscapes. I'm either out with the camera by myself, or roped in to doing the grandkid's birthday parties. Plus, we have nothing around here to compare with Yosemite. :( But I have a feeling we'll see lots of examples here if anyone else wants to chip in. Bipster's photo is one.
RMM
Loc: Suburban New York
Putting people into a picture doesn't always help with the scale. Your first shot has a tiny figure which gives scale, but is almost lost, as JimH said. The Ones Left Behind works somewhat better, but it's still hard to judge the distances, so it isn't a great help. It works best in Persons Farther Away. They're quite noticeable, provide scale, but don't distract much from the sense of height, which you've captured very well. I got dizzy just trying to find the bottom!
Bipster's photo shows scale, but leaves me wondering what the subject is, the woman or the waterfall. As a photo of where he and his (presumably) wife were on their vacation, it captures both.
Erv
Loc: Medina Ohio
I think we are talking about two things here. I put people in my vacation photos. It shows the family and hopefully the good times we are having. Then I have photos where I want to show the beauty of the area. I don't think you need scale in any of the shots you show. You can see the grander of it without people.
Erv
Greymule,
I love the person. So small that I didn't even see (him/her?) In the picture until I looked closer. Made a beautiful picture more interesting to me.
Tx for sharing.
Greymule..my hubby is ALL about people for scale. Me on the other hand, i take it shot to shot. If i feel it helps i will go for it. Of course i am before a newbie ;-)
greymule wrote:
What about People in Photos??
I try to escape people so I am not about to add them in my pictures, even for scale and even if it is a '10' nude girl!!! :shock: :mrgreen: :|
Scale is rarely needed unless going into technical or forensic photography.
English_Wolf wrote:
greymule wrote:
What about People in Photos??
I try to escape people so I am not about to add them in my pictures, even for scale and even if it is a '10' nude girl!!! :shock: :mrgreen: :|
Scale is rarely needed unless going into technical or forensic photography.
i don't believe you about the girl hahahahaha
Peanut wrote:
i don't believe you about the girl hahahahaha
You should because I would take the 800mm out.
English_Wolf wrote:
Peanut wrote:
i don't believe you about the girl hahahahaha
You should because I would take the 800mm out.
Are you always a comedian???
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.