Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Landscape Photography
Vertical versus Landscape
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
Jan 16, 2019 08:05:26   #
JayemCO Loc: Colorado @ 9000 feet
 
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.


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Jan 16, 2019 08:17:18   #
Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington
 
A terrific emphasis on height, all those vertical lines reaching into the sky - and a spacious sky at that, which I always enjoy!

Reply
Jan 16, 2019 08:17:29   #
clickety
 
Because orientation is a major aspect of composition, in order to demonstrate its effects please provide the focal length for each of the photos for comparison or better yet examples where the focal length is the same for each orientation. This would help put the difference in its proper context for the beginners.

Reply
 
 
Jan 16, 2019 08:26:48   #
ssymeono Loc: St. Louis, Missouri
 
Both are beautiful in different ways. The vertical reminds us that when several of them are merged they result in a special, distortion-free image. Yet again, it's called landscape for a reason.

Reply
Jan 16, 2019 08:26:50   #
JayemCO Loc: Colorado @ 9000 feet
 
Both were taken at with an 80mm-400mm lens at 135mm, f/8, 1/3000, ISO 1600

Reply
Jan 16, 2019 08:30:23   #
Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington
 
btw, my original idea for a share thread was just to see how many people compose portrait/vertical aspects in landscape photography. I hadn't thought in terms of comparing one to another of the same scene, but that's even better

Reply
Jan 16, 2019 08:39:59   #
clickety
 
JayemCO wrote:
Both were taken at with an 80mm-400mm lens at 135mm, f/8, 1/3000, ISO 1600


Was the second image cropped??

I’m confused, when I rotate my camera orientation the dimensions of an object don’t appear to change. The rock, tree etc. remains the same size when the photos are viewed side by side.

Reply
 
 
Jan 16, 2019 09:07:42   #
JayemCO Loc: Colorado @ 9000 feet
 
clickety wrote:
Was the second image cropped??

I’m confused, when I rotate my camera orientation the dimensions of an object don’t appear to change. The rock, tree etc. remains the same size when the photos are viewed side by side.


I understand the confusion, I was too when I first compared the two pictures and realized they were both at 135mm. Then I remembered that I walked straight towards the mountain peak for the picture that appears to be larger, i.e. I was closer and just happened to be on the same angle to the peak.

Reply
Jan 16, 2019 09:19:46   #
clickety
 
JayemCO wrote:
I understand the confusion, I was too when I first compared the two pictures and realized they were both at 135mm. Then I remembered that I walked straight towards the mountain peak for the picture that appears to be larger, i.e. I was closer and just happened to be on the same angle to the peak.


Thank you, that explains the difference in size and proportion between them.

Reply
Jan 16, 2019 09:37:54   #
gsmith051 Loc: Fairfield Glade, TN
 
Interesting subject and beautiful image. Of the two I would put the vertical image on my wall because it has more punch. Nicely done.

George

Reply
Jan 16, 2019 10:47:54   #
clickety
 
Linda From Maine wrote:
btw, my original idea for a share thread was just to see how many people compose portrait/vertical aspects in landscape photography. I hadn't thought in terms of comparing one to another of the same scene, but that's even better


For sure a topic worthy of thought and discussion. Orientation is really the first step in composition and may/should influence lens selection.

I’m sure most of us have rotated images in Lightroom (or other programs), liked the look and printed, but did it distort the image in any way??

Likewise we may have taken a vertical format crop from within a landscape orientation to get this effect but with how much loss of definition??

To achieve a different perspective there is nothing better than simply rotating the camera and composing.

I was reading/watching tips by a Landscape photographer who suggested always shooting a scene in both orientations as part of routinely working the scene. I think it’s a great suggestion.

Reply
 
 
Jan 16, 2019 11:40:27   #
Bob Locher Loc: Southwest Oregon
 
A side comment - I am glad to see scenics shot with longer lenses. Too many photographers seem to think a wide angle lens is "the" lens for a scenic.

Reply
Jan 16, 2019 11:56:33   #
JayemCO Loc: Colorado @ 9000 feet
 
clickety wrote:
For sure a topic worthy of thought and discussion. Orientation is really the first step in composition and may/should influence lens selection.

I’m sure most of us have rotated images in Lightroom (or other programs), liked the look and printed, but did it distort the image in any way??

Likewise we may have taken a vertical format crop from within a landscape orientation to get this effect but with how much loss of definition??

To achieve a different perspective there is nothing better than simply rotating the camera and composing.

I was reading/watching tips by a Landscape photographer who suggested always shooting a scene in both orientations as part of routinely working the scene. I think it’s a great suggestion.
For sure a topic worthy of thought and discussion.... (show quote)


I often take both orientations just to see which picture I like best when I get home. I find that if there is not an element of the scene that will add a framing effect to the subject, the subject can looked pinched or unnatural in the final vertical picture. Where I am there are lot's of tall trees and I hate to cut off the tops of trees so the easiest solution is to go vertical. Sometimes as Bob Locher suggests, I use a longer focal length lens to zoom in on the subject without significantly affecting the perspective. This is essentially what I did with the second picture, even though I didn't change the focal length, I moved closer to accomplish a similar effect.

Reply
Jan 16, 2019 12:16:20   #
Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington
 
JayemCO wrote:
Please feel free to post your own comparisons.
clickety wrote:
I was reading/watching tips by a Landscape photographer who suggested always shooting a scene in both orientations as part of routinely working the scene. I think it’s a great suggestion.
Great discussion thread, Jayem!

I found two I had shot at same focal length. That is probably rare for everyone because of composition goals and storytelling, as has been touched on - including clickety's reminder to "work the scene" Like our OP, it looks like I did step closer for the vertical of this pair.

These are at 14 mm on an M4/3 camera, Pansonic G7 (2x crop factor). A related note about aspect: my two mirrorless cameras are 4:3. I changed the Panasonic to 3:2, even though I'm throwing away pixels, because it's the camera I use most often for landscapes, including "intimate" landscapes such as reeds, plants, flowers, single trees. I came from film (35 mm = 3:2) and my two dslr's were 3:2. I just really like composing for 3:2 - even if it means I occasionally end up cropping off a little bit of sky on the vertical shots. For purpose of this discussion, these are not cropped.


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Jan 16, 2019 12:37:42   #
juan_uy Loc: Uruguay
 
Linda From Maine wrote:
Great discussion thread, Jayem!

I found two I had shot at same focal length. That is probably rare for everyone because of composition goals and storytelling, as has been touched on - including clickety's reminder to "work the scene" Like our OP, it looks like I did step closer for the vertical of this pair.

These are at 14 mm on an M4/3 camera, Pansonic G7 (2x crop factor). A related note about aspect: my two mirrorless cameras are 4:3. I changed the Panasonic to 3:2, even though I'm throwing away pixels, because it's the camera I use most often for landscapes, including "intimate" landscapes such as reeds, plants, flowers, single trees. I came from film (35 mm = 3:2) and my two dslr's were 3:2. I just really like composing for 3:2 - even if it means I occasionally end up cropping off a little bit of sky on the vertical shots. For purpose of this discussion, these are not cropped.
Great discussion thread, Jayem! br br I found two... (show quote)


In this case I think the vertical one is much stronger. In comparison the horizontal one feels more cramped.

Reply
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Landscape Photography
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.