Wide angle landscape shot tips?

[PaulWog]

I'm wondering if there are any online guides, videos, etc, that you might recommend above the plethora that exist out there. Focal length is 15-30mm full frame equivalent perspective.

I'm specifically looking to:

- Get some information on how I should be practicing the framing of the shot. Height of the camera, angle of the shot up/down, etc.
- Get some information on how best to merge panorama to photoshop CS5 from Lightroom without losing the RAW data in the shot (I don't have CS6, I own my copy of CS5, and so the NEF files from my D5200 are not supported. I can convert to DNG, but I'm not sure if I can then take that merged panorama back to lightroom after at any point, or if I even should care at that point.)

I've been shooting for about a year now. I've focused a lot more on portraiture, photographs of my family / girlfriend / dog, etc. I do well with that. Landscapes and inanimate objects can be more tricky to get something interesting out of. I know how to deal with leading lines, rule of thirds, contrasting features across a photograph, empty space vs filled space, etc. Nevertheless, wide angle shots are a whole new beast to me (mind you, I'm not particularly experienced with any focal length of landscape shots at the moment).

 

[PaulWog]

I've only gotten to take my 10-20mm out for one real outting, and I had about 20 minutes to play with it before I had other things that I had to attend to. I decided to try the bridge on the path. It's not what I would call a good photo, but I felt as if I couldn't manage leading lines, the angle of the shot, my rule of thirds, or anything in the shot.

At least the first couple issues that come to mind are: There's no leading lines, and the differentiation between foreground, midground, and background is not distinct in any way to make the image interesting.

 

[Light Guru]

I'm wondering if there are any online guides, videos, etc, that you might recommend above the plethora that exist out there.

I know how to deal with leading lines, rule of thirds, contrasting features across a photograph, empty space vs filled space, etc.

Well all the online training I've ever seen for landscape photography pretty much just covers all the things you said you know.

Nevertheless, wide angle shots are a whole new beast to me (mind you, I'm not particularly experienced with any focal length of landscape shots at the moment).

Why do you think you have to use a wide angle lens? Wide angle lenses are great for photographing the broad landscape but there is also the more intimate landscape photographs, sometimes those are better then the broad landscapes. Those the intimate scenes are often overlooked.

Perhaps you don't need online guides to help you, maybe you just need to get out and practice and experiment.

 

[rambler]

What you have already learned about composition will be important regardless of the focal length of your lens, but the wide angle will give you a new view to get used to. Objects will appear to be further away and, therefore, smaller. Your view will contain more "stuff", so you will have to be more careful about deciding what you want to include in the frame, and therefore, what you leave out. Watch your edges carefully. For example, in the thumbnail above of the bridge, is that blue triangle of sky the best look for the upper right corner? If you have a sky and a tree line in the frame with a 300mm lens and you move the camera down an inch, you might well lose the sky out of the frame. If the same view is seen through a wide angle lens, e.g.. 12mm, you will have to move the camera downwards 3-4 inches before the sky disappears.
Another difference will be seen in the effect of aperture on depth of field. With a wide angle do not expect to see background blur when you switch aperture to wide open that you would if you were using a 85mm or a zoom lens. For example, if you are standing on railroad tracks that recede into the distance and change the aperture on a wide angle lens from f/16 to f/4 you will not produce the same blur, i.e.. shallow DOF, that you would if you were using a zoom lens. The tenth cross tie away from youwill still be in focus, but it would be blurred with a closer mm lens.
A very nice effect with wide angle landscapes is the ability to have foreground subjects less than 3 feet away from the front of the lens with a sharp focus throughout the image, foreground, middle ground and background. For example, you could have beautiful blooming flowers vey close to you with snow-capped peaks in the background and a lake in the middle, all in focus. Just learn where to focus (focal distance).
A spoling element of good composition is the temptation to include too much in a photo, so with the wide angle lens that problem is increased since a wide angle by definition includes a wider frame. Remember one or two steps either back or forward can change the composition.
You mention camera angles. If you have something close in the foreground, which by the way is an excellent way to add depth, keep an eye out for where it cuts the horizon line. For example, if you have a flowering bush close in front of you that you want in your image, stand up and the top of the bush will be below the horizon line, squat low and the top of the bush might be well above the horizon line. Which is the look you want? What angle works best for your composition?

So, in short, do not use the wide angle just to get more into an image, but use the good composition techniques you have learned and apply them. What is the subject? What do I want to leave in and leave out? For me the wide angle lens provides a great opportunity to have very interesting close-up foregrounds!

 

[Derrel]

andSNIP>>>the differentiation between foreground, midground, and background is not distinct in any way to make the image interesting.

Welcome to the world of ultra wide-angle photography. Your new Sigma 10-24mm lens at its wider range is ultra-wide angle. Not sure if you've read Thom Hogan's review of that specific lens, but he mentions the issue of how using an ultra-wide lens is something that really takes time and effort to accomplish.Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 Review by Thom Hogan

Besides offering a wide angle of view, a lens like the 10-24mm causes the depth, from near to far, to seem exaggerated. But it does that by making the mid-ground and the far ranges very small. The physical, on-film or on-sensor size of the subjects shown is very small, compared to how large they are when shot with a longer length lens. Honestly: I see a lot of ultra-wide angle photos made, now that lenses like the 10-24mm are popular with APS-C camera users, and I find many of the photos made with such lenses used at the widest lengths, to be exceptionally BORING. Big foreground objects. Teeny-tiny distant objects wayyyyyyyyyy in the background. The lens focal length needs to be matched to the scene and the objects in the scene. What Thom's review does is to emphasize the ONE, single point so many people forget: they are using the wide-angle view to get the close subject "to all fit into the frame", in terms of side-to-side coverage...but that is NOT enough to make a successful photo. Look at 500px: tons of views shot with UWA lenses, producing vividly saturated and utterly boring rubbish landscapes, where there is basically, zero interest because the objects in the frame are...teeeeeeny-tiny flecks.

None of this is directed at your bridge photo, but basically it's an indictment of the 10-18mm range of focal lengths: those short lens lengths CREATE, by DEFAULT, a very steep,pronounced loss of physical on-sensor image size of objects beyond 10 feet. The depth clues our brain is used to dealing with are dramatically altered. Being there on-site you can literally SEE with your eyes what the view looks like, and can frame up all that you see, but when the focal length used is short, what your eyes saw is imaged in a very different manner. You need to develop and hone the ability to look thru the viewfinder and say, "Yeah....this sucks...it just does not work as an ultra-wide shot...time to zoom longer, and move the camera back."

You wrote, "the differentiation between foreground, midground, and background is not distinct in any way to make the image interesting". I agree. The gate is probably 22 feet long. But it looks to be literally, AS TALL AS the bridge supports. And it appears as long as the distance between the closest bridge pillars. The raft of logs on the river look as big as a gate. All three of those size relationships make utterly zero sense to the human brain. Due to its side-of-frame positioning, the far right bridge support has objectionable tilting.

Welcome to the world of ultra wide-angle photography. Honestly, I am not a fan of UWA scenics. This to me could be an interesting scene; logs rafted up on rivers is a thing I grew up with seeing, quite often. The PNW is logging country. Steel barrier gates on access roads down by the rivers, and in the woods are normal. But the way an UWA lens renders the landscape is to me, just not satisfying, and the "tilted" look of rectilinear man-made objects is, for me, unappealing most of the time.

I think you might have been able to make a better image by eliminating the gate, and walking RIGHT to the edge of the river, as close as possible to the log raft, and shooting from there. MAYBE that would have made the photo a bit more "immediate". But the gate/log raft/bridge and the fore-/middle-/back- ground relationship from the exact camera position you used for this shot is not really impactful. And that's one of the reasons that I almost never want to shoot UWA landscapes: I find them, as rule, mostly tedious, and visually just not that enjoyable to look at because the middle- and background objects are sooooo tiny. Avoid the 10,11,12,13,14,15,16mm settings as much as you can--unless they actually HELP the shot. Personally, I think learning how to compose in UWA requires more work and effort than almost anything in the entire field of photography. Not kidding at all. It is one tall order.

 

[rambler]

The lack of "Power" in the image was not because of the lens, it was in the composition. You mention it, Derrell, the lack of a relationship between gate/raft/bridge. Gate and road line going in different directions than the line of the bridge and a bit off with the line of the river and the far bank. Stepping down in front of the gate, with a more prominent view of the barge and the imposing form of the bridge overhead might have been better, and the "leaning" bridge effect would not be there. This would be a neat spot to return to. Try a zoom lens angle of view, then look for a wide angle view. I have seen dynamic images of the same scenery taken with both zoom and wide angle lenses only a few minutes apart. Do not give up on that wide angle lens! Wide angles can be effective tools for putting objects, or living beings in their place. For example, you might have a great zoomed in image of a caterpillar, but have no idea of its place in the environment. Is there a farm near you? Get a close-up of your friendly cow, but then use the wide angle close-up showing where that cow is standing, like maybe along the Snake River with the Tetons in the background as the sun sets.

Derrel complains about wide angles making objects smaller, but what about his favorite zooms making images appear larger? When the focal length is long (stand directly under the bridge and look up, zoom in with that 70-300mm) "what your eyes saw is imagined in a very different manner", right?

Sigh…my next lens will probably be that Tamaron 200-600mm or whatever that zoom is.


This exaggeration of relative size can be used to add emphasis and detail to foreground objects, while still capturing expansive backgrounds. If you plan on using this effect to full impact, you'll want to get as close as possible to the nearest subject in the scene.

 

[Derrel]

So, we've got three different people, all making comments about the way UWA lenses (and other types) work. As all three of us mentioned in one manner or another, exactly WHERE the camera is in relation to the subject is of critical importance. Of course, camera position is a big issue, but the ultra-wide-angle views are sooooo wide, and they make soooo rapid a transition from foreground size to everything else that the size relationships of things in the scene are tremendously distorted from the way the human eye and brain experience things.

When you're in the real world, and experiencing a glorious scene, it's easy to become caught up in the experience, and the beauty of it all, and want to literally ,"show it all," by going wide. But that does not translate well when the way one shows it all is by zooming to the shortest focal length; one of the BEST ways to allow a viewer to share the experience of a grand scene is a multi-frame panoramic shot, with a normal or short telephoto lens; that brings the scene in with wide angle, but also larger middle ground and larger background objects, AND, this is the key, with HIGH-DEFINITION...high resolution.

The issue with the above scene I think is that there is a lot of background that is small, and distant, and not that interesting. The shoreline across the river is impossible to appreciate, because it is "small". A five-shot panoramic shot "tall" and stitched would be a similar angle of view, but would look entirely different. On the other hand, when a UWA focal length is used, but the farthest distance is 60 feet away, there can be a lot of interest in "the background". But an all-the-way-across-the-river shot shot with a very short focal length, from up on the riverbank, doesn't immediately leverage the impact of the scene.

The UWA lens is a tricky tool to learn to use. The larger the landscape, really, the tougher it becomes to use and still provide that "Wow!" factor on things that are not really close-up to the camera position.

 

[rambler]

Darrell, thank you for keeping the discussion on an informative basis rather than any personal disagreements on "the best lens". I admire you skills as a photographer as seen on your website and have learned to rely on the quality of your comments on a variety of topics at this site.

My advice to PaulW would be to NOT to use on the wide angle lens only to "show it all". You will be disappointed by the results which is what Darrell is referring to. This happened to me in the point-and-shot days of beautiful mountain scenery that I was trying to photograph and ended up with such small far distant views that were not what I thought I was photographing. Then as I moved into DSLR and learning more about photography, I went to zoom, zoom, zoom thinking, even learning to use the zoom for close-up photos of flowers or my kids at play. So,how then does a wide angle lens fit in which is the main question at the beginning of this thread?

First, you learn about the different look of a scene that the wide angle will give. Darrell does not find that look as interesting as the same view with a different lens or technique, but just begin to learn what that difference is. How do yo do that? or how best to use the lens to get a view or image that you like? A photographer/author I have found very helpful is John Shaw. Guess what he says about wide angle lenses in his book, Nature Photography?

He describes the pitfalls that Darrell sees. "Wide angle lenses are extremely useful for taking in the entire scene….But this very inclusiveness is exactly what makes the wide-angles the hardest focal lengths for most photographers to use." and my point, too, "These lenses' wide angle of view make it easy to include too much in one photo." (Shaw p. 76)

Composition is key: avoid "mass chaotic information" which applies to all images regardless of the lens used!

One solution: "One of the most effective ways of working with a wide angle is to position the lens extremely close to a foreground subject in order to exaggerate its size." (Shaw p. 76) But, he had two more pages of text and photo examples to show what that means to images. The very choice of what that foreground object is will be a key to the success of the image.

Later in a section entitled "Framing and Placement" Shaw has two images of a buffalo standing in snow, one with a telephoto view, the other with a wider angle. Same animal and scene with the photos taken only moments apart.

"These two images convey vastly different emotional messages." Darrell might not like the same view as someone else may prefer, but that is, of course, fine. The point is to understand how different lenses will show the same scene.

So, start by looking at images on the web taken with a wide-angle lens.

And take heart, "While wide angle lenses are not easy to learn to use, they do offer amazing possibilities." (John Shaw)






?

 

[rambler]

Here is a wide angle view. Note the small size of the buildings in the distance which is the "small" look that Darrel refers to. I stood close to the chairs to get a large foreground image in focus.

 

[rambler]

Note that the land in the right edge, upper is quite closer than it appears in this wide angle view. I do not think that matters here. There are rock islands along the horizon line that are smaller, too. But, their size is not critical in this image.