ESFotoClix Blog

Almost two months ago, I read through a book I picked up several years ago, John Shaw’s Landscape Photography. While the edition I have focuses exclusively on film photography, most of the principles and advice the author lays out transcend whether one is shooting film or digital.

On this reading, a statement that had gone unnoticed previously struck me with great force: “think photo-graphically.”

John Shaw points out that most of what most amateurs photograph falls into one of two categories. First there’s the recording of everyday life: birthdays, vacations, get-together with friends, the coming of a new pet… you get the idea. He calls this a photo-journalistic approach. In doing so I don’t think Shaw is diminishing the great talent many professionals exhibit in this field, but rather pointing out that we should not approach landscape photography in this way: it’s not about recording what we saw for future generations to know we were at this or that magnificent national park, etc.

The second approach Mr. Shaw points out hinges on capturing natural beauty. I would call this the photogenic approach. I’ve certainly chosen many landscape compositions and scenes based on what is beautiful and disdain that which is not. Shaw points out that this, too, is a poor way to select and arrange our subjects.

Instead he wants us to think photo-graphically. Chiefly, he wants us to think about shapes, lines, colors, textures and other graphical elements. Don’t notice a mountain peak; notice a triangle. Don’t notice a rock formation; notice its textures and forms. Don’t notice the beautiful colors in a sunset sky; notice how the interplay of hues compliments the overall image and whether colors clash or hang together. Well, I’m putting this in my own words, but that’s essentially what he’s saying.

Armed with this admonition, I headed out to two very photogenic locations where I would normally be very tempted to photo-journal the great places I had just visited. Looking for graphical elements and finding ways to arrange them inside my frame, I came away with images that begin to deviate in character from most of what I’ve shot to date. (While I’ll admit some of my prior work effectively combined graphical elements, I’ll also cop a plea that this was mostly either coincidental or intuitive, and did not result from forethought on my part.)

Point: lines, shapes, textures

Face: shapes, textures, complementary colors (orange and blue)

Thumb rock: shapes, textures

White bokeh: lines, textures

Kayak: lines, textures (water), color

How do you select your subjects, whether they be landscapes, people, stills, etc.? How do you compose them inside your frame? Maybe it’s time to start thinking photo-graphically.

What to include and what to exclude from a photo remains one of the hardest composition questions for me. Part of this struggle arises from my love for wide angle perspectives when I shoot scenery. I’m slowly coming to agree with what I’ve read often: don’t forget the longer focal lengths when shooting landscapes.

Here are two sample images from a previous blog entry where we discussed the usage of different lenses. At the widest 50mm setting we get a nice composition that shows a surfer in context with the surroundings. In one way, it is a complete composition, including a nice moment where the surfer poses with a unique stretch, also telling us the story of the environment he’s about to enter. On the other hand, one could ask what the subject of the photo is: the pier (looming largest in the photo), or the surfer. I want it to be the surfer, but have I thrown in the kitchen sink?

Nikon D300 & AI-S 50-135 @ 50mm

Seconds later, having completed his stretching routine, the surfer heads into the water. This time I chose a longer focal length, giving me a tighter, simpler composition. The interplay the large pillons against the determined surfer make for a nice contrast, and one could argue there is less of a question about what this composition is about. Simplicity has produced a compelling image, and I’m left wondering whether I should have used the longer focal length for the first composition as well. I console myself with the observation that during his stretching routine, the surfer is farther from the pillons, and a composition equivalent to this second image wasn’t possible. I also note, perhaps more objectively, that simplicity doesn’t give us everything the first image portrayed. For instance, if the goal had been an image portraying a surfer in Manhattan Beach, California, the first image would fulfill the job better.

Nikon D300 & AI-S 50-135 @ 135mm

The last point I take away from this is that one shouldn’t always assume wider focal lenghts are most effective for landscapes or scenic photos. It appears that longer focal lengths, when put to proper use are just as effective. Here are two additional samples to drive this point home:

Nikon D700 & AF-S 17-35 @17mm

Nikon D300 & AI-S 50-135@100mm

Ever wondered how to comment on other people’s photos? Are you afraid you don’t know enough of the buzz phrases or technical terms to help someone improve her photography, all the while making you sound like the benevolent expert? Or perhaps, you are scratching your head trying to decipher what others are saying about your photos? Here’s a link that might help you.
Great Photographers on the Internet

Truth be told, most of what goes on for commentary on the net either falls along the lines of “nice grab!” which does little for the photographer by way of improving his craft, or more often than not, is a rehash of pre-canned “truisms” about composition, focus areas, color use, sharpness, low noise, shadow detail and other rules-based auto-responses we have read countless times. Come to think of it, I may have engaged in this practice myself. Ouch!

From now on, when I give feedback on a photo, I’ll make it more a point to engage on the image’s impact rather than in how it achieves it. Maybe we should all try that and see how it goes.