Camera height and horizon placement

Say you're taking a wide-angle picture of one of those grand landscapes. How do you balance how high the camera's going to be relative to the ground vs. how high you're going to place the horizon?

For example: placing the camera high or low has little to no effect on distant elements but does change everything for the foreground. What makes you think 'I'm going to plop it down really low' or 'I'll raise the tripod as high as it'll go'?

It really depends on the scene, and what is in the immediate foreground. If I'm shooting wildflowers, or something interesting in the foreground, I typically shoot from a low angle. If you've got a boring sky, getting low can allow you to incorporate more of the foreground and middle ground in the composition.

Varying the camera height will affect how the things appear in relationship to other things in the picture. If I have overlapping elements I may change my camera height to provide separation between those elements. I may get really low down to get something in the foreground closer to the camera in order to exaggerate its size. If I want a lot of sky in the photo I may get down low so that I can get more of the closer foreground elements in the frame while still creating an image with a lot of sky in it.

armis wrote in post #16412866
Say you're taking a wide-angle picture of one of those grand landscapes. How do you balance how high the camera's going to be relative to the ground vs. how high you're going to place the horizon?

For example: placing the camera high or low has little to no effect on distant elements but does change everything for the foreground. What makes you think 'I'm going to plop it down really low' or 'I'll raise the tripod as high as it'll go'?

I look through the view finder and see what the camera will see, then adjust accordingly until I get the frame up that I think I want to capture.

Very best,

What he ^ said.

There is no simplistic rule to save you; move the camera until the image looks good, then shoot.

There are no rules to this but I do think some thought needs to go into it. I think a good place to start is to ask yourself when looking through the viewfinder, ground glass or LCD in live view, is what in this scene is important? What am I trying to say visually?

Should it be vertical? Should it be horizontal? Usually, and this is in no way set in stone, if you are trying to accentuate height then you might want to shoot vertically. Expanse of space then maybe shoot horizontal.

What is the reason you are taking the photograph? Was it the sky? If so, show the sky. If it were the foreground then put the emphasis on that. Rarely is a horizon that cuts the frame in half the right answer. Usually it says to me that the photographer couldn't commit.

But like has already been said there is no one simple answer. The only right answer is what is right for each particular image. Asking yourself some of these very basic questions before you push the shutter can help you better decide.

Geonerd wrote in post #16418618
What he ^ said.

There is no simplistic rule to save you; move the camera until the image looks good, then put on a tripod and shoot.

This x3 with added words in italic. Think about the composition and also how much you are going to have to tilt the camera (if not using a shift lens). Depending on the scene and subject you might have the camera high and horizon high or any combination thereof. Or even - blasphemously place the horizon dead center.

Definitely try a few things though, because sometimes I think I know where I want the camera (usually low) only to actually find I want the camera higher. In Death Valley last year I even took some of my favorite shots at shoulder height which is really unusual for me.

Well I'm sorry, but "think of the composition | there is no simplistic rule, just tweak it until it looks good" sounds a bit mutually contradictory. I think I pretty fairly understand the thought processes involved in choosing where to place the horizon,, but having done so you can still change the frame in an infinite number of ways by raising the camera and pointing slightly down, or lowering and pointing slightly up. The horizon won't move in the frame but every element - especially the closest ones - will move relative to it.

Say I have a really interesting foreground rock. Do I put the camera on the ground and level, or do I put in on the tripod and angle it down? In the first case, the horizon will likely intersect the rock; in the latter, it'll be above it. The horizon and sky and distant elements will more or less be in identically placed in the frame. Which one achieves which effect better? Those are two different ways to emphasize the foreground; how do they differ?

armis wrote in post #16422745
. . . Say I have a really interesting foreground rock. Do I put the camera on the ground and level, or do I put in on the tripod and angle it down? . . .

Wouldn't it depend on which view you want to capture?

What's to prevent you from taking a variety of shots and choosing one later? The computer screen shows bigger versions that make it easier to decide.

OhLook wrote in post #16427641
What's to prevent you from taking a variety of shots and choosing one later? The computer screen shows bigger versions that make it easier to decide.

True, but at the end something makes you go for one shot over the others; I'm trying to understand what that something is (and in which circumstances) .

armis wrote in post #16428464
True, but at the end something makes you go for one shot over the others; I'm trying to understand what that something is (and in which circumstances) .

What the something is won't be the same every time. There are many merits that a photo can have.

If you have a goal in mind in advance, such as making a creepy picture for Halloween, then you pick the creepiest shot you took, or the one you can make look creepiest by adjusting it. That part is obvious. Sometimes my goal is to find something in everyday reality that I can get a good composition from. But you're talking about landscapes. The best shot might be the most beautiful one or the most dramatic one or the one that best shows how the foliage and its shadows look against a rock wall--whatever kind of thing you prefer.

Are you saying you don't know what scenes you like, or you know what scenes you like but you haven't analyzed them to identify common factors, or something else?