Explain it like I'm 5: wide-angle lenses for landscapes

At the suggestion of another user, it seems that post 24 outlines my questions better -- skip to there before you take the time to explain focal length and perspective!

------

Is the whole point of using a wide-angle lens for landscape photography so you can get some interesting foreground in the shot?

I'm not a landscape photographer, but whenever I try to take a quick photo of a nice 'scape with my iPhone, for example, I'm always left thinking that the landscape is way more impressive as seen with my eyes than it is in the photo. The mountains or features always look so much smaller in the photo, and I don't usually like the image much.

My iPhone 11's (not Plus, but regular) primary camera has an equiv. focal length of 26mm (and 13mm for the wide lens, which I basically never use).

I only bring up the iPhone camera to point out that it's obvious I don't understand how to use a wide-angle lens for a good landscape photo. I feel like it makes the interesting features look much smaller, and I don't understand how that's better?

Like I said, explain it like I'm 5 years old! I feel like an idiot, because everyone's always talking about using super wide angles for landscapes, and I'm wondering... how are you using those? What am I not understanding about the appeal? I feel like you have to really be INSIDE the landscape for a wide-angle shot to be interesting? And the features you're photographing need to be pretty large around you?

If there's a tutorial about this anywhere, like how and when to use certain focal lengths for different types of landscapes, and why they work, please share!

The human stereoscopic field of view is about 35mm. Anything wider than that, and you are trying to cram more lateral stuff into the picture, and everything naturally gets smaller to fit, and therefore appears farther. So, in order to fit grand vistas into the scene, a necessary sacrifice is to let everything get a bit smaller. People therefore try to add stuff into the foreground to make the photo more interesting, and provide a visual guide towards the more distant stuff.

The trade-off for the wide angle lens for landscapes is that it also causes changes in the relative size of elements in the photo. Things closer to the camera appear larger in context to things farther away. So using a wide angle lens for landscapes requires careful consideration of foreground elements, either to enhance an element (lake, rock, tree etc) or to avoid a dominant foreground element that might distract from an intended Vista. Perspective is a complicated subject and deserves a better and more thorough explanation than this but you asked for simple.

gonzogolf wrote in post #19016375
The trade-off for the wide angle lens for landscapes is that it also causes changes in the relative size of elements in the photo. Things closer to the camera appear larger in context to things farther away. So using a wide angle lens for landscapes requires careful consideration of foreground elements, either to enhance an element (lake, rock, tree etc) or to avoid a dominant foreground element that might distract from an intended Vista. Perspective is a complicated subject and deserves a better and more thorough explanation than this but you asked for simple.

Haha, that's fair, I did!

But I'm gathering that the wide-angle is appealing because it gives a sense of vastness, but because the wide angle makes the far-away elements look quite small, composition becomes ultra-important (not that it isn't always).

A photo of a large, smooth lake with mountain peaks on the far side of it won't make for a good image unless you give it depth -- something interesting in the foreground leading you to the [kinda tiny because of your wide angle] mountains, or a big sky with sweeping clouds and colors that point down to the [kinda tiny] mountains.

Basically, it doesn't matter if there's a major element within the frame that turns out to look kinda tiny as long as you compose thoughtfully and give the image depth and movement?

Foolish wrote in post #19016382
Haha, that's fair, I did!

But I'm gathering that the wide-angle is appealing because it gives a sense of vastness, but because the wide angle makes the far-away elements look quite small, composition becomes ultra-important (not that it isn't always).

A photo of a large, smooth lake with mountain peaks on the far side of it won't make for a good image unless you give it depth -- something interesting in the foreground leading you to the [kinda tiny because of your wide angle] mountains, or a big sky with sweeping clouds and colors that point down to the [kinda tiny] mountains.

Basically, it doesn't matter if there's a major element within the frame that turns out to look kinda tiny as long as you compose thoughtfully and give the image depth and movement?

Like any tool they can be a good solution for some circumstances and a poor solution for others. It's a matter of being aware of the effect.

.
Personally, I don't understand the whole obsession with wide-angle landscapes, either.

I don't much care for the look of wide-angle landscapes. . Of course there are some exceptions, and some WA landscape images that I like, but for the most part I prefer landscape images that encompass a much narrower angle of view.

I don't take a lot of landscape images, because I am usually more about photographing the wildlife ..... but when I do focus on photographing he landscape itself, I usually do so with my 100-400mm lens, and most of my landscape photos are usually take somewhere between 100mm and 170mm.

Personally, I am quite bored of seeing the "typical" landscape photo, taken with a wide angle, with something small in the foreground and the big vast scene in the background. . I just don't like that look, and it has been done to death.

The typical lakeshore / ocean photo with the very near rocks in the foreground, the water in the mid-ground, and the sunset sky in the background - give me a break! . Do we really need more of those?

Or the equally over-done photos with the wildflowers close up in the foreground and the mountain scene behind them. . Come on - really?! . Hasn't the world already seen enough of those kinds of pictures? . But I guess a lot of people like that stuff for their postcards or calendars or whatever, so even though that has been done to death people will keep doing it. . Whatever.


.

Let's consider this example situation:

Subject 5' tall is near the camera at 10' away, and the distant horizon has a spectacular mountain range with 12000' peak which is about 20 miles away (~100000 feet)

If I mount 35mm lens on camera,

• I see about 103000' wide expanse of the mountain range and my 5' tall wife stands just over 70% of the frame height
  

1. I see about 180000' wide expanse of the mount range, or an almost 75% wider amount of the mountain range, and my wife fills about 40% of the frame height.
   
2. If my wife moves to 6' from the camera (instead of 10' from the camera) she stands about 70% of the frame height (similar to using 35mm FL with her at 10') and
   I still see about 180000' wide expanse of the mount range
   

• Going from 35mm FL to 20mm FL seems to fit more of the spectacular mountain range into the photo, but
  
• going from 35mm FL to 20mm FL makes any single feature in the far field about 45% SMALLER...so your eye can perceive that feature far less
  ...a 12000' snowcapped peak only fills 10% of the frame height! -- rather than it filling 17% of the frame height when shot with 35mm FL
  
• so to equally appreciate the same feature you have to increase your PRINT SIZE in order to not risk making that feature 'not significant'
  ...a 20" x 30" print would need instead to be about 33" x 55" for the 12000' mountain peak to keep its similarly spectacular size on the wall, due to the change from 35mm FL to 20mm FL
  
• Moving the near field subject a relatively small amount increases their apparent size in the frame substantially (from 40% of frame height when at 10' away with 35mm FL, to about 70% of the frame height when at 6' away with 20mm FL)
  

• maybe leaving my wife filling 40% of the frame is the intent of having her do some of the scene-setting of the spectacular location
  
• but then again, if the purpose is to shoot a portrait of your wife, located in a beautiful setting which has inherent interest to a viewer, you move her from 10' to 6' so she is the dominant element
  

IMO a good foreground element is key when using a wide angle lens for landscape. A downside as mentioned above is the relative size, for example, a rock in the foreground looks huge but the majestic mountains in the background don't look so...majestic. You can use the distortion of the WA to your advantage. If you shoot with the lens relatively level, the mountains do look small. If you compose where the lens is pointed downward, the relative size of the mountains will increase based on the distortion of the lens. How much is lens dependent, but it helps.

You can also change relative size in post if you are so inclined. In Photoshop, you can use the transform tool to subtly increase the size of those mountains to make them a bit more majestic.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19016392
The typical lakeshore / ocean photo with the very near rocks in the foreground, the water in the mid-ground, and the sunset sky in the background - give me a break! . Do we really need more of those?

I share your dislike. Such a picture is too different from enjoying the scene in a natural way, given how vision and the human body work. At a beach in real life, I'd never take in a view like that at once. I might look down at the sand, shells, and kelp and look across for the waves and sky, but not at the same time.

How about this then? No rocks or water near me at all as I am on the 15th floor?

Not really a good pic, but I had fun making it. Landscapes are a mixed bag for me, I tend to think the scene looks better than what I really capture, so I don't do too many. This is actually a 40Mpx+ image stitched together, so that I could use a decent wide angle, but not too ultra to really compress things. I find that larger landscapes, provided no movement in the scene, seems to look better using something like a 20-30mm lens and stitching several together.

IMAGE LINK: https://photos.smugmug​.com …i-Q7kN9WV-X3.jpg&lb=1&s=A

These are some of my personal favs, but probably because it was taken during our one and only Hawaiian trip so there are memories attached to these. I felt like this looked like a postcard after I had taken it. I guess I like landscape shots that have alot of "things" happening in them and draws your eyes around the scene. Not saying these do though, but that is what I have found to interest me in others' shots.

Foolish wrote in post #19016170
If there's a tutorial about this anywhere, like how and when to use certain focal lengths for different types of landscapes, and why they work, please share!

Get a copy of this book and all will be revealed

Wide-Angle Photography
Chris Marquardt
ISBN: 978-1-68198-383-7

Wilt wrote in post #19016396
Let's consider this example situation:

Subject 5' tall is near the camera at 10' away, and the distant horizon has a spectacular mountain range with 12000' peak which is about 20 miles away (~100000 feet)

If I mount 35mm lens on camera,

• I see about 103000' wide expanse of the mountain range and my 5' tall wife stands just over 70% of the frame height
  

If I mount 20mm lens on the camera,

1. I see about 180000' wide expanse of the mount range, or an almost 75% wider amount of the mountain range, and my wife fills about 40% of the frame height.
   
2. If my wife moves to 6' from the camera (instead of 10' from the camera) she stands about 70% of the frame height (similar to using 35mm FL with her at 10') and
   I still see about 180000' wide expanse of the mount range
   

What can you learn from the above statements about what happened?

• Going from 35mm FL to 20mm FL seems to fit more of the spectacular mountain range into the photo, but
  
• going from 35mm FL to 20mm FL makes any single feature in the far field about 45% SMALLER...so your eye can perceive that feature far less
  ...a 12000' snowcapped peak only fills 10% of the frame height! -- rather than it filling 17% of the frame height when shot with 35mm FL
  
• so to equally appreciate the same feature you have to increase your PRINT SIZE in order to not risk making that feature 'not significant'
  ...a 20" x 30" print would need instead to be about 33" x 55" for the 12000' mountain peak to keep its similarly spectacular size on the wall, due to the change from 35mm FL to 20mm FL
  
• Moving the near field subject a relatively small amount increases their apparent size in the frame substantially (from 40% of frame height when at 10' away with 35mm FL, to about 70% of the frame height when at 6' away with 20mm FL)
  

Theoretical principles are too abstract for many to grasp and retain. If you can remember what happened when I changed FL in the above circumstance you get a better appreciation about the use of WA on 'landscapes', with or without a near field subject in the frame.

Part the the decision on where to put the near field object is dependent on how prominant you want them to dominate the photo...your wife, or the 12000' mountain peak

• maybe leaving my wife filling 40% of the frame is the intent of having her do some of the scene-setting of the spectacular location
  
• but then again, if the purpose is to shoot a portrait of your wife, located in a beautiful setting which has inherent interest to a viewer, you move her from 10' to 6' so she is the dominant element
  

I appreciate you writing this out!

KaosImagery wrote in post #19016399
IMO a good foreground element is key when using a wide angle lens for landscape. A downside as mentioned above is the relative size, for example, a rock in the foreground looks huge but the majestic mountains in the background don't look so...majestic.

I think this is the part that has always kind of confused me about wide-angle landscape photography. When all we see is a photo of a scene, it's easy to enjoy it for what it is, but when you see the actual scene with your own eyes, then take the photo, I personally always feel disappointed that the beautiful scenery is so much smaller and, as you say, "less majestic" in the photo. I feel like taking the wide-angle photo has decreased the beauty and impressiveness of what is actually there.

Even though, like I said before, when all you see is the photo (and not the scene itself), you don't have this comparison to be disappointed about.

Foolish wrote in post #19016699
I think this is the part that has always kind of confused me about wide-angle landscape photography. When all we see is a photo of a scene, it's easy to enjoy it for what it is, but when you see the actual scene with your own eyes, then take the photo, I personally always feel disappointed that the beautiful scenery is so much smaller and, as you say, "less majestic" in the photo. I feel like taking the wide-angle photo has decreased the beauty and impressiveness of what is actually there.

Even though, like I said before, when all you see is the photo (and not the scene itself), you don't have this comparison to be disappointed about.

I earlier addressed that point, with the bullet...

• so to equally appreciate the same feature you have to increase your PRINT SIZE in order to not risk making that feature 'not significant'
  ...a 20" x 30" print would need instead to be about 33" x 55" for the 12000' mountain peak to keep its similarly spectacular size on the wall, due to the change from 35mm FL to 20mm FL