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

gonzogolf wrote in post #19017644
On my morning commute I have an incredible view of the sangre de christo mountains. I've yet to take a satisfactory photo of this view. Part of the problem is that the mountain range is wide, with many rugged peaks but none being dominant as a subject from my distant view. If I frame it with a lens wide enough to cover the vista I'm left with too much uninteresting foreground, or too much sky above. If I use a longer lens then I have to select part of the scene and honestly there is now sweet spot in the range that stands out

That could not be more true about the Sangre de Cristo range, haha. Every time I drive through there I'm like, why is this so pretty to my eyes, but so horrible in a photo?! You articulated it well.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19018652
.
I think the OP started this thread to learn of such techniques. . If you are able to take the time to explain them here, and to show examples, I think that would be very helpful to the OP and others. . I realize that writing such a post (or series of posts) could take a couple hours, and of course I understand if you don't have the time to do so.

.

Here is a video about wide angle shots, might be sort of helpful, I started it at the time where he talks about tilting the camera down to raise the background a little bit.


https://youtu.be/WnCRd​p-R80w?t=554

patrick j wrote in post #19019685
Here is a video about wide angle shots, might be sort of helpful, I started it at the time where he talks about tilting the camera down to raise the background a little bit.

https://youtu.be/WnCRd​p-R80w?t=554

Thank you -- that's a helpful practical video! I haven't really worked with UWAs at all, and it was surprising to see just how much distortion you get near the edges, and how you can actually use that to your benefit.

I happened to notice this article about wide angle lens landscapes and the problem of unmajestic peaks. You can shoot at different focal lengths and 'blend' in what you want. I guess you could call it focal length stacking.

https://www.diyphotogr​aphy.net …blending-it-in-photoshop/

Archibald wrote in post #19019821
.
I happened to notice this article about wide angle lens landscapes and the problem of unmajestic peaks. You can shoot at different focal lengths and 'blend' in what you want. I guess you could call it focal length stacking.
.

.
Yes, bcaps explained that back in post #41 of this thread:
.

Bcaps wrote in post #19018696
.
..... but as a general overview focal length blending is just taking two shots at different focal lengths and then blending them in photoshop. The idea being that in your first shot you compose for the foreground/midground and then you zoom in on the (for example) mountain/subject in the 2nd photo to keep the subject closer to what it looks like with your eye, and then you blend those in PS, keeping the FG/MG of the first shot and blending in the zoomed in mountain/subject from the second shot . As is true with most things in PS there are a large numbers of ways to accomplish this blending, you would just pick your personal favorite way (masking/clone stamp/etc) .....
.

.

Wilt wrote in post #19018995
I will post details after you have tried to describe the shooting circumstances of the shot.

I would say that is an unusual shot. Of course we can always find something unusual, but just using that as an example of how UWA without a foreground can work is not, IMO, all that helpful for someone starting into landscapes.

Yes, rules are there to be broken, but they are also guidelines for people to at least start in a decent direction. Of course I could find an example of at leas a decent shot that breaks any rule or guideline than anyone might give.

Foolish wrote in post #19019294
That could not be more true about the Sangre de Cristo range, haha. Every time I drive through there I'm like, why is this so pretty to my eyes, but so horrible in a photo?! You articulated it well.

Just search for that range on Flickr and most shots are taken with relatively long FL from a distance. I guess many people take shots from the roads and don't get that close, hence do not use UWA lenses.


(OK, some may be wide when showing the whole range and then cropped, but most are taken from quite a distance to the mountains and then fill a good portion with the mountains).

So I didn't see any photos that looked good with the mountains being a very small part of the frame.

ejenner wrote in post #19020165
I would say that is an unusual shot. Of course we can always find something unusual, but just using that as an example of how UWA without a foreground can work is not, IMO, all that helpful for someone starting into landscapes.

Yes, rules are there to be broken, but they are also guidelines for people to at least start in a decent direction. Of course I could find an example of at leas a decent shot that breaks any rule or guideline than anyone might give.

I am glad that you and I are in agreement!...similarly I said that simply going to a photo website to try to figure things out is of little value, particularly if zero detail about camera and FL are provided as information about the photo. I was providing an illustration to make that very point.
Frankly a lot of expert photographers could look at an image and not be able to tell you how the shot was made, as a generality, when no exposure information is posted. Some photos have obvious clues, and some fool you with apparent (but false) clues.

The shot was made on a day that I carried a Canon S110, rather than my 7DII. It was shot at 17.2mm...the equivalent of using 80mm lens on 7DII. So nothing close to WA focal length. The point in using that shot was simply just how hard it is to guess the parameters of a shot when knowing nothing of the circumstances. It could have been shot with 100mm lens if I stood back 25% farther, or shot with 20mm lens if I stood 75% closer and could levitate. And while the 'perspective' (the relationship in space as captured from that camera position) in the shot would have been different, the same area of the waterfalls would have been IDENTICAL...the amount of background behind would have varied, and the size of the boat would have varied, but there was no way to know FL selected for the shot, even for an 'expert' photographer. My point, exactly.

ejenner wrote in post #19020173
Just search for that range on Flickr and most shots are taken with relatively long FL from a distance. I guess many people take shots from the roads and don't get that close, hence do not use UWA lenses.

(OK, some may be wide when showing the whole range and then cropped, but most are taken from quite a distance to the mountains and then fill a good portion with the mountains)

.

So I didn't see any photos that looked good with the mountains being a very small part of the frame.

The range suffers visually from being a string of rugged peaks so close to each other than none stands out as majestic mountain even though many of them equal or surpass pikes peak. But pikes peak, at least the east face is so dramatic as it has a defined peak and some distance from other peaks.

I should note that our discussion here is about viewing them from the north and at some distance

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19017588
.

Hosted photo: posted by Tom Reichner in
./showthread.php?p=190​17588&i=i260557884
forum: Nature & Landscapes

Very nice, Tom. Very nice.

edit: Obviously I didn't miss it, But I did miss that I didn't miss it.


I missed this post a year ago. Superb.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19017588
.

Hosted photo: posted by Tom Reichner in
./showthread.php?p=190​17588&i=i260557884
forum: Nature & Landscapes

Video

Adaptive WIDE Angle Filter in Photoshop

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=khGoVomNYSo

chuckmiller wrote in post #19087528
.
Very nice, Tom. Very nice.
.

chuckmiller wrote in post #19202640
.
I missed this post a year ago. Superb.
.

.
Actually, you didn't miss it a year ago!

This is one of the funnier things I've seen on POTN ..... the fact that they are back-to-back in the thread makes it even more unusual! . But I am quite flattered that not only once, but twice, you took the time to compliment my photo.

Thanks for the encouragement!

I'm slipping.

A mind is a terrible thing to have lost...