Technical Stuff
I have so far resisted the urge to go digital with what I call my quality work. While I feel that digital certainly has its uses, I will be sticking with film as long as it's available.
My camera is a Mamiya 645, which is a fully manual medium format camera. I do have a light meter on the camera, which consumes the only battery power.
I don't use filters, or manipulate my images on the computer later. I prefer the natural light, which at the right time of day, excludes the need for filters.
As landscapes don't move, I don't have to have a fast shutter speed. Therefore in low light, with slow shutter speeds, I always use a tripod and cable release.
As front to back sharpness is essential in a landscape images I set the cameras aperture to f16, to get maximum depth of field.
....and there it is. Very complicated, isn't it.
However, just in case you're after a little more info, I have included a couple of my published articles below.
Why is landscape photography bound by so many rules? You must obey the rule of thirds; you shouldn't place your horizon in the centre of the frame, you must have a centre of interest, and many others. It seems that if you disobey these rules, you can forget about taking a successful photo. But why should this happen to a medium, which like painting or sculpting, is a method of free expression? Shouldn't we be able to put our own vision onto film without someone criticizing us? Yes, there are standards that must be upheld to separate the good work from the bad, but after that creativity can be encouraged. You should learn the basic rules of photography when you're beginning, but once you've done that, throw the rulebook out the window.
The 'rules' we use in photography are out-dated concepts used to bring order to something that should be free of constraints. We are being asked to follow directions that were taught to painters centuries ago so they could produce structured images. But today's, photographers, painters and other artists shouldn't feel as though they are bound by this system. Look at the work of some of the great photographers of the 20th century and notice how their images never feel restricted by sticking to a set of rules.
It's time to take control of your photography, to let everyone know you have something to say. Ask yourself, how do I make my images stand out from all the others, how do I imprint myself onto my photos? If we are ever to produce an image that is truly our own then we need to break away from these set rules.
Let's look at a number of these so-called rules and see whether they are still relevant to photography today.
The rule of thirds
In order for an image to have balance we must follow the rule of thirds. But how can we reproduce a landscape, which in its very nature, is not bound by any structure, with constraints such as this. In other words how can we say that we'll place the waterfall here, and the dominant rock formation there, when these to formations don't conform to our vision? Just because we want to arrange the elements in our photo, doesn't always mean the scene will concur with us.
The horizon should be in the top or bottom third of the image.
Where should we place the horizon? If it were up to the rule makers then it would only be in two places. What we should be doing is letting the scene determine where we put the horizon. If the landscape is interesting and the sky free of cloud formations, then why not put the horizon line right at the top of the image. You could even exclude it altogether. Alternatively, if the sky has a lot to offer, and the landscape is bland, then exclude the ground.
We're also told never to place the horizon in the centre of the frame. Why is this exactly? If the land and sky are equally interesting then isn't it worth trying to photography each in equal proportion. Brilliant cloudscapes can be photographed reflected in a calm sea or river with the horizon in the centre. How could a photo be more balanced than to have the clouds and reflection copy each other almost perfectly?
The image must have a centre of interest.
Again, the very nature of the landscape is that elements are placed totally at random, and not every scene worth taking a photo of will have a point of interest. Photography judges will often bring out the old staple when referring to such an image, "My eye wanders around the image looking for a centre of interest". What we should be more careful of is insuring that all parts of the image have some interest in them; a rock pool in the foreground, some tussock grass in the centre, and a line of trees in the distance. Surely this is what we should be striving for. Yes, the eye will wander around the image, but wherever it looks there's something worth looking at. Have as many centres of interest as you want.
Lead in lines should go from bottom left to top right.
Including lines in an image is one of the visual tools used to add interest into the image. Roads, ploughed fields and fences are three classic examples often used to lead the eye into the image. But where should them run from, and where should they go in an image? I've often heard it said that lead in lines should go from the bottom left of the photo to the top right because that is the way we view a page of writing. Does this mean that people from other cultures, whose words run across a page differently, would prefer the lead in lines elsewhere. Does it really matter if the lines are entering through the bottom right and running to the top left? Of course not. Just because the lead in lines in a scene go the wrong way doesn't mean that we shouldn't take the photo.
The sun should be over the shoulder.
How boring would our photos be if we only took them with the sun behind us. Every scene would have the same lighting, rendering subjects without any shape or form. With the sunset coming from the side shadows are created, and this highlights the textures in everything within the scene. The subjects in the photo have been transformed from flat cutouts, into solid forms. We can even go further and photograph into the sun. Yes, exposures are harder to calculate, but the rewards are images that break out of the norm. However, you should always exclude the sun from the image, unless clouds or some other semi-transparent object such as tree leaves blocks it. Look at how light reacts with the landscape, and never be afraid to try something different.
There should be no empty spaces in a photo.
We've always been taught that we should fill the frame from edge to edge, and never leave empty space. But there are certain images that cry out for some negative space to accompany the main subject, like a single tree on a barren flat landscape. If you move in close to the tree and show nothing else, you can't convey the isolation of this subject. The same thing can be said with a boat moving across a vast ocean, or a bird flying into the sky. Not all subjects can be photographed this way, but we should be able to produce images such as this if that is what is required.
Everything in the frame must be sharp.
To ensure that everything in the photo is sharp set your lens to a small aperture. This will maintain sharpness throughout nearly the entire image. Of course, this means that in low light we are forced to use long exposures. Anything moving within the scene will become a blur. But, we can use this as an effective tool to add movement to our images. Water is one of the best examples. Whether in a waterfall, or in the ocean, it's often in a state of constant movement. What better way to add interest to what is otherwise a static medium like photography? Other things like trees and grass can be moving also, but they can be balanced by including stationary objects such as rocks and other landforms. Using a tripod and a cable release will ensure that what is meant to be sharp will be, and what is not won't.
You must place your centre of interest according to the rule of thirds; you can't put it in the centre.
Another rule that restricts the creative process and tries to bring order to medium that doesn't require it. Not, every scene will have a centre of interest, but if one is included should we be restricted to where we can put it. Some would say that if we place this subject in the centre of the frame, or off in the corner, it upsets the balance off the image. But aren't we upsetting the balance if we place subjects according to this rule, rather than where they look the best. By following the rule-of-thirds aren't we producing image after image, each a clone of the other.
Landscapes should include people or cars, or boats, etc....
How many times have we heard, "That image would be great if only there was someone in it" or "That seascape needs a boat in it"? If we were photographing a city park, then yes, that would need people in it. But shouldn't a forest scene, or a pristine beach be free of man-made intrusions. Just because a scene doesn't feature a person in it, doesn't mean that it's uninteresting. In fact in some places signs of human intrusion would be to the detriment of the image. Isn't a landscape interesting in its own right, without including unnatural elements?
The simple fact of the matter is that each generation of photographer learns from those who have gone before them. But if those photographers are merely repeating the same old stale set of rules, how can our images break away from this. We should listen to those more experienced with matters relating to photography. Listen and learn. But we shouldn't be afraid to express our own creativity. If we disagree with a certain photographic rule, then shouldn't we be able to say so without prejudice. As a member of a camera club I have witnessed visiting photography judges trot out the same well worn excuses as to why an image is good or not. Many people will simply accept this as normal and move on. Therefore, when they pass on their judgements to the next generation of photographers, nothing will have changed. We cannot have true artistic input into our images if we are bound by out-dated rules. If I sound a bit annoyed with the whole system, yes I am, but no changes will ever happen if people just sit by and say nothing.
Most photographers, when faced with a landscape, will reach into the equipment bag and automatically pull out the widest lens they’ve got. They reason that the wide-open spaces must call for the wide-open lens. The truth is, any of the lenses in your kit bag can be used for landscape photography; it just depends on how much creative thinking you want to put into it.
Not only do lenses determine how much of a scene will be recorded on film, they also affect how perspective will be recorded and how much depth-of-field is available. A selection of lenses ranging from 28-200mm should be adequate for the average landscape photographer.
A wide-angle lens is any lens with a focal length that is less than the diagonal of the film frame in any given film format. For example: In 35mm anything less than 50mm, in a 6 x 6 less than 80mm, and in a 5" x 4" less than 150mm.
They’re particularly good for landscape photography because, stopped down, they provide a very large depth-of-field. Being able to record so much detail means that more care needs to be taken in selecting appropriate subjects. One facet of the lens is that objects will appear smaller in the image than they did in real life. So, that barn in the field that caught your interest initially might be reduced to such a small part of the final image it becomes insignificant. The old photographic adage of move in closer to provide more impact is more important than ever.
They also exaggerate perspective, so objects closer to the camera will dominate the scene more than objects further away. Therefore it’s imperative that you find a strong foreground image for your image.
The trap, which a lot of beginner photographers fall into, is that because wide-angle lenses cover so much area, there is always the chance that a vast amount of the image will contain little of interest. There is also more chance that something unexpected will appear on the edge of the image because you failed to look around the viewfinder.
The wider the lens the more you have to take care with horizontal and vertical lines. Pointing the lens up or down from a horizontal position causes the horizon to bow. Flat landscapes and seascapes are particularly prone to this bowing of the horizon. If you can, try to include something in the image that breaks up this curved line in the distance. Any straight vertical lines, such as lampposts, will become distorted if they are near the camera, so try to keep such objects further away.
You can use the distortion created by wide-angle lenses to your benefit as well. Looking along a straight section of road or train track with such a lens creates the dramatic effect of converging verticals, wide at your feet, then appearing to meet together far off in the distance.
A favourite lens amongst landscape photographers using 35mm equipment is the 28mm lens. It captures a 72-degree angle-of-view without too much distortion to the objects around it. But if you really want to exaggerate the foreground you might want to go for something wider, like a 20mm. Anything wider and you start talking about fish-eye lenses, which take some getting used to.
You will also need to take care with the filters you attach to wide-angle lenses, as they are particularly prone to vignetting. What’s vignetting? It’s when the end of the filter protrudes into the image. Because your viewfinder doesn’t show all of the area that will be recorded on film, you mightn’t notice this problem until you see your photos. Usually the parts of the filters that are protruding too far will be recorded as out-of-focus blurs. This is cause by attaching too many filters to the lens. If you’re unsure if this will happen to you, then take a test roll and check the results. In any case you shouldn’t use too many filters, as it will affect the quality of the image.
When the lens’s focal length is roughly equivalent to the diagonal of the film frame, then you have a standard lens. Often ignored by landscape photographers, it’s still a great lens for landscape photography. A standard lens will reproduce a landscape similar to the way the human eye sees it. There is also no distortion, so there is less need to take care with straight lines.
Taking a really stunning image that will really dazzle the viewer is a little harder with a standard lens. Other lenses distort people’s view of the world, showing them something that they don’t normally see around them. With the standard lens recreating just what’s in front of them, you really need to go that extra mile if you are to come up with something that will make them go "Wow!"
If what you want is an accurate reproduction of the scene, with no distortion, then you can’t go past the standard lens.
The last thing some of us would do is use a tele-photo lens to photograph a landscape, but these lenses have particular qualities that can produce usual results.
Any lenses with a focal length greater than a standard lens is considered a telephoto. These lenses allow you to isolate a particular part of the landscape, which is particularly effective if only a small part of the scene is worth recording. They also compress the elements in a scene, so that they appear closer together than they actually are. Mountain ranges or buildings appear like they are stacked one upon another, more like cardboard cut outs than three-dimensional objects. This is an unusual effect brought about by the properties of the lens. Used wisely it can make for an eye catching image.
Telephotos have a much shallower depth-of-field than standard or wide-angle lenses, making it harder to record all of a scene in sharp focus. This makes them perfect for isolating a subject in a scene, such as a distinctive tree on a hillside, or a boat on the ocean. If all of the elements in the scene you’re photographing are beyond the infinity marker on your lens, then all of the scene will be in focus.
Prime or Zooms? Most serious landscape photographers will stick to prime lenses because traditionally they have provided better quality than zooms. However the quality of zoom lenses is always improving. Zooms are heavier than prime lenses because they have more glass elements inside. This means that you have to set a faster shutter speed than if you were using a prime lens of the same length. Most zooms have a smaller maximum aperture than prime lenses, this can mean that the viewfinder image can be darker. 28 – 80mm is typical of the zooms you’ll find, whereas some even cover a massive 28 – 200mm.
The slight weight difference between the zoom and prime lens can be off-set by the fact that you can take one lens instead of three or four to cover the same set of focal lengths. For the person who doesn’t like being weighed down with heaps of camera gear, the zoom is the way to go. They are also of great benefit when you wish to compose an image, but some physical barrier prevents you from moving further or closer to your subject. No need to get wet feet when you see that tree across the river, just zoom in and get you picture.
Finding a zoom lens for a 35mm is easy, but very difficult in medium format cameras, and almost impossible in large format. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, since the medium and large formats allow you to use only part of the image, but still achieve results that are better than 35mm. Just think of it as zooming after the fact.
A lot of photo opportunities are missed because the photographer was busy focusing the lens. But, since landscapes are never on the move and you generally want the entire image in sharp focus, then focusing is easy. You can use what’s called hyperfocal focusing by using the depth-of-field scale on your camera. Focus on infinity and look at you depth-of-field scale to see what the closet point of sharp focus will be at the aperture you have chosen. Since you want most of the landscape in focus, then that would usually be around f16 to f22. Now, refocus your lens on this point, and your image will be sharp from half the distance indicated to infinity. Just leave your lens on this setting, and you’ll never need to focus again.
The lens is the most important part of you image making equipment. A good quality lens will still make high standard photos, even if it’s put on the most modest of cameras. I’ve seen fantastic photos from a $1000 lens attached to an empty wine cooler container. So, if you’re prepared to spend the money, get the best lens you can afford. It pays to shop around and compare. The most expensive lens might not necessarily be the best, and there are some cheaper models that really surprise with their quality.
There is a simple test that you can do at home to see if the lens you’ve just bought has any faults. Photograph an open sheet of newspaper that is evenly lit, and lying flat. Take two photos, one at the lowest f-stop and one at the mid-range. Check on your prints that all horizontal and vertical lines have come out straight, and that there is no greying along the edges or corners.
It doesn’t matter what sort of lens you have, if you don’t keep it clean, then your image quality will suffer. Take the time to regularly clean your lens, or the filter you use to cover it with. Usually a soft cloth will be sufficient for the cleaning. Start from the centre of the lens, and move the cloth in a circular motion outward to the rim. For on the run cleaning, carry a lens pen with you. These great little devices have a brush on one end, and a cleaning pad on the other. Scratches are another problem all together. If they are minor they probably won’t affect the quality of your image much, unless the sun’s ray hit the lens, then you’ll get lens flare. If your lens has a lot of scratches you should look at getting it fixed, or getting a new one, which ever is the cheapest.
So, next time you’re in looking out upon a stunning landscape, don’t just reach into the gadget bag and pull out the widest lens you’ve got. Think about what it is you want to achieve with the image, and choose the lens that’s right for the job. Who knows, you might even surprise yourself with the results.
