Secrets Of Effective Landscape Photography?

[Tom Charles]

Hi everyone,

Having spent about 99% of my photographic experience in wildlife photography, I now have the urge to try more landscapes.

What kind of lenses and filters would you recommend for this venture and why?

If you can make any other suggestions as to the sort of kit a landscape photographer shouldnt be without, I'd love to hear

Current kit:

Canon EOS 20D DSLR
Canon 400mm f5.6 lens
Canon 28-90mm USM lens
Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro lens
Tripod

Thanks in advance

[Don Hoey]

I know money, money, money, but I would add a wider lens at least 18mm in 35 mm film terms. That would give you the 35mm equivalent of a 28mm lens.

You can get pretty impressive images ( as you have done ) with what you have, but a wide angle will give you a whole new perspective.

On the filter front I would only consider neutral density and polarizing.

It really is down to budget.

Don

[yelvertoft]

Landscapes are a broad subject (pun intended), generally suited to wider angle lenses, though it all depends what effect you are after. I've taken shots with an 18mm lens and wished I had wider, I've taken landscapes with 200mm lenses and been pleased with the results.

I'd say the secret of good landscapes is more to do with the elements of composition rather than the equipment. Take a look at this thread for example:
http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...read.php?t=288
I found the discussion on what makes the shot work very useful. I knew I liked crop 2 better, but it took Stephen's comments to make me understand why.

Take a look around the landscapes gallery, there's plenty to chose from, it's one of our most popular categories. Look at a selection of pictures that you like and try and understand why you like them. The difficulty in landscapes is trying to capture a sense of scale. One of the best pictures I've seen that achieves this is:
http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...hoto=722&cat=2

It all really boils down to personal taste, but IMHO, landscapes are more to do with composition than equipment. Having said that, a tripod is essential, but you've got one of those I see, you may also want a wider lens than 28mm depending on the style of landscape you are aiming for.

Regards,

Duncan.

[Tom Charles]

Thanks for the replies

Yes, wide angle maybe something to consider. I reckon I can 'see' a potential shot, so maybe its more about finishing the image. Ive seen on another forum, guys producing images that really have a magic feel to them. Powerful skies, and even colours that are extremely rich. So maybe in conjunction with looking at equipment for the job, I need to also think about editing skills?

Thanks for the links, Duncan.

[Christine]

Tom,I am rarely happy with my landscape shots,I can never fit into the image all that I can see visually.I was about to trade in my 24-105 lens,until I took a sunset shot,the colours were so rich that I decided to keep it.I had already traded in my 17-40 lens which is supposed to be a good lens for landscapes.I have also taken shots using the 100-400 zoom.Not wide,but they do bring up the clarity in the distance.

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by Christine

Tom,I am rarely happy with my landscape shots,I can never fit into the image all that I can see visually.I was about to trade in my 24-105 lens,until I took a sunset shot,the colours were so rich that I decided to keep it.I had already traded in my 17-40 lens which is supposed to be a good lens for landscapes.I have also taken shots using the 100-400 zoom.Not wide,but they do bring up the clarity in the distance.

Christine,

Sometimes you just have to recognise the limitations / advantages of whatever lens you have. If you set out with tons of kit invariably you will not take many pictures.

What lenses do you have?

The perspective is greatly affected by focal length.

At one end of the scale wide angles that give huge depth of field tend to make the horizon very distant.
Telephoto lenses draw distant objects up into the image.

I started a thread here http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...ewreply&p=1619

Go to post #6 , read it and work back to the link mentioned in post #2.
Look at the effect on the background tower as it moves from wide through to telephoto.

Check some of the images linked for the effect that a lens had. Spend time in the gallery LANDSCAPES and look for images where the focal length is mentioned eg nirofo's gallery

Hope we are helping.

Don

[jseaman]

With most landscape shots, wide is good!

I have the 20D and use the Tokina 12-24mm lens with it. The 20D's reduced sensor size gives a 1.6 multiplier so the Tokina lens actually delivers (in 35mm terms) 19-38mm!

If you really want wide you have to move up to the "1" series Canon cameras or the new 5D. These are the only ones that have full size sensors and therefore no multiplier.

Another way of getting wide - really wide - is by stitching photos together (panoramas). It is really interesting when you find an appropriate subject. Current programs make it easy to do. Using a simple 50mm (or longer) lens along with a tripod with a good head you can get some great photos!

[robski]

Apart from the choice of lens lighting is the other biggest factor. I recall reading in Outdoor Photography magazine an article on landscape work. A strong point it made and I fully agree with is don't waste your time taking shots on dull sunless days. The scene needs good lighting. The golden hours in early morning and late afternoon can be very good times of day when the sun is about 20 - 30 degree to the horizon. This provide a nice side lighting to buildings and trees in the scene.

Rob

Just to illustrate the lighting point further, these two shots where taken just as the sun rose from behind the fell it had been hiding behind for the first few hours of the day, angle would have been approx 30 degrees at this point.

http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...ata/2/But5.jpg

http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...rePanorama.jpg

I've just put a link to the second as its a wee bit wide to go in the post.

[dv2]

Originally Posted by yelvertoft

Take a look around the landscapes gallery, there's plenty to chose from, it's one of our most popular categories. Look at a selection of pictures that you like and try and understand why you like them. The difficulty in landscapes is trying to capture a sense of scale. One of the best pictures I've seen that achieves this is:
http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...hoto=722&cat=2

It all really boils down to personal taste, but IMHO, landscapes are more to do with composition than equipment. Having said that, a tripod is essential, but you've got one of those I see, you may also want a wider lens than 28mm depending on the style of landscape you are aiming for.

Regards,

Duncan.

Thank you Duncan for using one of my pictures as example. Some more information on the picture: this is somewhere in British Columbia, Canada. We stopped along the road, because people had spotted a moose. My camera at that time was a Canon Eos 300 (analogue that is). The lens used: Canon EF 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III to be exact. The pictures of the moose (hidden between the trees) won't make it to these galleries. Walking back to the car I saw this magnificent view of the glacier green-coloured water and massive mountains. At that time I wished I had brought my more wide-angle lens (28-90), but I didn't. So I just took the picture at 75mm... and I'm glad. My best landscape picture so far.

As previous posters have said, I agree it is more about composition than equipment. And perhaps try not to include everything in one picture. Leaving unnecessary things out is more difficult, but will benefit the picture in my opinion.

Danny