Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Landscapes in portrait orientation -- is this fundamentally wrong?  (Read 3061 times)
gerafotografija
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 224



WWW
« on: December 19, 2012, 01:42:07 AM »
ReplyReply

The first time I did this, I thought it was a fluke.
Now, it happened again this weekend. A landscape, in portrait mode, seems to work pretty well.

Is there something wrong with me?
 Undecided
Logged

Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2012, 02:10:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps I am exceedingly slow but I can't see that it makes any difference.
Who cares if the orientations are named 'Portrait' or 'Landscape'.
I compose landscapes to any orientation that works including square and panoramic.
If it works it works!

Tony Jay
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7251


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2012, 02:12:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Landscape in portrait mode is perfectly OK with me. On the other hand I normally don't like large areas without info so I used to crop. Like this:



Best regards
Erik

The first time I did this, I thought it was a fluke.
Now, it happened again this weekend. A landscape, in portrait mode, seems to work pretty well.

Is there something wrong with me?
 Undecided

Logged

Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2012, 02:27:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Landscape in portrait mode is perfectly OK with me. On the other hand I normally don't like large areas without info so I used to crop. Like this:



Best regards
Erik

An excellent example of my point.
BTW Eric that is a really nice landscape!

Tony Jay
Logged
Colorado David
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551



« Reply #4 on: December 19, 2012, 10:29:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Vertical works fine with me.
Logged

gerafotografija
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 224



WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 19, 2012, 11:10:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting, when I see the landscape orientation, I think poster, when I see the portrait orientation, I tend to think postcard.

I now see what Erik means about cropping out areas lacking information content.
This was an aesthetic blind spot for me, and maybe I was trying to be too artsy, while missing a key element.

Reading this interview with a local Bay Area photographer turned me on to Hisoshi Sugimoto's work, and I must have been subconsciously adding big swaths of "space" to my images when framing them.

Now, after taking a closer look at his photos, it's rare for me to see no texture at all in large seemingly homogenous areas. These are clearly not zone "1" or "9". He retains detailed gradations of texture in bright and dark areas – even when, from a distance, seemingly blank areas take up half the frame. Now, how the heck do I convincingly add this kind of Immpressionist theme to my work?

It is always great to get input from the group on this forum. Thanks!
Logged

fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2012, 10:14:26 AM »
ReplyReply

The first time I did this, I thought it was a fluke.
Now, it happened again this weekend. A landscape, in portrait mode, seems to work pretty well.

Is there something wrong with me?
 Undecided


Absolutely not!  I generally make more landscape images in the traditional landscape aspect ratio, but there is no reason why you can't make fabulous and amazing stuff in the portrait orientation.  That second one is quite an exceptional landscape image in my opinion.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3910



« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2012, 11:05:26 AM »
ReplyReply

The first time I did this, I thought it was a fluke.
Now, it happened again this weekend. A landscape, in portrait mode, seems to work pretty well.

The name given to the orientation is irrelevant. You frame a shot to include parts which you like, which fit well together and which appear to be interesting. If the camera's sensor or the film isn't the correct shape, you crop it afterwards. When it works, it works.

So no, there's nothing wrong.

Jeremy
Logged
Walt Roycraft
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296



WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2012, 11:14:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Sometimes I take portraits of landscapes Grin
Logged

bretedge
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 258



WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 23, 2012, 02:53:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I find that some scenes lend themselves better to a portrait orientation while others fit more naturally into a landscape orientation.  I use whichever one works best for the scene before me.

As an aside, here's an interesting observation:  At my gallery, prints in a landscape orientation outsell portrait oriented prints about 4 to 1.  I find that people are usually looking to fill a wide space such a a wall above a couch and one large horizontal print works best and is more economical than 2 or 3 side-by-side vertically oriented prints. 
Logged

Jaffy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2012, 07:00:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Magazine covers normally wanted portrait orientation for obvious reasons, with 'blank' areas for text as well.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7251


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 23, 2012, 07:15:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Why not?




The first time I did this, I thought it was a fluke.
Now, it happened again this weekend. A landscape, in portrait mode, seems to work pretty well.

Is there something wrong with me?
 Undecided

Logged

kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3910



« Reply #12 on: December 23, 2012, 01:57:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Why not?

Not bad, Erik. Not bad at all.

Jeremy
Logged
framah
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1176



« Reply #13 on: December 24, 2012, 11:25:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Rule number 2 is to ignore rule number 1 whenever necessary.

Logged

"It took a  lifetime of suffering and personal sacrifice to develop my keen aesthetic sense."
shaunw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 397



WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 24, 2012, 11:55:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Rules... ''for the guidance of the meek and the laughter of the talented'' (not mine)...but completely agree. Is all about tuning to a different wavelength, much the same as working in colour as opposed to monochrome...work the craft correctly and the the viewers wont even notice its orientation, just the superb image/message your showing them.

Shaun
Logged

Canon 5D mk II Sigma 10-20, Canon 17-40mm L, Canon 24-105mm L, Canon 70-200 L, Lee Filters, Manfrotto geared head/tripod.

''Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop''. – Ansel Adams
http://www.shaunwalbyphotography.com
louoates
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 733



WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 24, 2012, 12:19:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I find that some scenes lend themselves better to a portrait orientation while others fit more naturally into a landscape orientation.  I use whichever one works best for the scene before me.

As an aside, here's an interesting observation:  At my gallery, prints in a landscape orientation outsell portrait oriented prints about 4 to 1.  I find that people are usually looking to fill a wide space such a a wall above a couch and one large horizontal print works best and is more economical than 2 or 3 side-by-side vertically oriented prints. 

My ratio is about  8 to 1, horizontal vs. vertical, in my galleries. But I'm showing 8 times more horizontals because I have lots more horizontals.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7251


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 24, 2012, 12:48:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Here is another one: .

I think cropping should be appropriate for the subject. Nowdays presentation is often widescreen TV, so I guess we will see more of that.

Best regards
Erik




The first time I did this, I thought it was a fluke.
Now, it happened again this weekend. A landscape, in portrait mode, seems to work pretty well.

Is there something wrong with me?
 Undecided

Logged

gerafotografija
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 224



WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 25, 2012, 11:54:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Beautiful examples everyone, and interesting comments on the uses/utility of each orientation.

I happened to be out during a break in the coastal storms sweeping through NorCal last week, and had a chance to photograph what must have been more than a thousand seabirds in a local park.

Attached is one that may not be the most exciting, but seems to fit with this forum thread.



A few more, including some with the short-side vertical, here.

Cheers!
Logged

PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 563



« Reply #18 on: December 27, 2012, 07:05:41 AM »
ReplyReply

What really re-defined the inane conventions for me was when I bought a Logan Matcutter secondhand on eBay and suddenly found myself no longer constrained by standard mount aperture proportions. Up until then I guess that I tried to compose/crop each photograph so that the print would fit a 4:3 mount aperture (usually 16"x12" in a 20"x16" mount), either "landscape" or "portrait"..

Now that I have the flexibility of cutting the mount aperture to suit the image, rather than vice-versa, I find that it is the exception to use 4:3. As noted by another contributor above, square is actually very pleasing for some compositions, as are "panoramic" formats - it really does depend upon the subject.
Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
muntanela
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 216



« Reply #19 on: December 30, 2012, 06:33:36 AM »
ReplyReply

At Pas Del Valénàsc I had to shoot in both orientation modes. Two female steinbocks observed and judged...



« Last Edit: January 01, 2013, 03:03:32 PM by murmeltier » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad