Landscape and Rule of Thirds

[gardener]

I'm almost trying to start over with photography rules and regs so I can get rid of some poor shooting habits and as such, I'm kind of starting with composition as my first project. Due to some excellent tips and links you folks have posted, I'm trying to get more familar with the Rule of Thirds... My favorite pics to take have nearly always been of the macro or extremely close up variety and while the RoT is relevent, there's not much room for adjustment when the subject almost fills the frame so it's not been a big concern until now.
Last evening, I stopped by White Rock Lake for some practice and took many pics of the sunset over the water, ie: I was on east side of lake while of course, the sunset was at the west. I took some 40 shots, not really paying much attention to exact focus, DOF, or lens setting, but rather trying to figure out where the ground plane and light source (sunset) should be for the best effect. While the actual pics were junk quality, they were still decent enough to see that none would have been acceptable composition wise even if the settings had been good.
The question... What is considered a good starting point when there is a wide expanse of essentially flat surface in front of you with little to distinguish any central objective point.. In this instance, the water had a nice ripple and good reflections of the sunset color, the sunset color was nice and orangy but really eminated from no central location, and there was but one decent cloud to catch the color in the west. It was a very nice evening view from an "eye" point of view but from a camera lens point, it was just a boring pic....
Should I start with the land plane in the lower part of the frame, almost disregarding the light refection action on the water ripples? In the upper part of the frame to emphasize the ripples? Or some where in the center? I'm going to assume that the central light location, ie: sunset, should be off center somewhat?
It may take me a while to get this stuff figured out but I'm gonna do it if it kills me... well, not KILLS me kills me but you know... besides, I have too many $ invested now to keep taking poor pics... that in itself is an additional incentive. Thanks for any insight you may be able to provide...
Steve W

[xseption]

Can you provide some of the pics you took (say three) so that we can take a look at them and perhaps make comments based on your efforts?

thanks!

edd

[Gordon]

Not sure that this really addresses your fundamental question, but my approach to the wide landscape and particularly wide angle composition is all about building a scene.

Find a feature - whatever it is that you want to focus upon. Pick a starting point. Don't expect to stumble upon a great wide angle composition. That might be a cloud shape, or a canyon wall, or a common kind of brush, or a stick - just something that has a shape you want to build the scene around. Now look around and find something that has a rhythmic relationship with it. Build that in to the scene. Then look at what you have - what would you add or remove to improve the composition. Try that, and so on.

I don't have my camera on a tripod when I'm trying to compose it, because a small camera movement can make a big change. I'll find the shot, then bring the tripod in. Also, don't expect to 'see' wide angle shots well with your eyes - you have to look through the lens. This is different for normal or telephoto composition, where you are subtracting from what you can see. Look through the lens, see what small differences make. Find a foreground, midground and background. Make sure they balance well with each other, watch for overlaps/ mergers between areas and make sure those work well.

Rule of thirds, leading lines, balance etc all certainly play a part too, but I find this idea of constructing a wide angle scene and finding complimentary and rhythmic relationships a really powerful method for building big landscapes.

V shapes
http://www.pbase.com/gordonmcgregor/...768/medium.jpg

Cresote bush shapes and clouds
http://www.pbase.com/gordonmcgregor/...449/medium.jpg

Cloud shapes and ground shapes
http://www.pbase.com/gordonmcgregor/...611/medium.jpg

Plant and mountain shape
http://www.pbase.com/gordonmcgregor/...051/medium.jpg

In none of these shots, did I just walk upon the composition. For the Canon shot, I saw the walls and searched for something to pattern with it - the cracks in the mud are really small in reality.

Same with the cloud shapes - I'd see the shapes forming and search for ground shapes with good relationships to them. So that maybe doesn't answer your question about where to put the horizon line - essentially if there isn't anything in the sky, put the horizon high in the scene, if the sky is awesome put the horizon low in the scene. If there is a good reflection or relationship, try the horizon bang in the middle. Don't be afraid to put the horizon above the top of the frame, cutting the sky out completly, if the sky isn't very interesting or white. In fact, for landscapes, if you have a very recogniseable horizon, hiding it can add some mystery, some emotion and make the shot more interesting:

http://www.pbase.com/gordonmcgregor/...056/medium.jpg

So that's how I start. With an idea - then I build upon it. Maybe that one cloud you saw that caught the light would be the thing you'd try to build around. Maybe it's water ripples and cloud shapes. Maybe a rock in the water.

[xseption]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Gordon ... interesting approach

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by xseption

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Gordon ... interesting approach

Should have noted, this isn't my own idea - most of this I learned from Craig M. Tanner on a couple of his landscape workshops. I started not being able to compose with a 24mm lens, found it too wide, couldn't deal with all the elements in the scene. Now I find 12mm not really wide enough most of the time :)

[xseption]

How do these wide angle lenses help with photographing the landscape?

thanks!

edd

[gardener]

xseption... as far as pics to show, another lesson learned last night. It occured to me about 2 seconds AFTER I had deleted the pics that someone might ask to see examples... I'll check the Recycle Bin tonight and retrieve several of the pics for show and tell. See? I do learn as I go, albeit slowly...

And gordon mcg... excellent explanation and quite understandable. I'll check out the links and I'm sure that will also help..
I really DO appreciate all you guys and girls, both your expertise and the time it takes to answer...

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by xseption

How do these wide angle lenses help with photographing the landscape?

thanks!

edd

Well, mainly because you can capture more of a sense of space with a wide angle lens. The increased apparent DoF with a WA lens (don't want to get in to a technical argument about which actually have more DoF but WA appear to have more) allows more of the scene to be in focus and the perspective effects of widening spaces compared to the compression of a telephoto lens all contribute to a more wide open spatial feel than is possible with telephoto lenses.

The wider the better as far as I'm concerned, though I don't much want to get in to fish eye lenses.

There's a whole lot more thought that I try to put in to compositions (such as impacts of colour relationships/ colour theory, use of lines, subject choice, relative subject size, visual weight etc)
but this covers the basics of what I try to think about in most shots.

I tend to be a bit heavy handed in my use of rhythm at the moment, but I figure as I get more
accomplised with it, it'll become more subtle. Right now, I quite like banging people over the
head with it though!

[Hogleg 44]

Very Well Put Gordon! You da man!

[brad]

Remember, that you don't have to shoot the sun to shoot a sunset, but unless you are shooting for abstract, you still need a focal point.. somewhere for the eyes to rest...





And remember that the rule of thirds isn't really a "rule"

[Gordon]

Yup, often the most interesting sunset pictures are of things lit by the setting sunlight:







Any old excuse to post pictures of my wife :)

[johnastovall]

I would like to suggest the following as some basic resources on composition:

The classic by Dow and now back in print:

Dow, Arthur Wesley _Composition_ University of California, 1997

Others:

Bang, Molly, _Picture This: How Pictures Work_ Little Brown, 1991

Patterson, Freeman. _Photography and the Art of Seeing_ Key Porter, 1989.

Hale, Nathan Cabot, _Abstraction in Art and Nature_ Dover, 1993.

These don't just focus on photography but the issues of compostion and communication in any visual media.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

I would like to suggest the following as some basic resources on composition:

The class by Dow and now back in print:

Dow, Arthur Wesley _Composition_ University of California, 1997

Some interesting, and harshly critical reviews on amazon for that particular book. Though mostly about the rambling, 64 page, introduction that's been added. Thanks for the pointer - I've added it to the long list of things to buy and read if I ever get time.

[Gordon]

The OP might find this video primer on composition useful as well.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by GordonMcGregor

Some interesting, and harshly critical reviews on amazon for that particular book. Though mostly about the rambling, 64 page, introduction that's been added. Thanks for the pointer - I've added it to the long list of things to buy and read if I ever get time.

I've seen those. I have a 1926 edition my mother used in art school. His basics of Line, Mass (Notan) and Color are undying.