A case for portrait-framed landscape pictures

[Michael Nagel]

This comment by Don brought my attention back to another comment, this time by John (the mind is a curious thing) and reminded my of my habit to use the portrait as frame for shooting landscapes (the ones you can walk in - or not, not the orientation of the frame )

I want to put up a case for portrait-framed landscape.

Here are two examples:

Richtung Salet im Regen




Auf der Weide im November​

Here are more examples.


Did you try this approach? I would like to see the outcome.

Best regards,
Michael

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Michael,

This comment by Don brought my attention back to another comment, this time by John (the mind is a curious thing) and reminded my of my habit to use the portrait as frame for shooting landscapes (the ones you can walk in - or not, not the orientation of the frame )

I want to put up a case for portrait-framed landscape.

Here are two examples:

<snip>

Both are very handsome.

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Maris Rusis]

The oldest expressions of pure landscape in art belong to Chinese scroll paintings of the Tang Dynasty, circa 580 CE. And yes, they are relentlessly in vertical orientation. Instead of renaissance style geometric perspective the convention was that distant things go at the top of the scroll and near things at the bottom. This style of Chinese landscape art is still strong today.

When I look at my own landscape photographs a slight majority are vertical with a "from here to there" emphasis rather than screen left to screen right.

I've heard the contrary theory put: all landscapes should be horizontal because we see horizontal. People's eyes are, after all, side by side not one above the other.

 

[Michael Nagel]

Hi Doug,

Both are very handsome.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Michael

 

[Michael Nagel]

Hi Maris,

When I look at my own landscape photographs a slight majority are vertical with a "from here to there" emphasis rather than screen left to screen right.

The majority of my landscape photographs is still horizontal, but it is important for me that the eye can follow a line from things nearby to the horizon or parts further away.

I've heard the contrary theory put: all landscapes should be horizontal because we see horizontal. People's eyes are, after all, side by side not one above the other.

The position of the eyes is an important point here as in terms of three-dimensional view the path in front of a person is the part of the field of vision which is the best perceived and the peripheral parts are not that detailed (but quicker in reaction for moving objects).
One reason for people preferring large landscape views on pictures might be that these wideangle views enable people to view things at once - without the need to turn the head sideways, which would be required when actually being at the place where the picture was taken.

Best regards,
Michael

 

[Wolfgang Plattner]

Hi,

to me, both examples do not really work, as they rather seem to be cut out of horizontal frames.
For me, there's no way shown "from here to there" as it is supposed to be basic in portrait-orientation.

 

[Maggie Terlecki]

I looked through my landscape images and was surprised at how very few were taken vertically.

I do have a few examples to show, that I think work, but am not sure if they can be categorized as landscapes; I wonder if they should be considered 'landscape vignettes'? I took them vertically because I didn't want what was on the sides to be in the photograph on purpose so shooting vertically blinds your eyes to everything on the sides and keeps you focused on this one small area.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Well, of course, there are "landscapes" and there are "outdoor pictures"

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Maggie Terlecki]

Well, of course, there are "landscapes" and there are "outdoor pictures"

Best regards,

Doug

Well, perhaps we could call them that. I could delete them from the thread if they don't fit, I suppose. Where I live, it is difficult to take, what you might consider a landscape, as the woods around here are pretty much wall to wall trees. lol
Maggie

 

[Don Ferguson Jr.]

Maggie, definitely the first three are very nice landscapes. The last cool one is perhaps in a class defined as more artistic landscape but of course fits this thread.
These I took in vertical are two of my favorites.
Don

 

[Maris Rusis]

Hi,

to me, both examples do not really work, as they rather seem to be cut out of horizontal frames.
For me, there's no way shown "from here to there" as it is supposed to be basic in portrait-orientation.

I might be biassed in favour of a "from here to there" rendition because I use a view camera with movements. The Scheimpflug condition enables my camera to render everything absolutely sharp, from the nearest grass stem to the most distant mountain, at any aperture, any shutter speed, on any film, under any lighting condition. If I had to use an unbendable camera its depth of field limitations might tempt me to avoid close foregrounds and do horizontal pictures of middle and far distances.

Sometimes I question whether I'm making the camera do what I want or am I merely wanting what the camera does.

 

[Wolfgang Plattner]

Hi,
To me, Maggi's and Don's photos correlate better to the idea Michael suggests.
And here we touch another "problem" again: can we do in photography the same as in painting?
No, if we indicate photography as a documentary art, but yes, if we use the possibilities to work on a photo in an artificial way (I hope, I use the right terms ) as the chinese (or japanese) scroll paintings, which are highly artificial.

 

[Chris Calohan II]

Living in a coastal environment, there are many scenes which are far less conducive to horizonal aspect ratios than vertical, such as:

Snug Harbor

Sunset 307

Last Catch of the Day

Talking About Mai Gal​

Albeit perhaps more commercial innature, even kitsche, these are among my best selling images for the local crowd. Hey! Gotta pay for my toys!

 

[Michael Nagel]

Wolfgang,

to me, both examples do not really work, as they rather seem to be cut out of horizontal frames.
For me, there's no way shown "from here to there" as it is supposed to be basic in portrait-orientation.

I can follow you thought for the first eample provided. Still - for the second I have some difficulties to see your criticizm.
If I want to go in one direction and I can walk this way, I go it. I do not need a beaten path to go in a direction that interests me - do you? The straight line see in this picture is pretty easy to walk...

The contributions provided (thank you! ) are all visually attractive and sometimes even beautiful, but if you think landscape, there is one element which should be there from my point of view that defines landscape - DEPTH (emphasis added by myself) or at least something beyond plant(s)/object(s) and surroundings, revealing larger structures - see for yourself where you find it.

Still - bring on your examples that may be speak more than words...

Best regards,
Michael

 

[Doug Kerr]

Firstly, thanks to all for the lovely "outdoor" works, and for the interesting insights into format for various kinds of subjects.

This seems to be one of the threads, so common here, it which it seems as if we seek an answer yet it is hard to visualize what, if we found it, we could do with it. "What is 'fine art', and if we knew, what could we do with that?"

Suppose we decide than indeed, there are some "outdoor" scenes best served by a taller-than-wide format. Gosh. How profound. Who'd a thunk it.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Bruce Sdunek]

And then there's the square... Like some above, I often use vertical composition to exaggerate the near-far look. I figure each of us has to evaluate the scene as we see it and use the appropriate formatting. It'll all get sorted out at art shows or by purchasers.

 

[Maggie Terlecki]

And then there's the square... Like some above, I often use vertical composition to exaggerate the near-far look. I figure each of us has to evaluate the scene as we see it and use the appropriate formatting. It'll all get sorted out at art shows or by purchasers.

Actually, Bruce, I believe that is exactly how most of us shoot. We do not think "oh, this is a landscape, it must be in landscape mode". We look at the scene and frame it as we see fit, be it landscape, square or portrait.
Maggie

 

[Bill McCarthy]

Actually, Bruce, I believe that is exactly how most of us shoot. We do not think "oh, this is a landscape, it must be in landscape mode". We look at the scene and frame it as we see fit, but it landscape, square or portrait.
Maggie

Right on Maggie, for me, the construction of the composition is key. Here is one of mine.

 

[Maggie Terlecki]

Right on Maggie, for me, the construction of the composition is key. Here is one of mine.

Wonderful shot, Bill. Man, that was one busy beaver; :-D

Maggie

 

[Asher Kelman]

This comment by Don brought my attention back to another comment, this time by John (the mind is a curious thing) and reminded my of my habit to use the portrait as frame for shooting landscapes (the ones you can walk in - or not, not the orientation of the frame )

I want to put up a case for portrait-framed landscape.

Here are two examples:

Richtung Salet im Regen




Auf der Weide im November​

Here are more examples.


Did you try this approach? I would like to see the outcome.

Michael,

Somehow, the portrait format brings in a personal space, as if we are blocking the left and right unseen sides with our hands and have a special esteem of the narrow space left.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Living in a coastal environment, there are many scenes which are far less conducive to horizonal aspect ratios than vertical, such as:

Snug Harbor

Sunset 307

Last Catch of the Day

Talking About Mai Gal​

Albeit perhaps more commercial innature, even kitsche, these are among my best selling images for the local crowd. Hey! Gotta pay for my toys!

Each a gemstone image, Chris!

Brightened my getting ready for sleep tonight!

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

I looked through my landscape images and was surprised at how very few were taken vertically.

I do have a few examples to show, that I think work, but am not sure if they can be categorized as landscapes; I wonder if they should be considered 'landscape vignettes'? I took them vertically because I didn't want what was on the sides to be in the photograph on purpose so shooting vertically blinds your eyes to everything on the sides and keeps you focused on this one small area.

Maggie,

Credit to Michael for making you guys dig out these great companions to his work! The winter is a fine picture.

but the golden trees are really romantic, as if they're dancing and forgot they were in a public space!


Asher

 

[Wolfgang Plattner]

Wolfgang,

I can follow you thought for the first eample provided. Still - for the second I have some difficulties to see your criticizm.
If I want to go in one direction and I can walk this way, I go it. I do not need a beaten path to go in a direction that interests me - do you? The straight line see in this picture is pretty easy to walk...

The contributions provided (thank you! ) are all visually attractive and sometimes even beautiful, but if you think landscape, there is one element which should be there from my point of view that defines landscape - DEPTH (emphasis added by myself) or at least something beyond plant(s)/object(s) and surroundings, revealing larger structures - see for yourself where you find it.

Still - bring on your examples that may be speak more than words...

Best regards,
Michael

I agree with you, the most pictures shown here do not show landscape, they show nature.
In your second picture, the first "layer" of grass in the foreground is - for me - not present enough to make your intention work.

As regards my examples - I simply do not not have any yet But I'll keep an eye on it.

 

[Maggie Terlecki]

Maggie,

Credit to Michael for making you guys dig out these great companions to his work! The winter is a fine picture.

but the golden trees are really romantic, as if they're dancing and forgot they were in a public space!


Asher

Landscape or nature or simply photos taken outside; any which way you want to call them, thank you for the kind comments
Maggie

 

[Tom dinning]

Landscape or nature or simply photos taken outside; any which way you want to call them, Maggie

I don't believe it! Maggie and I agree on something. I think I'm in love.

This thread has exposed some brilliant photos, regardless of their orientation. Arguing whether they should be taken long or short is like arguing the colour red or the sex of a tape worm.
With landscapes, I'm always drawn to the landscapes of Robert Adams. (vertical or not)

 

[Tom dinning]

As appreciative of beautiful things as the next person, landscapes without character are just pretty pictures.

_DSC4901 by thedingo0099, on Flickr​

 

[Bill McCarthy]

Tom,

I like the photo, but not convinced of the character comment. Here's just another pretty image from the other day, in a non landscape composition.

Best, Bill

 

[Tom dinning]

Tom,

I like the photo, but not convinced of the character comment. Here's just another pretty image from the other day, in a non landscape composition.

Best, Bill

If you're not sure, Bill, at least there's something to think about. Let me know when you are sure.

 

[Bill McCarthy]

If you're not sure, Bill, at least there's something to think about. Let me know when you are sure.

Hey Tom,

I'm sure about a lot of things, but I am wondering if you were referring to the clunker in the photo, and were you saying that if it wasn't there your photo would be just another pretty picture? That is why I am saying I'm not sure (that you are right).

Best, Bill

 

[Bill McCarthy]

As appreciative of beautiful things as the next person, landscapes without character are just pretty pictures.

_DSC4901 by thedingo0099, on Flickr​

I do like this capture,and I see the reflection of Robert Adams in your image. Nice touch.

Best, Bill