Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Landscapes in portrait orientation -- is this fundamentally wrong?  (Read 4305 times)

gerafotografija

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 224
    • gerafotografija.wordpress.com

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?
 :-\
Logged

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2604
Re: Landscapes in portrait orientation -- is this fundamentally wrong?
« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2012, 03:10:01 AM »

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: 10039
    • Echophoto
Re: Landscapes in portrait orientation -- is this fundamentally wrong?
« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2012, 03:12:51 AM »

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?
 :-\

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2604
Re: Landscapes in portrait orientation -- is this fundamentally wrong?
« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2012, 03:27:15 AM »

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: 1135
Re: Landscapes in portrait orientation -- is this fundamentally wrong?
« Reply #4 on: December 19, 2012, 11:29:34 AM »

Vertical works fine with me.

gerafotografija

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 224
    • gerafotografija.wordpress.com
Re: Landscapes in portrait orientation -- is this fundamentally wrong?
« Reply #5 on: December 19, 2012, 12:10:36 PM »

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: 1387
  • Hiker Photographer
    • trailpixie.net
Re: Landscapes in portrait orientation -- is this fundamentally wrong?
« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2012, 11:14:26 AM »

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?
 :-\


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: 5375
Re: Landscapes in portrait orientation -- is this fundamentally wrong?
« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2012, 12:05:26 PM »

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: 421
    • roycraftart
Re: Landscapes in portrait orientation -- is this fundamentally wrong?
« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2012, 12:14:22 PM »

Sometimes I take portraits of landscapes ;D
Logged

bretedge

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 310
    • Bret Edge Photography
Re: Landscapes in portrait orientation -- is this fundamentally wrong?
« Reply #9 on: December 23, 2012, 03:53:06 AM »

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. 

Jaffy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 59
Re: Landscapes in portrait orientation -- is this fundamentally wrong?
« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2012, 08:00:03 AM »

Magazine covers normally wanted portrait orientation for obvious reasons, with 'blank' areas for text as well.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10039
    • Echophoto
Re: Landscapes in portrait orientation -- is this fundamentally wrong?
« Reply #11 on: December 23, 2012, 08:15:30 AM »

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?
 :-\

kikashi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5375
Re: Landscapes in portrait orientation -- is this fundamentally wrong?
« Reply #12 on: December 23, 2012, 02:57:56 PM »

Hi,

Why not?

Not bad, Erik. Not bad at all.

Jeremy
Logged

framah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1302
Re: Landscapes in portrait orientation -- is this fundamentally wrong?
« Reply #13 on: December 24, 2012, 12:25:34 PM »

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
    • Shaun Walby Landscape Photography collections
Re: Landscapes in portrait orientation -- is this fundamentally wrong?
« Reply #14 on: December 24, 2012, 12:55:18 PM »

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: 836
    • Lou Oates Photography
Re: Landscapes in portrait orientation -- is this fundamentally wrong?
« Reply #15 on: December 24, 2012, 01:19:38 PM »

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: 10039
    • Echophoto
Re: Landscapes in portrait orientation -- is this fundamentally wrong?
« Reply #16 on: December 24, 2012, 01:48:20 PM »

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?
 :-\

gerafotografija

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 224
    • gerafotografija.wordpress.com
Re: Landscapes in portrait orientation -- is this fundamentally wrong?
« Reply #17 on: December 26, 2012, 12:54:54 AM »

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: 712
Re: Landscapes in portrait orientation -- is this fundamentally wrong?
« Reply #18 on: December 27, 2012, 08:05:41 AM »

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

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 481
    • BRATA
Re: Landscapes in portrait orientation -- is this fundamentally wrong?
« Reply #19 on: December 30, 2012, 07:33:36 AM »

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



« Last Edit: January 01, 2013, 04:03:32 PM by murmeltier »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up