Qualities for a "Landscape pic."

[beckywithasmile]

One of the biggest mistakes I see in landscape photography is in framing. I have seen many, many photos, where people have trees in the way of half of their shot. Either find a way to use the tree (or other item) to fram your shot so it looks nice or take a few steps one way or another and get it out of the shot. This is kind of a pet peeve of mine because it really distracts from what could otherwise be an absolutely wonderful photo.

[hsroxas]

Hi msafiedin!
For someone still learning his new gear, you are a "natural", meaning you've got the touch.
Keep on shooting.

[purplebyron]

well its a massive question and i guess the answer if formulaic would make every landscape picture a hit ... i am about to ramble on about ideas etc and opinions in a roundabout sort of way, which leads me to my first attempt to what makes a good landscape pic .... i believe it has something to do with a journey for the eye and mind in the way of an effortless fly through of interest and twisting and turning of ideas and thoughts, a kind of mini holiday for the eye, i believe the image on the first moment of viewing should be easily accessible and then once in, the viewer must be led around like a kid in a sweet shop by interesting line, form, colours and textures also the image must be more than the sum of its parts........ ok this might be just the makings of a good landscape picture or indeed might include just a few of the criteria i have listed, but i still think the excellent landscape pic transcends everything ...it is and always will be a moment that elevates an interesting place and moment into an almost spiritual, fantasy land that will seriously enlighten the viewer, this can only be possible by some magical moment in time ... its funny how most excellent landscapes are most often taken around transistional times of day where lighting is unpredictable and inspirational, by this i mean by an example of dawn, dusk, moonlight or perhaps a storm ... a situation where the uncommon, moving, sinister etc can be revealed through the above list
i dont want to fall into the trap of going intothe old master painters and getting bogged down by the picturesque and the sublime and the inclusion that every painting has to have a mountain , three cows, a farm labourer of some kind etc etc .. we could study a classic lanscape scene and ponder its qualities till the preverbial three cows come home but i think it is just a magic moment in time seen and realised .. but able to talk and allow access to a third party view ... how difficult it is to seperate the magical moment of taking a picture that has so much sentiment for the photographer and to convey this to the viewer ......... have i been able to do this .... absolutely not .... am i an accomplished landscape photographer .... absolutely not ... but one day maybe i will be walking at a special place at a special time and have a camera ready with a tripod and realise -through and with the aid of all the failed attempts so far- a good landscape image that i and others will enjoy
i might just add that there are some things, like thirds that might be considered as important factors in composition, but to state this as fact is fool hardy and wrong ... filters/ neutral density and polarizers are helpful but again to state that these are absolute would be just plain wrong, But i would say that copying and looking at other landscape artists work can only better ones attempt at the arcadian visual dream .

[wijew]

Sagelike31,

Another point I'd like to draw peoples attention to regarding your photograph is how you have "balanced" the image. Notice how the "Bigger" pylon, which is closer to the middle of the picture, is balanced by the "Smaller" pylon which is further away from the picture? I think it adds a lot to landscape images but obviously it is not a rule which can be used with every landscape photograph.

I think the rule of thirds and keeping horizons horizontal are two rules which can be used more frequently.

[Griggs]

Originally Posted by msafiedin

how about this one...? i took it few weeks ago
still learning about my d40..

If you straighten out the horizon, it looks a just a little off and center the birds in the shot, looks a little to the left, then that looks like a picture I'd buy!

[stevesutt89]

I have a theory on why i like this shot so much....it may be completely wrong, but i'll give it a go anyway.

When you look at the sky, there are two gaps in the clouds that kind of make two lines (or vectors) which converge at the flock of birds. These lines are reflected in the water so that the whole image has a kind of "X" on it. What makes this so good is that no matter where you start looking at this image your eyes will always be drawn along the vectors to the birds, the main point of interest. Or, if starting at the birds, they will be drawn outwards to the rest of the image.

The other thing i think that the lines in the clouds do is to help to add perspective. Its kind of like train tracks disappearing into the distance, and this gives a feeling of depth. Which brings me to my comment on landscapes in general: If you have some sort of object in the foreground which draws the viewers eyes into the image, a landscape picture may be greatly enhanced.

Now there was an article about that somewhere on this site...where was it...?

This is not the one i was thinking of, but here's one about "how to use converging lines to enhance your landscape photography.
Ahhh, and the one I was looking for..."How to get foregrounds right in photography"

[ram1945]

I shot this one morning in our wooded area. I thought the Sun's rays shining through the trees defined a pathway. I had never noticed this in the same prospective as I did this particular morning.

[Hemant Anand]

To me a good Landscape picture is when you forget about everything else for a moment and just look at it.

Nikon D80
Tamron: 18-200

[Nicole]

Welcome Hemand Anand

Great thoughts on what a good landscape is, and you've provided an excellent example