telephoto scenics

[forestgnome]

Often I try to shoot scenics like this, but they often seem flat with the telephoto. I like this view because of the expanse of the Presidentials, but there are many miles between Mt Chococorua and the Presidentials. This one isn't that flat (or is it!), but oftten they are. I try to include foreground to add depth, but it often looks difficult and contrived. What do you think of this composition and what are tricks to scenics at ~500mm?

Happy Trails

 

[ghassert]

No criticism's here, I really like this photo. This was taken at 500m? Wow...

 

[Mark Schaefer]

I believe this photo works very nicely. It is often difficult to get depth in a long telephoto shot because it id difficult to get anything interesting in the near foreground that will be in focus. But your first ridge line provides an adequate foreground (you can see individual branches) to provide depth. There is just enough atmosphere to provide tonal separation between the ridge lines, yet not so much that it obscures the Presis on the horizon -- they appear to surreally float over the picture. You must have stopped the lens all the way with a slow shutter speed to get everything sharp in focus. Bravo.

what are tricks to scenics at ~500mm?

Have something very interesting to look at, and you have that. Photos where the ridge lines are separated by varying tones of blue haze also work well, but it requires interesting ridge lines.

 

[forestgnome]

Thanks. I moved around quite a bit looking to place that foreground ridgeline in a good spot. I think the aperature is f/16 on that one.

 

[Brambor]

Looks nice. Nicely done.

 

[DougPaul]

Often I try to shoot scenics like this, but they often seem flat with the telephoto.

This is due to the change in the perspective due to the long FL. You take the picture with a small field of view (~5 degrees for a 500mm FL lens) and view it with a much larger field of view (closer to 50 degrees, a large image fairly close to your eyes). The net effect is that long FL lenses tend to compress the perceived depth of the objects in the image. (This is where the concept of a "normal" (typ 50-55mm) lens comes from--the perceived perspective in a photo is similar to the perceived perspective of the original scene.)

You cannot change the physics and its effect on depth perception, but, as others have noted, you can try to choose a foreground which makes the effect less apparent to a viewer.

Doug

 

[w7xman]

This is due to the change in the perspective due to the long FL. You take the picture with a small field of view (~5 degrees for a 500mm FL lens) and view it with a much larger field of view (closer to 50 degrees, a large image fairly close to your eyes). The net effect is that long FL lenses tend to compress the perceived depth of the objects in the image. (This is where the concept of a "normal" (typ 50-55mm) lens comes from--the perceived perspective in a photo is similar to the perceived perspective of the original scene.)

You cannot change the physics and its effect on depth perception, but, as others have noted, you can try to choose a foreground which makes the effect less apparent to a viewer.

Doug

Doug is right on the money!

A long lens compresses a scene and makes layers of elements look like their right on top of each other. Distance is compressed into a flat plain. Wide angles do the opposite, making small distances seem great.

It's a neat tool to use when harnessed correctly, but can be frustrating when trying to shot great distance with a long lens!

 

[bikehikeskifish]

This is due to the change in the perspective due to the long FL. You take the picture with a small field of view (~5 degrees for a 500mm FL lens) and view it with a much larger field of view (closer to 50 degrees, a large image fairly close to your eyes). The net effect is that long FL lenses tend to compress the perceived depth of the objects in the image.

This is why the pitcher's mound looks so close to home plate when viewed from the center field camera.

Tim

 

[Tim Seaver]

Great shot from an awesome viewpoint. I suspect that if the trees had a thicker coating of snow, it would help add some depth. Centering Washington works really well in this image, giving the feeling that all the ranges somehow culminate there. Well done!

Adjusting the levels and contrast can somewhat offset the "flattening" effect a bit, while whitening up snowy areas and giving the sky a more natural look. (Digital cameras seem to pronounce the flatness even worse than film, IMO.)

(The thumbnail is pre-adjustment for reference)

 

[forestgnome]

Tim,

Thanks much! Very cool. Thanks to all for the comments

 

[darren]

FN - nice shot. Good use fo the foreground to give the image some depth. Shooting with a tele like that certainly has the tendancy to make images flat. It can be very useful for many kinds of shooting, but for landscapes it can make things dull.

Tim - great job boosting the white snow. It really works to make the foreground pop and give the image more depth.

Here are some more tele shots for comparison. Both were shot around 400mm on a 1.6x crop body so effective focal length is ~ 640mm.

This shot is an exmple of a flat boring photo that is the result of having no foreground in a tele shot:

Forestnome's shot has much more depth.

I took this shot right from my lanai (patio on my house). I included some foreground and you can see how even though it is shot at the same focal length as the prior shot the image has much more depth.

Not a great shot, but I'm just using it for an example of depth with tele.

Anyone have any other tricks? I'd be psyched to learn some.

- darren