[Big Bob]

Is it ever desirable or artistic to have the photographer's silouette shadow in a landscape image? I know it can easily be removed in Photoshop, but I thought it kind of added something. What are your thoughts?

[Arpe]

Very general question, but I'd have to say - it depends.
Probably fairly rare situation where it is desirable, but I would never rule it out.

[Gooshin]

if you are not photograhing the shadow, then it is not desirable.

[Peter Zack]

I'd agree with Arpe and Gooshin. Ususally not desireable unless there is some artistic reason for it. Maybe you can post an image where you think this works.

[c.r.brown]

I'll echo the last posters and say it's akin to watching a movie, you're following a graceful woman walk across this expansive room. She walks in front of a mirror and just for a second you see the camera, crew, lights etc reflected and the illusion is broken.

[axl]

to quote Arpe: "it depends"...
and that's all that matters, if you like it, have it there. Personaly I don't like to see my shadow in pics and if I have one, usually I end up deleting the image

[Lowell Goudge]

If it is intentional, or unaviodable it is OK but to me, it is akin to having your feet in the field of view of a wide angle or fisheye.

Normally it is undesireable

[Mike Cash]

I just posted a pic to Flickr yesterday in which I intentionally included my shadow in the photo. I didn't post it here because I didn't take it with a Pentax.

I wanted to get the shadow of a "torii" gate (the kind that marks the entrance to Shinto shrines in Japan), but the length of the shadow combined with the 38mm lens on the camera meant that I had no choice but to include myself. My first inclination was to not take the picture.

But then I thought back on having grown up with a family whose entire involvement with photography was family snapshots with Instamatics. They grew up in the first half of the last century with Brownies and the only thing they knew about photography was that shooting into the light was a big no-no. Folks like that tend to end up with their shadows in the pictures quite a bit.

So as my little way of reaching back across the decades to my roots and showing some props to my dearly beloved departed grandmother.....I purposely included my shadow in the photo. On my Aminus3 photoblog I titled it Family Tradition.

Konica C35 Flashmatic
Kodak Gold 400

[egordon99]

It's hard when you're shooting at 10mm to keep your shadow out of the image (depending on the angle of the sun of course)...If I get a shadow, going out to 11-12mm usually fixes it.
Sometimes it's fun to get the photographer in the shot -
14mm -


10mm -


And you don't even need an UWA for shots like these -
50mm -

[TaoMaas]

Sure...why not put your shadow in your pic if you want?

<----

[spillway]

Is it ever desirable or artistic to have the photographer's silouette shadow in a landscape image? I know it can easily be removed in Photoshop, but I thought it kind of added something. What are your thoughts?

How about this one? I took it in a pretty remote part of Michigan's Upper Penninsula. I'm returning from photgraphing a waterfall. The tracks you see are the ones I had made an hour earlier. I hung the camera around my neck, set the 2 second timer and 'posed'.

[noblepa]

In photography, there are many rules of thumb that some people take as gospel. "Don't shoot into the sun", "use the rule of thirds", "don't include your shadow in shot", etc.

These rules serve beginners and casual snap shooters well. In general the rules hold.

However, like all such rules, once you understand the reason behind them, you also begin to understand when it is okay to break them. In fact, I think that it is the fact that you have broken them, that adds to the impact of the shot. Usually, in an effective shot that has broken the rules, the broken rule causes some sort of unusual juxtiposition or unique composition that is the central feature of the shot. When the broken rule is NOT the point of the shot, it often detracts from the image.

For example, spillway's shot of his shadow in the snow. Without the shadow, it is a rather hum-drum winter scene. The shadow makes the image pop. The same is true of "Short walk off a long pier". The shoes transform the scene from a simple lakescape into a shot with an element of humor in it, because the shoes are unexpected.

Paul Noble

[alohadave]

This one turned out quite well even though having my shadow was un-intentional.

[aegisphan]

Shadow to the scene is more like a personal touch that enhances the feeling of the photographer about the scene.

When I look at Mike's temple shot, the shadow does give life and human connection into the picture. Without the shadow, I consider the scene to be empty and lack of personality. I would say the same in spillway's picture.

However, do plan out the shot (take one with and without), whichever you like is the one. Art is subjective.

[Chako]

I took this one on my first outing with the Pentax 18-250mm. The idea behind this was to use the photo in another forum in a thread about self portraiture. I don't like to show my mug online, so this was as close as they got.