Originally posted by biz-engineer That's interesting. I would say that there is a difference between landscape/architecture composition and designing a photograph when the subject can be moved. For anything fixed, there are only two degrees of freedom: time (waiting for the light) and space (moving the camera / changing focal length, to modify what's in the frame). When the subject can be moved, it more of an active design approach, the background can be selected, the subject can be moved, on top of moving the camera and lens focal length and modifying light with a strobe, there are more degrees of freedom, it is an activity closer to that of a painter. I'm starting to believe that photographing people is more rewarding than landscape photography. Landscape photograph is difficult because it involves travel, and rely on elements that can't be controled and it's a more lonely activity. Photographing people is more fun, there is the shooting experience between the photographers and the models, at the time of shooting and also before and after, and people makes photographs more alive.
Yes, I've shot with landscapers in landscape workshops, and portrait guys in portrait workshops, and a broad generalization is that if I was to be stuck at a dinner table with either, it's the portraiters. Make of that what you will!
Sports photography really relies on scouting out the locations beforehand and waiting for the movements of the players and action to be favourable. For instance, I ignore anything at the other end of say, a soccer pitch, the photos will be terrible even with a tele lens because the background (especially the fencing/signage) is closer to the subjects than the camera, and the subjects are often facing the other way.
Last edited by clackers; 02-20-2019 at 02:56 AM.