[Richard Briggs]

I'm not actually asking for a critique here (although you are welcome). I'm seeking opinions. Let me explain...

I have been doing a lot of landscape stuff this summer here in the UK. And it has, once again, highlighted the debate in my mind about the role of portrait format (versus landscape) in these types of photographs. Personally I tend to steer clear of portrait format. But then I find myself tempted and then I cannot decide which is best. Maybe its simply a matter of opinion. So, I'd appreciate some views on what you guys feel. I have uploaded this photo to illustrate my point.

---

Last edited by Richard Briggs; 05-05-2014 at 10:08 AM.

[RoxnDox]

For that particular image, the landscape looks better in landscape Other settings will look better in portrait. I'm not sure you can, or should, even try to generalize it to "which one is best?", because it just depends on hte scene and your intent on what you want to capture and express...

Jim

[Gregory_51]

I guess the majority of landscape photos are in the horizontal format because it's the most comfortable way to hold the camera and a lot of people never even consider using it in the vertical format. One place you see the vertical format are magazine covers. I'd say it all depends on the subject as to which works better. A tall waterfall will likely work best as a vertical, a seascape as a horizontal. It depends on the scene, in this situation it will likely depend on the viewers preference. My choice here would be the vertical. I like the placement of the sign a bit more as because the lower pointer isn't exactly on the horizon. It's leaning in on the vertical photo from lens distortion but that can be corrected if bothersome. The vertical photo has also eliminated the buildings in the distance. Some may like them in the scene, some not. A slight difference in feel horizontal compared to the vertical. In this case between the two I like the vertical, another scene with horizontal and vertical choice I might prefer the horizontal one. A scene might look best in a square format. The ratio of the format might change too 2:3 , 3:4, 16:9 etc it depends. Printing might also change your crop if using standard photo sizes. So the short answer would be it depends on the scene, not a preference for one format over the other.

[Tako Kichi]

I recently read a photography book and the author strongly suggested shooting all landscape photos in both orientations especially as the extra shots cost nothing in this digital world. Wishing you'd taken a shot in the other format when you get home is not good when all you had to do was rotate the camera and click.

[MSL]

I see two problems with the comparison you are asking us to make. The first is that there is some distortion in the portrait photography - the signpost pole is at a weird angle both slanting to the right and backwards when compared to the landscape photo. The second is that you haven't kept the proportion of sky to ground the same. In the landscape photo it looks like 50:50, while in the portrait one it is closer to 60:40. Whilst I've heard that one should aim for a 1/3:2/3 ratio (of either sky or ground depending on what is more important) I can live with 50:50 as well, but the 60:40 mix seems odd. So for several reasons the landscape picture is the better one, but had the portrait version not had these "flaws" I might have ruled differently.

[Richard Briggs]

Hi, some great comments. Regarding MSL's view. The distortion is due to the wide angle (10mm) lens used. Of course the extreme wide angle really makes the sky dramatic. But you introduce distortion which, on landscapes, is not noticeable (try having a person in place of the sign - they will not be flattered!). So, try as I may I could not position myself, height-wise, to rid myself of the distortion AND not lose some of the clouds to left and right. Also, if you try to correct in Photoshop you have the same problem.

Someone else (not in this forum) suggested that the portrait should have had the sign in the middle but in the bottom third of the picture. That is an interesting observation and one I'll experiment next time I'm out and about (later today in fact - the weather is brilliant!).

[clackers]

Calm, horizontal lines of interest (fields, skyline) suggest landscape orientation, stately vertical ones (trees, buildings) suggest portrait.

You can break the rules if there's an unusual feature on display, but that's not true of the subject matter you've shown us.

You can tilt the camera 15 degrees or more to get something in between and introduce some dynamism but again, your subject matter better justify it.

---

Last edited by clackers; 09-04-2013 at 01:29 AM.

[Richard Briggs]

Regarding last reply (from me) here's the same photo with different distortion correction techniques used and also the change of composition. Personally, although I did not like Image 4 but, strangely, it is now growing on me! But I'd go with Image 2 where most of the clouds are retained. I think!

[clackers]

Is the subject the sky (implied by portrait and by proportion of the frame)?

If so, the post's new position seems a distraction.

Perhaps it would work with the sign as the subject, shot from you crouching on the ground pointing upward, with those clouds as the backdrop.

[TaoMaas]

For me, the horizontal photo seems to be more about the vast expanse of the landscape and sky behind the fence...the openess of it all. Whereas the vertical feels like it's more about the sign, the path, and the opening in the fence. It's more intimate somehow. That's just my initial take on it.

[mikeSF]

I tend to use vertical framing about half the time in my landscape shooting. I let the scene dictate what works best, but do not limit myself to think all landscapes need to be shot as a landscape frame.
In your example, horizontal framing is best due to the positioning of the clouds, the distortion to the post, and "choked" feeling of a too-tight vertical comp.

[Richard Briggs]

I think Clackers hits the nail on the head. I suspect many people are inspired to take a shot of a landscape because they think the 'landscape' is lovely but, in fact, its the sky that is making the picture. In fact, a landscape is more than just the land itself. It's everything. And the sky is a big part of that. Realising this you can then decide what the real subject of your photo is and start making decisions about portrait or landscape (afterwards if you take both).

Thanks for all the input. Certainly stimulated some thinking on my part.