Dealing with Interesting Scenes that Are Hard to Photograph

There is a bit of a disconnect between how scenes look in person and whether or not they lead to good photos. And it goes in both directions – at times, an “ordinary” scene will make for amazing photos, but other times, a very interesting place may be hard to photograph well. For obvious reasons, the latter of the two situations is more of a problem. Solving it is what I want to talk about today.

Examples of Interesting, Yet Challenging Scenes

As a landscape photographer, the first situation that comes to mind for this discussion is a beautiful overlook. Some overlooks lend themselves to amazing photos, but many are very challenging to capture well. For example, the Grand Canyon is famously difficult to photograph with even a hint of majesty that it evokes in person. And I feel the same about many other overlooks that I’ve visited, like Dante’s View in Death Valley or the top of Angel’s Landing in Zion National Park.

I think that an equivalent in wildlife photography is the sighting of a very rare animal that is either too far away or somewhat hidden in a tangle of trees. The best example from my experience is when I saw a pack of wolves in Yellowstone National Park – one of the rarest and most spectacular animals in the area, and enough to draw crowds even when the wolves are extremely far away. A wolf pack is practically the definition of an interesting subject, but it’s almost impossible to get good photos if they’re just tiny specks on a distant hill.

In genres like event photography and portraiture, it’s more about the quality of the light than the subject. Anyone can be a good subject under the right conditions, but it’s a lot harder if the light is unappealing. Figuring out a way to deal with that – either by using the “bad” light creatively or by changing the light somehow – is one of the staples of good event and portrait photography.

Sometimes, the Answer Is…

Just accept that not all scenes can lead to amazing photos! In the examples above, forcing a great photo out of the scene may not be realistic or possible. Sure, maybe you’ll beat the odds and capture a groundbreaking photo of the Grand Canyon at noon on a cloudless day, but chances are much higher that it will be more of a “memory” photo and less of a masterpiece. Same with a photo of extremely distant wildlife, or a person in bad light.

That’s perfectly fine, too. Prior to taking the wolf photo above, I had never even seen wolves before, so photographing them at all an incredible moment. It didn’t matter that they were so far away; the photo is an important memory for me, even though I know it’s hardly a portfolio image.

I have realized over the years that I can get a bit of tunnel vision while I’m taking photos. So, sometimes, it’s nice not to worry about taking good photos and just enjoy the moment in a different way instead. If you recognize that there simply isn’t a good photo to be had, there’s nothing wrong with taking a shot or two for the memories and then putting away your camera.

But What If You Still Want Good Photos?

It’s nice to slow down from time to time and just enjoy the moment. However, I don’t think such a thing is incompatible with taking pictures – for me, if anything, photography is a way to enjoy the moment even more. I also think that there’s a fun challenge in trying to get good pictures at an interesting, yet hard-to-capture scene.

In such situations, there are two approaches that I like to try.

1. Prioritizing Something Other Than the Main Scene

If the obvious subject in front of your lens isn’t making for a good photo, try to use it as an element of your photo rather than making it the main subject.

Going back to the Grand Canyon example, this could involve something like photographing a flower on the rim of the canyon or a bird flying overhead. The canyon can still be in the photo to give it a sense of place and a unique atmosphere. But it no longer needs to carry the photo by itself – it may be composed as a distant background, or you could even throw it out of focus.

That’s essentially what I did here, albeit at Dante’s View in Death Valley rather than the Grand Canyon. For the first photo, I knew that I liked this distant salt basin, but to me, something about it didn’t feel distinct enough to anchor the entire composition:

So, I looked around for a different primary subject, and I found a pretty photogenic tangle of foreground plants gently lit by the rising sun. I still included the interesting salt basin in the distance, but it no longer needed to carry the photo – it became a nice supporting element instead. Whether you like this photo better or worse than the previous, that’s up to you – but this one does a better job of conveying what I wanted to capture that morning:

Another example comes from a waterfall that I thought looked very cool in person, but didn’t fully work how I wanted in a photo. This was my attempt at capturing the waterfall by itself:

I don’t hate the photo, but it definitely isn’t as interesting to me as it was in person. So, rather than trying to force the waterfall to be my primary subject, I decided to look for other interesting things, and I found this flower that complemented the waterfall pretty nicely:

I took the second photo with a shallower depth of field, throwing the waterfall a bit out of focus and making it clear that my primary subject is the flower. As cool as the waterfall was, I felt that for the story I wanted to tell, it worked better in a supporting role.

Even if you feel differently about which of these photos are better or worse, the point still stands – there will be times when the obvious subject actually works better as a secondary element, and something else should take center stage.

2. Isolating a Small Part of the Main Scene

One of the surprising challenges with an amazing scene is that it can be amazing in too many directions. You may be having a tough time capturing so much splendor in a single photo, and trying to use a wide-angle lens to capture everything at once can do more harm than good. Even if you do fit everything into the photo, all the subjects could compete for attention, potentially leading to a disjointed message and story.

I’d consider taking a different approach instead. Rather than trying to capture the entire amazing scene in a single photo, hone in on the part of the subject that mosts interests you, and take a photo with a narrower scope instead.

Maybe this means zooming into a single tree or rock formation that catches your eye. In wildlife photography, perhaps it means taking a more abstract-style photo of a bird’s feather patterns rather than its entire body. For portraiture, maybe you photograph the subject’s hands or their silhouetted profile if a more traditional portrait isn’t turning out right.

Here’s another example. This time, as much as I thought this rock formation was interesting in person, something about it just didn’t work quite right in the photo:

The light, however – and the cool silhouettes on the distant horizon – struck me as very interesting and worth photographing in their own right. When I zoomed in and used a darker exposure, the hazy sun began to appear as a new primary subject, and I think that this photo is a stronger image overall:

However you go about it, isolating a smaller part of the scene can be a great way to turn a difficult subject into a good photo. And as a side note, it’s why you’ll rarely find me without a telephoto lens as a landscape photographer!

Conclusion

The two techniques discussed in this article (three if you count “accepting that it won’t always work”!) are just the beginning of things that you can do to take better photos in tricky, yet promising locations. If you have any recommendations of your own, or questions about my tips, let me know in the comments below!