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.
NIKON Z 7 + NIKKOR Z 14-30mm f/4 S @ 17mm, ISO 64, 1/200, f/8.0
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.
NIKON Z f + NIKKOR Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S Z TC-2x @ 1680mm, ISO 1000, 1/200, f/11.0
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.
NIKON Z 9 + NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S @ 210mm, ISO 64, 1/500, f/6.3
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!
I really like the idea of looking for a different primary subject. The first example is excellent. The second is a closer call compared to just photographing the waterfall, partially because the flower is very small in the frame, and partially because if I were just trying to photograph the flower, I wouldn’t have photographed it from the angle you need to get the waterfall in the background. It seems like the approach works best if you are lucky enough to be in a location where there is a good alternative subject. Thanks to your article, I now know to look for one.
Thank you, Kenneth! Glad you found it useful. As for the waterfall image, I find that it works better at the largest available print size given that the flower is pretty small in the frame.
It captures my feelings towards travel photography as well. When you are standing there at some palace somewhere, in a sea of other tourists, it’s almost impossible to take something beyond a snapshot. The ”best” images are probably going to be found somewhere else.
I agree. Both the best, and also the most personal images, are made when you discover something for yourself.
Even when I’ve taken photos that I like from famous spots, it’s always because I’ve put some personal spin on it, like zooming into my favorite aspect of the scene or waiting for the timing of some moving element to be exactly right.
I once photographed the Blue Ridge mountains from Skyline Drive on my way south to Atlanta, Ga. I wondered at the time why my pictures did not capture the vast beauty of the mountains and valleys. My conclusion was that vast vistas could not be captured. From then on, when encouraged to photograph similar landscapes, I always declined, knowing that the pictures would disappoint. It is nice after all these years to find out that this is a phenomenon of which others have experienced the very same thing. I think it happens because our eyes can perceive depths of field in a way that lenses simply cannot equal.
That is a very familiar feeling. I agree that it’s because of the landscape’s depths, but also because of its scale, movement in the wind, sounds, and countless other little things that cannot be captured perfectly in a photo. What we can do sometimes, in the best of photos, is evoke a similar feeling or emotion as what the scene made us feel – but the full scene is something that can be experienced only in person.
Took me a looong time to realise, but one of the cues that help you understand the depth the view before you is motion parallax resulting from your own small, often involuntary movements – tremor, wind buffeting etc. Human vision is very good at picking up these cues and establishing that the foreground is indeed close by.
This sort of thing just isn’t going to be captured in a still image, so while that distant peak is still going to look distant the foreground won’t necessarily look as close as it seemed to be ‘in the flesh’. And you won’t spot this looking at the back of the camera!
Great guide! Your tips on using secondary subjects and isolating details are so helpful. Really resonates with my landscape struggles – thanks for the practical advice!
I’m glad to hear it, thank you, Mike!
An interesting and educational article Spencer, thank you. We made a big tour last year to visit various NP and I was very happy that I had taken a second camera (Nikon D 810) with a telephoto lens for more detailed shots. The 2nd camera (Nikon Zf + Z24-120mm f4) was used for the other shots, these were very useful in Zion NP, Grand Canyon in beautiful evening light with mist and Arches NP also with evening light and storm clouds. I have found that if you make a long trip, 2 cameras are not an unnecessary luxury. Cameras kind regards Danny
Thank you, Danny! I agree with that, and I personally wouldn’t travel without something that can cover at least a short telephoto for my landscapes. Ideally a longer telephoto of 200mm or 300mm.
I just checked out of curiosity, and for me the midpoint is that I took half of my best landscape photos below 90mm (full-frame equivalent) and the other half at 90mm or above.
I notice that you use various equipment; the iPhone, full frame, and crop sensor camera. Which camera do you prefer. I had a Nikon D7500 and traded up to Nikon Z5, and curious if I should had stay with the crop sensor camera.
Hey Zigman, good to see you in our comments here again!
At this point, I’ve used so many cameras that my opinions are pretty unorthodox on what I personally prefer. My favorite cameras at the moment are all large format film, like the 8×10 camera that I used for the second waterfall image. Among the digital cameras that I’ve tested, I think I’d award the crown to the Nikon Z8, but these days I care a lot more about lenses than cameras. That said, I do still prefer larger, higher-resolution sensors when possible.
I know that I used an iPhone photo for illustration in this article, but I really don’t use it as a serious camera. I don’t think I’ve ever taken a good photo with my phone, not because it’s necessarily a bad pocket camera, but because I don’t try to take careful compositions with it. It’s my “memory camera” while the other gear is what I use for artistic work.
Regarding the D7500 and Z5 specifically, I like the Z5 more. The D7500 has better autofocus tracking and burst-related features if you’re more of a sports and wildlife photographer. But for the genres of landscape and travel that I tend to shoot, the Z5 has better image quality and features, not to mention access to Nikon’s full-frame Z lenses, which are some of the best lenses available today.
That pair is what I used to have.
I’d previously decided that I could get more value out of a D7500 and a used D610 than a D810. I preferred the D7500 as an action camera (with a 300/f4D and 1.4 TC) to the D810 – not least because there was no good, affordable 600mm full frame telephoto lens (I’d already discarded the 200-500 as too heavy with poor AF acquisition). I also reckoned the D610 was just as good as the D810 at 100 iso on a tripod (see the PL review). I did trade-up the D610 to the Z5 as ‘like for like’. I do think the Z5 is a very fine landscape camera for its price.
I think that unless you can afford the top of the range, a horses for courses approach works well if, like me, landscape/nature is your go-to subject.
I’ve recently traded up to a Z8 as I had a bit of a windfall. But I have plenty of photos that I value from my 7 years with my D7500 and 300mm.
I have noticed that photos made of landscapes in general usually work best when printed large. Say about a meter wide and larger. In this way it is possible to be overwhelmed when standing close. Images made with todays cameras have so much detail that you can feel you are actually part of the landscape.. again.
It is a pity that with all the quality inside the images most only get exposed on websites and mobile phones. I happen to have a 44inch printer so am able to print large if i like too.
Yes, I also want to be able to print high-resolution meter magnifications
I always want to leave open the option of printing large, so I try to get everything correct in the field as much as possible – choosing the right aperture to balance diffraction and DoF, using a tripod, not cropping very much, picking a suitable shutter speed if there’s motion in the landscape, and so on. High resolution camera systems play a role, too – not going to ignore that. But I will disagree a bit that landscape photos generally work best printed large. It’s true that big prints have an impressive, immediate grandeur to them, which suits a lot of landscapes; however, small prints have more of a quiet, intimate quality where you need to be closer to them and have more of a reflective moment. I really prefer small prints for some landscapes, especially in combination with a matte or watercolor paper.
It’s awesome, Spencer ! Though loving travel photography, I feel it’d be better to leave photography behind now and then during my trip. Sometimes it would rather enjoy hiking itself than think hard to get some “amazing” photos in harsh light. And as you said, an aggressive crop of the scene (often times involving a telephoto lens and getting rid of the sky) or a different perspective might come to rescue in some situations.
It’s always a balance, and I never want to feel like I missed out on a good photo. But some days are clearly more about the time spent outside than they are about photography!
Great examples here, Spencer! This is a good tip to keep in mind.
Thank you, Andy!