I think the 28-200 is a skill in itself. You’ve learned that spec sheets do not matter, and that having one lens on for a variety of stuff is beneficial! I was told I was mad for dumping my 24-70 for an inferior lens (24-105) but I’ve never been happier.
The 28-200 is imho the gold standard for landscape photography. First of all it is way sharper than what you would expect for a super zoom, but second; it gives you immense versatility for most situations. The limit hits you at that wide end though. A true platinum lens for landscape would be 20-150 mm, but that wide end would probably be incredibly difficult to get sharp and undistorted while also having 150 mm at the long end. Nevertheless, the 28-200 is the only lens I currently own. But I am saving up for a super tele and a dedicated wide angle too for my own "holy landscape/nature trinity". If I ever get into event photography, I will compliment with the 35-150 from either samyang or tamron, because there, unfortunately, the 28-200 cant really perform good enough in low light conditions.
@@Wistbacka I still think about buying the 28-200. I have the 24-105 F4 and the Sigma 100-400. The reason I got the 24-105 over the 28-200 is OSS. I hand hold more than I should. But the minimum focusing distance is 1.25ft which is frustrating for abstract photography. The 28-200 is immense and I hope you’re enjoying it! Cheers
@@louisburley1597 I dont know what body you shoot on, but if you have ibis then you are fine 90% of the time. I used to have an a6000 and that was difficult at 100+ mm. But now with an A7Rii, it is much less of an issue as it has ibis I do miss OSS/VC at low light conditions though, but that is when I shoot events. When I do landscape I almost always have tripod.
This is a new age misunderstanding of why vertical is referred to as "portrait" and horizontal as "landscape" when it originally comes from painting, where portraits were of individuals, not groups of people and the vertical format allowed for the entire person to be framed head to toe with greater space given to the individual with minimal background space, and the landscape format was more often used to depict geographical spaces and when used for scenes of groups of people and other scenes, allowed for greater accommodation of backgrounds which were considered an equal part of the composition. In photography you use whatever framing, vertical or horizontal that best serves the composition irrespective of what you think about portrait or landscape. These distinctions are still very valid as the horizontal implies a wider view best suited for landscape and in painting this became a distinction between that and portraits. Furthermore, the vertical format is still best when you're taking individual portraits of a single person, and yes the idea Mads espouses of using the horizontal format allowing the person to "breath" is certainly valid, however funny enough when you take a photo for your passport, the passport office WILL NEVER accept a horizontal portrait. It goes back to being able to best fill the frame with the individual and because the face and body are elongated along the "Vertical" axis, this is why the vertical orientation will ALWAYS be referred to as portrait format! End of discussion. It's just a way to refer to the orientation of the view and has NOTHING to do with nature/landscape or portraits of persons. This premise is a self-made "Tempest in a Teacup" at the end of the day.
I never thought I should only take portraits in portrait orientation or landscapes in landscape orientation. For me, these terms are closely tied to printer setting nomenclature. So, if I was taking a portrait in “landscape orientation”, it was because I was already thinking about how I wanted to print it. We no longer have to print our photos to see them like we had to back in the days of film, so maybe that is part of why the misunderstanding you described has occurred. But the terms “landscape orientation” and “portrait orientation” are still helpful to me, because they have a very specific meaning and application.
I've never heard of anyone that thought only photos of 'landscapes' should be in 'landscape orientation' and vice versa. If this is a thing, I certainly haven't heard of it.
The problem with taking breathtaking landscapes in 'Portrait mode' (vertical format) is in the way they are finally presented. If they are presented on a computer/TV screen that is 16:9 or 10... than of course the 'Portrait' mode photo is going to be short-changed compared to the 'Landscape-mode' photos. However, if the monitor/TV is flipped (to vertical), or if the Photo were Printed on to a large-Sheet (as you discussed), than the 'Portrait-Mode' photo may come to life! But it seems that most of the time, we will be browsing our edited photos on our computers. If your just sharing with your friends on 'phones': Portrait-mode photos tend to do very well... because in whatever app they are using to share photos, they often forget to 'flip' over to landscape on their phone for best photo-viewing.
The overexpose vs clipping is a favourite of mine - also known as ETTR. For best results and to eke as much data out of your sensor it's best to test your camera in regards to uniWB so you know how to accurately read your histogram (the histogram as it is presents jpeg information, not raw data). For example, after testing with uniWB techniques, I know my camera can be exposed at least 2/3 of a stop past the point of an overexposure warning before clipping actually starts to occur.
One of your best videos. I shoot landscapes with my 70-200 and have taken a few shots with my 200-500. Like you, I'm different. Too many "PROFESSIONALS" selling on RUclips!
Agreed. I've taken landscape photos with my APS-C Canon and a 150-600mm lens. And since I'm not really a landscape photographer, I've taken way more architectural/interior photos as well as street/car photos using wide lenses. I like the fact that some photographers have been speaking up recently about much of the universally accepted nonsense.
Lenses come labeled with their focal length and maximum aperture, not their "purpose". My 85mm f/1.8 was NOT labeled as a "portrait" lens. My 20mm f/2.8 lens was NOT labeled as a "landscape" lens. They happen to make a fine combination, when used together. A wide shot with the 20mm to establish the context, combined with tighter shots with the 85mm to home in on details. Combining wide and tight shots can be a great way to tell a story. And for those "in-between" shots, I pull out my 35mm. 35mm is an amazingly versatile focal length. Wide enough to give the subject some context, but tight enough that the subject isn't lost in the background. 35mm has long been a favorite of street photographers and photojournalists, because it's field of view is handy for "storytelling".
The places you go are crazy beautiful. Love watching what you get up to and the amazing shots you get. It's like starting the day off on the right foot. ☕️ 💪👍
Mads, you’re 100% accurate. Shooting since about 1980, I know from experience what you’re saying is true whether you’re shooting film or digital, but there are STILL people who will argue facts.
The one I hate most if using a FX lens on DX and people say it is the equivalent of xxx. It's not, focal length is focal length, the reason they call it a crop sensor is because it crops out the edges, it doesn't make a 200mm lens into a 300mm.
You are correct. Simply chopping the edges down from a full frame to a cropped sensor or any smaller sensor does not change a len’s focal length. But by restricting the view (angle of view, field of view) you are in effect zooming in or magnifying the image. The equivalency figures are meant to provide a feeling for what focal length number WOULD have been needed to achieve the same edge-to-edge framing. For example a Nikon cropped sensor “DX” is considered to be a 1.5x crop or 2/3 (66.6%) the width and height of full frame “FX”. If you then compose the scene on the full frame camera to match it you would need to zoom in 1.5 times or equivalently pick a focal length that is longer by that factor. Or alternatively you could crop off the edges in post - simulating a smaller sensor rectangle. I believe you understand these things intuitively but I wanted to go over it again because this topic confuses many photographers. Even professionals who aren’t necessarily into the physics and math of it. Many nature photographers for such subjects as small creatures: birds, mammals at a distance, favor cropped sensor format. This is in fact suggested as preferable on many sites. Once you understand that smaller sensors essentially pre-crop what post processing cropping can do for full frame, the advantage goes away. As long as you still have the pixel density (megapixels) required for detailed rendering of fur, feathers. All this is depending also on what the target presentation device is. Whether computer screen, TV (maybe a 4K which works out to approx. 8 MP), or huge poster sized print.
I think it’s important to note that the expose to the right of thing only makes sense if you are doing it through shutter speed/aperture, where as exposing to the right by increasing iso is pointless
Great video Mads! So helpful for those confused by all the terms that are used in the photography world. When people start out taking serious photos (as opposed to snaps) having a ‘real’ camera can be quite daunting with all its settings. That is why so many stick to ‘automatic’. But they are missing out on the real creative aspects of photography, which once you have grasped the basics, adds so much satisfaction to the process. Thanks!
Great. Thank you! I´m German like you and I admire your English (only by the way). But one question or remark: I do mostly night-photography and if I don´t shoot HDR (which is sometimes ugly at the end) I have to accept, that my Histogram is not like the ones of landscape phtotography. And I like to underexpose my photos a bit because the most important parts of the nightscape ;) photos are the lights and if they are burnt out, it is more bad than if there are parts where I´ve pure black... because it´s night and you´ve normaly 50 shadows of black...
I gare with all you say apart from the bit on exposing to the right without clipping the highlights. In the sense the people that are proponents of the ETR claim that if what you consider as the ‘correct’ exposure has still some wiggle room to the right without blowing the highlights then set that as your exposure because it will allow you to have more details in the low lights and you can always walk back the highlights to the ‘correct’ exposure. I don’t usually practice ETR cause I can be bothered to be adjusting in post these extra things but nonetheless their correct position on the matter needs to be stated.
Portrait and landscape are the orientations of the camera. They are synonyms for vertical and horizontal. They don’t refer to the style of photo, just the orientation of how you are holding the camera.
He understands that they are synonyms; that portrait is synonymous with vertical, and landscape is synonymous with horizontal, and that they are not meant to reference the style of photo. His point is that they are misleading synonyms. If a layperson, novice photographer, or stubborn professional sees a horizontal photo of a person, they might say "that's landscape orientation! it's only meant for landscapes!", or a vertical photo of a mountain range, they might say "that's portrait orientation! it's only meant for portraits!". While incorrect, these are reasonable misunderstandings to make, considering the primary meanings of those words outside of orientation. He's proposing that if we gradually stopped using the terms portrait and landscape (and switched to the synonyms vertical and horizontal), then fewer people in the world would mistakenly believe that all portraits must be vertical and all landscapes must be horizontal.
The first point isn't one in German. We just say Querformat (crosswise) or Hochformat (high). I like my wide angle lens. But for landscape pictures you need to find something interesting in the front of and behind the horizon. If there are mountains or an interesting sea it's fine. But if the sky is just blue or white and the ground an even plane, most of the times it won't be interesting to have only one line in the middle of the picture. Same for mountains which are too far away.
We discussed that "compression" term in full length and detail. Many have claimed that it has nothing to do with the focal length like you do in the video. To them I answer: "Try to get a compression effect with a wide angle lens!" From a teaching viewpoint, the long focal length is simply essential to understand the effect. That you have to back up from the first object in the scene is obvious.
Forced perspective and lens compression are two different things. Len compression is more visable in portraits as focal lengths will either elongate or compress facial features
You take really stunning landscape photographs and provide great tuition with your videos. When I started out with landscape photography back in the early 1990's, I used fixed focal lenses, namely a 50 mm, a 35 mm, and a 24 mm lens, which oblige you to move around the subject to get the best composition. I also used a 75-300 mm lens for certain subjects. Zoom lenses can induce laziness in composition. I have always found that finding a higher location from which to create the composition is often essential in landscape photography. Flat landscapes are very challenging in this respect. This is where a drone has huge advantages. Vertical compositions are always far more dynamic than horizontal ones - when correctly composed (like your fantastic shots). Back in the days of slide film (I used Fuji Velvia 50), exposure latitude was about 6 aperture stops, and the rule of thumb was to expose correctly for the highlights and letting the shadows "take care of themselves". Despite all the the wonderful digital image processing gizmos now available, I still expose for highlights, and use graduated grey (ND) filters when needed to bring out details in the shadows. It's all about balanced exposure: white should be white, black should be black in terms of correct contrast between the extremes. I can look at a scene, and have a pretty good idea of the exposure latitude, i.e. the number of exposure stops from shadows to highlights. The possibility of exposure stacking and H.D.R based on multiple exposures are fantastic. It does seem as though many photographers out there do tend to think they can completely overexpose the highlights in RAW mode and correct everything with various kinds of software: it does not work like that, but many people simply do not understand light, colours, contrast, and subsequent composition based on the latter criteria. Many will never learn all this because of automatic H.D.R exposure on smartphones, which seem to be taking over everywhere. Back in the days of slide film, you either got it right, or you ended up wasting (expensive) film. My first SLR was a Yashica FX-3 with very basic functions - perfect to learn the crucial essentials. Modern mirror-less cameras are extremely complex devices in comparison, and newcomers can easily be overwhelmed by the numerous options. I still use a Canon SLR with an optical viewfinder without excessive gizmos. Keep up your great work!
Good explanation of how perspective and exposure work. So much common sense when taking a photo. Not going into the explanation of how I shot photos decades ago, but it seems his explanation is confirming that we take horizontal or vertical photos to create an image we see through the camera's lens. It is so easy turn the camera 90 degrees, so why not take a picture both ways? No film is used, cost is nothing so shoot away. Soon people will begin to see the difference and hone their skill to create great images. Great job, and hope you enjoy Iceland.
Mads, couldn’t agree with this more. I personally find that most of the time social tools like ig actually encourage me to shoot vertically because the image translates to the phone screen better. It’s too bad because I sometimes will feel obligated to find a vertical comp in a scene I would prefer to shoot horizontally but I know that the feeling I want to convey won’t translate when shared horizontally. It’s just super interesting to me but I wish there was a better way to share horizontal images in a world where viewers primarily see it on their phone via a social platform. Anyway thanks for the video!
Just discovered your channel, Your photos are stunning and you present information clearly. I binge watched your videos, learned so much and went to bed very late so I hate you this morning. Looking forward to my trip to Denmark this summer
Hello Mads Peter Iversen. I want to point out mistake in this video. At 9:33 you mention 'decrease shutter speed' makers it darker. I think you are decreasing exposure time, not shutter speed. Thanks
vertical and horizontal is how i think of my camera's orientation when out on location and then in post, it's just a case of aspect ratio, so definitely a good point well made Mads. Absolutely correct as well regarding long focal ranges being suitable for landscape images as your wonderful images prove that point time and time again.
Happy Christmas! Super! Like making the statement "upping iso, increases sensitivity of the sensor!" And Your one of the few, that talks a little bit about giving the pixels on the sensorenough time to have a full capacity to have all the information on the sensor....color information that is... Thanks for this video!
Personally I don't think it matters what we call printing orientation but as 'Portrait' & 'Landscape' are what are used in printers and copiers it's the most logical way to refer to them imho. it certainly has never occurred to me that vertical shots must be for portraits. I generally prefer the 'landscape/horizontal' format from about 35mm upwards generally but if I have my 15-35mm lens on or am shooting near 24mm on my 24-105mm I 'swtich' and start first of all looking at portrait/vertical compositions as my first preference. Like others say...if in doubt shoot both.
A few years ago I took up a little painting in addition to photography. However, I think that my painting has helped my photography and vice versa. One of the biggest changes that painting has made in my photography is that I now almost always crop in post production. I realize that there is a form of photography where artists limit themselves to thinking only in the instant. For such people, the idea of never cropping in post because you should have gotten it right the first time makes sense, I guess. For me now, I try to find an initial composition that contains slightly more than I think that I will need. Later, I use a significant period of nondestructive trial cropping in post production to really understand the best composition that is hiding in the original one.
My favorite way to capture a landscape is in "portrait" format. I find that it eliminates distractions from the subject. I'll capture a scene with whatever works for the final result I have in mind. Photography "rules" are more like guidelines anyways.
Another nonsense that I see repeated over and over is that you need a fast prime lens in your arsenal. Who shoots wide open when doing landscape photography? And the idea that you can "zoom with your feet" is not always true, unless you like falling off of cliffs.
Very interesting video, and some good points made/ taken. Kind of funny how you sort of ‘rebuked’ what you had said earlier, @08:15, and I could even see it in your expression. Just a light hearted stab, mind you. It is curious how so many people get hung up on certain ideas/ terms, and are in fact, somewhat clueless. Some beautiful imagery Sir! Always a treat to ‘tag along’ with You on your Journeys. Please stay safe.
Good Discussion Mads!I know you covered vertical vs horizontal camera images, but I hope at sometime you talk about what you feel are the ideal aspect ratios (eg. 1:1, 4:5, 16:9, etc.) for a given composition. Lastly, much of your work in these locations produce EPIC images. Just for fun, I started timing the 1st time you say "epic" in your video. This one was at 3:56. We'll measure again next time.
I've noticed some people starting to refer to landscape and horizontal and wide and tell respectively, which makes a bit more sense ,although "wide" can also be confused with the generic phrase "shooting wide" (as in shooting at the widest focal length, although usually if I find myself going this route I usually clarify by saying "shooting at your widest focal length" so people know what I'm referring to especially beginners). Whether you choose to shoot tall or wide (vertical or landscape) wil ldepend on the composition you're going for and the subject matter. I know a few people though who shoot only "landscape" orientation and then just crop to a tall format, which IMO, is pointless because you're throwing away pixels unnecessarily in many cases, so you might as well just change the orientation of the camera and shoot it that way and get your full resolution and then only crop further if you nee to in post (to recompose) but don't shoot wide with the intention of making a vertical shot later. One of my photography friends simply refuses to shoot tall because it reminds him of smartphone pictures apparently. Personally when I shoot landscape photos (actual landscapes, not the orientation specifically) I will usually at least review the composition in vertical orientation just to see what it looks like, and usually will just take a shot as well in that orientation, so that way I have both version so I don't have to be concerned about if I don't like the landscape orientation shot later on--I have both). I don't always do this, but probably more times than not, I do. With digital, it doesn't cost anythng extra, and obviously there are some compositions that I know after shooting them landscape orientation, they won't work in a vertical orientation and then I don't usually bother with those, such as a wide mountain range or vista (the only time I will take vertical shots in those cases would be if I'm doing a pano but obviously they won't be viewed by viewers in that format, or at least as a tall photo, but a bunch of tall photos to make up a wide landscape photo). For the exposure (under/over) people need to get it in their heads that modern cameras at least as of right now, still base the histogram on the JPEG, which has more limited dynamic range than the RAW file, so even if you have a tiny bit of clipping in the histogram your actual RAW highlight data may be fine. This takes trial and error to figure out, but usually you can go about 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop over what is considered a normal exposure for highlights and not blow them. But if you're not sure, i would still go by the histogram when doing ETTR. I just happened to figure out that on my camera I can go about 2/3 and even 1-stop over what the histogram shows and still recover highlights and have very good shadow detail. But again, this takes trial and error/experimentation with your camera to know what it can and cannot do as sensors are different, even within the same brand or size/resolution.
I'm heading to Iceland in March and have been rewatching your Iceland series! I've already been planning to take a bunch of vertical pictures because I have a perfect place on my wall for a vertical print.
I have to disagree to a certain degree with your perspective of overexposing/underexposing. I have quite recently switched from Nikon to Sony so I would say that when exposing you need to know your camera. On Nikon the classic nonsense of "you should underexpose your image" worked really well, because on Nikon it's much easier to recover shadows without introducing much noise, while recovering highlights was almost impossible. On Sony however, when the shadows are underexposed, the noise appears much sooner and in larger amounts, while recovering highlights is much easier. And I had to learn this. Of course, the best way is to completely nail the exposure but that is not always possible for different reasons 🙂
Something I’ve found is that over or under exposing both have their pros and cons. Usually I go for proper exposure but if the subject comes out better over or under exposed then I will do whichever one strengthens my composition and subject.
Fine if shooting JPEG, but if RAW then the point is, you expose to the right for best image quality. You then adjust exposure in post to achieve your final desired result. That's the whole point of what Mads is explaining here, to achieve super clean images.
Thank you for sharing the photography nonsense with us. I agree with you 100 %. I shoot nearly all of my landscape photo's in horizontal format, but as you say you have to take certain ones in a vertical format otherwise they look silly. Stunning image's as usual.
A breath of fresh air! For me exposing to the right simply meant don't blow the highlights. i.e. exposing to the right shooting into the sun, you turn the exposure down until you can see there's no clipping. I guess my version made more sense!
Very wise advice Mads👍🏻 I know several very successful landscape photographers that break ALL the rules…… their images are stunning. I love your masters advice 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
fantastic video and you highlight some of the arguments I have been having for years regarding FOV and perspective etc.. The only thing I would say is that I may just be old fashioned but I still prefer to get as much as possible correct in camera rather than rely on photoshop where possible. I am finding more and more people taking and advocating multiple exposures verses using filters to get it right in camera. Now I know this is not always the best approach but still prefer grads etc... where possible instead of trying to reply on software afterwards. I have also found that having a grad filter has saved my lens on numerous occasions from things like sea spray and are a lot easier to clean or even change in the field instead of worrying about the lens so much
I still say "landscape" and "portrait" format. Why? Fewer syllables. 😉 You're spot on with your other points. I would add the concept of needing "foreground, midground, and background" in a landscape photo. The photo is a two-dimensional plane. It's better IMO to think of composing around left, right, up, and down. A good image of a distant scene can engage the entire surface without a true "foreground" element at all. Likewise an intimate image of leaves on the ground is literally all foreground. It's how the composition engages the whole plane that makes or breaks the image.
A very large proportion of the "professional" photos that I have looked at over the years are so highly edited that they do not seem "real". Has editing become more important than the art of taking photographs? Creamy waterfalls and unnaturally colour saturated sunsets have no appeal for me. Really enjoyed your video - thanks.
It's a landscape orientation and portrait orientation... In most cases it is that way... Sure you can shoot with freedom of mind what ever you like, but let's have a look on paintings as we see photographs as an art form. Go to gallery and tell me how many portraits is in horizontal format and how many landscapes are vertical format. It is not nonsense, we only limiting the point of view by bringing only the existence of photography into the picture.. While it has been here in paintings for centuries 😉
but the way and examples of how you explained compression is amazing. although i know what compression does, this is the first video that explains it great with examples and suggestions on how to use it. good video buddy! keep it on!
Perfect explanation of some photography myths Mads 👍 stunning images too 👌 I have only been serious about photography for about three years but think I have an instinct regarding horizontal or vertical orientation regardless of genre, if I’m ever unsure I take both 😉
I've been to Iceland many times, and am due to go back in a few weeks time, but have never come across the waterfall or ice canyon that appears at the beginning of this video. I'm curious to know where they are so that I may plan to visit them, if not on my upcoming trip, then on a subsequent trip.
Thank you!!! I always have told my students and photographers that I know there is no portrait or landscape orientation but vertical and horizontal. Words can make a difference in how one does things. But I find that it is so ingrained that nothing will change that nomenclature. Great discussion of these topics.
MADS!!! I fully agree with all of it!….BUT…..I have another question……you looked very cozy in that jacket/parka, could you tell me (us) what brand it is? Also, you’re always on these epic (I had to use the word 😂) locations which often require some decent hiking, I’m looking into new hiking/trail boots for the winter, have you got any recommendations?
"overexpose but don't clip the highlights"? (7:55) What would you do when what you shoot is extremely contrasted? First you should address the fact that all sensors are not identical. A good example are Nikon D750 and Canon 5D mk3. They are old but it's a good example here. If I shoot with the D750, I WILL underexpose a bit because it's a lot easier to bring back details in the shadows than with the highlights. On the contrary, with the 5D mk3, you can't boost the shadows. You get some shitty horizontal noise BUT if you're overexposed, you CAN save a lot of details in the highlights. Because of that, you can't give general advice like that. I all depends on the camera/sensor you're using.
If you can't have the entire dynamic range in one photo bracket, if you can't bracket the sentence still makes sense. Expose as far to the right as possible but don't clip the highlights (unless you can live with clipped highlights). This may still end up being an overall dark raw photo because most of the information is to the left in the histogram.
Hmm that's quite a big & heavy bummer though, the Sigma is 1135 g = 40 oz, and the 3 years older Sony GM is even heavier. That reminds me, why Mads seems to prefer his 28-200 so often, like in this video's trip again 😉 That amounts to half weight, half size. How important is the range 200-400 for landscape? Also keeping in mind, that long-distance tele shoots get their resolution ruined (due to the pronounced effects of the natural thermal air turbulence then). My use cases for really strong tele on trips were merely "b-roll" of opportunistic random birds or other animals who happened to enter the scene. But these shots were never really important, in particular never qualify for big prints, they rather added a little smile to the more documentary photos of a trip. As such, they ended up in social media at most. For that, ultimate image quality (such as for big prints) or the avoidance of cropping was / is never required.
@@tubularificationed My fuji 100-400 gets used when I am looking into a scene. Michael Shainblum is a good example of creativity using this type of lens. I enjoy that style so I purchased a used version to be able to practice. I know that Mads and the others have the 100-400 challenge videos that provide more insight.
Lens compression is a real thing as you demonstrated. It might not be apparent when you have a flat landscape. You are essentially cropping in, yes. But in the forrest scene you definitely see that the field is compressed because the telephoto lens zooms into the field relative to your framing and point of view. The term describes the phenomena, not the qualities of the optics - as some wise-guys think the term lens compression is referring to. Yes, you can also compress the field by cropping into the image or the sensor, but when using the lens to crop into your point of view you get lens compression, hence why it's called lens compression. I see a lot of photographers trying to make content about this like they've discovered how to split the atom. It's not complicated. Just keep on shooting and stop trying to reinvent the wheel...
Hi Mads - great helpful info. On a side note what are the gloves you are wearing - its obviously cold in Iceland but your gloves seem to be regular fitting - by that I mean none of the folding fingers which I dislike immensly! At least thats what I think I saw - maybe I'm wrong.
I almost never shoot portraits in "portrait" orientation. As Mads says, it always feels too narrow. Then we have instagram which has conpletely dedtroyed creative freedom by limiting aspect ratios to fit their style, not adapt their platform to suit creative photographers
Just a little point of clarity...At 9:32, you say ""As I decrease my shutter-speed"...I imagine, obviously, just a slip of the tongue, but it may confuse some people. You are actually INCREASING the shutter-speed in your demo, and thus decreasing exposure time, resulting in a darker image... Obviously, if you decrease the shutter speed, you let more light in / more light hits the camera sensor, resulting in a brighter image...Just saying.
My first knee jerk reaction when seeing a modern picture taken in portrait orientation is to assume its a millenial with a cell phone.... so hard for me to break that perception. It runs deep, but I'm trying. I feel I'm only now allowing myself to turn my camera sideways. Buying a grip very much helped me begin to consider if the photo in question would benefit from a wrist flip. (I need serious professional help, I know!)
You STILL use the 28-200. A joy too see, and a real life example that it's your skills that counts, not gear. ❤️
I think the 28-200 is a skill in itself. You’ve learned that spec sheets do not matter, and that having one lens on for a variety of stuff is beneficial!
I was told I was mad for dumping my 24-70 for an inferior lens (24-105) but I’ve never been happier.
best thing i ever did with my camera was sell my primes (85 and 24 1.8) for my 28-200...
The 28-200 is imho the gold standard for landscape photography. First of all it is way sharper than what you would expect for a super zoom, but second; it gives you immense versatility for most situations.
The limit hits you at that wide end though. A true platinum lens for landscape would be 20-150 mm, but that wide end would probably be incredibly difficult to get sharp and undistorted while also having 150 mm at the long end.
Nevertheless, the 28-200 is the only lens I currently own. But I am saving up for a super tele and a dedicated wide angle too for my own "holy landscape/nature trinity".
If I ever get into event photography, I will compliment with the 35-150 from either samyang or tamron, because there, unfortunately, the 28-200 cant really perform good enough in low light conditions.
@@Wistbacka I still think about buying the 28-200. I have the 24-105 F4 and the Sigma 100-400. The reason I got the 24-105 over the 28-200 is OSS. I hand hold more than I should. But the minimum focusing distance is 1.25ft which is frustrating for abstract photography.
The 28-200 is immense and I hope you’re enjoying it! Cheers
@@louisburley1597 I dont know what body you shoot on, but if you have ibis then you are fine 90% of the time. I used to have an a6000 and that was difficult at 100+ mm. But now with an A7Rii, it is much less of an issue as it has ibis
I do miss OSS/VC at low light conditions though, but that is when I shoot events. When I do landscape I almost always have tripod.
This is a new age misunderstanding of why vertical is referred to as "portrait" and horizontal as "landscape" when it originally comes from painting, where portraits were of individuals, not groups of people and the vertical format allowed for the entire person to be framed head to toe with greater space given to the individual with minimal background space, and the landscape format was more often used to depict geographical spaces and when used for scenes of groups of people and other scenes, allowed for greater accommodation of backgrounds which were considered an equal part of the composition. In photography you use whatever framing, vertical or horizontal that best serves the composition irrespective of what you think about portrait or landscape. These distinctions are still very valid as the horizontal implies a wider view best suited for landscape and in painting this became a distinction between that and portraits. Furthermore, the vertical format is still best when you're taking individual portraits of a single person, and yes the idea Mads espouses of using the horizontal format allowing the person to "breath" is certainly valid, however funny enough when you take a photo for your passport, the passport office WILL NEVER accept a horizontal portrait. It goes back to being able to best fill the frame with the individual and because the face and body are elongated along the "Vertical" axis, this is why the vertical orientation will ALWAYS be referred to as portrait format! End of discussion. It's just a way to refer to the orientation of the view and has NOTHING to do with nature/landscape or portraits of persons. This premise is a self-made "Tempest in a Teacup" at the end of the day.
I PICK THE FORMAT WHICH BEST FITS THE COMPOSITION
I think this video had the greatest amount of awesome shots per video I've yet seen on your channel. Really impressive work.
I never thought I should only take portraits in portrait orientation or landscapes in landscape orientation. For me, these terms are closely tied to printer setting nomenclature. So, if I was taking a portrait in “landscape orientation”, it was because I was already thinking about how I wanted to print it. We no longer have to print our photos to see them like we had to back in the days of film, so maybe that is part of why the misunderstanding you described has occurred. But the terms “landscape orientation” and “portrait orientation” are still helpful to me, because they have a very specific meaning and application.
Also, it's a thing in English and it may not be so in other languages. For example, in Czech we say "tall" or "wide", i.e. vertical or horizontal.
I've never heard of anyone that thought only photos of 'landscapes' should be in 'landscape orientation' and vice versa. If this is a thing, I certainly haven't heard of it.
@@max-olson It isn't in English
The problem with taking breathtaking landscapes in 'Portrait mode' (vertical format) is in the way they are finally presented. If they are presented on a computer/TV screen that is 16:9 or 10... than of course the 'Portrait' mode photo is going to be short-changed compared to the 'Landscape-mode' photos. However, if the monitor/TV is flipped (to vertical), or if the Photo were Printed on to a large-Sheet (as you discussed), than the 'Portrait-Mode' photo may come to life! But it seems that most of the time, we will be browsing our edited photos on our computers. If your just sharing with your friends on 'phones': Portrait-mode photos tend to do very well... because in whatever app they are using to share photos, they often forget to 'flip' over to landscape on their phone for best photo-viewing.
The overexpose vs clipping is a favourite of mine - also known as ETTR. For best results and to eke as much data out of your sensor it's best to test your camera in regards to uniWB so you know how to accurately read your histogram (the histogram as it is presents jpeg information, not raw data). For example, after testing with uniWB techniques, I know my camera can be exposed at least 2/3 of a stop past the point of an overexposure warning before clipping actually starts to occur.
One of your best videos. I shoot landscapes with my 70-200 and have taken a few shots with my 200-500. Like you, I'm different. Too many "PROFESSIONALS" selling on RUclips!
Agreed. I've taken landscape photos with my APS-C Canon and a 150-600mm lens. And since I'm not really a landscape photographer, I've taken way more architectural/interior photos as well as street/car photos using wide lenses.
I like the fact that some photographers have been speaking up recently about much of the universally accepted nonsense.
Your opening comment is the best photography advice I have ever heard.
Lenses come labeled with their focal length and maximum aperture, not their "purpose". My 85mm f/1.8 was NOT labeled as a "portrait" lens. My 20mm f/2.8 lens was NOT labeled as a "landscape" lens. They happen to make a fine combination, when used together. A wide shot with the 20mm to establish the context, combined with tighter shots with the 85mm to home in on details. Combining wide and tight shots can be a great way to tell a story. And for those "in-between" shots, I pull out my 35mm. 35mm is an amazingly versatile focal length. Wide enough to give the subject some context, but tight enough that the subject isn't lost in the background. 35mm has long been a favorite of street photographers and photojournalists, because it's field of view is handy for "storytelling".
The places you go are crazy beautiful. Love watching what you get up to and the amazing shots you get. It's like starting the day off on the right foot. ☕️ 💪👍
Take vertical landscapes and stitch them in pano ! I love that technique.
Mads, you’re 100% accurate. Shooting since about 1980, I know from experience what you’re saying is true whether you’re shooting film or digital, but there are STILL people who will argue facts.
The one I hate most if using a FX lens on DX and people say it is the equivalent of xxx. It's not, focal length is focal length, the reason they call it a crop sensor is because it crops out the edges, it doesn't make a 200mm lens into a 300mm.
You are correct. Simply chopping the edges down from a full frame to a cropped sensor or any smaller sensor does not change a len’s focal length. But by restricting the view (angle of view, field of view) you are in effect zooming in or magnifying the image. The equivalency figures are meant to provide a feeling for what focal length number WOULD have been needed to achieve the same edge-to-edge framing. For example a Nikon cropped sensor “DX” is considered to be a 1.5x crop or 2/3 (66.6%) the width and height of full frame “FX”. If you then compose the scene on the full frame camera to match it you would need to zoom in 1.5 times or equivalently pick a focal length that is longer by that factor. Or alternatively you could crop off the edges in post - simulating a smaller sensor rectangle. I believe you understand these things intuitively but I wanted to go over it again because this topic confuses many photographers. Even professionals who aren’t necessarily into the physics and math of it.
Many nature photographers for such subjects as small creatures: birds, mammals at a distance, favor cropped sensor format. This is in fact suggested as preferable on many sites. Once you understand that smaller sensors essentially pre-crop what post processing cropping can do for full frame, the advantage goes away. As long as you still have the pixel density (megapixels) required for detailed rendering of fur, feathers. All this is depending also on what the target presentation device is. Whether computer screen, TV (maybe a 4K which works out to approx. 8 MP), or huge poster sized print.
I think it’s important to note that the expose to the right of thing only makes sense if you are doing it through shutter speed/aperture, where as exposing to the right by increasing iso is pointless
Also for slow paced photography purposefully underexposing is silly, but can make sense to error on the side of caution for fast paced situations
Great video Mads! So helpful for those confused by all the terms that are used in the photography world. When people start out taking serious photos (as opposed to snaps) having a ‘real’ camera can be quite daunting with all its settings. That is why so many stick to ‘automatic’. But they are missing out on the real creative aspects of photography, which once you have grasped the basics, adds so much satisfaction to the process. Thanks!
Landscape & Portrait are established terms also in printing documents. Photographers who can‘t deal with it, should think about an easier hobby.
Great. Thank you! I´m German like you and I admire your English (only by the way). But one question or remark: I do mostly night-photography and if I don´t shoot HDR (which is sometimes ugly at the end) I have to accept, that my Histogram is not like the ones of landscape phtotography. And I like to underexpose my photos a bit because the most important parts of the nightscape ;) photos are the lights and if they are burnt out, it is more bad than if there are parts where I´ve pure black... because it´s night and you´ve normaly 50 shadows of black...
I gare with all you say apart from the bit on exposing to the right without clipping the highlights. In the sense the people that are proponents of the ETR claim that if what you consider as the ‘correct’ exposure has still some wiggle room to the right without blowing the highlights then set that as your exposure because it will allow you to have more details in the low lights and you can always walk back the highlights to the ‘correct’ exposure. I don’t usually practice ETR cause I can be bothered to be adjusting in post these extra things but nonetheless their correct position on the matter needs to be stated.
Portrait and landscape are the orientations of the camera. They are synonyms for vertical and horizontal. They don’t refer to the style of photo, just the orientation of how you are holding the camera.
He understands that they are synonyms; that portrait is synonymous with vertical, and landscape is synonymous with horizontal, and that they are not meant to reference the style of photo. His point is that they are misleading synonyms. If a layperson, novice photographer, or stubborn professional sees a horizontal photo of a person, they might say "that's landscape orientation! it's only meant for landscapes!", or a vertical photo of a mountain range, they might say "that's portrait orientation! it's only meant for portraits!".
While incorrect, these are reasonable misunderstandings to make, considering the primary meanings of those words outside of orientation. He's proposing that if we gradually stopped using the terms portrait and landscape (and switched to the synonyms vertical and horizontal), then fewer people in the world would mistakenly believe that all portraits must be vertical and all landscapes must be horizontal.
The first point isn't one in German. We just say Querformat (crosswise) or Hochformat (high).
I like my wide angle lens. But for landscape pictures you need to find something interesting in the front of and behind the horizon. If there are mountains or an interesting sea it's fine. But if the sky is just blue or white and the ground an even plane, most of the times it won't be interesting to have only one line in the middle of the picture. Same for mountains which are too far away.
We discussed that "compression" term in full length and detail. Many have claimed that it has nothing to do with the focal length like you do in the video. To them I answer: "Try to get a compression effect with a wide angle lens!" From a teaching viewpoint, the long focal length is simply essential to understand the effect. That you have to back up from the first object in the scene is obvious.
I believe this video misrepresented compression.
Forced perspective and lens compression are two different things. Len compression is more visable in portraits as focal lengths will either elongate or compress facial features
You take really stunning landscape photographs and provide great tuition with your videos. When I started out with landscape photography back in the early 1990's, I used fixed focal lenses, namely a 50 mm, a 35 mm, and a 24 mm lens, which oblige you to move around the subject to get the best composition. I also used a 75-300 mm lens for certain subjects. Zoom lenses can induce laziness in composition. I have always found that finding a higher location from which to create the composition is often essential in landscape photography. Flat landscapes are very challenging in this respect. This is where a drone has huge advantages. Vertical compositions are always far more dynamic than horizontal ones - when correctly composed (like your fantastic shots).
Back in the days of slide film (I used Fuji Velvia 50), exposure latitude was about 6 aperture stops, and the rule of thumb was to expose correctly for the highlights and letting the shadows "take care of themselves". Despite all the the wonderful digital image processing gizmos now available, I still expose for highlights, and use graduated grey (ND) filters when needed to bring out details in the shadows. It's all about balanced exposure: white should be white, black should be black in terms of correct contrast between the extremes. I can look at a scene, and have a pretty good idea of the exposure latitude, i.e. the number of exposure stops from shadows to highlights.
The possibility of exposure stacking and H.D.R based on multiple exposures are fantastic. It does seem as though many photographers out there do tend to think they can completely overexpose the highlights in RAW mode and correct everything with various kinds of software: it does not work like that, but many people simply do not understand light, colours, contrast, and subsequent composition based on the latter criteria. Many will never learn all this because of automatic H.D.R exposure on smartphones, which seem to be taking over everywhere.
Back in the days of slide film, you either got it right, or you ended up wasting (expensive) film. My first SLR was a Yashica FX-3 with very basic functions - perfect to learn the crucial essentials. Modern mirror-less cameras are extremely complex devices in comparison, and newcomers can easily be overwhelmed by the numerous options. I still use a Canon SLR with an optical viewfinder without excessive gizmos. Keep up your great work!
Whenever I see a comment / advice which contains the expression 'REAL photographers use ....' is when I switch off.
Good explanation of how perspective and exposure work. So much common sense when taking a photo. Not going into the explanation of how I shot photos decades ago, but it seems his explanation is confirming that we take horizontal or vertical photos to create an image we see through the camera's lens. It is so easy turn the camera 90 degrees, so why not take a picture both ways? No film is used, cost is nothing so shoot away. Soon people will begin to see the difference and hone their skill to create great images. Great job, and hope you enjoy Iceland.
Mads, couldn’t agree with this more. I personally find that most of the time social tools like ig actually encourage me to shoot vertically because the image translates to the phone screen better. It’s too bad because I sometimes will feel obligated to find a vertical comp in a scene I would prefer to shoot horizontally but I know that the feeling I want to convey won’t translate when shared horizontally. It’s just super interesting to me but I wish there was a better way to share horizontal images in a world where viewers primarily see it on their phone via a social platform.
Anyway thanks for the video!
Just discovered your channel, Your photos are stunning and you present information clearly. I binge watched your videos, learned so much and went to bed very late so I hate you this morning. Looking forward to my trip to Denmark this summer
Great portrait photos you took in your beginning days!
Hello Mads Peter Iversen. I want to point out mistake in this video. At 9:33 you mention 'decrease shutter speed' makers it darker. I think you are decreasing exposure time, not shutter speed. Thanks
A worthwhile discussion accompanied by some awesome images. Carry on. 👍🥂
vertical and horizontal is how i think of my camera's orientation when out on location and then in post, it's just a case of aspect ratio, so definitely a good point well made Mads. Absolutely correct as well regarding long focal ranges being suitable for landscape images as your wonderful images prove that point time and time again.
Really, it should be horizontal format and monster format. 😛 But, that's really more of a videography thing.
Incredible images Mads. Thanks for sharing. And thank you for explaining the 'nonsense'. I agree with you 100%.
Happy Christmas! Super! Like making the statement "upping iso, increases sensitivity of the sensor!" And Your one of the few, that talks a little bit about giving the pixels on the sensorenough time to have a full capacity to have all the information on the sensor....color information that is... Thanks for this video!
I love the precision of your words! I do think it an uphill battle to change the misconceptions out there, but cheers to you for trying!
Personally I don't think it matters what we call printing orientation but as 'Portrait' & 'Landscape' are what are used in printers and copiers it's the most logical way to refer to them imho. it certainly has never occurred to me that vertical shots must be for portraits. I generally prefer the 'landscape/horizontal' format from about 35mm upwards generally but if I have my 15-35mm lens on or am shooting near 24mm on my 24-105mm I 'swtich' and start first of all looking at portrait/vertical compositions as my first preference. Like others say...if in doubt shoot both.
My daughter had an art teacher who didn't like the terms "landscape" and "portrait." She used "hamburger" and "hotdog" instead.
Haha!
Always helpful and your images were spectacular! Thanks for taking me along!
One reason that I used to like shooting in a square format is that I could crop the image any way I wanted regardless of the subject matter.
A few years ago I took up a little painting in addition to photography. However, I think that my painting has helped my photography and vice versa.
One of the biggest changes that painting has made in my photography is that I now almost always crop in post production. I realize that there is a form of photography where artists limit themselves to thinking only in the instant. For such people, the idea of never cropping in post because you should have gotten it right the first time makes sense, I guess. For me now, I try to find an initial composition that contains slightly more than I think that I will need. Later, I use a significant period of nondestructive trial cropping in post production to really understand the best composition that is hiding in the original one.
It took me less than 3 seconds to see that you were near Vik Iceland. I have been to Iceland 8 times and look forward to your videos. Thank you Ben
My favorite way to capture a landscape is in "portrait" format. I find that it eliminates distractions from the subject. I'll capture a scene with whatever works for the final result I have in mind. Photography "rules" are more like guidelines anyways.
Another nonsense that I see repeated over and over is that you need a fast prime lens in your arsenal. Who shoots wide open when doing landscape photography? And the idea that you can "zoom with your feet" is not always true, unless you like falling off of cliffs.
You’re right of course! Loving the ice beach photos.
Very interesting video, and some good points made/ taken. Kind of funny how you sort of ‘rebuked’ what you had said earlier, @08:15, and I could even see it in your expression. Just a light hearted stab, mind you. It is curious how so many people get hung up on certain ideas/ terms, and are in fact, somewhat clueless. Some beautiful imagery Sir! Always a treat to ‘tag along’ with You on your Journeys. Please stay safe.
Good Discussion Mads!I know you covered vertical vs horizontal camera images, but I hope at sometime you talk about what you feel are the ideal aspect ratios (eg. 1:1, 4:5, 16:9, etc.) for a given composition. Lastly, much of your work in these locations produce EPIC images. Just for fun, I started timing the 1st time you say "epic" in your video. This one was at 3:56. We'll measure again next time.
I've noticed some people starting to refer to landscape and horizontal and wide and tell respectively, which makes a bit more sense ,although "wide" can also be confused with the generic phrase "shooting wide" (as in shooting at the widest focal length, although usually if I find myself going this route I usually clarify by saying "shooting at your widest focal length" so people know what I'm referring to especially beginners). Whether you choose to shoot tall or wide (vertical or landscape) wil ldepend on the composition you're going for and the subject matter. I know a few people though who shoot only "landscape" orientation and then just crop to a tall format, which IMO, is pointless because you're throwing away pixels unnecessarily in many cases, so you might as well just change the orientation of the camera and shoot it that way and get your full resolution and then only crop further if you nee to in post (to recompose) but don't shoot wide with the intention of making a vertical shot later. One of my photography friends simply refuses to shoot tall because it reminds him of smartphone pictures apparently.
Personally when I shoot landscape photos (actual landscapes, not the orientation specifically) I will usually at least review the composition in vertical orientation just to see what it looks like, and usually will just take a shot as well in that orientation, so that way I have both version so I don't have to be concerned about if I don't like the landscape orientation shot later on--I have both). I don't always do this, but probably more times than not, I do. With digital, it doesn't cost anythng extra, and obviously there are some compositions that I know after shooting them landscape orientation, they won't work in a vertical orientation and then I don't usually bother with those, such as a wide mountain range or vista (the only time I will take vertical shots in those cases would be if I'm doing a pano but obviously they won't be viewed by viewers in that format, or at least as a tall photo, but a bunch of tall photos to make up a wide landscape photo).
For the exposure (under/over) people need to get it in their heads that modern cameras at least as of right now, still base the histogram on the JPEG, which has more limited dynamic range than the RAW file, so even if you have a tiny bit of clipping in the histogram your actual RAW highlight data may be fine. This takes trial and error to figure out, but usually you can go about 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop over what is considered a normal exposure for highlights and not blow them. But if you're not sure, i would still go by the histogram when doing ETTR. I just happened to figure out that on my camera I can go about 2/3 and even 1-stop over what the histogram shows and still recover highlights and have very good shadow detail. But again, this takes trial and error/experimentation with your camera to know what it can and cannot do as sensors are different, even within the same brand or size/resolution.
I'm heading to Iceland in March and have been rewatching your Iceland series! I've already been planning to take a bunch of vertical pictures because I have a perfect place on my wall for a vertical print.
enjoy your trip. Iceland is so beautiful
I have to disagree to a certain degree with your perspective of overexposing/underexposing. I have quite recently switched from Nikon to Sony so I would say that when exposing you need to know your camera. On Nikon the classic nonsense of "you should underexpose your image" worked really well, because on Nikon it's much easier to recover shadows without introducing much noise, while recovering highlights was almost impossible. On Sony however, when the shadows are underexposed, the noise appears much sooner and in larger amounts, while recovering highlights is much easier. And I had to learn this. Of course, the best way is to completely nail the exposure but that is not always possible for different reasons 🙂
Something I’ve found is that over or under exposing both have their pros and cons. Usually I go for proper exposure but if the subject comes out better over or under exposed then I will do whichever one strengthens my composition and subject.
Fine if shooting JPEG, but if RAW then the point is, you expose to the right for best image quality. You then adjust exposure in post to achieve your final desired result. That's the whole point of what Mads is explaining here, to achieve super clean images.
Thank you for sharing the photography nonsense with us.
I agree with you 100 %.
I shoot nearly all of my landscape photo's in horizontal format, but as you say you have to take certain ones in a vertical format otherwise they look silly.
Stunning image's as usual.
A breath of fresh air! For me exposing to the right simply meant don't blow the highlights. i.e. exposing to the right shooting into the sun, you turn the exposure down until you can see there's no clipping. I guess my version made more sense!
It's basically the same, "expose to the right, but don't blow the highlights" ;)
I recently got an older camera with poor DR. I found just bracketing different exposures is great
Very wise advice Mads👍🏻 I know several very successful landscape photographers that break ALL the rules…… their images are stunning.
I love your masters advice 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
fantastic video and you highlight some of the arguments I have been having for years regarding FOV and perspective etc.. The only thing I would say is that I may just be old fashioned but I still prefer to get as much as possible correct in camera rather than rely on photoshop where possible. I am finding more and more people taking and advocating multiple exposures verses using filters to get it right in camera. Now I know this is not always the best approach but still prefer grads etc... where possible instead of trying to reply on software afterwards. I have also found that having a grad filter has saved my lens on numerous occasions from things like sea spray and are a lot easier to clean or even change in the field instead of worrying about the lens so much
I bought the Tamron 28200 because of you, and I don't regret it. Great purchase for landscape photos.
I still say "landscape" and "portrait" format. Why? Fewer syllables. 😉 You're spot on with your other points.
I would add the concept of needing "foreground, midground, and background" in a landscape photo. The photo is a two-dimensional plane. It's better IMO to think of composing around left, right, up, and down. A good image of a distant scene can engage the entire surface without a true "foreground" element at all. Likewise an intimate image of leaves on the ground is literally all foreground. It's how the composition engages the whole plane that makes or breaks the image.
A very large proportion of the "professional" photos that I have looked at over the years are so highly edited that they do not seem "real". Has editing become more important than the art of taking photographs? Creamy waterfalls and unnaturally colour saturated sunsets have no appeal for me. Really enjoyed your video - thanks.
It's a landscape orientation and portrait orientation... In most cases it is that way... Sure you can shoot with freedom of mind what ever you like, but let's have a look on paintings as we see photographs as an art form. Go to gallery and tell me how many portraits is in horizontal format and how many landscapes are vertical format. It is not nonsense, we only limiting the point of view by bringing only the existence of photography into the picture.. While it has been here in paintings for centuries 😉
That under exposing myth is sooooo common..🤦♂️ great video man! ✌️
It's not only in the world of photography this happens. The whole biking community is guilty of the same types of things mentioned here.
Awesome video ❤
Great video. Definitely agree with exposing to the right, and I’m really surprised how many photographers don’t use it.
but the way and examples of how you explained compression is amazing. although i know what compression does, this is the first video that explains it great with examples and suggestions on how to use it. good video buddy! keep it on!
Perfect explanation of some photography myths Mads 👍 stunning images too 👌 I have only been serious about photography for about three years but think I have an instinct regarding horizontal or vertical orientation regardless of genre, if I’m ever unsure I take both 😉
Good advice Mads - thanks for sharing!
One of the best videos ever!! Thank you!! ❤❤
great stuff Mads but how many jackets have you got ?
You are always helpful in many ways 😍
I've been to Iceland many times, and am due to go back in a few weeks time, but have never come across the waterfall or ice canyon that appears at the beginning of this video. I'm curious to know where they are so that I may plan to visit them, if not on my upcoming trip, then on a subsequent trip.
Thank you!!! I always have told my students and photographers that I know there is no portrait or landscape orientation but vertical and horizontal. Words can make a difference in how one does things. But I find that it is so ingrained that nothing will change that nomenclature. Great discussion of these topics.
Excellent video and super photos. Great points you address.
Once again ….usefull and relevant tips … Thx Mads
Great photography,really liked the ice shots.
Awesome, I have felt the same for years
I agree with you but I'm sure most people understand that the vertical format for portraits is a general recommendation.
MADS!!! I fully agree with all of it!….BUT…..I have another question……you looked very cozy in that jacket/parka, could you tell me (us) what brand it is? Also, you’re always on these epic (I had to use the word 😂) locations which often require some decent hiking, I’m looking into new hiking/trail boots for the winter, have you got any recommendations?
I looked for that Whistler parka, here in the USA. So far not much luck.
The brand is written right there on the left side of his chest.
Great video Mads, as usual, Thanks
Never realized that I say vertical and horizontal instead of portrait or landscape.... score for me I guess!
"overexpose but don't clip the highlights"? (7:55) What would you do when what you shoot is extremely contrasted? First you should address the fact that all sensors are not identical. A good example are Nikon D750 and Canon 5D mk3. They are old but it's a good example here. If I shoot with the D750, I WILL underexpose a bit because it's a lot easier to bring back details in the shadows than with the highlights. On the contrary, with the 5D mk3, you can't boost the shadows. You get some shitty horizontal noise BUT if you're overexposed, you CAN save a lot of details in the highlights. Because of that, you can't give general advice like that. I all depends on the camera/sensor you're using.
If you can't have the entire dynamic range in one photo bracket, if you can't bracket the sentence still makes sense. Expose as far to the right as possible but don't clip the highlights (unless you can live with clipped highlights). This may still end up being an overall dark raw photo because most of the information is to the left in the histogram.
Great video, Mads!
Totally agree... There's no correct orizzontal/vertical shoot... There's good composition....stop..
And 100-400 / telephoto are Grest for landacape!
Hmm that's quite a big & heavy bummer though, the Sigma is 1135 g = 40 oz, and the 3 years older Sony GM is even heavier. That reminds me, why Mads seems to prefer his 28-200 so often, like in this video's trip again 😉 That amounts to half weight, half size.
How important is the range 200-400 for landscape?
Also keeping in mind, that long-distance tele shoots get their resolution ruined (due to the pronounced effects of the natural thermal air turbulence then).
My use cases for really strong tele on trips were merely "b-roll" of opportunistic random birds or other animals who happened to enter the scene. But these shots were never really important, in particular never qualify for big prints, they rather added a little smile to the more documentary photos of a trip. As such, they ended up in social media at most. For that, ultimate image quality (such as for big prints) or the avoidance of cropping was / is never required.
@@tubularificationed My fuji 100-400 gets used when I am looking into a scene. Michael Shainblum is a good example of creativity using this type of lens. I enjoy that style so I purchased a used version to be able to practice. I know that Mads and the others have the 100-400 challenge videos that provide more insight.
Lens compression is a real thing as you demonstrated. It might not be apparent when you have a flat landscape. You are essentially cropping in, yes. But in the forrest scene you definitely see that the field is compressed because the telephoto lens zooms into the field relative to your framing and point of view. The term describes the phenomena, not the qualities of the optics - as some wise-guys think the term lens compression is referring to. Yes, you can also compress the field by cropping into the image or the sensor, but when using the lens to crop into your point of view you get lens compression, hence why it's called lens compression. I see a lot of photographers trying to make content about this like they've discovered how to split the atom. It's not complicated. Just keep on shooting and stop trying to reinvent the wheel...
Excellent, thanks!
Great demo on perspective compression!
Hi Mads - great helpful info. On a side note what are the gloves you are wearing - its obviously cold in Iceland but your gloves seem to be regular fitting - by that I mean none of the folding fingers which I dislike immensly! At least thats what I think I saw - maybe I'm wrong.
Thanks a lot, these are the merino wool linen gloves from the Heat Company :)
I almost never shoot portraits in "portrait" orientation. As Mads says, it always feels too narrow.
Then we have instagram which has conpletely dedtroyed creative freedom by limiting aspect ratios to fit their style, not adapt their platform to suit creative photographers
Vertical and horizontal aspect, no idea where that nonsense of portrait and landscape come from. It makes me cringe when I hear it.
Fabulous video as always! 😊
Tilt shift lenses are the only way to create some compression - different ball game
You got some good points thete
Good job, Mads!
🙌🏽 thank you awesome video
Just a little point of clarity...At 9:32, you say ""As I decrease my shutter-speed"...I imagine, obviously, just a slip of the tongue, but it may confuse some people. You are actually INCREASING the shutter-speed in your demo, and thus decreasing exposure time, resulting in a darker image...
Obviously, if you decrease the shutter speed, you let more light in / more light hits the camera sensor, resulting in a brighter image...Just saying.
Yes, indeed, slip of the tongue ;)
I still use the terms vertical and horizontal, and many people have tried to correct me!
In German:
Horizontal = Querfornat (transverse)
Vertical = Hochformat (upright)
Nothing of landscape or portrait.
Great info!
I always overexpose sky whenever there is a grey mass on the sky.
Great video that actually teaches something!
Nice video, good points! 😃I really enjoy utilizing lens compression when I shoot in landscape orientation with my wide-angle zoom landscape lens 🤣
My first knee jerk reaction when seeing a modern picture taken in portrait orientation is to assume its a millenial with a cell phone.... so hard for me to break that perception. It runs deep, but I'm trying. I feel I'm only now allowing myself to turn my camera sideways. Buying a grip very much helped me begin to consider if the photo in question would benefit from a wrist flip. (I need serious professional help, I know!)