When to go Vertical?

[Ramsden]

Hello again,

Following my recent unsuccesfull attempt at going vertical, and with a big nudge from the author of a book I'm reading on Exposure, I realise I am probably like many photographers, and stay horizontal most of the time. 

So, with my quality management hat on; what is considered best practice for going vertical? What are your criteria for turning your camera around?

In other words:

"that shot would be greatly improved if the camera had been spun 90°

I attach a photograph of Denby Dale viaduct taken on a grey November morning. I had limited access on the adjoining road, but I now wonder whether going vertical would have accentuated the height of the arches, but possibly losing some of the width.

Learning how to use an EOS90D With 100mm Macro attached!

Ramsden

 

[jrhoffman75]

I think vertical would not be the appropriate format.

[stevet1]

Ramsden,

It kind of depends on how much sky you want to include in your panorama.

If you find that your 3:2 aspect ratio is too skinny and tall, I am becoming more and more attracted to the 4:3 aspect ratio when shooting vertical.

You could even go with a 1:1 square format and then it wouldn't matter if you were shooting portrait or landscape. They'd be the same. 😁

I did a vertorama a while back, where you go from bottom to top of a very tall tree in a 1:1 aspect ratio and I was pretty pleased with the results

Steve Thomas

[March411]

Personally I believe this is a nice shot horizontal, and the appropriate orientation for the subject matter. A little fine tuning in DPP really wakes this image up, it's a cool shot.

I think sometimes the subject matter drives orientation, the simplest example would be a full body portrait. Unless you are trying to pull background elements into the image shooting on a horizontal plane will add clutter and the subject will become smaller in the frame.  

For me when shooting sports I see my subjects mostly on a vertical plain especially baseball and basketball. Basketball mostly when players are under the hoop. A squirrel standing up on a limb holding food in its front paws. Even when I am shooting macro I look at the subject in both orientations. 

The best recommendation, if you have time, frame it up both ways, grab a couple shots. 

[LeeP]

Pay attention to what you are depicting. If the thing you wish to represent is horizontally oriented, represent it horizontally and if it vertical go with vertical.

In the image above it seems like the bridge is the thing that you desire to depict, so horizontal is the correct orientation for capturing the span.

If your goal was the depict the repeated shapes of the supports, then a vertical alignment would be what you want, with the framing done to cut off the roadbed and the sky.

[Ramsden]

Hi Folks

Just another update on my learning curve with my EOS90D following this stream. The discussion around aspect ratio reminded me that my camera has been stuck on 3:2 since I bought it 2yrs ago!

So armed with fresh knowledge and my 'Idiots Guide' I found the crop option and all the other editing options that this offers.

So thanks again for your collective help.

Ramsden

[Tintype_18]

Interesting post and answers. Horizontal and vertical both open lots of options. I have said the good thing about digital is you can take lots of photos and not worry about using miles of film as in the olden days. I take several shots of a subject and evaluate the settings for future reference.

I'm finding the bridge an interesting subject, no matter what the objective.

[Waddizzle]

There are no rules besides get the best framing of the subject.  You can always shoot both orientations.

 

[TimBird]

The correct aspect ration is inarguably the one that best serve your creative vision! The beauty of photography is that a dozen photographers can walk up to a scene and come away with 3 dozen interpretations. That’s part of growing and developing as an artist.

What I like about the bridge is the strong leading line formed by the road leading to the two towers on the right. I also believe the image is tilted way out of level. Just by straightening the level so that the columns of the bridge are vertical, the image must be cropped… which strengthens the leading line of the bridge and also make the towers bigger in the frame.

But I would also shoot this wider so the bridge has some of the trees on the left and right… the man made bridge appears out of nature on the left and goes away into nature on the right, juxtaposing the natural and manmade elements.

[Tintype_18]

One of my favorite photos is with the photographer laying on the railroad track bed. The photo shows the track converging into a point in the distance. Dozen photographers with three dozen interpretations? That's a minimum.