snubbr.com

What do I need to do to show the relative scale of a photo?
The following photo is of a 400 ft waterfall. This is the JPG version out of the camera; I have not bothered with the RAW file yet. But as a matter of composition, how can I re-compose this (I will be back there later this week) to show the dynamics of 400 ft?.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comments (27)

... or perhaps an elk or chicken.KP.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://www.ahomls.com/photo.htmhttp://www.phillipsphotographer.comVoted Best of the City 2004 by Cincinnati MagazineI don't believe in fate, but I do believe in f/8!.

'No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.' - Deleted passage from peer-approved version of the IPCC Climate Change Report...

Comment #1

Put something in the picture that people can relate to..

A lot of pro travel photographers who shoot massive landscapes bring a spare red jacket to loan to anyone they can find who is willing to stand somewhere in the shot..

BAK..

Comment #2

BAK wrote:.

Put something in the picture that people can relate to..

A lot of pro travel photographers who shoot massive landscapes bringa spare red jacket to loan to anyone they can find who is willing tostand somewhere in the shot..

BAK.

Should I keep them in the DOF or out-of-focus in the foreground?..

Comment #3

Ken Phillips wrote:.

... or perhaps an elk or chicken.KP.

That's quite a range of creatures. LOL..

Comment #4

Ken Phillips wrote:.

... or perhaps an elk or chicken..

You will need a big camera bag!.

To the OP. I think you are likely to get more of a sense of scale on this one using portrait mode..

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Comment #5

I was at a local park, and they were having a kite-fest with VERY large kites. I sent my girlfriend out for some scale ... she is 6' tall. Without a human in the shot, the scale is lost..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://www.ahomls.com/photo.htmhttp://www.phillipsphotographer.comVoted Best of the City 2004 by Cincinnati MagazineI don't believe in fate, but I do believe in f/8!.

'No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.' - Deleted passage from peer-approved version of the IPCC Climate Change Report...

Comment #6

SullyC5R-427 wrote:.

BAK wrote:.

Put something in the picture that people can relate to..

A lot of pro travel photographers who shoot massive landscapes bringa spare red jacket to loan to anyone they can find who is willing tostand somewhere in the shot..

BAK.

Should I keep them in the DOF or out-of-focus in the foreground?.

I'd suggest at the top or bottom of the waterfall. If it's tough to get to the bottom, it may be time for a human sacrifice? .

Or drive your car off the top?.

Just kidding....

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #7

Ken Phillips wrote:.

I was at a local park, and they were having a kite-fest with VERYlarge kites. I sent my girlfriend out for some scale ... she is 6'tall. Without a human in the shot, the scale is lost..

I can see what you mean. Good shot!.

Since my wife is 4'11", everything will look even bigger!!!..

Comment #8

Chuxter wrote:.

I'd suggest at the top or bottom of the waterfall. If it's tough toget to the bottom, it may be time for a human sacrifice? .

Or drive your car off the top?.

Just kidding....

I could have my wife drive it over the falls and take the photo of her & the car half way down.  ..

Comment #9

The leaves and the foliage off to the upper right already give it some scale... looks more like only 30' tall...

Comment #10

IMac, therefore iAm wrote:.

The leaves and the foliage off to the upper right already give itsome scale... looks more like only 30' tall..

I was kinda thinking the same, what may be clumps of leaves on the face of the falls come off as individual leaves killing the perspective. To the OP, I hope you don't mind me playing, I cropped to show portrait and enlarged it beyond 100% and processed it to get rid of some pixelating (sp?). I do think the perspective is regained to some degree as stated above....

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

And I hope a pup will do as I couldn't find any chickens in my kit... .

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

...Dennis..

Comment #11

5D DjD wrote:.

IMac, therefore iAm wrote:.

The leaves and the foliage off to the upper right already give itsome scale... looks more like only 30' tall..

I was kinda thinking the same, what may be clumps of leaves on theface of the falls come off as individual leaves killing theperspective..

I did some calcuations based on the fact that on my screen the image is 5.5" tall. I can fit 3 leaves in 1/16 of an inch - based on that the waterfall can be no more than 66' tall when figuring 3" per leaf. If it really is 400' tall, each leaf would be 18" or so...

Comment #12

Hey did anyone else see the head with dark glasses on up near the top of the water fall? ...Dennis..

Comment #13

Is this the opening line for a spooky ghost story? Did someone already push someone over? Or, an evil photographer? "Jump, we need you to establish scale!"..

Comment #14

IMac, therefore iAm wrote:.

5D DjD wrote:.

IMac, therefore iAm wrote:.

The leaves and the foliage off to the upper right already give itsome scale... looks more like only 30' tall..

I was kinda thinking the same, what may be clumps of leaves on theface of the falls come off as individual leaves killing theperspective..

I did some calcuations based on the fact that on my screen the imageis 5.5" tall. I can fit 3 leaves in 1/16 of an inch - based on thatthe waterfall can be no more than 66' tall when figuring 3" per leaf.If it really is 400' tall, each leaf would be 18" or so..

I did not get the entire falls in this shot. Here is a link to the falls sitehttp://www.chimneyrockpark.com/park/interestpoints/falls.php.

I am going back this week for the fall foliage; the leaves should be turning. While I am there I want to get better shots of the falls too. Maybe I need to go to the top and shoot down, long climb for my old legs though. ..

Comment #15

Craig Gillette wrote:.

Is this the opening line for a spooky ghost story? Did someonealready push someone over? Or, an evil photographer? "Jump, we needyou to establish scale!".

Are you volunteering? Giving your all for photography!  ..

Comment #16

5D DjD wrote:.

IMac, therefore iAm wrote:.

The leaves and the foliage off to the upper right already give itsome scale... looks more like only 30' tall..

I was kinda thinking the same, what may be clumps of leaves on theface of the falls come off as individual leaves killing theperspective. To the OP, I hope you don't mind me playing, I croppedto show portrait and enlarged it beyond 100% and processed it to getrid of some pixelating (sp?). I do think the perspective is regainedto some degree as stated above....

And I hope a pup will do as I couldn't find any chickens in my kit....

...Dennis.

I like the portrait perspective better, but I think a deer drinking water would work better than the puppy. Maybe I can re-size a deer photo to the same size as a leaf and the falls would look huge!!! ..

Comment #17

SullyC5R-427 wrote:.

I am going back this week for the fall foliage; the leaves should beturning. While I am there I want to get better shots of the fallstoo. Maybe I need to go to the top and shoot down, long climb for myold legs though. .

Seems to me like you'll have a hard time getting the whole thing in a single frame - you might need to do a multi image pano...

Comment #18

SullyC5R-427 wrote:.

Chuxter wrote:.

I'd suggest at the top or bottom of the waterfall. If it's tough toget to the bottom, it may be time for a human sacrifice? .

Or drive your car off the top?.

Just kidding....

I could have my wife drive it over the falls and take the photo ofher & the car half way down.  .

I see you took my suggestion the right way. Remember that this will be a once in a lifetime photo op...don't waste it! Have your wife jump out and do a "half nelson" or triple Sowkow"?.

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #19

Chuxter wrote:.

I could have my wife drive it over the falls and take the photo ofher & the car half way down.  .

I see you took my suggestion the right way. Remember that this willbe a once in a lifetime photo op...don't waste it! Have your wifejump out and do a "half nelson" or triple Sowkow"?.

Well, I let my wife read the post...no half nelson...but I did get to see a fully extended middle finger. Besides I don't think I want her car going over the falls. Here is a photo of me driving it...my other hobby. .

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #20

5D DjD wrote:.

Processed it to getrid of some pixelating (sp?)..

Pixelating ? You got rid of the rock texture, it looks like a smudgy fingerpainting now. Ugh...

Comment #21

Nothing in a landscape should be out of focus, unless you can come up with a really good reason..

And putting them in the foreground distorts the end result. If they are close and the waterfall is far away, viewers won't get the sense of contrast between small person and big piece of earth and water..

BAK..

Comment #22

BAK wrote:.

Nothing in a landscape should be out of focus, unless you can come upwith a really good reason..

And putting them in the foreground distorts the end result. If theyare close and the waterfall is far away, viewers won't get the senseof contrast between small person and big piece of earth and water..

BAK.

Thanks..

Comment #23

SullyC5R-427 wrote:.

Well, I let my wife read the post...no half nelson...but I did get tosee a fully extended middle finger. Besides I don't think I want hercar going over the falls. Here is a photo of me driving it...myother hobby. .

I understood from your "handle"...the "C5R-427" part was obvious. I had a 1966 390 HP 427 Vette. I was quite amazing, as it got 13.5 MPG regardless of how I drove it (within reason), so I enjoyed the acceleration..

Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #24

Sigezar wrote:.

5D DjD wrote:.

Processed it to getrid of some pixelating (sp?)..

Pixelating ? You got rid of the rock texture, it looks like a smudgyfingerpainting now. Ugh..

Was not looking for critique, it wasn't intended to be any more than taking a picture that was enlarged more than 100% after I cropped it and was all squares (pixelated) so I pp'd and got rid of the chuncky effect... Then I realized the pic should have been smaller so instead of starting over I resized it. It's still slightly larger than the orig... Doh! Some people, you just have to spell everything out! Did you happen to get the idea that by shooting portrait it added perspective to the shot? That's all I was trying to impart. Maybe you should try to help the OP with his question instead of setting me straight......Dennis..

Comment #25

Chuxter wrote:.

SullyC5R-427 wrote:.

I understood from your "handle"...the "C5R-427" part was obvious. Ihad a 1966 390 HP 427 Vette. I was quite amazing, as it got 13.5 MPGregardless of how I drove it (within reason), so I enjoyed theacceleration..

The good old '60's. I had a 383 Charger back then..

The current Vette is custom built 600 HP / 650 TQ GM C5R Racing Block 427 with racing suspension. 22 mpg on the street and ~5 mpg of 100 octane at the track. The photo is from a race at Road Atlanta...

Comment #26

Would you please post a link to the fuill res version of this picture?.

Thanks..

Dpreview & pbase supporterhttp://www.pbase.com/digirob..

Comment #27

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.