I think he means steepness, and yes I think this is always a problem. I've tried often to take pictures of steep roads that I've cycled on or skied no. I have a few that look steep, but most don't. I think looking down is better than looking up. I think getting the camera low so you can see the near ground is important. I think having some people in the near ground halps.
I think this works:
and this doesn't:
This especially doesn't work:
although it is maybe one of the steepest parts of any paved road in the world. At least as steep as anything on Mt. Washington, for example. But you just can't see that. It needs a person (a cyclist would be best.)
Looking down works because you can need to see what would happen if you fell. You need to see where you came from. I think looking up is really hard. This is a very steep place:
famously so, in fact. But you don't get dizzy with this shot the way you do with this one:
This road had me sucking wind:
but that shot doesn't convey it at all. On the other hand, when I got to the top, I shot this:
which I think does give a much better sense of the climb, even if the road isn't in it.
I'm very interested in this topic since cycling and skiing are my two favorite sports. But I don't think I've gotten to the bottom of it. I'd love to hear other people's ideas here.
1 in 5 means every 5 feet it goes up 1 foot, in the photo it dosn't look very steep
Still pretty miserly with the text there hehehe.
Ok, I now understand what you are talking about, but not where. What hill do you mean? The ones in the distance, the one on the right, or the one the camera is on top of?
Regardless, some generic advice may help. When shooting, the least interesting angle is usually that from head height. Try moving the camera closer to the ground or above head height for a new perspective. This may help with the perceived steepness of "the hill".
The composition and elements in the frame can add a lot to the message you want to convey in the photo. For example, you want to convey the idea that something in the scene is steep. Showing a plant growing at an angle to the ground, a person standing at an angle, tilting the camera to accentuate the ground angle can all lead to the conclusion that this scene is not flat.
So change your camera height, add some contextual elements to the composition, and your message may stand out more.
Creator of Dgrin's "Last Photographer Standing" contest
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
Another thought... longer focal lengths compress things. That will help flatten a hill. A wider angle lens, properly placed, might give a better sense of depth and maybe height.
Thanks for all the replies, think i will have to get a better camera because we are of to Norway in June for 3 weeks and about 5000 on my motorbike, been looking at a Canon A95 or Nikon coolpix 5900 i want to be able to do a bit more the one i have got is mostly auto
Thanks for all the replies, think i will have to get a better camera because we are of to Norway in June for 3 weeks and about 5000 on my motorbike, been looking at a Canon A95 or Nikon coolpix 5900 i want to be able to do a bit more the one i have got is mostly auto
Regards
Gaz
Creator of Dgrin's "Last Photographer Standing" contest
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
I think he means steepness, and yes I think this is always a problem. I've tried often to take pictures of steep roads that I've cycled on or skied no. I have a few that look steep, but most don't. I think looking down is better than looking up. I think getting the camera low so you can see the near ground is important. I think having some people in the near ground halps.
I think this works:
and this doesn't:
This especially doesn't work:
although it is maybe one of the steepest parts of any paved road in the world. At least as steep as anything on Mt. Washington, for example. But you just can't see that. It needs a person (a cyclist would be best.)
Looking down works because you can need to see what would happen if you fell. You need to see where you came from. I think looking up is really hard. This is a very steep place:
famously so, in fact. But you don't get dizzy with this shot the way you do with this one:
This road had me sucking wind:
but that shot doesn't convey it at all. On the other hand, when I got to the top, I shot this:
which I think does give a much better sense of the climb, even if the road isn't in it.
I'm very interested in this topic since cycling and skiing are my two favorite sports. But I don't think I've gotten to the bottom of it. I'd love to hear other people's ideas here.
John, I think you have done a pretty good job of displaying how steep the terrain is.
This has been a consistent topic of frustration on the advrider.com forum.
Photographing how steep a hill is, particularly on dirt or gravel roads.
I agree, I have pictures from the road up Pikes Peak and other places, like Hagerman Pass, and they never seem as steep in pictures as they look in person. It can be challenging to display to the viewer the extremes of terrain.
This was a deliberate attempt to display the slope of the road over Hagerman Pass, but it does not begin to demonstrate the 35 degree slope we road down that day.
And no one notices the grade of a hill like a bicyclist. These guys had just ridden up 4000 feet from Aspen over Independence Pass - that is one steep road to ride up!
Of course steep roads can't hold a candle to steep ski slopes. Try riding a mountain bike up a green run (or even a cat track) someday. So looking down a steep ski slope does actually look steep.
I think Shay has a point. Getting the camera low might help getting cyclists riding up a steep road and making it look steep. There also are places on switchback roads where there is an overlook and you can see the road snaking down and up. Shooting very wide from the bend so both up and down angles and downward vista are visible might make it work. Not sure where this can happen. It's going to be more than a year before I can reshoot that road in St. John. It does have a place where that shot would be possible, but getting it to work takes a lot of leadership, foresight, and planning. Almost every time I've been there, I've just been happy to get up or scared to death going down. Mostly people don't want to ride the road at all. And then there is the 3rd world traffic.
Jim, if you read this, please consider renaming this thread to "Perception of Steepness". It might draw a few more people.
Another thought... longer focal lengths compress things. That will help flatten a hill. A wider angle lens, properly placed, might give a better sense of depth and maybe height.
I find that WA lenses accentuate distance, but flatten heights, while longer lenses compress distance and accentuate height differences.
Here are a couple of shots I took this spring that I didn't even bother to post-process. I took them to try and capture the prism effect that the low sun angle was having on the glitter on the trees, but I wasn't impressed with them. However, they do serve to illustrate my point.
Jerry, I am inclined to agree, and it kind of makes sense, since tele lenses bring farway objects closer, make them seem larger, while Wide Angles, tend to emphasize the foreground and diminsh the background or the apparent steepness.
The problem is that you frequently need a WA to encompass the view - otherwise you have to stand so far back to allow the lens to encompass what you wish to capture. And as you know, frequently on mountain roads you literally cannot stand back further ( without falling off the mountain) to get the shot with a tele lens. The gravel road I showed on Hagerman - I was standing next to a 1500 foot 80 degree slope. I dared not back up further.
Rutt is correct too, ski slopes are easier to demonstrate steepness, as opposed to roads. Even the steepest road is fairly flat compared to a nice ski slope. Getting low and incorporating near objects and far objects does seem to help some.
Comments
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
I think this works:
and this doesn't:
This especially doesn't work:
although it is maybe one of the steepest parts of any paved road in the world. At least as steep as anything on Mt. Washington, for example. But you just can't see that. It needs a person (a cyclist would be best.)
Looking down works because you can need to see what would happen if you fell. You need to see where you came from. I think looking up is really hard. This is a very steep place:
famously so, in fact. But you don't get dizzy with this shot the way you do with this one:
This road had me sucking wind:
but that shot doesn't convey it at all. On the other hand, when I got to the top, I shot this:
which I think does give a much better sense of the climb, even if the road isn't in it.
I'm very interested in this topic since cycling and skiing are my two favorite sports. But I don't think I've gotten to the bottom of it. I'd love to hear other people's ideas here.
Ok, I now understand what you are talking about, but not where. What hill do you mean? The ones in the distance, the one on the right, or the one the camera is on top of?
Regardless, some generic advice may help. When shooting, the least interesting angle is usually that from head height. Try moving the camera closer to the ground or above head height for a new perspective. This may help with the perceived steepness of "the hill".
The composition and elements in the frame can add a lot to the message you want to convey in the photo. For example, you want to convey the idea that something in the scene is steep. Showing a plant growing at an angle to the ground, a person standing at an angle, tilting the camera to accentuate the ground angle can all lead to the conclusion that this scene is not flat.
So change your camera height, add some contextual elements to the composition, and your message may stand out more.
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Regards
Gaz
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
John, I think you have done a pretty good job of displaying how steep the terrain is.
This has been a consistent topic of frustration on the advrider.com forum.
Photographing how steep a hill is, particularly on dirt or gravel roads.
I agree, I have pictures from the road up Pikes Peak and other places, like Hagerman Pass, and they never seem as steep in pictures as they look in person. It can be challenging to display to the viewer the extremes of terrain.
This was a deliberate attempt to display the slope of the road over Hagerman Pass, but it does not begin to demonstrate the 35 degree slope we road down that day.
And no one notices the grade of a hill like a bicyclist. These guys had just ridden up 4000 feet from Aspen over Independence Pass - that is one steep road to ride up!
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I think Shay has a point. Getting the camera low might help getting cyclists riding up a steep road and making it look steep. There also are places on switchback roads where there is an overlook and you can see the road snaking down and up. Shooting very wide from the bend so both up and down angles and downward vista are visible might make it work. Not sure where this can happen. It's going to be more than a year before I can reshoot that road in St. John. It does have a place where that shot would be possible, but getting it to work takes a lot of leadership, foresight, and planning. Almost every time I've been there, I've just been happy to get up or scared to death going down. Mostly people don't want to ride the road at all. And then there is the 3rd world traffic.
Jim, if you read this, please consider renaming this thread to "Perception of Steepness". It might draw a few more people.
I find that WA lenses accentuate distance, but flatten heights, while longer lenses compress distance and accentuate height differences.
Here are a couple of shots I took this spring that I didn't even bother to post-process. I took them to try and capture the prism effect that the low sun angle was having on the glitter on the trees, but I wasn't impressed with them. However, they do serve to illustrate my point.
This one is a wider angle shot:
Whether you think that you can or that you can't, you are usually right.
- Henry Ford
www.pbase.com/icicle50
telephoto shot of same scene:
Whether you think that you can or that you can't, you are usually right.
- Henry Ford
www.pbase.com/icicle50
The problem is that you frequently need a WA to encompass the view - otherwise you have to stand so far back to allow the lens to encompass what you wish to capture. And as you know, frequently on mountain roads you literally cannot stand back further ( without falling off the mountain) to get the shot with a tele lens. The gravel road I showed on Hagerman - I was standing next to a 1500 foot 80 degree slope. I dared not back up further.
Rutt is correct too, ski slopes are easier to demonstrate steepness, as opposed to roads. Even the steepest road is fairly flat compared to a nice ski slope. Getting low and incorporating near objects and far objects does seem to help some.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au