A hike to the source of the Rhine river (1230km from source to destination North Sea)

[Chrissie]

A few impressions from a recent hike to the source area of the Rhine river (the longest river of Germany), off of the Oberalp Swiss mountain pass:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/145899543@N02/29803427438/sizes/l/

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/145899543@N02/29803433928/sizes/l

https://www.flickr.com/photos/145899543@N02/43626943722/sizes/h/

 

 

[LiveShots]

I love how the colors in #1 fade into the distance…

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

The bottom picture is shot at quite a wide angle. This has the effect of pushing the scene away from you, making everything look a lot more distant than it was in reality. This causes a disconnect between the viewer and the motif.

If you crop it closer, you will reconnect the viewer with the view, creating the impression that the viewer is in the landscape, instead of outside it. 

It's an easy photo to crop because it's centered and has no vital information on the borders.

[Chrissie]

2 hours ago, Jaf-Photo said:

The bottom picture is shot at quite a wide angle. This has the effect of pushing the scene away from you, making everything look a lot more distant than it was in reality. This causes a disconnect between the viewer and the motif.

If you crop it closer, you will reconnect the viewer with the view, creating the impression that the viewer is in the landscape, instead of outside it. 

It's an easy photo to crop because it's centered and has no vital information on the borders.

Jaf, thanks for your comment. You know that I like wide angles in landscapes, because nature is wide.  In this particular case, it's  not that the picture is too wide - your monitor is too small (or you're viewing it from too great a distance. This may sound provocative, but I'm absolutely serious about it. Let me explain:

The EXIF of this picture gives me the focal length of 16 mm (shot with my 16-35GM at the widest possible angle). Knowing that my camera is a full frame with a sensor width of 35mm, the diagonal angle of view computes to approx. 107°, the same as  quoted by Sony for this lens at the wide end, btw..

The picture we're talking about (and actually any picture, for that matter) is best viewed at the same angle of view which was in effect at the time the picture was taken, if you want avoid the effect of the viewer feeling pushed out of the scene or sucked into it.

Given a common eye-to-screen distance during computer work of approx. 50 cm, a diagonal angle of view of 107° would require a screen having a 53" diagonal ...  ?

If you prefer a comfortable viewing distance of - let's say - two and a half meters, you better have a living room with cinema-like proportions, to accommodate the necessary 265" screen diagonal. Four meters room height is a must.

Cropping, btw., will not change any of these considerations. Except for the fact, that a smaller screen (or a regular height living room) would be sufficient to show a smaller sample of the world.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

3 hours ago, Chrissie said:

Jaf, thanks for your comment. You know that I like wide angles in landscapes, because nature is wide.  In this particular case, it's  not that the picture is too wide - your monitor is too small (or you're viewing it from too great a distance. This may sound provocative, but I'm absolutely serious about it. Let me explain:

The EXIF of this picture gives me the focal length of 16 mm (shot with my 16-35GM at the widest possible angle). Knowing that my camera is a full frame with a sensor width of 35mm, the diagonal angle of view computes to approx. 107°, the same as  quoted by Sony for this lens at the wide end, btw..

The picture we're talking about (and actually any picture, for that matter) is best viewed at the same angle of view which was in effect at the time the picture was taken, if you want avoid the effect of the viewer feeling pushed out of the scene or sucked into it.

Given a common eye-to-screen distance during computer work of approx. 50 cm, a diagonal angle of view of 107° would require a screen having a 53" diagonal ...  ?

If you prefer a comfortable viewing distance of - let's say - two and a half meters, you better have a living room with cinema-like proportions, to accommodate the necessary 265" screen diagonal. Four meters room height is a must.

Cropping, btw., will not change any of these considerations. Except for the fact, that a smaller screen (or a regular height living room) would be sufficient to show a smaller sample of the world.

This is muddled thinking. The human field of visual attention is only between 50-60 degrees wide. That is what our brain actually registers. The rest of the 120 degree visual arc is peripheral vision, which doesn't register. 

So if you take a wide shot at 120 degrees our brain will reinterpret that as 60 degrees, which puts us much further back than the camera actually was. That is, unless you view it so close that the borders are blurred out.

I thought it was funny that you posted this after our discussion about wide angle lenses. It is obvious that you centered the view and zoomed out to fit everything in. Essentially, what any hausfrau with a handy would do ?

[Chrissie]

5 hours ago, Chrissie said:

Cropping, btw., will not change any of these considerations. 

I've given this some more thought, before reading your answer, and I would like to correct myself on my quoted statement:

Cropping does have an effect. Specifically: by cropping, the effective angle of view is reduced until it ideally matches the angle of view I naturally have when viewing the remaining image full-screen on my computer screen from my natural viewing distance. (I neither have a 53" computer monitor, nor any such TV screen, nor does my house have 4 meter high ceilings). So your initial advice is technically correct. You just put the same physical context into different words. Following your advice would come at a hefty price, though. Cropping from a 107° angle of view to 50° would leave me with only 22% of the initial detail. As I take these kind of pictures to have a recording of past experiences, I'm not willing to forgo any of those details. So cropping is not an option. I Could have the same effect by zooming in, then panning around, without loosing any detail.

But you're missing my point entirely. As you rightly noted, this picture doesn't contain any particular topic. It's neither about a summit, nor a tree, nor a flower, a river, or a person. The landscape itself is the topic. As such, every little detail contributes to the impression of vastness, even if it's peripheral. Cropping anything out of it would absolutely reduce the intended effect.

That said: I'm a generous person. So feel free to ridicule my approach at landscape photography at your heart's content. I couldn't care less. 

Edited July 28, 2018 by Chrissie

[Chrissie]

For the above hike hike, my wife and I had set up our "base camp" at the Hotel "Weisses Rössli", Göschenen, UR, Switzerland. On the afternoon of our arrival, we went upstream of the Reuss river, to the lower end of the Schöllenen Gorge, up to the new Häderlisbrücke (Häderli bridge). This is a replica of the original, some 350 years old stone bridge which had been washed away by the torrent, following an unusually heavy downpour in 1987.

The replica was built using original methods and materials identical to those of 350 years before. Apprentices from the various crafts involved were (voluntarily!) contracted to do the actual work. See this (German language only, sorry).

This is the 360 by 180 panoramic view of this place, and, as I like it, with no crop whatsoever applied:   8-p

Click&drag to turn the panorama into any orientation you wish.

Download-link for full resolution image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/145899543@N02/42960055194/in/dateposted/

The above panorama was also used to create this linked "little planet" view.

 

 

Edited July 28, 2018 by Chrissie

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

2 hours ago, Chrissie said:

I've given this some more thought, before reading your answer, and I would like to correct myself on my quoted statement:

Cropping does have an effect. Specifically: by cropping, the effective angle of view is reduced until it ideally matches the angle of view I naturally have when viewing the remaining image full-screen on my computer screen from my natural viewing distance. (I neither have a 53" computer monitor, nor any such TV screen, nor does my house have 4 meter high ceilings). So your initial advice is technically correct. You just put the same physical context into different words. Following your advice would come at a hefty price, though. Cropping from a 107° angle of view to 50° would leave me with only 22% of the initial detail. As I take these kind of pictures to have a recording of past experiences, I'm not willing to forgo any of those details. So cropping is not an option. I Could have the same effect by zooming in, then panning around, without loosing any detail.

But you're missing my point entirely. As you rightly noted, this picture doesn't contain any particular topic. It's neither about a summit, nor a tree, nor a flower, a river, or a person. The landscape itself is the topic. As such, every little detail contributes to the impression of vastness, even if it's peripheral. Cropping anything out of it would absolutely reduce the intended effect.

That said: I'm a generous person. So feel free to ridicule my approach at landscape photography at your heart's content. I couldn't care less. 

For all practical puposes a photograph becomes our surrogate field of visual attention. That's because we zone in on the photograph and we don't notice what's around or behind it. 

A good way to experience the inverse impact of wide angle photography is to stand in your living room and look through the viewfinder with your 16-35mm lens attached. Start at 35mm and look around. It's a bit wide so you'll feel like you're standing a bit behind the actual spot you're standing. You still feel like you're inside the room, though. Then zoom out to 16mm. You'll feel like you're traveling out through the wall and looking at the room from the outside. That's because the brain knows that you couldn't possibly see all the furniture if you were still inside the room.

Shooting landscapes very wide has the same effect, it makes it feel remote or as if you were looking at it from up in the air. If you want to convey the sense of being there, you need to get closer to a normal field of view.

If it's any consolation I also do hausfrau photography occasionally. Some days I can't be bothered to run around for the best vantage points, to wait for good light or be creative with negative space. So, I'll just do it hausfrau style and move on. The important thing is that I know that I am cutting corners and that I shouldn't make a habit of it.

[Chrissie]

13 minutes ago, Jaf-Photo said:

If it's any consolation ...

Jaf, you're really incredible. What makes you think I might be in need of consolation?

After all, I'm showing my face and my pictures, while you hide behind a Dürer self-portrait and show none of your pictures. I think, that speaks for itself.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

23 minutes ago, Chrissie said:

Jaf, you're really incredible. What makes you think I might be in need of consolation?

After all, I'm showing my face and my pictures, while you hide behind a Dürer self-portrait and show none of your pictures. I think, that speaks for itself.

I don't feed on approval. If you know photography, you'll understand what I am saying. I wouldn't have to explain things twice for you. If you know photography you'll understand if your photos are weak or strong. You would't have to post them for approval and get angry when you get notes for improvement.

Edited July 28, 2018 by Jaf-Photo

[sixzeiss]

13 hours ago, Jaf-Photo said:

The bottom picture is shot at quite a wide angle. This has the effect of pushing the scene away from you, making everything look a lot more distant than it was in reality. This causes a disconnect between the viewer and the motif.

If you crop it closer, you will reconnect the viewer with the view, creating the impression that the viewer is in the landscape, instead of outside it. 

It's an easy photo to crop because it's centered and has no vital information on the borders.

Jaf-Photo's original critique is subjective. IMHO it is also wrong.

Having hiked similar trails myself I find that the last image adds a sense of scale of the scene, and the walking trail up to the point where the photo was taken is also critical ... if you are the one that walked up the path! One can crop the image a fraction, but any more and it ends up meaning less. Again, its an image that works when bigger, simple as that.

The first photo is also great, perhaps for exactly the opposite reason.

 

1 hour ago, Chrissie said:

Jaf, you're really incredible. What makes you think I might be in need of consolation?

After all, I'm showing my face and my pictures, while you hide behind a Dürer self-portrait and show none of your pictures. I think, that speaks for itself.

Jaf-Photo is a troll ... you know, as defined ... "The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue." Unfortunately he does not go away ... but pretty much everyone else here eventually gives up and goes away - myself included. Which is quite remarkable.

You are quite right in your conclusion.

[sixzeiss]

BTW there is a Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/sonyalphacamera/ where you typically get a good audience. Same admin, larger crowd. Instagram too I believe.

[syncusoidal]

Thanks for posting these beautiful images. I recently hiked the Grand Canyon from north rim to south rim and took many photos with a rather wide lens. I understand Jaf's points, but if I cropped many of these photos as he suggests, the viewer would not register the scale of the terrain. The viewer would not realize that the photo was of the Grand Canyon. If you go hiking in the Alps, I want to know what the Alps are like, and that means communicating something of the scale. There is such thing as 'documentary' photography and house wives are not the only practitioners.