Okay to photograph down?

I know "down" isn't the right word, but it seemed to me that at one point people (here in feedback, I mean) said to photograph on the level of something and not up or down at it, but relatively recently there have been some nice landscape photos that are either up or down hills. I have ravines that I go to in different places, and I haven't tried shooting any images of them because they would have to be done looking down into the ravine and I didn't think that was okay. Can anyone elaborate on what types of images looking down or up are okay and what types aren't? Thank you.

Barbara, you can photograph whatever in however a way you want. If you consider photography art, then there is no right or wrong, there is no 'that's okay' and 'that's not'. If it works, it works; if it doesn't, it doesn't. You can make generalizations for what perspectives seem to work more often than others, but they are exactly that: generalizations. Furthermore, what works for one person and in one context, may not work at all in another context or for another person (and vice versa).

To give you an answer that is probably more like what you were hoping for: consider aerial photography - it's all looking down. And there's a lot of great aerial photography out there. Go look some up and perhaps you'll find some inspiration on what might work for your ravine.

In general, Barbara, photographs of people, animals, birds, look best if photographed more or less at eye level, rather than looking up or down at the subject, but it's not a hard and fast rule.

Architectural photography or any photographs with vertical lines, often look better if the lens is level. If the lens is tilted upwards, the lines will converge and if the lens is tilted downward the lines will diverge. Correction of this distortion is one of the virtues of tilt-shift lenses, or the rise - fall movement of view cameras. But again, it's not a hard and fast rule.

I agree with the others Barbara. It's art, and right or wrong are opinions valued most by those who mouth them. The rest of us are free to accept or discard them.

I'll add another to the possibilities of up and down. I'm a belly-flop photographer, most recognizable for the mud and grime on my shirt and pants from wallowing around on the ground with a wide angle lens. Dramatic results are standard, and it's a handy way to use the foreground and intervening terrain to "photoshop" distracting details like parking lots and highways from a scene.

My advise would be to take a week or two and break every rule you think exists. While many of your images will probably be less than par, your creativity will experience a freedom you may not have been able to realize before.

My advise would be to take a week or two and break every rule you think exists. While many of your images will probably be less than par, your creativity will experience a freedom you may not have been able to realize before.

The best possible advice!

Let the REAL fun begin, Barbara!

I agree with Hank....know the "rules" but do your own thing.

Architectural photography or any photographs with vertical lines, often look better if the lens is level. If the lens is tilted upwards, the lines will converge and if the lens is tilted downward the lines will diverge. Correction of this distortion is one of the virtues of tilt-shift lenses, or the rise - fall movement of view cameras. But again, it's not a hard and fast rule.

To prevent vertical linear convergence or divergence, the focal plane of the camera must be parallel to the subject. To prevent linear horizontal convergence, the focal plane must be parallel to the building. Adjusting for convergence is done using tilt of the focal plane so that it meets the conditions stated above. Shift changes only the 'point of view'. Such adjusments can be made with a tilt-shift lens, or a LF camera with a back that allows for tilt. As Buck says, correcting for convergence/divergence is not a hard and fast rule. In some cases careful use of convergence will give very nice results.

I'll add that using convergence/divergence in landscape can be very effective in conveying depth. Also, convergence of lines in the foreground toward a vanishing point on the horizon provide very nice 'leading lines' as well conveying a sense of depth.

As has been stated: Know the rules, but take the opportunity to break them, and don't over-analyze--just do it!

--P

Barbara
This may a bit simplistic and trite answer but just: Do IT!!
You worry too much about doing the "right thing"
Go have fun.

The "rule" is, if the light is working for the shot, take it. It's all about use of the light.


Kent in SD

To paraphrase Duke Ellington: "If it looks good, it is good."

Way back in the olden days when I was getting my feet wet photographically, the "rule" was that you help the camera level, side to side and front to back. This caused all sorts of problems for me. I thought that rules were rules. I have since taken all the "rules" of photography and think of them as guidelines. If it works, go ahead and do it.

If you are close enough to the duck....

For me it is a lecture subject especially when teaching CU-Macro. Tilting down tends to miniaturize, tilting up tends to giantize, shooting straight ahead is a more natural look. When phographing model subjects to look real the camera lens should be straigh ahead at scale 6 feet.

Professorlynn

There really isn't any rule on this, you just need to understand that tilting the film plane/sensor plan of the camera results in converging lines and that this can be distracting or disorienting. But sometimes it can create very helpful structure in a photograph.

A traditional view camera provides camera movements which can help resolve these issues. You can keep the camera level, but get the effect of pointing it down by lowering the front standard (lowering the lens), while keeping verticals vertical. On 35mm, there are tilt/shift lenses which can allow you to use some of movements available in a view camera.

Yesterday I had a clear demo of the need, even the advantage of elevated shooting in some situations. I've been doing a bunch of aerial photography lately, which reveals all sorts of shapes and patterns in the landscape not seen from ground level. Evidently it's been affecting my view of the world, because I often miss the elevation now. Or perhaps it is an evolution beyond my frequent practice of shooting from a stepladder.

Whatever the case, the attached photo illustrates it pretty well. I was salmon fishing on the shore with my granddaughter as two purse seiners fished nearby. I KNEW that a little elevation would allow me to show a terrific landscape with the snaking arcs of their colorful nets as dramatic elements. As it turned out, shooting "straight" with a pocket camera yielded a pretty vanilla study of boats with darned little landscape and nets.

For every rule there is in photography, there are probably dozens if not hundreds of succesful shots that break those rules. That being said, I have never heard of the rule you mention. Shoot in whatever way makes your subject look its best. Up, down, sideways, just do it!

Shoot in whatever way makes your subject look its best.

I like to think of them as "tools" rather than rules. Use whichever tools work best for you and the image.

I never said that there is a rule, but there may very well be suggestions for creating the type of perspective that you may need.

Lynn