Landscape photograph with people in the foreground

[MachCurve]

Hi guys,

I tried finding info on how to frame photos of landscape with people in the foreground (i.e. friends/family standing in front of a landmark) but there appears to be very little info available.

I looked through some of the photos I took previously and noticed that the photo cuts off at the waist - people occupying 1/2 or 1/3 of the photo sometimes.

This seems wrong to me. As a general rule of thumb, is it better for the photo to show at least until the knees (or even the entire person) of the people standing in the foreground? Does this imply that I have been standing too close to the people in the foreground?

Thanks.

 

[shierwin]

Insufficient information to be able to comment. How big is the group. Obviously the larger the group the less the background. If the landmark is large, then the people will look small in the image. How you want to compose the shot will dictate where you position the camera for the shot.

You may be keen to take a look in the link here:

http://lovethatshot.com/informal-family-group-photos/

 

[MachCurve]

Insufficient information to be able to comment. How big is the group. Obviously the larger the group the less the background. If the landmark is large, then the people will look small in the image. How you want to compose the shot will dictate where you position the camera for the shot. You may be keen to take a look in the link here: http://lovethatshot.com/informal-family-group-photos/

4 of us. Landmark is more of scenic background

 

[catchlights]

there is no fixed rule that how should you frame your subjects, be it full length (showing head to toe), quarter length ( showing head to mid thigh), half length (showing head to waist), bust shot (showing head to mid chest), all are up to the photographers decisions.

so if you want to emphasize the people more in the photos, move closer, you want show more background, move away from your subjects, simply as that.


and FYI, cropping the persons at the joints (wrist, elbow, groin, knee, and ankle) is a bad idea, the person looks amputated in the photos.

 

[tecnica]

This.

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1468967

 

[thoongeng]

As the seniors have pointed out there is no fixed rules (maybe guidelines like eg not cutting off people at the joints), only personal preferences that's why there is very little info available. Your preference is to show the full length, but maybe someone else dressed nicely and will think why he/she is so small in the frame and can't show off his/her clothing. Another may think full length shots are too static, they want to make funny faces and so their faces must be big in the frame.

Since you are the photographer, you have the final say

 

[kandinsky]

This seems wrong to me. As a general rule of thumb, is it better for the photo to show at least until the knees (or even the entire person) of the people standing in the foreground? Does this imply that I have been standing too close to the people in the foreground?

Isn't this personal preference? Can't say for sure one is better than the other right? They communicate different things. Closer (e.g., waist up, 3/4) allows you to see more of the facial expressions. Wider (full body) allows you to see more context/background. If you ask me, ideal scenario is obviously if you can get a variety of shots framed differently. Cos if most of your shots feature people standing in front of a scenic background, won't it end up looking quite monotonous?

Anyway, usually one is limited by the lengths he/she wishes to go through to get the shot while travelling.

I'm guessing what you have in mind might be something like the first photo in this link?

https://mauicreativephotographydotcom.wordpress.com/2015/02/21/south-maui-ohana-photo-session/