Difference Between Pretty Scenes and Good Photographs

Good photographs are difficult to come by. Pretty scenery, at least in Utah, is much easier to find. What’s the difference, you might ask? In my opinion, it boils down to a few items:

1. Good composition
2. Excellent lighting
3. Vibrant colors
4. Strong contrast

My family and I recently took a trip down to the Provo River area to play in the river and scout some photo locations. I’ll use a couple of photographs I took while down there (pretty scenery but not good photos) to illustrate the difference between a pretty scene and a good photograph. Here are the photos.

This first photograph of the mountains near the Sundance Ski Resort has some elements of a successful composition but is missing some key elements that would make it a good photograph. It has nice lines running from right to left in the contours of the grass and has a dramatic sky, something that is often times difficult to capture, but, due to the angle at which I took this photo, as well as the wide angle lens used, the mountains are far less imposing than they are in real life. In real life, they are rugged and imposing but this photo doesn’t do them justice. Another composition problem is that there isn’t any sort of foreground subject to add depth to the shot, again diminishing the imposing nature of the mountains, which actually tower over the foreground grass and trees.

The lighting is probably the weakest element of the photo. The shot was taken in the early afternoon when the sun is high in the sky, creating a harsh and flat light. As a result, there is little depth or texture in the photo. Lighting, more than anything, will make or break a photo.

Lastly, the photo has some vibrant colors but, due to the flat lighting, is sorely lacking contrast.

This photo of the Provo River was fun to take because it was pretty but, like the other, fails to be a good photograph. The composition fails on a couple of levels. The shot does a good job of including some foreground, though it isn’t very interesting. The line of the river bank leads the eyes into the photo, which is nice, and the rule of thirds was followed, but the sky lacks drama. The river water is too polarized and thus blends into the surroundings too much (not enough reflection), and the flowers are too small. Perhaps being lower to the ground would have helped make the flowers more interesting? I’m not sure because of how flat the foreground is.

Again, like on the previous photo, the lighting is flat and harsh, diminishing the depth I tried to achieve with the foreground. Also as a result of the harsh lighting, the contrast and color vibrance are seriously lacking, making for a boring photo.

As you can see, these were both beautiful locations, providing fantastic scenery, but due to various limitations – mostly lighting – the photos taken don’t make compelling photographs.