Seven Myths About Landscape Photography That Might Be Holding You Back

There are lots of myths out there about photography that can end up holding you back if you listen to them, and it's important to avoid falling prey to them. This great video discusses seven such myths in landscape photography and sets the record straight on what it's really like.

Coming to you from Nigel Danson, this excellent video discusses seven myths surrounding landscape photography and how to avoid allowing them to hold you back. Of the myths, the two that resonate the most with me are location choices and beginner equipment. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that you can only make good landscape shots at epic locations, but that just simply isn't true. In fact, I think working with more normal locations can make you a better photographer simply because you aren't presented with readymade shots nearly as much. On another note, landscape photography is absolutely a genre in which you can use more budget-oriented gear and still create great results, so don't feel discouraged if you're not shooting with the latest and greatest, and try not to succumb too much to gear temptation. Practice is what will give you the biggest steps forward. Check out the video above for Danson's full thoughts. 

And if you really want to dive into landscape photography, check out "Photographing The World 1: Landscape Photography and Post-Processing with Elia Locardi." 

Log in or register to post comments


Terry Waggoner's picture

If you really like shooting landscapes check out the rest of Nigel Danson's youtube videos.................he likes to impress on you the needs for composing your shots.


Did I miss the location myth in the video? Seems like it wasn't there (but surely should be).

Alex Cooke's picture

My fault, I should have better clarified that it's one that's important to me personally.

Jordan McChesney's picture

I’m in the middle of watching this now, but I like that you mention needing epic landscapes as a myth in your article. Personally, I find these less impressive, because most of the work has been done for you. This isn’t to say they don’t need skill, they do, but I’ve personally found the more epic the landscape, the less work I need to do. When I’ve seen professional landscape photographers try something away from epic landscapes (flowers or city photography), it’s actually interesting to see them struggle to create compelling images. I think this might lead to more people believing the myth. I always encourage professionals to try shooting a simple subject, like tulips or daisies, and seeing how hard it is to make a solid image. I feel this challenge keeps the mind active. Most of my favorite images were not taken in epic locations.

Also, kudos to Nigel for creating some of his images with a dog running around, haha.

Nigel Danson's picture

Happy to respond but I don't quite understand you question? Can you clarify?

Nigel Danson's picture

Completely get where you are coming from Pat. I think it can make you slow down and be more measured in your approach. When using a tripod I do find I take less compositions and always used to say exactly what you are. I just look at the evidence now and my best photos and there is no correlation between the quality of the photo and the camera being on a tripod. The evidence (for me) just isn't there. Having said that I am not saying a tripod isn't important just that it isn't needed all the time and as you say shouldn't be used until you have a good composition.

Nigel Danson's picture

Yep - for real! It compromises the ability to find good composition. I see it all the time on workshops I run. Whilst a tripod is really important on many occasions and most of my photos at dawn and dusk use a tripod it is the worse thing for finding good compositions.

Robert Lavers's picture

Don’t you find the composition first and then use a tripod if needed?

Nigel Danson's picture

Yes Robert - it is the best way as you have freedom of movement.

Nigel Danson's picture

Hi Ansel - I do think that if you tried it you would be surprised. A lot of people on my workshops have the same opinion but then it improves their composition. And if not glad what you do works for you - that is the main thing!!!

Robert Lavers's picture

One of the criteria for failing RPS submissions and competitions is burned out highlights, yet I don’t have a problem with this where it can be used for dramatic effect, like bright sparkling water from a low sun, or where the sun is in a composition. If you were to do the same scene in watercolour you would leave the paper untouched for the brightest highlights, and I see burned highlights in photos as the equivalent. What is your view?

Ps I don’t do Instagram, nor Facebook, sorry.

Nigel Danson's picture

Hi Robert - I have to say that I think RPS are a bit stuck in their ways. There are lots of reasons why you can have totally white areas. Maybe you may then slightly tone them in post. As long as the resulting image is pleasing then their shouldn't be rules like that.