5 Advanced Techniques to Show Every Detail in Your Landscape Photos

5 Advanced Techniques to Show Every Detail in Your Landscape Photos

So how do you make that mountain appear as large to the viewer as it does to you? How do you get rid of noise in your nightscape images? And how can you get everything in perfect focus, front to back? This might as well be titled “5 Things you can’t do in one shot,” since each technique in this essay relies heavily on layering multiple exposures of a given landscape scene. I’ll show you the techniques I often use to translate my vision to the image. Let’s go.

1. Perfect Focus Through Focus Stacking

Kicking things off is a technique that originated in macro photography to capture a sharp subject and still have that creamy background. But what if you wanted to also capture a sharp background? That’s where we shift our attention to landscape photography. With focus stacking, you’ll need to fix everything in place throughout multiple exposures. Making sure you’re using a solid tripod and shoot with a cable release takes care of the physical movement of the camera. For the best results every setting on the camera should also be exactly the same: White balance (fixable in post when shooting raw), shutter speed, ISO and aperture.

The one difference is the focus distance. Start by adjusting focus to the closest object in the scene and wait for the wind to die down for a bit. Hit the cable release and adjust to focus a little further into the scene. Repeat this process until you’ve reached infinity.

Note that you will need more exposures at shorter distance intervals when you use a larger aperture like f/5.6 and less at smaller apertures like f/11.

These are the raw files that have been used, with the green outlines showing you the parts that made it into the final image below.

Can we do without?

Sure you can. Dial in f/22 on your wide angle, set it to its hyperfocal distance and everything should be tack sharp. Right?

Well, it’s not that straightforward. Closing up the aperture has some nasty side effects. For starters, you will let less light in. At the same ISO, this will lengthen the exposure time (shutter speed). Even with the slightest breeze, delicate foreground elements like flowers, grass and ferns will for sure sway and actually make the foreground look less sharp than say f/7.1.

Ever heard of the sweet spot of the lens? That’s the aperture at which your lens produces the least amount of aberrations while keeping diffraction to a minimum; usually one to two stops down from wide open. At f/22 though, diffraction plays a detrimental role in the sharpness of your image.

Why is this useful?

As focus stacking will be very useful at your lens’ sweet spot, even the cheapest lens will appear to shoot razor sharp images, rivaling the single shots of the pricey contenders at smaller apertures. But because diffraction is a physical property attributed to the way light hits the sensor, even the sharpest lenses out there will not be as sharp at their minimum apertures.

2. Everything Exposed As Seen with the Human Eye with HDR

A more familiar exposure blending technique is of course high dynamic range imagery. Whether you run Photomatix, HDR Expose, or use Lightroom to blend your images together, I’m sure you’ve heard of expanding the dynamic range of your images.

Most often, the idea is that you capture a series of exposures where every setting on the camera is the same, save for the shutter speed. This theoretically makes it possible to properly expose the highlights as well as the shadows in the harshest contrasts. It’s where the name of high dynamic range imagery finds its origin: If one photo doesn’t contain all the information of either shadows or highlights, the dynamic range of the device it’s captured with, isn’t enough for the scene you try to photograph.

In practice, just about every photographer has his or her own approach to expanding the dynamic range of a given camera. There’s the dedicated software I mentioned earlier, but there are photographers, including myself that do it all by hand. The trick is to make a selection of an exposure, based on that exposure’s luminosity. You then mask out the over- and underexposed areas to reveal the better exposures for those areas.

It’s a time consuming process, but with enough practice, your images start to feel more natural than when a computer decides how the blend will end up looking. And all without those unsightly haloes of automated tone mapping.

Can we do without?

There was a time in the late 2000’s when HDR photos were all the buzz. Everyone wanted over-the-top processed images for that grungy feel and these images won prizes and popularity contests. However, you can create more natural looking results with the same techniques, or images that are just as grungy with one shot. But style changes. In most cases, modern cameras (especially those fitted with a full-frame sensor) don’t even need the expanded range of multiple exposures to take it all in.

We can as well shoot silhouettes. Especially against a bright red setting sun, there’s nothing wrong with pure blacks in a given photograph. Lower dynamic range images can actually look more graphic and expressive as a result.

But don’t forget that we can’t actually look directly into the sun. Overexposed images where the highlights are clipped, can only work well if you can’t discern any detail with your own eyes.

Pro tip: Keep the sun the brightest part of the image and your reflections darker than what they are reflecting to achieve natural looking HDRs; whether you automate the blending or use luminosity masks.

Why is this useful?

Personally, I only use multiple shutter speeds when the sun is out and overexposes a large area of the sky. In this example though, the sun only pierced through a small hole in a heavy bank of clouds in the distance, shining directly on a snow-capped mountain. If I had exposed for those highlights, my foreground would be very dark. Brightening that foreground would have introduced noise in the shadows, and that’s something I don’t want in my work. Speaking of which...

Opportunity by Daniel Laan via 500px

3. No Noise in Your Nightscapes by Stacking Them

No, we’re not discussing focus stacking again. This is entirely different. The technique only works when every parameter is the same: Camera settings, focal length; the whole enchilada. Even the temperature of the camera should be the same for the best results. Stacking works by calculating a difference between two or more images and comes directly from the field of astrophotography. Of course there isn’t just one method out there. That would make things easy…

The easiest method is averaging. After aligning the stars or foreground, depending on where you want your noise reduced, you could set the bottom layer to 100% opacity. The next would be set to 50%, the third to 33% and the fourth to 25%. So that’s 100 divided by your layer number, rounded to whole numbers.

There’s also the Kappa-Sigma Clipping method, the Median method, and a couple of methods that use more complex algorithms, but they all work to achieve the best result of a given set of images.

Here are the raw files that have been used and the parts that made it into the final image below.

Can we do without?

During the day, yes. I’ve tested noise reduction methods before in this comparison on Fstoppers, including two methods for stacking images. But there’s simply no alternative to the results of stacking if you’re an avid night photographer. As you are increasing the signal-to-noise ratio with each subsequent image you add to the stack, you can extract more detail from highly diffuse areas of an image. Say for example the Milky Way or our neighboring Andromeda galaxy. That’s different from how noise reduction works in Lightroom or Noise Ninja, as they get rid of the smallest pixels, based on what’s in the area around them.

Can’t we just extend the shutter speed to a couple of minutes instead? Well, the Earth is rotating, so your stars will appear to trail. Also, a longer shutter speed will warm the electronics of your camera more. That results in a different kind of noise known as thermal noise, which is even more difficult to correct.

Why is this useful?

Less noisy images have the ability to tell more compelling stories. And less noise also means that you can print larger before random noise becomes an eyesore.

4. Large Backgrounds Through Focal Length Blending

When you venture off into the wilderness (or go to Iceland), it’s the sheer majesty you want to capture. Sprawling foregrounds and epic mountains. It’s the scale of a given landscape that we all would like to tell everyone about.

This technique is best used with a single zoom lens such as the fabled Nikon 14-24 mm. I use the slightly sharper (and cheaper) Tamron 15-30 mm for this.

  • First, you shoot at the lens’ widest focal length for the foreground. Expose as you wish.
  • Then shoot for the most distant subject, and let it fill the frame by zooming in. Think of where you want to blend the fore- and background before you do and make sure there’s enough overlap to accommodate this.
  • Shoot an extra shot for the sky if you want. It’s an easier blend at the same focal length, but you can go crazy and shoot wide again. A lot of work in post though.

Can we do without?

That’s entirely up to you. I can imagine that this one is taking two steps too far for your taste. Our eyes aren’t cameras. The visual cortex of our brain builds up an image as we scan the landscape, piece by piece. This is just to show you that you can recreate the scene and capture its splendor in 2D.

Why is this useful?

It’s mostly beginners who have trouble with selecting the best part of the landscape. It’s the reason why I teach to use a longer lens. Call me a hypocrite, but I can’t choose either. I love that enormous foreground when I take an ultra-wide and move it close to the ground. But as soon as I do; gone is the giant mountain or glacier in the background.

5. Dramatic Mountains with Perspective Blending

Ever heard of the tilt-shift lens? That’s the perfect tool for the same results as before, at the same focal length. But don’t go spending money just yet, because you could even perform this next one with a single prime lens.

I brought up the tilt-shift, because large format photographers like “Uncle” Ansel would have been all too familiar with what I’m about to tell you. You wouldn’t want to do portraiture with an ultra-wide-angle lens because faces look stretched, right? That’s a good thing considering this technique. In perspective blending, we’re using the distortion at the edges of the frame to recreate large mountains, while still having a bit of sky above them.

Dave Morrow explains it beautifully in this video tutorial:

Can we do without?

With a tilt-shift, you could do this in one shot, but the resulting foreground would not be as wide. You could compensate by tilting the lens upward and shifting it down, but then the mountain looks smaller again.

Why is this useful?

Again, perspective blending is one of those techniques that uses multiple shots to capture a three-dimensional space in two dimensions. It’s useful because you can do this with a 14mm or 18mm prime, without busting the bank.

Bonus: Doing it All

When you’ve learned all of these advanced techniques individually, you can combine them to make spectacular images. Ryan Dyar and Ted Gore for example are adept at combining multiple exposures with stunning results.

Personally, I only take multiple shots when the results are more than worth the effort. There is this one instance in which I could not have shown you the same image, would I have exposed it just once.

Because the northern lights are a dynamic display (especially during active conditions or geomagnetic storms), it’s best not to drag the shutter speed. Longer shutter speeds than 10 seconds just smear out the structure of the aurora.

I did have the benefit of stormy conditions, so the foreground lit up nice and green. No need to go higher than ISO 3200. That cut the amount of shots to reduce noise in half, compared to the usual ISO 6400 before I learned that those ISO values should not be used.

We ended up with 3 stacks of images: Structure, noise and focus.

So we’ve got an ISO of 3200 and a shutter speed of around 10 seconds. That calculated to an aperture of f/2.8: Wide open. It suddenly became quite the challenge to get the foreground sharp enough, so I focus stacked the foreground, while stacking the night sky to reduce noise, using the average method.

As for the perspective; I finally threw in a shot that was more zoomed in to make the snow-capped mountain in the distance appear as large as it did in the field.

Log in or register to post comments


Anonymous's picture

Great post. I didn't have time to explore it in depth but I'll definitely be bookmarking it for future reference. Thanks a lot!

Jacques Cornell's picture

The hard part is knowing or deciding where to draw the line between a photograph and a photo illustration.

Anonymous's picture

I don't see how any of these techniques approaches that line. Photos are incapable of capturing reality so any means of recording our perception of reality is all to the good. He's not advocating adding or taking away anything except the camera's limitations.

Anonymous's picture

They do not only approach that line but cross it if we talk about "our perception" as you put it. At least HDR and focus stacking do not comply with nature ;)
I wouldn't call it illustration though, rather photographics instead of photography. But effects are nice.

Anonymous's picture

Cameras can't record the same range of f-stops as human vision. In a high contrast scene, HDR is the ONLY way to record our perception.
Regarding focus stacking, since our eyes refocus as we scan a scene, our perception is based on the "focus stacking" our brains perform.
I understand your point but disagree. If you can further clarify your point in a compelling way, I'd be happy to learn.

Jacques Cornell's picture

I totally agree that judicious use of exposure stacking (HDR) can serve the purpose of representing a scene more faithfully.

Anonymous's picture

Your eye cannot record _at the same time_ full range of focus or light ... it's biology. Our _perception_ is not only based on what we see through eyes - our brain fills some gaps. In high contract scenes you won't be able to see everything ... that's why sometimes you have to cover your eyes from the sun to see rest of the scene.
For me it's simple: record light if it's there, don't create artificial one.

Anonymous's picture

You seem to be backing up my argument. In both cases: seeing the scene and seeing a photo of the scene, it's our brains (not our eyes) which must be satisfied. Since the brain is compositing various parts into a whole image, it only makes sense, to me, to do the same thing with a camera.
For me, it's even simpler: faithfully reproduce your *perception* of what's there. Well... maybe that's not so simple! ;-)

Jacques Cornell's picture

I think that someone who chooses a vacation destination on the basis of images with heavily altered perspective might be disappointed upon arrival.To me, significantly altering perspective crosses the line into illustration. You may draw your line elsewhere.

Anonymous's picture

I wouldn't suggest 'heavily altering perspective' but rather, making up for the cameras inability to faithfully represent some scenes. I know when you say HDR, some people imagine garishly vibrant photos with too much detail. I'm not talking about that and neither is the author. Looking at his examples, none of them look unrealistic to me and I've walked through rain forests, hiked in the mountains, watched the Northern Lights, etc...

Edit: Something else to keep in mind: landscape photographers will get up at 4am to capture the sun peeking over the horizon at 6:30. Vacationers will probably be looking at the same scene a little after noon.

I'd say focal length blending pretty much falls into category, unfortunately. You're altering what you would see if you stood at the same spot. While the resulting photos look great, they're definitely in what I'd call "composite" territory :-)

The HDR/Denoising techniques are very useful to compensate for sensor weakness though...

Anonymous's picture

Seeing something is a complex interaction between the eyes ability to, well, see and the brain's processing of the signal it receives. Not only that, but the brain tells the eyes what to send it. Furthermore, the eyes don't record still images but real-time video. Add in smells and sounds (I know it sounds silly) and the brain's perception of a scene is far more complex than a camera is capable of recording.

My whole point is not that HDR/Denoising/Focal length blending/et. al. are NOT changing the camera's record of a scene but that these kinds of techniques replicate similar processes being performed by your brain, whether or not an individual is aware of the act.

I really enjoy this discussion! :-)

Christian Möhrle's picture

Whoa, thought it was clickbait, but the Focal length blending and the perspective blending are things I've never heard about, thanks guys

Tihomir Lazarov's picture

Great tips, especially the de-noising one.

fabricated _minds's picture

It is also better to not just fix the white balance in post and have it set properly from the start

Daniel Laan's picture

That's extremely important in an effort to getting the color right. There's just no way to remember the exact color of a scene in post when there are several days (even years!) between the moment of capture and processing.

fabricated _minds's picture

yes, there is also the myth that raw images have no inherent native white balance. So everyone thinks you get to white balance in post, but its not he best. As when you shoot in a certain white balance, for example the blue channel is near-black. When you adjust the white balance now, the software needs to raise that blue channel, where hardly no information is available

Daniel Laan's picture

That's solid info right there! Thanks!

Anonymous's picture

That's odd. I've never read or experienced anything to suggest raw images have an inherent white balance. Of course they record your camera's setting and "stamp" it into the raw file's jpeg header but, again, I've never seen anything to corroborate your statement.
In any case, I can't image a raw files "in-camera" white balance would blow out or block up any channel. Of course I could be wrong and often am. :-)

fabricated _minds's picture

just think of it :) you got a red, green and blue channel. if you set your white balance to for example daylight, but take a picture inside, it will be so orange in appearance, that there is not much information inside the blue channel, but a lot inside the others. When you then adjust the white balance slider. All it does is take the red, and green and lower the channels, and raise the blue channel. But ofcourse you can't get a lot out of the weak blue signal

Anonymous's picture

I guess I can't get past the idea that while your camera sets a white balance for the raw file, everything it sees (raw data) is still there. Not that I don't believe you but I'll look into it further. Thanks for giving me something to exercise my mind...it's been getting a little pudgy lately. ;-)

fabricated _minds's picture

if you are interested you can check out this link, thats where I got it all from. If you bump into more interesting stuff about raw, I would love to hear! :)

Anonymous's picture

According to my reading, the author is saying cameras have an inherent white balance, independent of the camera's user setting. It's kinda difficult to follow, though, since he's jumping all over the place with his explanations. In any case, since the internet is full of contradicting facts, I tend to go by the authority of the author (unknown in this case) and the greatest number of sources in agreement (I know, I know...)

I agree with the comment that starts out: "I feel like you've gone so far in debunking a number of RAW-Magic myths that you've over corrected into misrepresenting RAW."

fabricated _minds's picture

oh yeah, thats true, so he is saying that every sensor has his own white balance. which would be quite weird to shoot at all the time I guess (by all means, the difference in the quality of the picture woudn't probably be noticeable for us humans anyways)

Anonymous's picture

You're human!? ;-)

Chris Dikos's picture

Thanks for the article!

Wayne Denny's picture

Fantastic write up. The focal length blending is something I'm going to try this weekend!

Anonymous's picture

Killer shot of those misty mountains brah. However, after binge watching Bob Ross my eyes are no longer drawn to their natural, rocky majesty; they're drawn to the subtle, happy cabins tucked away at their edges.

Kyle Medina's picture

Anyone more information out there about No.4?? I can't find anything and this is very intriguing.

Anonymous's picture
More comments