Okay, so now that I've hopefully explained a couple of considerations to make, I'll get on with the technique. This technique is from a personal preference point of view, and I've also found in some instances it's handy to know when shooting. So, why not just select the area you want to enlarge and do that? You most certainly can, and it works. Photographers do it using blend and warp techniques, and the results are almost indistinguishable from the original. Shooting at such a different focal length will almost certainly omit part of the landscape you are trying to capture and not relay the scene entirely as you saw it. Also, another big one for this is the blending of the scene.
The foreground will be as sharp as the distant mountains, and that doesn't happen, due to the atmospheric haze and the elements, plus the contrast for distant objects is clearly not as much as it is for the foreground elements. Shoot a scene, for example, at 70mm, and then, the mountains in the background at 200mm, and blend them together. The answer to that is an undeniable yes! This goes back to the first question: does this capture the true scene? But it also has other connotations. Is it worth it? To be honest, with this one, it was a yes, as the time spent doing it allowed me to realize that I didn't want to do it again. These areas could be clear horizon lines, grassy areas (preferably in the mid-to-distant ground), rocks, sand, or areas where the effect you are trying to achieve can be done so in such a manner that it doesn't require too much work and is indistinguishable.įor example, in the black and white image below, the blend line is the foreground grass, so think about the time involved in doing that: masking it out and painting around nearly every blade of grass. The blend lines are best done in areas where the viewer will not notice too much, if at all.
Just a little note here, these images were intentionally photographed for the tutorial to show how to achieve it, in case you were wondering why I didn't just move and get a better composition. In the tutorial example below, I've chosen to use the water as the blend line, as it played no major part in this composition and lends itself to the void between foreground, middle distance, and the castle itself. The techniques involved are fairly simple in their approach, and it's down to the individual photographer to choose when shooting where the post blend line will be. I honestly hardly ever use it, but I do use it if I feel that due to the composition, my main focus is lessened slightly, as is the case with the images below. How often this is actually done, I'm honestly not sure, but at least knowing the technique, if you don't already, is another string to your bow, and that way, you can choose carefully when you decide to use it. I'm simply going to provide you with the idea that you can do it, in some scenarios, to provide the viewer with a better idea of perhaps how you visualized the scene. It's a big question and one that is certainly up for debate, as it doesn't really capture the true scene, or does it? I honestly don't plan to try to sell you the idea that it is a perfectly ok thing to do, to change the perceived perspective of the location by utilizing the tools that you have at hand, your camera, and to provide an unreal perspective of the view you have in front of you. Focal blending: is this a technique you use, or is it one that you consider cheating?