Bare Sky? Golf Course Photography Thread

[Ronald Montesano]

One of the my desired characteristics of golf course photography is balance. The photographer finds a way, through framing or editing, to focus on a primary target and balance it with other aspects. As I've perused this year's submissions for the POTY and the B Sides, I've noticed that the ones that appeal to me most eliminate (with a few exceptions that I'll get to) excessive sky.

Since a golf course photo should include golf course, I've come to avoid too much sky whenever possible. I suspect that I want 1/4 sky at most, ideally at the top of the image. There have been some wonderful photos put up in recent weeks that cannot comply with this principle, as the colors or clouds in the sky are too stunning to eliminate.

Have you an opinion on this notion, or any other aspect of golf course photography? By way of correlation, I find that walking/driving a course with a camera ahead of time (or in place of playing) prepares me to play the course in an unequaled way (or makes me long to play courses that I won't get to play) and helps me to uncover architectural subtleties that I might have missed while playing.

[Ruediger Meyer]

I think it depends on the day. If you have a completely blue or grey sky, I would agree with you. But if you have scattered clouds it adds tremendously to the picture in my opinion

[Ronald Montesano]

Thanks, Ruediger. Does it add to the picture as a picture or to the picture as a golf course picture?

[Adam Lawrence]

Light makes photographs, and light comes from the sky. You can overemphasise sky - someone once told me a particular photographer was more interested in skies than he was in golf courses - but without the colour and contrast that a great sky gives a pic, it's likely to look flat and uninteresting. However great the golf course.

This is akin, imo, to the 'is the ocean part of the golf hole' debate. Technically it's not, but it's pretty damned hard to ignore. Same with skies in photos.

[Ruediger Meyer]

I guess both. As we all know a good golf course picture is all about the lighting which I never get right in mine because I'm too lazy to get up at 5 in the morning when I'm on vacation   But having clouds and the shadows they bring with them is the next best thing...

[Ronald Montesano]

Light makes photographs...but without the colour and contrast that a great sky gives a pic, it's likely to look flat and uninteresting. However great the golf course.

Adam...I don't know if I completely agree. Just because light comes from the sky, doesn't mean it stays there. The light illuminates the ground, the trees and everything else for the photographer, but it doesn't need to be captured as sky. I've always enjoyed the photography on your site.

[Sean_A]

Ronald

As a rank amateur trying to showcase a golf course, I tend to go for 20-35% sky depending on whatever. 

Ciao

[Mike Benham]

Rule of thirds, both vertically and horizontally.  Most likely the horizon will either be at the bottom third or upper third line.

Sounds like Ronald likes the horizon at the upper third line.

[Wayne_Freedman]

Excellent philosophical question to which there may be no clear-cut answer.

IMHO, an image  should call attention to the eye of a photographer, not his hand.
Within that framework he can be artistic and interpretive as long as he retains that balance you spoke about.

Put simply: Learn the rules before effectively breaking them.

[Tom Dunne]

Interesting topic. Ron, I'll tell you who would disagree with you--magazine art directors. Those folks love skies because they can place heds, deks and display copy in that open space. I like skies because I think they help communicate mood/atmosphere/sense of place. I often "take notes" with my camera when I'm working on a story, shooting features and details from all kinds of unstudied angles. And then every once in a while I get something that I think is half-decent. I suspect a major difference between the pro and the amateur is that the pro knows in the moment when he/she has really nailed a shot, because they've either planned for it or been ready for it. That doesn't happen for me very often.

[Bill_McBride]

For guidance just look at any Aidan Bradley photo.   .  I think he's the master. 

[Joe Bausch]

I'm waiting for iPhoto to have a simple feature "add wispy white clouds" to a photo with a high blue sky. 

[Matt Bosela]

Rule of thirds, both vertically and horizontally.  Most likely the horizon will either be at the bottom third or upper third line.

Sounds like Ronald likes the horizon at the upper third line.

I've always subscribed to this notion.  Horizon/sky from the upper third has always been my "stock shot" but after seeing some of the great photos in the other thread, I'm starting to think I should move into the other direction and have two-thirds of the photo showing the sky.

And Tom Dunne's points about magazines "wanting more sky" makes perfect sense as well.  

[Pete_Pittock]

When I googled 'horizon line photography' it pointed out that the horizon line also acts as an anchor point for the rest of the picture. I try to go 2/3 land and 1/3 sky unless the sky is worth emphasizing, especially in golf course architecture photography..  

[Garland Bayley]

When I googled 'horizon line photography' it pointed out that the horizon line also acts as an anchor point for the rest of the picture. I try to go 2/3 land and 1/3 sky unless the sky is woth emphasizing, especially in golf course architecture photography..  

I concur.

[Jason Topp]

I have typically gone for half and half after getting feedback from Mr. Naccarato that most pictures have too little sky.  

What I really try to avoid is too much boring ground near the camera, such as the front of a tee.  I would rather have too much sky than too much tee box.

[Jason Topp]

To my eye - the pictures with a lot of sky in this Erin Hills profile look better than those where the sky is cut off. 

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/erin-hills/

[Jeff Taylor]

Quoting Ron:
"One of the my desired characteristics of golf course photography is balance."

Sky can be part of what is being balanced or it can be the result of other objects being balanced. It depends on what I am trying to show you.

In the first shot, I needed more sky to act as a direct balance to the size of the bunker. The flag holds the two halves of the image together.


Shot # 2 was an attempt to balance the flags in the outside thirds. Everything else comes from that. It is coincidence that the sand and sky take up the same amount of space in the image.


Lastly, I wanted to contrast the size of the structures. Again the sky decision was made for me.

[Joe Bausch]

I have typically gone for half and half after getting feedback from Mr. Naccarato that most pictures have too little sky.  

What I really try to avoid is too much boring ground near the camera, such as the front of a tee.  I would rather have too much sky than too much tee box.

So you also got a message from Tommy in all caps saying "we know what grass looks like!"?!

 

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting, Ron - I don't know photography but I know what i like, and I guess the answer for me is 'it depends'. I've seen some photos where a lot of sky helps situate not only the golf hole but the entire course in a particlaur place - the sky off the coast of Oregon vs the sky on the US plains (or in Texas) vs the sky on the east coast vs the sky off the British coast. I might be imagining it, but the skies look and feel differently (maybe the course itself reflects back and changes the sky), and so sometimes when a photo shows a golf hole in seeming harmony with that sky, it makes the hole and the course look even better (if that's the goal of the picture).

As I say, I don't know photography, so take that for what it's worth

Peter

[Tim_Cronin]

Quoting:  I suspect that I want 1/4 sky at most, ideally at the top of the image.

That's the best place for it! (I know this is on the site somewhere, but how does one go about posting photos here?)

[Ronald Montesano]

Tim,
Click the link at the bottom of my post, about posting images.

Ron M.

[Garland Bayley]

Good job RonMon

[Ulrich Mayring]

If you stand on an elevated tee and take a straight facing shot, you'll have lots of sky in the picture. If you stand on an uphill fairway and take a straight facing shot, you'll have little sky and lots of ground.

Therefore, if you take pictures of a golf course and want to show the undulations correctly, you need to include the correct amount of sky.

Ulrich

[Wayne_Freedman]

Essentially, we're shooting landscapes with 'targets' in them.

My rules…show the flag. Ideally, it's blowing, and white or read.

Stay true to the architecture, or at least a golfer's view. Show the hole and strategy. Anybody can make a pretty frame with a flag.
The trick is to make it meaningful. Sometimes, a compression shot works best. Other times, an extreme wide angle does the trick

Shoot raw if you can.

Shoot early in the morning or in late afternoon.

If your shot has sunshine and shade, white balance to the warm side.

Also:  better to mute colors than oversaturate them. Add contrast often. Brochures are filled with too damn many layered and saturated shots of 'perfect' golf holes.

Get as much elevation as you can. I almost always carry a small, Canon S100 in my bag, attached to a 56-inch monopod.
Use the delay. Set it to shutter three frames. Let 'em go. Check, adjust, and go again. If really serious, I'll pull out the big camera  and stand atop a golf cart for the 'eye of God' view. But not for long. It's kinda scary.


Last rule::::: pack oxygen.