Less is more: Why I reach for my telephoto more than my wide

Sometimes I’m in front of a beautiful landscape and reach for the wide angle without thinking. There’s a lot to see, and I want to fit it all in.

I photographed this scene in the morning twilight, before sunrise. With the RF 15–35mm, I included the mountain, the sky, the water and the rocks along the shore in front of me.

But looking at the image, the orange trees that interested me are quite small. The foreground takes up a lot of space without adding much. My eye moves around the frame instead of settling on the island.

If I came home with only this photograph, it would probably sit forgotten on a hard drive. Or I’d delete it. Including more of the place hadn’t made the photograph better.

With the RF 100–500mm, I could zoom in and leave those distractions out. The trees and their reflection became the subject, with the mountainside filling the background.

It feels more intimate. I can see the shapes of the trees, the gaps between them and their colour reflected in the water. There’s less in the frame, but I spend more time looking at it.

And leaving things out gives me something to wonder about. The landscape continues beyond the edges. I don’t need to show all of it.

That’s why I often reach for my telephoto. I can explore the landscape through the viewfinder, looking for a picture within the picture. A group of trees, a reflection, a small patch of light. Things that might get lost in the wider view become photographs of their own.

I still use my wide angle when the foreground adds something to the composition. In this scene, though, including more took attention away from what interested me.

Have you ever included so much of a landscape that you lost the part that made you stop?

For me, this was one of those times when less is more.