I was recently at Yosemite National Park, and every time (been there many times) I am in awe of El Capitan's sheer size; however, when I take a picture of the mountain it always looks so unimpressive. Can you please explain to me why is that the case? And how to correct this effect?
Artistically, it's probably worth looking at Adams when discussing El Capitan (and perhaps in many other discussions regarding the art of photography).
In general, Adams put an extraordinary amount of effort into designing his photograph and to convey El Capitan's scale in the example photo. It dominates, but does not fill, the vista. The river and trees of the valley force the perspective at the human scale. The bluffs beyond force the perspective at the geologic scale.http://www.afterimagegallery.com/adamsportf3elcapitan.jpg
Technically, the ability of his camera to shift the lens allows placing the center of the geometric perspective in lower portion of the frame. This emphasizes the height. Finally, vertical framing allows the hard edges of the image to reinforce the verticality of the subject.
If you want something to look impressive, don't make it a little thing in the middle of a big picture. Frame to make it dominate the picture:
This is your picture with much of the distracting fluff cropped out. It let's El Capitan stand out and appear much bigger than in your original.
Also keep things out of the picture that compete for dominance. That big tree in front seriously detracts from El Capitan looking big, because it is so big in the picture itself. The trees closer to the base of the rock are actually good since they give a sense of scale without getting in the way. However, the tree in front does get in the way.
So the answer is good framing and overall composition.
Normally, the landscape pictures we make are 2 dimensional replicas of 3 dimensional scenes (exceptions noted). Because they are just 2 dimensional images, we must somehow create an illusion of depth. In the art world, this is called “perspective”. To achieve we must place the camera where it will capture a view that conveys a feeling of depth. This is not easy. We depend on the location and size of shadows to convey an illusion of depth. We include foreground objects of known size so that viewers can visualize the true scale of the background. The casual snap shooter often gets it right; however, often this is just dumb luck. Skilled photography is an acquired talent that comes from studying. This image was taken by the self-timer on a point-and- shoot. Alan & Maxine Marcus
First, thank you for reading and answering my question. Perhaps “unimpressive” was the wrong word choice. I am not looking to beautify my picture. I am only curious as to why do mountains such as the El Capitan look so epic, and grand in size, that in the very moment you cannot believe something that big could exist in the first place. Even with the foreground dominating our view in person, we still get the sense of its grandeur, but all that changes once you take a picture of it. I chose the picture I posted because it represents an ordinary view of the mountain with no cropping, framing, composing, or implementing any photography technics… it is what most of us witness and get blown away by it in person, and yet not in a picture.
After some reflection, I came to the conclusion that it ultimately boils down to scale and perspective, but with a caveat. Even though the foreground helps to give a sense of size, it does not have as much of an impact as objects that are at the same distance as the subject of our photograph. These objects often go unnoticed in a picture because they are undetectable, they just look like dark patches and dots:
However, in person we clearly detect these smaller objects from a far distance and get a sense of true scale:
In the following picture the orange colored trees are more detectable and give us a sense of true scale:
Ultimately, I think what we visually register as size is the comparison of these smaller objects that are at the same distance as the subject of our view, which often go unnoticed in a picture.
The other answers are spot on, but I would suggest that the simple answer to your question is that you used a wide angle lens and aimed the camera up to include a lot of sky, a combination which distorts perspective. Keep the camera more parallel with the subject and try a larger focal length (including less of the rest of the mountains and more of just the face of El Capitan).
As was learned by ‘Old’ naval hydrographers when they drew sketches at the bottom of their charts showing the view of approaching islands where they would accentuate the height by some 20 to 30 percent. The resulting image would then more accurately represent the view as seen by human eye and interpreted by the human brain.
Take as an example one of your ‘Hill or Mountain Range’ photographs and, unclicking the Box which maintains the ratio of Vertical to Horizontal pixels, increase the Height Pixels by varying amounts until the picture more clearly represents ‘Your Memory’ of the scene.
Although this is perhaps most appropriate for pictures without people in the foreground, the increased height pixel effect will actually have a slightly slimming and pleasant effect on them which will not really be noticeable.