Just got back from another weekend of wheeling and, as usual, the pictures make it look like we were on flat dirt roads rather than extremely steep hills.

EXAMPLE HERE - linked \'cause the pic is oversize

In the example, that was a very steep climb... but since the photographer aimed down the hill at the climbing truck, it looks like it's just a flat road.

Side or behind-shots like this one work pretty well:

...but there have got to be some other tricks for making these look better (particularly for front-shots.... those are the ones that always look bad).

Any advice?

I'm all ears on this one too. I have hundreds of would be great photos myself that just didn't turn out as hoped.

Any tips would really be great I am no pro but I do get lucky at times.

I'm no pro, but one thing I do (which I *think* helps) is to be sure to make the trees vertical in the picture (assuming they grow vertically). Its much more habit to frame the truck than the trees, but making sure the trees are oriented correctly in the picture helps make the picture more accurate. This is just my opinion, though. I'm not much of a photographer, but I have consciously battled against this problem. I would also like some ideas from the "pros" (you know who you are!).

Hopefully I can help on this. First, what are you shooting with? What kind of body and lens, digital or film, or are you using a point and shoot? That makes a difference in the finer points of "getting the shot".
Perhaps most important is placement. Framing is key. If you want perspective, you need to have a beginning, a middle, and an end. Is there something in the forground to anchor the rest of the picture? Trees are a good start for offroading. They go up no matter what the terrain is like. A trucks angle of climb or decent can alway be shown when compared to an up and down line in a photo, i.e. a tree. I don't think you can really do this with a dead center head on shot though. Move off to the 45 on either side and "cheat the frame" a bit. Rocks can also be used, especially tall ones.
Second, take a look at where the shot is being taken from. Are you close to the ground? Elevated? An elevated position will exagerate the flatness and you will loose perspective on the hill you are shooting. Get down low and show the rig coming at you. Again, you can cheat to one side or the other to get a better view of the truck. That takes care of the middle...your subject.
Now what's the end, or background of the composition? Open sky works really well. Cresting a hill is the best spot for this. I also like tops of trees. My last choice is shooting into woods or back onto desert scapes. There is nothing to say "look how high we are". In this case, a narrow depth of field is good. It will keep your subject in focus and blur out the backround. Use a fast shutter like 2.8-3.5 if you have it. 4.0 to 5.6 work too, but obviously not as well. Wide angles will help with this. I like using a 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 lens. Enough reach yet wide enough for most shots. I just can't risk taking my 2.8s in the field when I am driving. You can also use a ND filter to lower the f-stop and get the same effect, provided you are not using a point and shoot.
I shoot with a Canon 20D and the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens for 85 percent of my stuff. I also have a 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 IS I take with me in case I need a longer lens. Like I said, the 70-200 f/2.8 stays home with my other LS lenses. They would be sweet though.
Anyway, get as close as you can with either zoom or by moving your feet. Fill the frame as best you can while still showing the subject and anchor your subject with something in the surroundings. Don't be afraid to get on the ground to get the shot either....perspective is key here. I hope this helps.

In case anyone is wondering, I shoot pro (meaning I get paid) on the weekends.

Shooting off-road is an animal I had never tackled before and it's a bit tricky. I am still trying to figure it out myself. Good tips Editor.

The one thing I noticed is that even wider than the 28-135 would be nice. I am looking at a 10-20 Signma, I am not a sigma fan, but it's a cheap(er) lens I can take on to the trail.

BTW: I shoot a 10D.

As Editor X said, perspective is everything. All too often, one's pictures tend to appear "the same" is because your default shooting position is relative to how tall you are. If you're 6 feet tall, all of your pictures will reflect that. If the hot spot of the pic you're trying to focus on is the wheel going over a big rock, then the primary focal point isn't 6 feet tall, but more like 3 feet. So try squatting down; you'd be surprised at how different things may appear.

Context also important. A good frame of reference is key to demonstrating how steep or off-camber something may be. Good photos often depict not only their intended subject, but other elements to demonstrate the areas in front of or behind, or above or below, the subject to show depth or height. In other words, place just as much importance on showing the rock that the truck is crawling over as you would place on the truck. This will help you get your point across.

Next time you go out on a run, don't wait for a pic to come to you, go seek out spots that will lend them to exciting pics. You get out and walk parts of trails to see if you can drive them, do the same with your camera. Try standing high or low and on different angles so that every pic isn't a broadside. Pre-visualize what you'd like to see before the truck gets there, and then put yourself in a position to make it happen.

Hope that ramble sort of makes sense.

Thanks guys... some great stuff to think about there - keep it coming!

As to my camera - it's an old 2.1mp digital Sony Cybershot that I bought in '00... so pretty damn far from pro - but it's got a lot of shutter speed adjustments etc. It works really well for long night shots... the ones where I can keep it still enough (so that they aren't blurry) look great.

It is tough, especially if you don't have a "reference" in the picture. I took this picture of a truck stuck at Pismo Beach: Truck It's very difficult to see that the wall of sand in the background is almost vertical.

But when taking a picture from the side, you get a much better idea of the wicked hill that we were riding on: ATV I held onto the front bumper while he climbed off!

Picture taking is definitely an art. I tend to be more autistic than artistic.

I find that to give the best sense of upward or downward steepness for those types of shots, include more scenery by not filling the frame completely with the subject.

You will get better shots if your subject is above you than below when shooting on steep hills. So, position the subject near the top of the frame, with as much "hill/scenery/etc." at the bottom as possible.

Moab 1:


If you're above the subject, the steepness will be less noticeable unless you shoot from the side, where you should try to keep the camera as level as possible. It's easy to unintentionally make the subject more level in the frame, so sometimes overcompensating to exaggerate the steepness can help, too.

Moab 2:


Note in this pic, the trees are slightly non-vertical to exaggerate the slope:


However, in this picture, the trees are non-vertical in the other direction, which minimizes the true slope:


If you must be directly above the subject, use a wider angle, and include more background. This pic from the "Xtreme Action" thread in the Pictures forum is a good example:



Kaiser- In your example of the truck coming up the steep trail through the trees, it could have been made a more convincing shot by:
1) using a wider angle
2) placing the truck closer to the bottom left of the frame to capture more (vertical) trees
3) crouching down closer to the ground when shooting so you could make the camera more "level"
4) standing more to the side, rather than head-on.

XPLORx4 makes a good point. Something that I thought about putting into my original response, but decided against due to all the technical stuff in there....and it was getting long.

What he is talking about is called the rule of thirds. The best shots (take a look at National Geographic for example...and no not the naked shots of bush people) leave some of the environment in the frame. Usually the frame is divided into thirds, either horizontally or vertically, and the subject is placed to one side of center frame. The MOAB1 shot in an above post is a great example of this. It not only anchors the subject in the frame and gives a good perspective, but also gives a sense of direction the X is traveling. It's the basis of what is called "environmental portraiture". You have to show your subject in and interacting with its environment. In our case, an Xterra on the trail.

The IS (Image stabilization) feature on my lenses is hard to give up on the trail. They also allow me to shoot a couple of stops faster in low light without the use of a flash.

I find that for a point and shooter, if they want to make an instant improvement....do not aim the camera at the truck....it makes the ground between the truck and camera appear to be level, as in shooting down at your buddy coming up a steep hill...

You shoot down at his truck spinning and struggling to make it up, and it looks like he's on a level dirt road...

If you hold the camera level, and put the truck at the top or bottom of the pic, so you see the roof, etc, and the terrain above/below, it becomes more obvious that he is on a steep hill, as the perspective is corrected.



The Ansul Adams thirds composition thing is nice too, but maybe harder for a point and shooter to incorporate.

I have the same 28-135 IS. It's a great lens and it's my carry glass. But with the 1.6 crop factor, it's just not wide enough. Canon does make a 17-85 IS, but it's an EF-S mount and won't work in my 10D. Besides, with full frame becoming reasonable, the EF-S mount I think will be short lived.

I currently have a 5D sitting on my desk. It's a co-workers but I'm going to give it a try.

Full frame is good for certain things. I do a lot of portraits as well as sporting events. The 35-128 is my general purpose lens. Generally I use my 50mm f/1.4 for portaits or my 70-200 f/2.8 if my subject does not looking at him or herself in the glass. I can step back with this lens and they relax. Other than that I really like my 100-400 for sports and animal subjects. Being on the 20D body, it acts more like a 600mm lens and I still get 5fps for my sports stuff and I can shoot a burst of 25 frames or so when not in RAW. The 5D only get's 3 I think when not in RAW. I don't know when it is. It's just not practicle for me at this point and I can think of better ways to blow 11 grand on a MarkII 1D. 8.5 fps at full frame would be cool though. What I really like about the 20D is the exposure and white balance bracketing as well as the abillity to store both RAW and JPEG files on a single shot.

Found a link that may be of some interest to help people understand the differences between focal lengths a bit. Though it's an older publication, it does a decent job of explaining -- relatively simply, I might add -- the differences between various focal lengths and the popular "whys" for using them.

Years ago, Canon put out a great book called "Lenswork." It's been out of print for a long time, but the author shows examples of the same image as taken using varying focal lengths, 50 mm vs. 85 for portraits, etc. The link below is from a fan site for the old manual focus Canon cameras.

http://www.canonfd.com/lenswork.htm

Hope this helps.

This is good advice - make sure the horizon is horizontal and your trees are vertical. That will emphasize the angle, especially in side shots. Shooting from down low is a good thing too, again be sure your horizon stays horizontal.