I've been going back and forth on this and would love to hear different perspectives. When shooting aerial landscapes, how do you decide how much sky to include in your composition?

With all aerial photography, we need to think about how much sky we want in the shot, but I find myself torn between showing more of the landscape detail versus creating that sense of scale and drama that comes with including more sky.

Sometimes I feel like too much sky makes the ground subjects feel insignificant, but too little makes the shot feel cramped. What's your approach to finding that balance?

Try placing the horizon along the top or bottom third rather than straight across the middle - this adds visual interest and avoids a static, split-screen effect. The amount of sky really depends on what story you're trying to tell with the shot!

I think it totally depends on the conditions that day. Leverage the golden hours of dawn and sunset for warm, soft lighting that enhances textures and depth - experiment with manual settings to tailor exposure, aperture, and shutter speed for creative effects. If you have boring gray sky, minimize it. If you have dramatic clouds or sunset colors, make the sky the star!

A vast landscape can feel empty without a sense of scale - including a known object in your frame like a person, car, or house immediately provides context and emphasizes the grandeur and scope of the environment. I usually include more sky when I have these reference objects to show the relationship between human scale and nature.