Landscape criticisms

[Sparrow]

OK what’s the point, no matter what you do or where you go landscapes are inevitably boring, made perfectly by an expert or badly by amateur without people or the artefacts of people all landscape photography is boring.

If fact they fit right in there at number two of my “pointless list” just behind sunsets and in front of wildlife with “autumn colour” close behind that, I suppose that’s why I like the RFF galleries; they have a mercifully small proportion

 

[Nick R.]

I guess those shots from the Mars Rover don't do it for you, then?

 

[Sparrow]

I guess those shots from the Mars Rover don't do it for you, then?

Well….yes but the colour’s worse than the m8, and you could argue its sort of an artefacts of man, they’re still boring as “art” or would be if you matched the colours to Montana

 

[markinlondon]

What, worse than macro pictures of bumble bees' eyeballs 😉 ?
I think it's all down to the fact that when you look at real landscape your brain processes not only the view, but all the details in the scene as well. Film can't do that so the photo only captures the "view" and the details are lost, leading to a lack of "interest". I have to agree with you to a certain extent on this one, Stewart, but find myself incapable of avoiding some "landscape photography".
I find the stultified AP/camera club idea of landscape mind-numbingly dull though.
Oh no, it's that cottage in Glen Coe again :bang: :bang:

 

[DougK]

I'm not really what you would call a "people person" so I find the vast majority of people photos boring and uninteresting. I guess from that perspective I could call people photos "pointless". It's all in what you like. I happen to like landscape and architectural photography.

Also, I don't have to have hair-trigger relexes to capture my subjects... trees and rocks don't generally move too quickly. If they are moving that quickly, I'm definitely in the wrong place. 🙂

 

[Sparrow]

What, worse than macro pictures of bumble bees' eyeballs 😉 ?
I think it's all down to the fact that when you look at real landscape your brain processes not only the view, but all the details in the scene as well. Film can't do that so the photo only captures the "view" and the details are lost, leading to a lack of "interest". I have to agree with you to a certain extent on this one, Stewart, but find myself incapable of avoiding some "landscape photography".
I find the stultified AP/camera club idea of landscape mind-numbingly dull though.
Oh no, it's that cottage in Glen Coe again :bang: :bang:

I agree it is difficult not “doing landscape, I do I’m bored with the results and don’t print them!! Yes and Macro, ya can nod-off to those

 

[Sparrow]

I'm not really what you would call a "people person" so I find the vast majority of people photos boring and uninteresting. I guess from that perspective I could call people photos "pointless". It's all in what you like. I happen to like landscape and architectural photography.

Also, I don't have to have hair-trigger relexes to capture my subjects... trees and rocks don't generally move too quickly. If they are moving that quickly, I'm definitely in the wrong place. 🙂

So why are there more photos of man or the works of man in your gallery than pure nature?

 

[Todd.Hanz]

It's easy to take a landscape, it's much harder to take one well.

I had the opportunity to see a few of Ansel Adams prints yesterday, some Westons, Dorthea Lange and others. "Moonrise over Hernandez" was really amazing in person, much different than what you see in the books. The print has a depth that's hard to explain without seeing it.

A few months ago I had the opportunity to travel through British Columbia, from Prince Rupert to Vancouver. If there ever was a place that would make me want to buy a 8x10 view camera and shoot landscapes this place is it, absolutely stunning!

I also made the drive through the Badlands of South Dakota, tried my hand at some Landscape photography there, man did I suck at that. I wanted to throw my cameras away after I got those proofs back.

I guess it's different strokes for different folks!

Todd

 

[LazyHammock]

I agree there are a lot of dull landscape photographs out there but I would say that is true of all genres. I'm tired of seeing pictures posted of people on the street with little regard to composition or a "decisive moment" all in the name of "street photography". I like to try my hand at most types of photography and I got my start by trying to capture landscapes. It is a very skilful photographer that can translate the sheer majesty and emotion of certain landscapes into a photograph. I'm clearly nowhere near yet but still trying.
Cheers,
Nick

 

[kaiyen]

I agree with a sentiment expressed by Nick here - it's just as hard to get a truly good street photo as a landscape one. And there are a lot of mediocre street shots out there - probably just as many as mediocre landscape ones. The problem, perhaps, is that there are _too_ many examples out there, really well known ones, of tremendous landscape shots - Adams and Weston for big names, Shaw, Lanting, and Wolfe for some more recent names. So you have those out there, you know them, youv'e seen them...and then you look at your own.

But it's not like every photo in here that is a street photo is all that good - let's be honest. I've taken maybe 20 rolls of "street" stuff, and I'm happy with 1 frame. _1_.

allan

 

[Nikon Bob]

This is interesting after just having read a post on not understanding street photograhpy. Might it be that we are not very good 100% of the time at what we like to photograph combined with viewers that don't much care for a particular style of photography. Each to their own and don't look if you don't like. Every form of photgraphy has been done before and by someone better than you, at times, but why give up trying and miss the fun.

Bob

 

[DougK]

So why are there more photos of man or the works of man in your gallery than pure nature?

I don't limit the definition of "landscape" to "photos which don't include anything made by man". In today's modern world, that would be hard to do. I'm OK with "urban landscapes" in addition to traditional landscape shots, I'm just not a big people-shot person (of which I have exactly one in my RFF gallery).

In my Yahoo gallery I do have a few more people shots because that's where my vacation and casual snapshots go.

EDIT: I cleaned up this post for grammatical clarity.

 

[Sparrow]

It's easy to take a landscape, it's much harder to take one well.

I had the opportunity to see a few of Ansel Adams prints yesterday, some Westons, Dorthea Lange and others. "Moonrise over Hernandez" was really amazing in person, much different than what you see in the books. The print has a depth that's hard to explain without seeing it.

A few months ago I had the opportunity to travel through British Columbia, from Prince Rupert to Vancouver. If there ever was a place that would make me want to buy a 8x10 view camera and shoot landscapes this place is it, absolutely stunning!

I also made the drive through the Badlands of South Dakota, tried my hand at some Landscape photography there, man did I suck at that. I wanted to throw my cameras away after I got those proofs back.

I guess it's different strokes for different folks!

Todd

Yes but even the best, top notch landscape exhibition starts to get tedious after you’ve got used to the technical perfection, where as with people even with a poor one at lease there’s something to look at

 

[markinlondon]

I don't limit the category of "landscape" to "photos which don't include anything made by man". It also doesn't mean that I don't shoot people shots, they are just not my favorite thing to do. Sometimes those were the ones that came out well so they went into the gallery.

I think it's very difficult even in "pure" landscape photography to avoid the works of man. Here in the UK the downlands of southern England are most definitely manmade (neolithic slash and burn) as is anything involving agricultural land.

 

[venchka]

...I had the opportunity to see a few of Ansel Adams prints yesterday, some Westons, Dorthea Lange and others. "Moonrise over Hernandez" was really amazing in person, much different than what you see in the books. The print has a depth that's hard to explain without seeing it.

...I also made the drive through the Badlands of South Dakota, tried my hand at some Landscape photography there, man did I suck at that. I wanted to throw my cameras away after I got those proofs back.

I guess it's different strokes for different folks!

Todd

Todd,

Were the prints in Houston? Still in Houston? Where?

Boy am I glad to hear someone else say that. I thought I had a lock on that skill. Or lack there of.

 

[DougK]

I think it's very difficult even in "pure" landscape photography to avoid the works of man. Here in the UK the downlands of southern England are most definitely manmade (neolithic slash and burn) as is anything involving agricultural land.

Agreed. I used to try and eliminate every power line, etc. when I shot and then finally gave up... otherwise where I live I wouldn't shoot very many places. Man-made things can be interesting as well, but for some reason I'm just not that interested by people themselves.

 

[LazyHammock]

power lines

power lines

Agreed. I used to try and eliminate every power line, etc. when I shot and then finally gave up...

That is funny - I did the same, more recently I've been working on a project where I deliberately leave the power lines etc in the picture and actually focus on them and leave what would traditionally be the subject slightly out of focus.

 

[venchka]

Tell me this man's work is boring.

GeeBee Photo

 

[DougK]

Cool link, thanks for sharing! That's some excellent work.

 

[Sparrow]

Tell me this man's work is boring.

GeeBee Photo

OK but if that was an exhibition the shot of the guy putting the poster up would be the one used in the advertising!! And if you took “people pics” out of that site it would be less interesting, whereas if you took the landscapes out it would just be smaller