Steve Bellayr
Veteran
Years ago I stopped taking landscapes/cityscapes. But, three years ago I started takeing landscapes/cityscapes again. Today, I watched my wife look through my photos. She flipped past them without looking. This happens all the time with all my relatives and friends. However, when it comes to photos of people (even ones that they do not know) they stop and look for a long time. Does this happen to your? In essence, since I am not wandering around the world a la Ansel Adams or Brett Weston why do I need to take photos of landscapes? Have you had similar experiences?
Tuolumne
Veteran
People appreciate my landscapes/cityscapes, but they still don't spend much time looking at them.
/T
/T
MickH
Well-known
Yep.
I take photographs of all sorts of stuff that only interest me: half arsed landscapes, architecture and so on. When Mrs H, or anyone else looks at them the reaction seems to be "Why?", even though they know the answer... I take pictures of what I like.
The snaps I take of friends and family ALWAYS go down well, even if they are technically poor. There's a level of connection in those pictures to a third party: faces, cute children, strange haircut or whatever, that transcends the photograph itself and makes a "human" connection.
I could hold my camera above my head right now & take an autofocus snap of Mrs H watching Iss Jungle Se Mujhe Bachao on Sony TV, with the little'un fast asleep on the sofa next to her, which would make more sense to most folk than the multi-frame panorama I took several years ago of an ironworks framed by a cloudy sky above and a motorway below, which is my personal favourite.
FPjohn
Well-known
I know people who do not see landscapes let alone appreciate photographs of them.
yours
FPJ
yours
FPJ
Last edited:
jbf
||||||
If your asking yourself that, then maybe you dont or shouldnt? I dont know.
In any artist/photographer (sometimes synonymous, sometimes not)/architect/designer/etc lifetime they notice patterns of their work. things that really stick and stand out among the rest. Its all about finding your voice and what it is that you are drawn to and what it is that you impulsively do and cannot stop from doing.
When you find that, you find your voice. personally that is what i feel makes an artists work really mean something. something inside should compell you to do it, should stick out at you, and make you really really love the work.
of course you also have to be your worst critic. dont settle for anything. you must have that constant yearning to better yourself and grow.
if you are never satisfied with the work your doing, then probably, you are doing something very right.
what camera, what film, what medium. none of these things matter. they are all a means to an end. they should be viewed as tools and tools alone. simply a way to make your vision, your ideas, your creativity--that aparition inside of you that you cannot control--a reality.
In any artist/photographer (sometimes synonymous, sometimes not)/architect/designer/etc lifetime they notice patterns of their work. things that really stick and stand out among the rest. Its all about finding your voice and what it is that you are drawn to and what it is that you impulsively do and cannot stop from doing.
When you find that, you find your voice. personally that is what i feel makes an artists work really mean something. something inside should compell you to do it, should stick out at you, and make you really really love the work.
of course you also have to be your worst critic. dont settle for anything. you must have that constant yearning to better yourself and grow.
if you are never satisfied with the work your doing, then probably, you are doing something very right.
what camera, what film, what medium. none of these things matter. they are all a means to an end. they should be viewed as tools and tools alone. simply a way to make your vision, your ideas, your creativity--that aparition inside of you that you cannot control--a reality.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
I appreciate your answers. Is it similar to the question: Why does a poor picture of a famous person gather more attention than a great photograph of an unknown individual? Do we (general public) only want to look at what we recognize?
pmun
Established
Steve, yes I think people are more drawn to faces, it's something they are most familiar with and feel comfortable with. I think there's something deeply frustrating about looking at photographs anyway (by deeply I mean, not obviously or consciously so): We are invited into a convincing reality only to be denied it by the flatness of the plane and the limit of the border. Hence people tend to look for something familiar and comfortable.
Myself, I actually use this aspect of photography to create tension. If you want your photographs to be popular among a lot of people, then portraits or anything stunning is the way to go. If you want to explore the medium and it's potential, innovate, then you shouldn't worry about the subject matter.
Of course you might want to steer you ship between these two poles.
www.urbanpaths.net
Myself, I actually use this aspect of photography to create tension. If you want your photographs to be popular among a lot of people, then portraits or anything stunning is the way to go. If you want to explore the medium and it's potential, innovate, then you shouldn't worry about the subject matter.
Of course you might want to steer you ship between these two poles.
www.urbanpaths.net
Last edited:
peterm1
Veteran
I too very much like to take city scapes. Check out the earlier photos in this series.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/80702381@N00/sets/72157610362797162/
And like you it has been my experience that no one else takes much interest. Its particularly noticeable on Flickr as the later people photos get hundreds of hits by comparison with the other shots of city scapes and buildings. What draws me are the patterns and reflections. I find this endlessly fascinating. I am less into landscapes but still enjoy them
http://www.flickr.com/photos/80702381@N00/sets/72157610362797162/
And like you it has been my experience that no one else takes much interest. Its particularly noticeable on Flickr as the later people photos get hundreds of hits by comparison with the other shots of city scapes and buildings. What draws me are the patterns and reflections. I find this endlessly fascinating. I am less into landscapes but still enjoy them
fixbones
.......sometimes i thinks
Well, i enjoy shooting landscapes as much as street/people. Both have their one set of challenges and it brings me great satisfaction whenever i get good results. So far, i find that my pictures from either genre gets equal recognition from friends/family.
chris000
Landscaper
I think people who are interested in Landscape are interested in Landscape photos.
The only thing I hate more than having to look through scores of photos of people I don't know is having to look through holiday snaps full of landscape but all with people in the middle obscuring it.
I do enjoy portraits where I feel they are telling me something about the subject, but that is difficult to achieve and so few manage to really achieve it.
The only thing I hate more than having to look through scores of photos of people I don't know is having to look through holiday snaps full of landscape but all with people in the middle obscuring it.
I do enjoy portraits where I feel they are telling me something about the subject, but that is difficult to achieve and so few manage to really achieve it.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
The problem with landscapes is that eventually you start thinking, "Oh, my, another rock, another tree." 
chris000
Landscaper
The problem with landscapes is that eventually you start thinking, "Oh, my, another rock, another tree."
..... another nose, another pair of eyes .....
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Yeah, but people tend to be more interested in another nose, another pair of eyes than another landscape. I guess we relate better to other people than to rocks.
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
Perhaps the subject itself is insufficient and something more needs to draw the interest of the viewer. Consider the factors that you control in the process and what might make the resulting image more appealing, ie. perspective, DOF, contrasts, post processing, print size etc.
chris000
Landscaper
Oh I don't know, I meet some people and think that I'd rather have a conversation with a rock or a tree ... but I'm prepared to concede that I probably suffer from a deeply flawed personality
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
I hope you do not take my answer as harsh but I always had the feeling that landscapes are usually taken by most amateur photographers because they are the obvious thing to do.
No permissions or chance to argue like with people portraits, no models like in fashion, no expensive telephoto + restricted access like with sport, no lighting like in still life and you can go out a day and get some shot for sure unlike for example with wildlife which to be of good level requires infinite patience.
Also some type of picture is perceived as "professional": things like products or food photography is usually thought to be done only under order by "pros" and when one think to sport one always imagine that it should be a picture of the premier league or that of a F1 car or it would turn out to be a bad picture.
I started with a lot of landscapes, which I now think were very very boring (my landscapes, not landscapes in general) and eventually went to products photography. After some time I decided that there are better ways to make a living but I still now enjoy much more a night at the still life table rather than going around with a camera around the neck. Sometimes, if I go to a trip instead of taking a lot of pictures I collect a lot of small stuff like empty cans, tickets, rocks...and take picture of them at home with proper light and a view camera.
I think more amateur should go into different patterns than the usual "Let's go out on Saturday to take pictures". I had a friend (now I lost the contact) who used to shot fashion and nudes better than most pros only with friends as models and know of another chap (the miracle of internet!) who take sport pictures at school events with great results and they both seemed to share the same feeling that the first time you do this you feel strange but after that you see how much there to do!
GLF
No permissions or chance to argue like with people portraits, no models like in fashion, no expensive telephoto + restricted access like with sport, no lighting like in still life and you can go out a day and get some shot for sure unlike for example with wildlife which to be of good level requires infinite patience.
Also some type of picture is perceived as "professional": things like products or food photography is usually thought to be done only under order by "pros" and when one think to sport one always imagine that it should be a picture of the premier league or that of a F1 car or it would turn out to be a bad picture.
I started with a lot of landscapes, which I now think were very very boring (my landscapes, not landscapes in general) and eventually went to products photography. After some time I decided that there are better ways to make a living but I still now enjoy much more a night at the still life table rather than going around with a camera around the neck. Sometimes, if I go to a trip instead of taking a lot of pictures I collect a lot of small stuff like empty cans, tickets, rocks...and take picture of them at home with proper light and a view camera.
I think more amateur should go into different patterns than the usual "Let's go out on Saturday to take pictures". I had a friend (now I lost the contact) who used to shot fashion and nudes better than most pros only with friends as models and know of another chap (the miracle of internet!) who take sport pictures at school events with great results and they both seemed to share the same feeling that the first time you do this you feel strange but after that you see how much there to do!
GLF
KenR
Well-known
When in Rome...
When in Rome...
When I go on a hiking vacation (just returned from Waterton-Glacier NP) there aren't many people, so I do landscapes. When I'm in a city with lots of interesting people, I do street photos. Perhaps because of this flexiblity, I'm not good at either one. Once I was asked if I take pictures of flowers, and I had to stop and think. "Actually no," I replied, "I don't think that I ever have purposely gone out to take pictures of flowers. But give me an old delapidated wearhouse and I'm in photo heaven." To each his own.
When in Rome...
When I go on a hiking vacation (just returned from Waterton-Glacier NP) there aren't many people, so I do landscapes. When I'm in a city with lots of interesting people, I do street photos. Perhaps because of this flexiblity, I'm not good at either one. Once I was asked if I take pictures of flowers, and I had to stop and think. "Actually no," I replied, "I don't think that I ever have purposely gone out to take pictures of flowers. But give me an old delapidated wearhouse and I'm in photo heaven." To each his own.
wgerrard
Veteran
I'm interested in shapes, texture, tone, contrast, color, etc. Sometimes that means people. More often, it does not. It's human nature to be intrigued by images of other people. But, the response is to the person, especially a recognizable person, and not to the qualities of the photo itself
That's why, when we are old and grey, our emotional needle will be pegged when we see an indifferent photo of family from decades earlier, but our intellectual needle will vibrate when we are shown an interesting photo.
That's why, when we are old and grey, our emotional needle will be pegged when we see an indifferent photo of family from decades earlier, but our intellectual needle will vibrate when we are shown an interesting photo.
