Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Why I don't post landscapes

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

iancrowson
iancrowson e2 Member 4211 forum postsiancrowson vcard United Kingdom129 Constructive Critique Points
5 Feb 2013 - 11:39 PM

Depends what you mean by landscape, the winning image in this years Landscape photographer of the year was a photo of some tenement buildings. No getting up in the middle of the night, driving 200 miles, walking 20 miles through bogs carrying Kú5 of heavy gear, and sitting in the cold waiting for sunrise.
The first winning entry was of course disqualified for going beyond the limits of allowed manipulation.
Actually look through the awarded entries in the book and you will see some were taken on outdated cameras you could pick up second hand for a few hundred quid.
Everyone to their own, magazines have promoted the idea that a land scape photo should be a pile of rocks, milky water and something senic beyond. Yes boring to many.
Ian

Last Modified By iancrowson at 5 Feb 2013 - 11:40 PM
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
5 Feb 2013 - 11:39 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

KathyW
KathyW  111793 forum posts Norfolk Island12 Constructive Critique Points
6 Feb 2013 - 12:52 AM

Photograph whatever you like, I'm sure no one will mind. I like taking landscapes, but mine are of places that nobody else photographs much, and 90% of them are within walking distance of home.

Not got two the same though, and I am pretty sure there is a better shot to be had. Always looking for that moment when the light is perfect and everything comes together at the right time...

Sure, landscapes are really easy... just point your camera at it and shoot it. Tongue

Ray12
Ray12 e2 Member 175 forum postsRay12 vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
6 Feb 2013 - 5:08 AM

I have loads of landscape pictures, but to get some of them thay cost me a arm & leg not forgetting blood, sweat, and tears, thay are of the Himalayars, so many many people will have the same shots, but to me thay are pricless, so much so that i am going back to get some more in April as i am going to do the Annapurna Circuit and if i have time i would like to go to Lukla.
I will put a few in my portfolio if people would like to look.

brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110288 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
6 Feb 2013 - 7:26 AM

Hmm, by this argument, life has been lived before so there is no point in living mine?

On the other hand, no one has lived MY life before, so I will go out and enjoy making my own mistakes in my own way Grin

(What goes round comes around could be another way of looking at it, but why bother, just have fun)

digicammad
digicammad  1121988 forum posts United Kingdom37 Constructive Critique Points
6 Feb 2013 - 8:05 AM

I'm not sure why spending a few weeks in Skye or owning a campervan is seen as something only the wealthy can afford to do. Yes they perhaps have more freedom to just take a day off work when they want but doesn't everybody have holidays? Fair enough you probably need to have a job or be retired in order to have enough money but in my experience it is totally inaccurate to say us working class people are somehow handicapped. There are plenty of people on here using second hand equipment.

There also seems to be a feeling that HDR allows you to just click away merrily and then pick a random selection of shots to merge. In fact HDR requires just the same patience, waiting for the right light etc, as does the use of filters. It then requires skill and patience to get the most out of the dynamic range whilst retaining a natural feel. HDR gets a bad rep because the shots you can tell are HDR are badly processed (and there are a lot of them). There are plenty of shots on here which you would not know are HDR unless you were told. It is just another tool in the photographers armoury.

joolsb
joolsb  927115 forum posts Switzerland38 Constructive Critique Points
6 Feb 2013 - 12:07 PM

Seems to me that, to a lot of people, 'landscape' means a finite number of discreet 'views' rather than a continuum that surrounds us wherever we happen to be in the open air. If you take the latter defnition, then it shouldn't be too much of a problem to find subjects that haven't been done to death.

There's a lot of talk here about 'great' landscape photographs being made in 'great' light. That isn't true; partly because 'great' should be taken to mean 'speaks to the viewer on many levels' but usually just means 'the sort of apocalyptic lighting not usually seen on planet Earth'. But mainly because you only need 'appropriate' light. Some subjects work really well in what some might describe as 'crappy' light.

Easy to fake? Seen many fashion or portrait shots recently? Even more fake than some landscapes. Smile

mikehit
mikehit  56475 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
6 Feb 2013 - 12:40 PM

I don't know about anyone else but most of my landscapes are taken with a telphoto zoom. That really does open the option for unique take on any scene.

digicammad
digicammad  1121988 forum posts United Kingdom37 Constructive Critique Points
6 Feb 2013 - 12:53 PM


Quote: There's a lot of talk here about 'great' landscape photographs being made in 'great' light. That isn't true; partly because 'great' should be taken to mean 'speaks to the viewer on many levels

Good point Jools. When I talk about decent light I usually mean something that has some variation of light and shade, rather than just uniform grey in which landscapes even look 2D with our stereoscopic vision. Smile When we have wall to wall grey I usually look for other subjects (such as macro or water)

Pete
Pete Site Moderator 1318446 forum postsPete vcard ePz Advertiser England96 Constructive Critique Points
6 Feb 2013 - 1:21 PM


Quote: There's a lot of talk here about 'great' landscape photographs being made in 'great' light. That isn't true; partly because 'great' should be taken to mean 'speaks to the viewer on many levels' but usually just means 'the sort of apocalyptic lighting not usually seen on planet Earth'. But mainly because you only need 'appropriate' light. Some subjects work really well in what some might describe as 'crappy' light.

I often remark about how great the light is when taking a photo. It may be an overcast day when I don't want contrast or it may be a foreboding storm when I want atmosphere etc. The light is great if it helps make the subject work better whether that may be subtle or dramatic. Your idea of crappy light is great in my eyes if it works. I guess we're saying the same thing, but I still call it great.

Nick_w
Nick_w e2 Member 73882 forum postsNick_w vcard England99 Constructive Critique Points
6 Feb 2013 - 1:31 PM

Every single photo ever taken is a creation. The photographer makes decisions, what crop ( in camera or post), what white balance, how to process, either let Canon/Nikon/Olympus do it, or have full control what lens to use- the perspective can make a big difference. Does it matter if your photographing a frog or an iconic landscape each has it's merits, each can be stunning or an abomination.

Take / make images what you like for you, if anyone else likes them that's a bonus.

p12owe
p12owe  1101 forum posts United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
6 Feb 2013 - 1:57 PM


Quote: Every single photo ever taken is a creation. The photographer makes decisions, what crop ( in camera or post), what white balance, how to process, either let Canon/Nikon/Olympus do it, or have full control what lens to use- the perspective can make a big difference. Does it matter if your photographing a frog or an iconic landscape each has it's merits, each can be stunning or an abomination.

Take / make images what you like for you, if anyone else likes them that's a bonus.

Well said Nick! For me, the landscape (or any other subject) that has been taken many times before presents an even greater challenge. Mine now needs to be different, original, and hopefully might be even better than the hundreds that have gone before!

elowes
elowes  102832 forum posts United Kingdom
6 Feb 2013 - 2:23 PM

I have not read every post but there are one or two things I would like to say which may be repetition.

First:

The digital age has allowed ordinary people to manipulate photographs with ease, just like the clever people who printed images in their darkroom.
Moving the moon digitally is far easier than doing so in a darkroom but it or something similar have been done. HDR is not a technique I like but there is nothing wrong with tweaking images to improve exposure and contrast just as Ansel Adams would probably have done by dodge and burn in his darkroom (or his printer as the case may be).

Second:

Good landscape photography is an art which requires a lot of hard work and dedication. Perhaps luck comes into it when you just happen to be in the right place at the right time but to become a landscape photographer you can't rely on luck.

Like others have said I would personally love to take great landscapes but I can't be bothered to get out of bed to be 'Waiting for the Light'.

If you want to be a renowned photograph then hard work is needed. If you can't put in the hard work just enjoy what you can do.

Last Modified By elowes at 6 Feb 2013 - 2:24 PM
mikehit
mikehit  56475 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
6 Feb 2013 - 2:40 PM

Let's reverse history - suppose Ansel Adams had turned up at Half Dome last year, does anyone think he would have thought 'heck its been done a thousand times, I can't be bothered', or that he would not have been able to create an image with the quality we have seen it?
Maybe most of his images would not have reached iconic status in the way they have (his images were embedded in our consciousness way before photography came within reach of the masses so maybe he would not be the benchmark that he is) but the quality would have been there and I am sure they would have sold just as well.
I wonder what he would have done with photoshop and HDR? The mind boggles.

joolsb
joolsb  927115 forum posts Switzerland38 Constructive Critique Points
7 Feb 2013 - 10:26 AM


Quote: Let's reverse history - suppose Ansel Adams had turned up at Half Dome last year, does anyone think he would have thought 'heck its been done a thousand times, I can't be bothered',

Ah but would Half Dome have been 'done' a thousand times if it wasn't for Ansel Adams? Would Yosemite be half as popular with photographers? Discuss... Smile

Last Modified By joolsb at 7 Feb 2013 - 10:26 AM
keithh
keithh e2 Member 1023041 forum postskeithh vcard Wallis and Futuna33 Constructive Critique Points
7 Feb 2013 - 9:28 PM

I think Half Dome was always bound to become one of the biggies in photographic terms, it was being painted long before photography.

I'm currently in one of my non-landscape phases but my current 'landscape beef' is about the tonally flat over-gradded grubby mud filtered landscapes which seem to be popular to the point of adulation beyond words at the moment.

Take a stop of grad off, and then in PS...see that little slider on the right hand side of the levels tool. See how it's sat there all alone.....take it to see its friends...just a little closer to the left. Now the world don't seem so damn depressing.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.