Landscape photography, where is it headed?

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I suppose for me it is not just the post processing and presentation, but also the content, mountains, waterfalls, sea shores, rocks - ad infinitum...

 

The variety and beauty in nature is infinite. Perhaps the best way to appreciate it is not merely to look at pictures but to experience it for yourself, which means escaping from the mod cons and comforts of cities and civilization for a while.

 

Having just done a wilderness trip here in NZ, I discovered yet again that no landscape looks the same twice -- the light is forever changing.

 

The latest edition of Arizona Highways, sent me by a friend, is packed with superb photography. (Arizona Highways Magazine - Scenic Arizona Photography, Arizona Maps, Arizona Souvenirs) The emphasis is not on artificial enhancement; nature doesn't need it. One photographer stitched together a series of vertical shots taken with a DSLR to emulate the detail of a LF camera.

 

Best,

David

 

NZ Southern Traveller - NZ Southern Traveller - NZ Southern Traveller

[250swb]

Why am I getting bored with landscape photography. Is there simply too much of it?

The artificially super colour saturated images, achieved by using all the tools of modern photographic processing software are everywhere in magazines, exhibitions online etc.

Sunsets, sunrises, wide angles, panoramas, the rock in the foreground, flowing water blurred to detail less whiteness, dark skies with clouds enhanced beyond belief are everywhere. I'm beginning to just pass them all by after a cursory look.

 

There seems to be a dearth of alternative creative approaches to the subject?

 

Jeff

 

I'm with you. But there is still a lot of landscape photography around that isn't in the realm of 'what wide lens do I need for landscape'. It is harder to find because its the art end of landscape, not the well composed pretty picture pastiche. But one thing leads to another so try Googling 'Thomas Joshua Cooper' the worlds highest priced photographer, but the least known, because its art, not the commercial internet version of landscape.

 

Steve

[Jeff S]

'Thomas Joshua Cooper' the worlds highest priced photographer,

 

Highest priced???

 

Jeff

[Jeff S]

 

I like the idea of B&W landscapes however.

 

Old is new; new is becoming old. Remember the entire early history of b/w landscape photography, and then all the disciples of Ansel (talk about derivative).

 

I think it's all about what moves you, regardless of trends. Unfortunately, there's too much crap out there (especially on the internet) to sort through and find the special ones. I don't waste much of my time doing so, landscape or otherwise, unless referred to by someone whose eye I trust.

 

I need to see the print. So, in addition to seeing work at exhibits or fairs, I collect books and prints from a lot of dead (and a few living) photographers whom I admire, and reserve the rest of my energy for creating my own prints - based on my own taste and preferences - and for determining where I am headed, not where the market is headed.

 

 

Jeff

[hoppyman]

I just found this discussion. Lots of interesting comments but no-one puts forward a single link to a photo that they have made?

 

I freely admit to being a beginner and enjoying the technical processes as part of the experience, although HDR is not on my personal list of desirable tools. I've put rocks in the foreground and all of the rest.

 

I don't know if there are any new horizons to explore that have not been done so many times before (and very often better than I could of course) but that is no reason not to go there yourself and point your camera thoughtfully at the world. I hardly ever take good photographs when I am sitting in front of my computer typing to the Forum

 

Ansel Adams is perhaps my most venerated master, which is no surprise in this discussion naturally. Still you can not stand where he did or hold one of his prints in your hand and not be moved. Like millions before me I have stood at Tunnel View or gaped in awe in any direction. I put a couple back on-line starting with this one

Tunnel View First snow photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com

 

I found one of his quotes that really says it all for me

"No matter how sophisticated you may be, a huge granite mountain cannot be denied- it speaks in silence to the very core of your being".

 

Entirely in a light hearted spirit:

Self portrait 'in the moment' photo - Geoff Hopkinson photos at pbase.com

[NZDavid]

Geoff, some nice pics of Yosemite and Australia. Really like the feel of cold and hot. These places could be nowhere else on Earth. Unique places, unique interpretation.

 

Hey, I did post some pics, or rather a link to some on my new website: NZ Southern Traveller - NZ Southern Traveller - NZ Southern Traveller.

 

I really enjoy visiting the landscape and travel photo forum on this site: some inspiring images of our world that always make you feel better.

[delander †]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I suppose the landscape photography that I admire is personified by the work of James Ravilious. Andy Barton posted a link to this in his thread 'great photographs'

Beaford Archive : Premium Ravilious Prints

 

OK this is all B&W, and Ravilious liked low contrast contra-jour work, it just seems to have so much soul (I dont know if that is the exact right word) compared to the stark highly coloured images of today.

 

Jeff

[Rolo]

The landscape has become so accessible that it's mostly been done before. IMO, there's little chance of avoiding derivative work unless you're a committed artist, or reaching areas of natural beauty that have not been explored by the masses. To go there and shoot new work with a miniature camera is maybe asking too much. You might find a new location on a trip into remote parts, but capture it with old vision, but it's likely to have been done before.

 

There seems to be people around who are breaking new ground, but I find them to be unbelievably committed to exploring their vision. Six years ago, I came across LeighPerry.com around the time he bought his 5x4 Ebony. We communicated for a while, but he stayed committed to explore a single vision. He seems to have stayed on the same Australian beach shooting very similar images that go way beyond a record shot and into the exploration of colours and dreams, maybe.

 

It will get harder to find original work as we continue to each add 1,000 images a month. The answer is to shoot for yourself, don't worry who was there first and keep it away from the web. Not a recommendation, but a solution perhaps.

[pgk]

.....no-one puts forward a single link to a photo that they have made?

OK, well I'll link to a picture posted here, but before I do so I need to explain it. A few years ago the field in the photo was subject to a planning application and would, if this had gone ahead, contain nearly a dozen expensive houses. However it is sited within a building conservation zone due to being within the area of an Arts & Crafts estate (the only one which still exists within a rural context). I became involved because there was a great deal of local opposition, much of it because the open space was highly valued, and the image posted is in fact taken from my mother's front garden. After a long battle the planning was turned down by a government planning inspector at the end of a local enquiry at which we had to make representations.

 

The thing is that this field remains a valued open space and is clearly perceived as a valuable part of the local landscape, but it is very difficult to photograph in a way that portrays its landscape value. The image shown is IMHO one of the most effective views of it. Unfortunately there have been few comments (as I expected) because, whilst is is valued as part of the visual amenity locally, it remains simply a sloping field and all that I have really succeeded in doing is illustrating it at a pleasantly lit time.

 

So I would say that this image shows a valued landscape which does not translate well into a particularly acceptable photograph. To the people who know the place though I expect it will be very acceptable (I will check)!

 

My point is that to be accepted as 'good' landscape photographs, the landscapes being portrayed must fit within boundaries which may not include those which are stimulating visually/socially. As such images like the one posted are perhaps 'peripheral' in that they are pleasant enough but no more, and oddly I find myself considering such places as a real photographic challenge. So to answer the OP's title, in my case perhaps my landscape photographs are heading towards a photographic examination of what we value even if such landscapes lack the 'traditional' inclusions considered desirable in landscape photographs.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/156689-snow-scene-critique-sought.html

[giordano]

The thing is that this field remains a valued open space and is clearly perceived as a valuable part of the local landscape, but it is very difficult to photograph in a way that portrays its landscape value.

 

Yes. Almost all landscape photography - and landscape painting before it - simplyh takes some terrain and adds a dose of artistic sensibility (viewpoint, framing, waiting for the right light, and so on). Aesthetics trump all: mere amenity doesn't get a look-in. With that site, I think, you had the choice between (a) making an good record of what it looks like that, considered in isolation, wouldn't be a really satisfactory landscape picture, and ( making "good" landscape pictures that wouldn't convey any understanding of the whole site.

 

 

BTW, I used the Smugmug keyword feature to find "landscapes" on my website. Roughly 15% of them have rocks in the foreground, depending on how you define "landscape", "foreground" and "rocks". This one jn's Photos : Photo Keywords : landscape is doubly a landscape: picture by me, landscape by Capability Brown.

[wda]

A thought-provoking thread with many views identical to my own. Notwithstanding the almost impossible quest for something unique, I still enjoy a certain amount of landscape photography, mostly nowadays closer to home.

 

I think what does distinguish any subject, landscapes particularly, is the quality and direction of the lighting. No-one has mentioned this aspect, so far. I often find that quite mundane subjects take on a magical quality when bathed in unexpected impressive lighting. Often it is short-lived and transitory, which helps to make it unique. Often it occurs at unsocial hours; but that is an important part of the hunting challenge.

[farnz]

There have been a lot of disparaging comments about the poor, defenceless, rock that graces the foreground in a number of landscape photos and I think it's important to make the point that there's good reason for it to be there. Without the rock (or whatever) in the foreground many landscapes lack depth, which imho is one of the corner stones (no pun intended) of competent landscape photography.

 

But it's not enough to just have the rock in the foreground. In order for it to become a contributing element of the photo it has to be in focus as does the horizon, which means stopping the aperture right down.

 

It saddens me that on this and other forums I read opinions supporting landscape photos of scenery taken with the aperture wide open and a definite negativity towards the use of tripods with Leica cameras. Clearly, it is very difficult to achieve depth through foreground to background sharpness without stopping the aperture down and using a tripod to prevent camera shake.

 

I apologise if I am preaching to the converted but I felt that the poor little rock in the foreground deserves some support.

 

Pete.

[delander †]

 

I apologise if I am preaching to the converted but I felt that the poor little rock in the foreground deserves some support.

 

Pete.

 

Nah, it doesn't:D

 

Jeff

[bill]

I fear it finds itself between a person and a Hard Place...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Sailronin]

This was already decided in 3rd or 4th century B.C. as noted in Ecclesiastes 1:9

"...there is no new thing under the sun."

 

Best we can do is try to add a personal slant to the landscape and hopefully at least a few of our shots will rise above banal, boring repetition of the "Masters" whether they are painters or photographers.

 

Something to strive for.

[pop]

...I think it's important to make the point that there's good reason for it to be there. Without the rock (or whatever) in the foreground many landscapes lack depth,

 

I remember reading in a photography guide from the late forties that good color photographs need something red in the frame. That resulted in photographers bringing red chocolate wrappers to the site and scattering them in the landscape.

 

Lucky guys. Chocolate wrappers are small in both weight and volume.

[Bill Allsopp]

What you need is monochrome

[Jeff S]

I suppose the landscape photography that I admire is personified by the work of James Ravilious. ...

it just seems to have so much soul (I dont know if that is the exact right word) compared to the stark highly coloured images of today.

 

 

Perhaps your feelings about Ravilous partly come from the fact that much of his landscape work includes people and/or animals, and in simple rural settings. He also names the people, so these are very personal environs for him.

 

Harder to capture soul from the poor rock, even a pet rock.

 

Jeff

[pop]

What you need is monochrome

 

I thought we needed monolith.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[NZDavid]

The landscape has become so accessible that it's mostly been done before....

 

A very Eurocentric view. In Britain and Europe, maybe, where human settlement is thousands of years old and no square centimeter of land remains unexplored. In this part of the world wilderness areas remain where no-one has been.

 

Even with scenes that have been photographed many times before, whether landscapes or buildings and cities, there are a myriad different viewpoints, lighting conditions, and compositions.