hoppyman Posted December 20, 2010 Share #41 Posted December 20, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) David and now I have visited and bookmarked your site. Thank you for sharing some splendid work. I am planning to visit your country next year, with M9 AND tripod 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 20, 2010 Posted December 20, 2010 Hi hoppyman, Take a look here Landscape photography, where is it headed?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
daniel buck Posted December 21, 2010 Share #42 Posted December 21, 2010 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 Me personally, I shoot for myself alone. If someone else likes my photographs and wants to buy a few (it's happened) then I have no problem giving them a pring at whatever size they want. If other people don't like the photographs, that doesn't bother me. There are styles that I'm not a fan of, like the more recent tone-mapped "HDR" processing that seems to be common. But that's not my photography, so I don't concern myself with it. It's just a trend/phase, and who knows how long it'll stick around. Me, I go through phases as well. There was a time when I liked to crush the darks and clip the highlights with alot of contrast. Now I like to have more subtle contrast and retain detail in the shadows and highlights. I used to like black and white best, but now I start to enjoy color just as much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted December 21, 2010 Share #43 Posted December 21, 2010 So far the sentiment has been "I shoot for my own pleasure", which is fine. Just fine. Nobody cares that you decide to be entirely selfish. Enjoy Such sentiment offers nothing to the critique of landscape photography in general. You may as well be describing your satisfaction with masturbation. Who cares what you write when it is all about you? It is NOT about you. You can make all the pretty pictures you like, but within the so-called Art of landscape there is a discipline that does not forgive you for being a casual selfish person. Do it but do not expect the rest of us to care. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveleo Posted December 21, 2010 Share #44 Posted December 21, 2010 . . . . but within the so-called Art of landscape there is a discipline that does not forgive you for being a casual slob. Just call yourself a Slob and be happy. Hello. I'm Dave, and I'm a slob . . . . and a mindlessly happy shooter of conventionally mediocre landscapes. God, I feel so good about myself now . . . . thanks for the guidance (and taking this discussion to a higher level). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacarape Posted December 21, 2010 Share #45 Posted December 21, 2010 I like to photograph in a manner that people will say "Wow! where is that?" While I don't really post any photos as most of it is just another snap, some of it original and technically very good on medium format. I put my dog in the foreground sometimes, I don't think it really works as well as a rock. But I get to enjoy seeing the world through a VF and play with canines, two of my favorite things. I have no aspiration in contributing to the art of landscape, or ever to have a show, but I enjoy it. That being said, the HDR folks probably enjoy what they do also. Is there such a thing as a working pro landscape photographer anymore? Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/139684-landscape-photography-where-is-it-headed/?do=findComment&comment=1536670'>More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted December 21, 2010 Share #46 Posted December 21, 2010 Jacarape, that sums it all up nicely: landscapes have gone to the dogs! A fine-looking hound, btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMBSGV Posted December 21, 2010 Share #47 Posted December 21, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) As someone who primarily shoots landscapes, this is a fascinating discussion. For me, any landscape photo is conveying the essence of what I see. When done well, it encapsulates within the image something unique and beyond words. My photos are an attempt to somehow express my inner feelings about this wondrous natural world. I use a Leica M because, one, I love the feel of the camera, two, it’s relatively light and easy to carry, and three, the image quality is better than any SLR. A lot of what I shoot is in remote wilderness areas and a Leica allows me to carry a camera I love to places I love. I don’t really pay a lot of attention to what is commercially successful in landscape photography. I agree with those who are disgusted by the over-saturated colors, the overuse of graduated neutral density filters, and the extensive Photoshopping of images of the natural world. Real nature is not over-saturated. If someone wants to treat Photoshop as a tool in the painters pallette and use it to create original art, that’s fine with me. But that’s not landscape photography; it’s a form of abstract painting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted December 21, 2010 Share #48 Posted December 21, 2010 Where did that come from Pico I think that is a little rude. I posted a couple of thoughts and asked if people had examples of their own to share. That seems reasonable in this Forum. Did someone run over your pet cat or something:rolleyes: I'll go back and try to find your contributed critiques on the art I guess. Just a bit surprised at your post here. Maybe its partly an interpretation thing. So far the sentiment has been "I shoot for my own pleasure", which is fine. Just fine. Nobody cares that you decide to be entirely selfish. Enjoy Such sentiment offers nothing to the critique of landscape photography in general. You may as well be describing your satisfaction with masturbation. Who cares what you write when it is all about you? It is NOT about you. You can make all the pretty pictures you like, but within the so-called Art of landscape there is a discipline that does not forgive you for being a casual selfish person. Do it but do not expect the rest of us to care. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuxBob Posted December 21, 2010 Share #49 Posted December 21, 2010 Didn't some of the Victorians start to think that they had done so well that 'there was nothing more left to invent'?. There is a sense of that here but I fall on the side of saying, like Pico, that the new technologies offer new opportunities to those prepared to think and work. The work we tend to display here is also relatively straight but the world of art photography is far more inventive, as you would expect. Whereas many of us started in the days when you estimated exposures, estimated the focus and did your best, this has all been made easy but an earlier generation would have said similarly 'all you do is twist some dials and press a button'. Getting a good quality image these days is relatively easy and for me this stresses that the creative aspects become more and more important. Like most things photography's constant is transition. Keep on striving Robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuxBob Posted December 21, 2010 Share #50 Posted December 21, 2010 I thought we needed monolith. In red? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted December 21, 2010 Share #51 Posted December 21, 2010 Getting a good quality image these days is relatively easy and for me this stresses that the creative aspects become more and more important. Photographers have said this after every major change in imaging technology since the 1850s:D. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted December 21, 2010 Share #52 Posted December 21, 2010 So far the sentiment has been "I shoot for my own pleasure", which is fine. Just fine. Nobody cares that you decide to be entirely selfish. Enjoy Such sentiment offers nothing to the critique of landscape photography in general. You may as well be describing your satisfaction with masturbation. That doesn't get us anywhere either. To the extent that the photographer exercises aesthetic discretion while taking a photograph surely it can only be because it pleases the photographer or pleases the client? [W]ithin the so-called Art of landscape there is a discipline that does not forgive you for being a casual selfish person. Here you seem to be simultaneously relying on an objective, shared concept of an "Art of landscape" ("there is a discpline that does not forgive") and denying its validity ("so-called Art of landscape"). What's up, Doc? A heavy night in the Salon:D? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
petewayne Posted December 21, 2010 Share #53 Posted December 21, 2010 On one hand I quite agree and have discussed this topic many times with a friend of mine. Magazines and certain online landscape forums are full of images contributed from visits to the Scottish Islands to get a picture of Elgol, or Antelope Canyon or Roseberry Topping (made famous in UK by Joe Cornish) or Glencoe rivers, perhaps as a consequence of published photographers or the increasingly prevalent photographic holidays. ......but is not the image a reflection of the eye of the photographer and of the light available? In this case yes certain locations seem to be done to death but there are subtleties, some which work and some which don't......and therein lies the opportunity for us to learn, in a way another poster mentioned earlier like the development of landscape painting. Additionally as I look through the Landscape forum, which is where I primarily contribute, I see a different picture, one where it is much more local in nature where photographers are showing the subtleties of their landscapes and whilst there are themes, they are different enough to challenge and hold the view. As an example in the last week one local photographer in the local area produced 2 stunning images of the neolithic Avebury complex, a site which is well photographed (not as much as Stonehenge) but has found new interpretations and a new beauty. .......excellent question and debate and this is my two cents Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted December 21, 2010 Author Share #54 Posted December 21, 2010 Hello Peter, I looked at the two photographs of Avebury that you mentioned and although I dont want to be a bit of a killjoy, I feel I must comment. The photographs are nice but IMHO hardly merit the great praise heaped upon them in the photo-landscape forum. The church has been re-composed by cropping to the approved formula and the Avebury monolith is yet another example of a (large) rock in the foreground. These are tried and tested approaches to such subjects, nothing new or particularly visually inspiring. I do hope I can make such comments without offending anyone but it seems that landscape photography is in danger of stagnating. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted December 21, 2010 Author Share #55 Posted December 21, 2010 Here is a landscape photograph that I rather like, (not mine) Untitled | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted December 21, 2010 Share #56 Posted December 21, 2010 How about linking to some of yours? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted December 21, 2010 Share #57 Posted December 21, 2010 Here is a landscape photograph that I rather like, (not mine) Untitled | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Jeff Well, sheep in snow has been done a million times before (better than that one - which also appears on a link back to another forum that Malland has just posted, by coincidence). The composition isn't right with that shot and the shrubbery on the left obsucres part of the flock. Ravilious was doing it much better 20 years ago, IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted December 21, 2010 Author Share #58 Posted December 21, 2010 How about linking to some of yours? Strange as it may seem I only photograph to make prints, so I have no website or account with an online company such flikr. I have occasionally posted in the photo forums, mainly the people section but not recently. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted December 21, 2010 Author Share #59 Posted December 21, 2010 Well, sheep in snow has been done a million times before (better than that one - which also appears on a link back to another forum that Malland has just posted, by coincidence). The composition isn't right with that shot and the shrubbery on the left obsucres part of the flock. Ravilious was doing it much better 20 years ago, IMHO. I got the link from Mallands posting. But Andy in your critique you are applying the rules, lets break them more often and we might be getting somewhere. I agree James Ravilious was a master, but the photograph I linked to has, for me, more 'soul' than the ones Peter refers to. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted December 21, 2010 Share #60 Posted December 21, 2010 On one hand I quite agree and have discussed this topic many times with a friend of mine. Magazines and certain online landscape forums are full of images contributed from visits to the Scottish Islands to get a picture of Elgol, or Antelope Canyon or Roseberry Topping (made famous in UK by Joe Cornish) or Glencoe rivers, perhaps as a consequence of published photographers or the increasingly prevalent photographic holidays. I was on Skye for two weeks in the summer and visited (and photographed) all the usual suspects as far as location is concerned. Some of the results are on my website. All of them have been taken before and done to death. At Elgol, on a decent evening, you have to queue to take a photograph. There were half a dozen or so other guys there, with dozens of filters and ND grads etc etc, all trying to be Mr Cornish. So, I went back on a not quite so good evening and found the place to myself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.