How to add emotion to a landscape

kswatapug · Feb 25, 2005

The common thread through all this discussion is to relate to the landscape in human, ie. emotional terms, as a living, breathing individual. Some of the most powerful imagery blurs the lines, treating the landscape as a human form, and vice versa. It is about making that connection with what's around you and communicate what you are "feeling" rather than what you are seeing.

colrehogan · Feb 25, 2005

My question on the f32 site that brought the original post of this thread up in my mind was the following:

What separates a composition or photo from being elementary, or a snapshot from a good one?

And several of the responses included empathy, emotion and feeling.

photomc · Feb 25, 2005

colrehogan said:
My question on the f32 site that brought the original post of this thread up in my mind was the following:

What separates a composition or photo from being elementary, or a snapshot from a good one?

Read the thread over on f32, did not really understand what they meant either.

Now here's my take..1st..The masters of the grand landscape photography from the early 1900's thru the 1950's were showing work to an audience that did not have the ability to travel as easy as we do today. So part of what they were doing was showing the public what was there, much like the earlier photographers had done on the different expeditions. Today someone sees a print - color or B&W and the first thing they think is hey, I can do that I have a xxxx camera, will be in the area for business, so there is no - WOW Wish I could see that, it is such strange place. 2nd..many of the landscapes have been over done, so almost any image looks like a snapshot. (BTW - no one ever seems to explain what they mean by that statement). My take is it looks like one of 10, 100, 1000 other shots of an image really nothing special except to the person that made it...and there is NOTHING WRONG with that.

As was mentioned, some just like people in their photos - it makes the more interesting..but even that can lead to a snapshot looking image. The same things that make a good people picture will make a good landscape picture..proper technique, attention to light (for me light provides much of the emotion in any image), what is the main subject of the photograph.

One thing I have started doing is asking myself - WHY do I want to make this photograph? Why is it worthy of the film, time, developing, etc? What is it about this scene that makes me want to photograph it and do I know how to show that, how to capture that emotion I feel right now on film. It has stopped many of the shots I used to make, can't always get the way I feel on film, but am trying to learn why not, when it does not work. IT WILL HAPPEN Diane, it may take some time, but you will start to know when it does, you will 'see' in a different way - or at least that is what happened to me...have I been successful, heck I don't know, but now I don't worry about what everyone else thinks, just what I feel, and what the photograph shows.

Good luck..

colrehogan · Feb 25, 2005

Thanks Mike. And thanks to everyone else who replied.

mark · Feb 25, 2005

I think Blansky hit it on the head. People who like people prefer people in landscape photographs. People who do not like people photography wonder why the hell the naked person is in the photograph.

I am definately the latter. A nude in the landscape is a bad landscape.

I am surprised that no one mentioned the importance of compositional placement in eliciting emotion in the viewer. Line is the idea I know most about. Straight, curving, S, jagged etc.. all serve to elicit certain emotions. You can make a dramatic landscape but in truth it has no emotion. If we look at a sky and think "that is an angry sky" we personify the sky. Give it human emotions. If we want to bring out this emotion in someone else we have to personify the sky in the image we present to them through our composition, printing, and presentation.

I like your last question a lot and wonder why you did not ask it here as well?

blansky · Feb 25, 2005

photomc wrote.

Wish I could see that, it is such strange place. 2nd..many of the landscapes have been over done, so almost any image looks like a snapshot. (BTW - no one ever seems to explain what they mean by that statement).

We debate that in 2003 and I bumped it back into the ethics and philosophy forum. Maybe new people could go there and add their views.

Michael

George Losse · Feb 25, 2005

jbj said:
"How do you put emotion & feeling into a landscape?"

I would say the first thing is for you to feel emotional about the landscape. It must resonate with you first, and if you can recognize the emotions then I would think that is the first step. Only then can you convey this emotion in your final print.

I agree....

If the photographer doesn't have a emotion/passion for their subject, in this case the landscape. Then its going to be hard to find emotion in their photographs of that subject.

The wonderful thing (TO ME) about photography, is that it's a great big window into the photographer. That's what makes a photograph more then just a landscape, it becomes an insight into how WE SEE the landscape. If we don't have a passion for it, then that shows also. Every photograph we make gives the viewer our viewpoint of the subject. That viewpoint is not just about camera angle or other technical things. It's about us, and what we feel.

Ed Sukach · Feb 25, 2005

George Losse said:
The wonderful thing (TO ME) about photography, is that it's a great big window into the photographer. That's what makes a photograph more then just a landscape, it becomes an insight into how WE SEE the landscape. If we don't have a passion for it, then that shows also. Every photograph we make gives the viewer our viewpoint of the subject. That viewpoint is not just about camera angle or other technical things. It's about us, and what we feel.

Exactly. I Wish I had written that - or have I?

It certainly sounds like me! - A lesson I've learned - not without some pain - over the years.

Bravo!, George!

Tom Stanworth · Feb 25, 2005

Nicely related to a thread you have probably grown to hate me over but.....

I agree totally by those who think that you have to 'connect' with the lanscape you are trying to capture the essence of or perhaps enhance or subtly alter the essence of. Sometimes it hits me quickly, other times it can take a bit of being rained on and a few visits. I am frustrated by the times that I know what I feel, but cannot compose an image I feel has the potential to convey this (A case in point being a wood in N.Wales full of moss and hanging ferns that I have yet to expose an image in. I just cant get all my thoughts and sensory experiences into one image. I will keep visiting until I do.....). I know some would disagree, but it helps to understand what it is that moves you. I find that I am consciously aware of this, even if I find it hard to fully describe. The mechanics of operating the camera to 'get this' on film is the easy part as is filter selection to alter contrast/colour etc. Knowing what to get on film and how it should be portrayed in a print is the hard bit IMHO. In one case it might be wonderfully dramatic intimidating climatic conditions and another time the relationship betweeen folds in distant fields, so one cannot say in all cases how to do this. Goodness knows how many times I have failed to communicate what I have felt and want others to feel. I think if you know what you are trying to say to the viewer you are largely there.......the rest is the technical task of capture.

Some have suggested (in another thread) that the process can be subconscious, ie you feel things, but dont need to understand them to successfully get it on film and print it. I personally find that I do need to know what it is on some level to be able to know how to progress through the other stages (otherwise I would not know how to decide which filter to use or exposure and the myriad of other decisions if I did not know what I wanted to achieve and others to be able to see)

This thread's question is probably responsible for more frustration to me thn anything else in photography. Technical issues have simple(er) answers or lines along which to develop. When I am flummoxed on how to convey something, I am on my own!
Tom

roteague · Feb 25, 2005

Ed Sukach said:
Yes. It is. Serenity, a feeling of peace, of being at ease... all are emotions.

Last Sunday morning, I hiked up to the top of Makapuu Point (about a 45 minute walk) in the dark in order to be able to photograph the sunrise. The point overlooks the Ka Iwi channel, and the you could see the sun rising behind the islands of Molokai, Maui and Lanai. Stunning!!!

Tom Stanworth · Feb 25, 2005

An experience that will stay with forever was (whilst working at a safari lodge in Zimbabwe) was going for a run through what had been a forested mountain. There had been a bush fire a few days before and the forest was gone. What was left was a martian landscape of rock, thick ash, flickering trunks still alight and OMG...the smells. Above this hellish scene (which was probably the most unusual run I have been on.......) Black eagles circled beneath a piercing sun and the quick resumption of 'normal life' was astonishing. For me this was an intensely powerful experience. The scene held the essence of nature for me. The utter rawness, power and unforgiving qualities we both admire and fear. Along with this came the fact that we bounce back. The animals bounced back (those which had survived) and instantly returned to the daily demands of life on earth. In some senses, despite the magnitude of what had happened, nothing had happened. Life goes on. Needless to say, I did not have a camera (or in fact own one) at the time, but experiences like this inspired me to get one...! I am a nature lover. The 'energetic charge' I get from then land, the sense of connection is quiet unlike anything else for me. I can walk out into a wood and get a surge of euphoria - literally a 'high'. Not adrenalin....but more of a happy drug 'love' kinda feeling. I would not say the same as a kiss with a beautiful woman ... but fueled by equally base instinct programming.

I have also spent many years elsewhere in Africa and in the same countries where the landscape was moving, the human dimension is not lost on me either. I am primarily but not exclusively a landscape photographer and have a great deal of appreciation for photographers who deal with either.

Tom

blansky · Feb 25, 2005

roteague said:
Last Sunday morning, I hiked up to the top of Makapuu Point (about a 45 minute walk) in the dark in order to be able to photograph the sunrise. The point overlooks the Ka Iwi channel, and the you could see the sun rising behind the islands of Molokai, Maui and Lanai. Stunning!!!

Having posted what I have posted on this subject, I will say that Hawaii is my favorite place on earth. I go twice a year and love it. I have done some landscapes there ( even though landscapes don't do too much for me) and I will say that it is beyond visually stunning. I grew up in the Rockies and that to me is also stunning but not as etherial (sp?) as my Hawaiian experience.

So when I see a Hawaiian landscape the picture is only emotional to me because it triggers the feeling of being there. The sounds, smells, the peace, the serenity of the place.

When I first saw pictures of Hawaii, before going there, it was not emotional. Just beautiful. After being there many times the pictures trigger the emotions that I experienced while I was there.

Michael

rbarker · Feb 25, 2005

One of the things that I've been working on has been to develop an awareness of what it is about a scene or some other subject that grabs my attention and produces an emotional response in me. Is it the colors? The space? Just what is it that made me stop and say, "Ooo, wow!"? Doing that seems to help the process of trying to figure out how best to convey a similar emotion in the image of the thing.

If the emotion is the result of a single perspective on the scene, it can probably be translated to film. If, however, it's a combination of different views, some of which my eye may have "zoomed" in on small details, that becomes more difficult to capture in a single image. If it's the smell (ala Tom's burnt forest), it's even more difficult to capture. Certainly, one might compose with a smoldering stump in the foreground, and include the devastation in the background. But, the effectiveness of the image relies on evoking a similar memory in the viewer's experience.

bjorke · Feb 25, 2005

mark said:
People who do not like people photography wonder why the hell the naked person is in the photograph.

Now wait a doggoned minute, where did that woman's clothing go, and when did this switch to nudes?

One can make the argument that a landscape devoid of people is emotional but there is a paradox or two inherent in that. There are always two people at a minimum: the photographer and the viewer. The connection between those two people (even the same person, between now and the future or past) implies a whole host of relationships that can only be ignored by the deliberately blind.

Rocks and trees and clouds don't move people, people do.

Robert Adams

joeyk49 · Mar 10, 2005

I add emotion when I get something that looks like a photograph...

My family can here me cry out in joyful exultation from deep within the bowls of my basement..."Woohoo!"

BWGirl · Mar 10, 2005

Really interesting discussion... many people have hit on great points. I think Michael (Blansky) really hit it on the head when he said that all the 'people' photographers want people in the landscape to add emotion and all the 'landscape' photographers just want landscape.
But I think the real answer may be that you cannot put emotion in anything for anyone other than yourself.

For me, there are landscapes that move me almost to tears ...there is something about them that touches my soul. I very rarely see a photo with people in it that can move me like that. I'd have to say that there have been some I've seen here that have touched me in such a way.

So the right idea is that if you photograph anything that moves you emotionally, chances are fairly good that in this vast world there will be others also moved by it.

I'm with Joeyk49... if I shoot anything that resembles a 'good' photo, I am totally psyched!

umdah · May 3, 2009

I do not think that a landscape per se has emotion. A certain scape can invoke
an emotion in a person. Emotion is a characteristic of living things.

Emotions can be invoked for example by a burnt tree in a forest. a dead animal in a desert. colors, as they are associated with emotion. green for youth, vibrancy, life. etc.

I tend to think of human emotions and try to place something in the landscape
that would evoke that emotion.

I hope all this makes sense.

nicefor88 · May 6, 2009

Ok I'm afraid adding people or other elements to a landscape will distract the viewer's attention. What's your subject? The landscape or the people? Beautiful landscapes need nothing else. The time of the day the picture is taken matters a lot, especially in very sunny places (tropics, for instance). I think people carry a far bigger emotional impact that fields or beaches, thus there's a choice to make here.

Paul Jenkin · Sep 22, 2009

For me, a good landscape is the right combination of the location and the light. There have been numerous occasions I have taken photographs of certain places during bright sunny days which have come out "okay" as a record shot of that place but haven't conveyed any emotion.

Later in the day (or even very early in the morning) when the light is more acutely angled across the landscape (instead of being right overhead) - or even when it's chucking it down with rain, the scene can be transformed into something that makes me feel I've produced something more than just a straight record of the place.

Some years ago, I took some photos of a big refinery on Teesside. That was a seriously ugly place during the day but, with a low sun highlighting the pollution spewing forth from the chimneys, it looked beautiful - albeit still very toxic!

shotgun1a · Sep 22, 2009

If you could explain how to put emotion into a landscape in a forum post, we'd all be Ansel.

jeffreyg · Sep 22, 2009

The emotion I like to evoke in my landscapes is hat the viewer would like to have been looking over my shoulder when the exposure was made or that they say "I was there but I didn't see that". Emotion is very personal - some people cry at basketball games.

phyllis72 · Oct 7, 2009

I think it all depends on if you are taking a photograph or making a photograph and as others have mentioned what is it that you want to convey? Have you lost inspiration?

Vaughn · Oct 7, 2009

Sucked into an old thread!

Oh well, since I am here...

If you smile while you talk to someone on the phone, you will sound happier to them. If you want emotion in your images, then experience those emotions while photographing and printing.

Probably too simple and straight forward of an answer, but sounds a lot better to me than any technical explanations.

Vaughn

Colin Corneau · Oct 7, 2009

You only have a set amount of elements towards creating a photograph -- light, camera/accessory selection and medium (B&W, colour, etc). That's all you have to work with.

Those are what you use to bestow emotion onto a scene.

keithwms · Oct 7, 2009

Just saw this thread. Interesting.

colrehogan said:
How do you put emotion & feeling into a landscape?

I think it's so simple as to be overlooked: you must first be emotionally invested in that landscape. It has to mean something to you... at a level beyond "pretty" or "dramatic." The scene has to matter to you. If you have that connection, then by all means release the shutter and be confident that others will enjoy the image as well!

In my opinion, a more difficult question would be: how do you find emotional connection to an unfamiliar landscape, e.g. if you are travelling through a new area or don't have the time to get off the beaten track and really get the lay of the land.

What I very often see in landscape photography is a lot of "ooh" and "ah"... but no evidence of a deeper connection. I think if you look at Ragnar Axellson's work, you'll see just how much a photographer can be connected to the land and really become part of it. Then the ooh and the ahh is just icing on the [substantial] cake.

It doesn't necessarily take long to get to know the character of the land, but.... there is also no reason to expect a landscape to reveal all of its possibilities through the window of a moving car. People often mention Adams in connection with effective landscape images; well, he lived in those landscapes. They were as familiar to him as an old friend... and it shows.

P.S. The gear is just a thing. It can facilitate your conversation with the landscape... or it can come between.

P.P.S. Glancing up, I think I agree with Vaughn in all respects!

How to add emotion to a landscape

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency