People in Lanscapes; Yes or No?

99% of my shots have no people in them (this has been commented on several times at the processing lab). But as some folks have posted here, a single, subtle and unobtrusive person can sometimes completely transfom an image. There are even time an unsubtle person works in a landscape picture.

Absolutely no. Not even footprints.

I think this is actually a pretty deep question, philosophically. When you photograph a landscape, are you trying to produce an image of a "pristine" landscape, uncontaminated by the icky business of humanity?---or trying to show something about the interaction of people and places?---or telling a fundamentally human story in which the landscape is an important character? All answers are legitimate, but they lead to different photographic places.

Speaking for myself, I generally want door #2. As a human, I see landscapes in human terms, and that liminal space where being human collides with the landscape is pretty compelling to me. That doesn't necessarily mean "people in landscapes", but it does mean I'm usually more drawn to a landscape image that has something to say about the human interaction with it than to one that doesn't acknowledge people at all.

-NT

I remember reading somewhere that they asked Sudek, why there are usually no people in his photos. He replied, he doesn't mind them being there, but they usually leave before he sets up his camera

I go mostly without people in landscapes but there are times when they are important elements of the image and times when they can be considered part of the landscape. An example:


http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

Like NT said, I think it really depends on the intent of the image. I like to look at pictures of a pristine wilderness, but for my own work, I find myself more drawn to compositions with some sort of 'trace' of human presence. I find the idea of nature claiming back what man has tried to make his own very intriguing, and a bit haunting. In my personal work, I feel it makes for a more powerful image... but then, coming across a beautifully unspoilt landscape is always marvellous!

as said, depending on what you want to convey. i like people in landscapes if they enjoy it but it really has to fit the picture.
but in general a human aspect makes it feel more reachable, more real, gives it a relation.. (not talking about tourists standing in front of a beautiful natural sight..)

I don't allow people in my landscapes, and have been very abusive to friends and strangers who walk in my landscapes - Yes, if I am looking at a landscape I do own it!!!

Where people are photographed in my land they are naked, the prime subject and I am very pleasant to them so they will work with me again

Generally, "no people" or I wouldn't call it a landscape; but specifically, "it depends". I have the fortune, and the fortitude, to get to shoot mostly in the west where it is usually not too difficult to find vast panoramas that seem untouched by man.
Overall, I would just say that it can be a great composition, but becomes something besides a landscape with people as a significant compositional element.

Trying to make rigid definitions is best left to camera clubs and the PSA. Don't want "yer hand o man" in your nature pictures, you'll be disqualified and won't get your ribbon...

Dr. no said:

Generally, "no people" or I wouldn't call it a landscape; but specifically, "it depends". I have the fortune, and the fortitude, to get to shoot mostly in the west where it is usually not too difficult to find vast panoramas that seem untouched by man.
Overall, I would just say that it can be a great composition, but becomes something besides a landscape with people as a significant compositional element.

Click to expand...

Obviously posted by a very wise man, mainly because you agree with me.

In "urban landscape" IMO people is sometimes a necessary ingredient that must be present but must not draw attention to it, like salt or pepper in a course so to speak.

Imagine a façade of a church. Now imagine the same façade, with two persons seen from back while entering the church. The two persons will be "small", will not detract the general attention and meaning of the photo from the façade, but will make "more sense" of that picture, a picture of a place where people go to pray not just a piece of architecture.

Or, to make another example, imagine a city park with lake and boats on this lake with people rowing in them.

Provided the people is relatively "small" in the economy of the picture, that they are not dressed in a way which would catch too much attention, and that they are not behaving in a way that would catch the viewer's attention (a raised arm, or maybe while being bent for collecting something on the ground, etc.) they could be just the "cheese on the macaroni", the right touch to make the picture better because the absence of people would not convey the natural atmosphere of the church, public garden etc., could actually give a sense of emptiness, somehow of sadness.

Actually if one has to draw a line between "urban landscape" and "architecture" I would say it's the presence of people, which moves the attention from the "design" of the building, square, fountain, park etc. to the "function" and "life" of said building, square, fountain, park etc.

Fabrizio

Sirius Glass said:

Obviously posted by a very wise man, mainly because you agree with me.

Click to expand...

A third wise man here (or is it that fools never differ?).


Steve.

if I'm in the wild somewhere, i prefer to shoot the "Real world", maybe there is a person or something in the frame. but it doesn't matter.