People in Lanscapes; Yes or No?
-
A
- Thread starter Paul Jenkin
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Free 4 120 rolls of 2445 Aeroneg, old color film, C-22?
- Started by MCB18
-
For Sale FS: Pentax 67 Magnifier
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Plaubel 4x5 Camera Accessories
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Zone VI compensating timer
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
Sold NIKON L35 AD ISO 1000
- Started by Acere
Forum statistics
Gorgeous!
Thanks...when photographing on dunes (Eureka Dunes in this case) with someone, one has to keep close together to make sure that one does not mess up a potential image with foot prints. We had come straight up this dune and while Bruce set up his 4x5, I walked along the dune (keeping to the backside in case we aimed our cameras back to this dune later) and took his photo while waiting to move on. It makes a nice 16x20 (4x5 neg). The above image is just a scan of a quick contact print.
We did end up on he top of the far dune...though the wind had come up by then -- and I got a great image with blowing sand near the top despite the wind.
Vaughn
We did end up on he top of the far dune...though the wind had come up by then -- and I got a great image with blowing sand near the top despite the wind.
Vaughn
How many lenses have you sandblasted?
None...yet. Fortunately, in the image near the top of the dune, the sand was blowing at ground level through a "pass" between the top of the dune and a ridge. I might be able to scan the image tonight and post it here -- though it is getting off topic, as it has no people in it (except for the photographer -- who is always in the photograph!) Vaughn
In general, though not exclusively, I prefer my scenes with people. If I'm being specific, I like the idea of ancient and immutable landscapes juxtaposed with the fleeting lives and movements of the people within them. The work of Joe Cornish, Charlie Waite etc, although technically superb, leaves me feeling cold, emotionally detatched and strangely depressed. Certainly, in Britain, the landscape is very rarely true wilderness; so much of it having been transformed, shaped, primped and preened by human agency. Therefore why seek to expunge all trace of humanity? In many cases we created the landscape, and we are a natural part of it. Why go to a zoo and photograph the architecture?
Well put.
I have witnessed, on several occasions, people going to extraordinary lengths at places like death valley to obtain photographs with no evidence of humanity in them. If you just step out onto the dunes, you can hear people cursing. How dare someone leave footprints on my dunes!
I suppose some photographers would like to give the impression, in their photographs, that they have discovered an entirely new scene. You know, walk 20 feet firm your car with a big camera and tripod and try to get an image that looks like you actually explored new terrain
...as if landscape photography were an act of claiming or owning.In general, people are a distraction in a landscape. With practice you can become skilled at "getting rid" of people (and I don't mean running at them screaming "leprosy, unclean!!!"). Wait until they step behind a tree, reposition yourself slightly, etc. It takes some thought and practice, but the results are well worth it.
That being said, a single person caught unawares in a particular location or physical attitude can really add to the composition. But these situations are really pretty rare. What a happy day it will be when that ridiculous photo class aphorism of "always include a person in your photographs" is put to rest. Anyone who can't compose a shot without sticking a person in it needs to get another hobby!
That being said, a single person caught unawares in a particular location or physical attitude can really add to the composition. But these situations are really pretty rare. What a happy day it will be when that ridiculous photo class aphorism of "always include a person in your photographs" is put to rest. Anyone who can't compose a shot without sticking a person in it needs to get another hobby!
I have so many images where a person or people enhanced the sense of scale and meaning of the actual location. I have many shots of Grand Canyon area like this. Without people, magnitude of scale is unimaginable and without people, the fact that it is a popular tourist location isn't apparent. (I have one that people are basically crawling all over the place) I'd post a sample but it was digitally captured, so I wont.
I also have shots where I waited (for a long time) for people to go out of the view.
I think, as long as your views and pre-visualization permits them and they aren't doing anything disturbing (like picking their noses), people can enhance landscape images. So as always, my answer is "it depends!"
I also have shots where I waited (for a long time) for people to go out of the view.
I think, as long as your views and pre-visualization permits them and they aren't doing anything disturbing (like picking their noses), people can enhance landscape images. So as always, my answer is "it depends!"
MattKing
Moderator
I'm generally in line here. Landscapes are preferably (to me) just that, LANDscapes.
I can only think of one exception, presently. My mother made a fantastic vertical composition of very tall standing pines in Beaver Creek SP in Ohio some years back. She included my brother in the photograph. Totally against all rules. The row was dead center, destroying the rule of thirds. And the was a man it it. But he is so small compared to the setting that he is a poigniant scale within the subject. Actually adds power to the shot.
So, in short, no. With exceptions, rare though they may be.
I can only think of one exception, presently. My mother made a fantastic vertical composition of very tall standing pines in Beaver Creek SP in Ohio some years back. She included my brother in the photograph. Totally against all rules. The row was dead center, destroying the rule of thirds. And the was a man it it. But he is so small compared to the setting that he is a poigniant scale within the subject. Actually adds power to the shot.
So, in short, no. With exceptions, rare though they may be.
In my gadget bag alongside the wire filter is a people filter. Pop it on the lens and people will no longer be visible in the photo. 
WIRE FILTER! Where can I get one?
In my gadget bag alongside the wire filter is a people filter. Pop it on the lens and people will no longer be visible in the photo.
Will it automatically improve the composition? That is what I am looking for => a filter to improve the composition.
I find that a BS Filter, reversed, can also improve composition.
Ah, were can I buy the BS filter of which you speak??
Oh, actually, I have three.
Kk, going back to the main topic!
I'm gonna go against the grain and say that I actually prefer having people in my landscapes and urbanscapes. I find it adds a different depth to the image if it was just the landscape.
When I do have them in, I kind of make it so they're a part of the scene but not the subject. Usually I don't shoot faces, which I think distracts viewers as people focus on faces. Part of my tactic is in keeping the person small relative to the image so that they're like a portion of the landscape shot.
Here's one of mine: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dugrant/4896540485/
I'm gonna go against the grain and say that I actually prefer having people in my landscapes and urbanscapes. I find it adds a different depth to the image if it was just the landscape.
When I do have them in, I kind of make it so they're a part of the scene but not the subject. Usually I don't shoot faces, which I think distracts viewers as people focus on faces. Part of my tactic is in keeping the person small relative to the image so that they're like a portion of the landscape shot.
Here's one of mine: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dugrant/4896540485/
Yes, I was just discussing the use of people as scale cues with a pair of architects, and the way placement of people causes the viewer to imagine what they must feel like, in the scene, i.e. to personalize it.
Careful placement of people can do wonderful things. Of course, there are no firm rules.... effective landscape images may or may not have people in them.
I still stand by what I said earlier in the thread- I think it's a bit ridiculous the lengths to which some photographers will go, to try to obscure the evidence of humanity in the modern landscape. There are few out there courageous enough to incorporate all the power lines, the roads, the urban monotony... and all the other things we consider opposite the classical landscape.
Careful placement of people can do wonderful things. Of course, there are no firm rules.... effective landscape images may or may not have people in them.
I still stand by what I said earlier in the thread- I think it's a bit ridiculous the lengths to which some photographers will go, to try to obscure the evidence of humanity in the modern landscape. There are few out there courageous enough to incorporate all the power lines, the roads, the urban monotony... and all the other things we consider opposite the classical landscape.
In Virginia it can be hard to keep evidence of humanity out of a photograph, however in the western states the can be easily accomplished.
Photos made by case-by-case decision: YES, unless the photos would fail to meet some important conceptual goal unless made with pre-determined guidelines. Photos made by predetermined rules: NO, unless the rules are somehow part of your concept.
In other words, do what you want to do in order to do what you want to do with the picture/series.
IMO, good art photography is seldom only about making an attractive picture. That is mainly what commercial photography's goal is. Making an attractive picture should not be the goal of photographic art; making the attractive picture should be a tangible technique that can be used or misused to achieve an intangible artistic goal. So, make your pictures such that the way they look serves your purpose; do not just blindly make them look "good" based on some predetermined set of guidelines. I fail to see why so damned many people need to set up rules for themselves in their shooting/printing. Just shoot, and make it good...or not. My two cents. I am sure YMWV.
In other words, do what you want to do in order to do what you want to do with the picture/series.
IMO, good art photography is seldom only about making an attractive picture. That is mainly what commercial photography's goal is. Making an attractive picture should not be the goal of photographic art; making the attractive picture should be a tangible technique that can be used or misused to achieve an intangible artistic goal. So, make your pictures such that the way they look serves your purpose; do not just blindly make them look "good" based on some predetermined set of guidelines. I fail to see why so damned many people need to set up rules for themselves in their shooting/printing. Just shoot, and make it good...or not. My two cents. I am sure YMWV.
Very interesting. I am approaching to finish my project on Italian Landscapes and cityscapes that I last worked on 3 years ago and now it's time to bring to completion.
This time I will definitively be looking for the human component in both landscapes and cityscapes. It really is a personal choice for anybody. It depends what you want to tell. My new approach is to show the relationship that man has had with the land for thousands of years. Even though the land can live without man, Man cannot survive without the fruits of the land, and that is for me a wonderful subject for study. But that is only a part of the project, that you can see better explained at this Dead Link Removed.
This time I will definitively be looking for the human component in both landscapes and cityscapes. It really is a personal choice for anybody. It depends what you want to tell. My new approach is to show the relationship that man has had with the land for thousands of years. Even though the land can live without man, Man cannot survive without the fruits of the land, and that is for me a wonderful subject for study. But that is only a part of the project, that you can see better explained at this Dead Link Removed.
All except one of my landscape shots do not have people in them. The one that does would not work nearly as well without that person in it.
Mike
Mike
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |