is landscape photography over?

This argument could be extended to any type of photography. With cameras available to anyone with a bit of disposable income, the Internet making everyone's work available, and the strange belief that anyone who is commercially successful must have something worth copying, it's small wonder that there are so many similar images out there.
 
stumac said:
I love Scott robertsons images , he runs about glen Coe and the likes and always takes images I have never saw before , it's a breath of fresh air and his stuff is stunning . To the original question , I have a friend who makes a living from landscapes and he would say it's very much alive .
Click to expand...

I really like Scott's work too Stumac. Another worth looking at is Mike Prince (he posts regularly on Facebook but also has a website). His work is quite superb.[emoji106]

Andy
 
Landscape Photography over, I do not think so. maybe going through some sort of evolution. Having said that take a look at all the other genre of Photography! Personally I enjoy looking through images here. There are, as said before many excellent photographers out there today. We have all seen a thousand images of the same place and almost the same composition and I hear that word cliche used time after time. I hate the word myself.
There is a million takes on these location each in different light, with different equipment and in different conditions, for me variety is the spice of life. I think in many cases, these images proliferate because a photographer may visit that location many times to get those perfect conditions he (or She) visualises the shot to be in their minds eye. Perhaps they may be using it as a yardstick of their own work, to emulate what a "Pro" has produced to see if they can produce an image to the same quality?

We all get inspired from seeing a shot of a particular location, and if your photograph is inspiring someone else to want to improve there photography what greater gift can you give??

Business photography I think is quite a different subject and I believe if I was to consider making a business from photography alone I think would have to pick the genre of Wedding Photography, however I don't for one moment consider making a living from any form of Photography to be an easy occupation!

Photographs that impress me are those of a scene that most of us would walk past 200 times and hardly give a second glance, yet some Tog with an eye for good composition, will pick up on it and capture something beautiful. Is that a gut feeling? Instant inspiration? I have begun to notice that many grabbed shots can be outstanding, a fleeting moment that can appear in front of you out of the blue. As opposed to those meticulously planned shots that you have thought through so much your brain hurts.

So long as were taking photographs for the right reasons and not doing it to appease some demigod of the photographic world and you enjoy what you do, who cares if the location has been shot to death. I like seeing all the different takes on these locations. Interestingly when I sat and watched the series of "Masters of Photography on Sky Arts" for most of which I would rather have been sitting at the dentist chair, it was very apparent that the winner of the Landscape program created a typical seascape scene. Cliche shot??

Among others here Scott Robertsons photographs really impress me....

Enough of my drivel, that's my 2d, .............. Landscaping, Not over, just evolving.
 
Last edited:
Michael Batten said:
That's hit the nail firmly on the head. Instead of looking at your scene with your own eyes you instantly think, rule of thirds, lead in, foreground, mid and background, f11, it's like a robot processing something because you want to be accepted by the masses.



Exactly, I remember watching Masters of Photography on Sky Arts this year and thinking that the main thing that seperates the "experts" from the many is exposure. I can look on 500px, Flickr et al., and see hundreds of breathtaking images (although most are the result of great Photoshop skills) and what seperates those togs from say a Joe Cornish is the brand that comes with being a Joe Cornish, Ansell Adams, Clyde Butcher etc.

I've shown a Clyde Butcher book to someone who isn't that taken with photography and they are like "that's a bit boring" same with Ansel Adams, as togs we might see them and think wow that's amazing because it's the name that comes with it rather than actually looking at the work with your own eyes without the expectation that the name makes the photo.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that, to get that name he must have done a lot of consistent work previously.
I would think that it's more to do with an amateur photographer realising what has gone into the taking of the picture, the years of experience behind it, the dedication of recognising the potential of a scene and then going back for weeks/months/years until the conditions are absolutely right.
 
Thread dredge it seems as it's been dead for a month... but I don't get the original premise of the question... Who is landscape photography over for exactly? Not anyone contributing to this thread, or in fact onlandscape, that's for sure! I love landscapes - the shape, the colour, the texture and the light. Always have, always will. I want to try to reproduce the landscape I visited on screen / paper if I can, rather than in my head, and I'm not overly precious about editing - straight out of camera isn't what I saw, or remember, or have generated in my mind's eye, and my brain is unique, so I will generate a different image or view or processing to someone else who visited the same location. I'd even question whether the honeypot locations are done to death, or whether "copying" is even possible. The only way 2 images of the same location will look the same is if you've stolen it, or if you're standing right next to the other photographer with the same lens, same settings and taking at exactly the same time (even then I'd be surprised if there wasn't something different in the shot). There are far too many variables in nature for people to copy someone elses work. Honeypot locations are honeypot locations generally because they're dramatic, or accessible, or beautiful - I'd want to visit them anyway, and there is no way in hell I'm not taking my camera! :D It may be the same old thing if you've already been there and done that, but it's new for the person visiting - you shouldn't take that away from them.

But most importantly, unless you're purely commercial, ultimately your photography is for you and your own enjoyment first, selling or displaying next. Sod regimental adherence to rules or convention or trend or wisdom or influences - do what works for you. For me, I think trying to do what works purely for others leads to a whole world of pain, confusion and frustration
 
Byker28i said:
Same with travel photography, everybody researches then goes and takes the same image.
Click to expand...

Saw this post from a while back. Went to see the Taj Mahal. Possibly my favourite picture when there was with my back to it pointing downriver. One of my favourites with the Taj Mahal in shot was from about 2 miles away. Both might be considered landscapes.
(The building in the first one is the short stubby brown bit to the right of the first two minarets on the left in the second image.)

India 2013 -1000082.jpg India 2013 -1000008.jpg
 
Last edited:
In rural areas like where I live there is nothing much to photograph except landscape.

There is an ugly dull architecture in the small towns around and nothing eye catching like many people photos on here.

However I was so disappointed to find with a FF at 17mm the land is compressed so much that the photos don't reflect well what I seen on the day.
 
Many years ago I use to think that Landscape had to have mountains in the shot, but after so many holidays in the Lake/Peak District I totally changed my mind. I live just a stones throw from the beautiful South Downs and Exceat ( Seven Sisters ), I have spent most of my time photographing birds and wildlife, but now I know the bus can get me to the places, I will start to get to them now if ( weather/light) is good, I think that landscape photography would never die off as there is so much that can be learned for Newbies like me.
 
Last edited:
I agree with an earlier point that is an evolving form of photography, along with all the other genres it's going to change as we get easier access to places, better tech to shoot locations with, Drone Landscape photography is a ine example of the evolution of landscapes, giving us some superb Ariel shots.
For me Landscape Photography is about the adventure. About getting to the location, admiring it for what it is, getting my shots and then continuing the adventure and having a hearty mug of tea while im there!
 
I have thought for a few years that all the great locations have been done to death, so with some trepidation I am going to attempt leaving the footpaths and the well used positions.
As we all know it is easier to do in Scotland than England and Wales because of right to roam laws but I'm going to give it a go, tentatively at first maybe, especially when walking alone.
 
Pedalman said:
I have thought for a few years that all the great locations have been done to death, so with some trepidation I am going to attempt leaving the footpaths and the well used positions.
As we all know it is easier to do in Scotland than England and Wales because of right to roam laws but I'm going to give it a go, tentatively at first maybe, especially when walking alone.
Click to expand...

The reason the iconic places are done to death is that it can be such an incredibly uplifting experience to photograph them, as I discovered on my first "proper" photographic weekend in the Lake District. Most of the shots I took are thoroughly pedestrian, but there are a couple I'm still proud of, though they wouldn't win any prizes.

"Landscape photography" does get conflated in forums like this with iconic locations and golden hour shots. But despite what I wrote above, I think you're right that great photographic experiences and good shots can be had in all sorts of other locations. Sometimes (often?) that means "intimate landscapes", but sometimes a shot just unfolds in front of you that really works. It's easier if you're an amateur who only needs to please him/herself, of course!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top