Landscape or wildlife?

Landscape or wildlife?

  • Total voters
    32
Never given it a lot of thought, but personally I think its whatever is the intended subject.
Taking the photo above I would say the reeds and reflections are the main subject and the duck is incidental, so I would say that was a landscape, if there was more duck than reeds then I would say wildlife.
But that's only my opinion, and I am probably wrong as is frequently the case
 
If the point of interest, in the case of your shot, is the bird then it's wildlife. But if it is the landscape that dominates the frame, then it is a landscape image.
 
troutfisher said:
Never given it a lot of thought, but personally I think its whatever is the intended subject.
Taking the photo above I would say the reeds and reflections are the main subject and the duck is incidental, so I would say that was a landscape, if there was more duck than reeds then I would say wildlife.
But that's only my opinion, and I am probably wrong as is frequently the case
Click to expand...

No, I really don't think you are wrong!

That's why I'm posing this as a question. I'm genuinely interested in what people think.

Let's just say that an image could stand up as a landscape, but it includes some wildlife subject matter, how would it then be viewed?
 
Personally I would class that as a "bird in its environment" type pic.

Having said that, if the bird was absent then it could be an abstract type landscape picture.

A wider view of say, some geese in a skein across a sunset or a murmuration of starlings could easily be landscape and bird photography though.
 
sbowler579 said:
If the point of interest, in the case of your shot, is the bird then it's wildlife. But if it is the landscape that dominates the frame, then it is a landscape image.
Click to expand...

So what would you say in this particular case, steve? Or are you suggesting that it is the intention of the photographer that makes it one thing or another?
 
jerry12953 said:
So what would you say in this particular case, steve? Or are you suggesting that it is the intention of the photographer that makes it one thing or another?
Click to expand...

I think the image you posted is wildlife. The photographer is in control of the final image and can determine what he wishes the viewer to perceive to a certain degree. But it is each individual whom interprets said image differently and the line between the two genres can be vague at times.
 
DorsetDude said:
Personally I would class that as a "bird in its environment" type pic.

Having said that, if the bird was absent then it could be an abstract type landscape picture.

A wider view of say, some geese in a skein across a sunset or a murmuration of starlings could easily be landscape and bird photography though.
Click to expand...


So might this be a landscape, then, Keith? Maybe not quite enough landscape interest, or too many birds perhaps?

View attachment 13478
 
jerry12953 said:
So might this be a landscape, then, Keith? Maybe not quite enough landscape interest, or too many birds perhaps?
Click to expand...
I'd say that wasn't a landscape. And not just because there's no land in it, although the lack of land means the only interest in the shot is(are?) the birds, ergo bird photograph.
 
Jerry both your photos above are BIRD photos.

A landscape is a wider view - a picture of scenery.
Relatedly, I've taken many photos of land in my time, but found it hard to consider them landscapes since they tended to concentrate closer-in than the general scene. They didn't slot neatly into a popular genre. But why should any picture do that?
 
droj said:
Jerry both your photos above are BIRD photos.

A landscape is a wider view - a picture of scenery.
Relatedly, I've taken many photos of land in my time, but found it hard to consider them landscapes since they tended to concentrate closer-in than the general scene. They didn't slot neatly into a popular genre. But why should any picture do that?
Click to expand...


Yes, landscape commonly tends to be associated with the "big" landscapes which we are all familiar with. But many landscape photographers also concentrate on more intimate details of the landscape which they might find at their feet. So even landscape is more difficult to define than you suggest.
 
They are both wildlife shots but are open to individual interpretation if you want it to be so.
 
For the first image you could almost throw abstract into the mix too.
 
DorsetDude said:
I'd say it was yes. Ok its not a bird on a stick but that doesnt encompass all bird photography does it.
Click to expand...

I hope not!

But there's definitely a trend at the moment for full-frame close-ups of birds, eye-contact, and a completely blurred out background.

They're often great photographs but there should be room for other approaches.
 
I would say the second would clearly be wildlife as the birds are the object of the picture. the first is more awkward to define as you could say the bird adds to the landscape image by giving it scale. However as a bird image it works by showing more of the habitat.

Either way its a good picture and in my view more interesting than a frame filling close up.
 
Just a question, but why do you need the boundary between the two? Cant it fit into both?

Wiki definition for landscape photography said:
Landscape photography shows spaces within the world, sometimes vast and unending, but other times microscopic. Photographs typically capture the presence of nature but can also focus on man-made features or disturbances of landscapes.
Click to expand...

Wiki definition for wildlife photography said:
Wildlife photography is the act of taking photographs of wildlife.
Click to expand...

Its not just a bit of both, it IS both...
 
george g said:
Just a question, but why do you need the boundary between the two? Cant it fit into both?





Its not just a bit of both, it IS both...
Click to expand...

I was just wondering what other people thought really.

It seems to revolve around the size and prominence of the wildlife within the frame - possibly even percentage-wise.

I'm very happy if an image can cross categories.
 
It's a very interesting question.

Although, the point of interest for me is the question of why the need to pigeonhole it at all. Why call it anything? It is what it is.
 
To me your shot is as you describe it, a bird in its habitat and is wildlife/bird photography.

For me it would become a bird in a landscape when the landscape is the predominant feature of the shot. There is a crossover where it could be either as in the RSPB shots, in particular the owl. It's really down to how the photographer, user, viewer wishes to interpret or use it.
 
simon ess said:
It's a very interesting question.

Although, the point of interest for me is the question of why the need to pigeonhole it at all. Why call it anything? It is what it is.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your point about pigeon-holing. I suppose its something that interests me from an intellectual point of view at the moment. It's doing me good to hear other people's opinions and it helps to develop my own ideas!

Re: habitat - further consideration has led me to this.

I've recently taken photographs of peregrines at the eyrie. On some of them there is a small bird set within a massive cliff-face; yet you couldn't describe the cliff-face as the birds habitat. It happens to be where it has its nest but its habitat is a much wider area containing its food source, etc. I've tried to photograph the cliff-face as a landscape feature. So habitat and landscape in this case couldn't be used interchangeably.
 
They are not my main area of interests but I wouldn't mind doing them especially Landscape (Tuscany, for example), and wildlife on safari tour in South Africa, for example.

Sports & Fashion photography are my main genre I would like to learn
 
It's a wildlife picture. A portrait of the bird in its habitat. The main subject is the bird, not the habitat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top