Are Landscapes Too Easy?

johnyates · 02-05-2013, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by JinDesu

You'd be amazed how many things get in the way of a good landscape shot

Ya, like mountains for instance. Mountains are all well fine and good--but they do interfere with the view.

JinDesu · 02-05-2013, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by johnyates

Ya, like mountains for instance. Mountains are all well fine and good--but they do interfere with the view.

Don't joke. I live in a city where all the beautiful buildings are surrounded with tall ugly one.

**mattb123** · 02-05-2013, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by JinDesu

Don't joke. I live in a city where all the beautiful buildings are surrounded with tall ugly one.

Sounds like an opportunity for some juxtaposition shots!

tuco · 02-05-2013, 03:56 PM

You can improve your technical skills both camera and post processing, buy better gear and learn the well establish rules of landscapes. Most everyone should improve at their landscapes given time, hard work and finding those places at times that most don't see everyday.

But on the other hand, it seems we are only born with so much creative spark. And I can't say how likely or how much anyone could improve on that no matter how hard they work at it. So categories like "straight photography" that don't need technical perfection to carry the image along but do need more creative mojo seems more rare. YMMV.

desertscape · 02-05-2013, 04:32 PM - **1 Like**

I've been shooting landscapes for 30 years and yes it is easy to shoot an average landscape shot. It takes a great eye and sometimes a rare event in nature to get a really nice landscape shot. Knowing when to be at a location is part of the equation. Predicting a scene and planning to shoot it helps as well. Waiting for something to happen, then chasing it, is sometimes too late.
Here's an old film shot---
Santa Catalina Mts. | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

johnyates · 02-05-2013, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by desertscape

Knowing when to be at a location is part of the equation. Predicting a scene and planning to shoot it helps as well.

Agreed.
This app can be quite helpful => The Photographer's Ephemeris

normhead · 02-05-2013, 06:50 PM

My way to define the trials of landscape photography is to point out that to be good, you have to find a spectacular landscape with the perfect light for it. Then, realizing the limitations of the technology, you have to realize that you have 1/10th the colour depth, 1/1000 the of the dynamic range and 1/10th of the saturation. So you have to have a scene so spectacular in it's own way, that 10% of spectacular is still spectacular.

mikeSF · 02-05-2013, 07:37 PM - **1 Like**

you do realize the moon is actually BEHIND the clouds, not in front of them, right?

**Miguel** · 02-05-2013, 07:51 PM - **1 Like**

Well if cutting and pasting visual components to create a pretty picture is your idea of a "landscape" then indeed it is too easy. I suggest you quit while you are ahead.

The reality is that the make believe images you constructed illustrate a make believe world--one that has been shown before on countless insurance company throwaway calendars over the past 60 years.

These are not real landscapes, especially in 2013; they are shlock.

Recreating ersatz versions as you've done, without having one's tongue firmly in cheek, and expecting to be taken seriously as your modest title implies is, well, humorous on a whole 'nother level. So, thanks.

I do think that the nature of landscape photography is worth talking about. The very definition of what a landscape photographic should entail is quite unsettling these days. Generally from an academic point of view, traditional landscapes of pretty places are considered uncreative and banal these days.

Personally, while I love to make pictures of pretty places, I find making a photo of a more ordinary but still vital place to be more satisfying. But that's not easy.

M

SpecialK · 02-05-2013, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by mikeSF

you do realize the moon is actually BEHIND the clouds, not in front of them, right?

Not in his world.

**MSL** · 02-05-2013, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by wsteffey

Today's cameras, even relatively cheap ones, have gotten so good that you can put one on fully automatic, point it in the right direction and get a decent result. If your first attempt is not quite what you see, put the camera mode on "scene" and try again. Still not what you see? Try bracketing, many camera's will do this for you automatically. Still not what you see? Try HDR. Again, many good cameras have this function built in. Still not satisfied? Take a RAW image or two or three (so you can eliminate pesky tourists) and work out the best exposure, contrast, color balance and shadows/highlights at home with a bottle of Bud close at hand.

What you've written applies to photography in general, not just shooting landscapes. Sure it has gotten easier to take good photos, and certainly easier to take technically correct, but completely uninspiring photos. Millions of hard drives are littered with them. But the photographs that I would call "art" - that is still a reflection of the skill of the photographer. I use "art" in the sense of doing any activity to an unusual level of expertise - in the way that Gretzky was an artist on the ice, or Jordan on the basketball court. If it was all about the technology why would anyone specialize in black and white images? But the mere choice of excluding color is in of itself part of the creative process.

Others have made similar comments so I apologize for not quoting. The camera is a tool - and it is up to the photographer to know how the tool works in order to capture what is there, and what isn't there.

One final note - "art" doesn't end with the clicking of the shutter. Much can be done with post-processing, and the creativity shown adds another dimension to the image. I'm often amazed by what is done in the post-processing contests here - not because of the technical expertise of the tool (whether it be the user or built in macro functions and plug ins) but because of the vision that gets added to someone else's starting image.

**Digitalis** · 02-05-2013, 10:09 PM

Oh look, we have an aspiring Jerry Uelsmann here.

If you are finding any genre of photography "easy" then you simply aren't trying hard enough. Photography isn't about doing what comes easy to you, it is about exploring how far you will go to accomplish your goals*. I have been involved in photography since I was 13 years old, i'm 28 now and I can do many things that some photographers would find impossible to accomplish, and that is because I work at it. But that doesn't mean i'm going to stop working, real photographers never stop chasing the "Ne plus ultra" and some photographers spend summer vacations there.

Frankly I won't be impressed until you develop the skills required to shoot 8X10 cameras and produce 13X19" hand printed Platinum prints like this:

*if your goal is to make pretty pictures, then you have a long way to go towards developing an appropriate aesthetic.

Louicio · 02-05-2013, 11:00 PM

It always easy to take bad photographs...

mrNewt · 02-06-2013, 11:23 AM

Poor guy ... don't think he is coming back any-time soon ...

...

Landscape is not easy ... is hours of planning and a little bit of luck ... I think we should of left it at that

MRRiley · 02-06-2013, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by wsteffey

Are Landscapes too Easy? ...........

Only if all you aspire to are snapshots. A great landscape photo combines perfect placement of camera, perfect focal length selection, perfect timing, perfect light and is often the result of exhaustive planning as well as copious good fortune.

When you have a portfolio of perfect landscape images come back and tell us they're too easy.

Mike

02-05-2013, 10:09 PM	#27
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Oh look, we have an aspiring Jerry Uelsmann here. If you are finding any genre of photography "easy" then you simply aren't trying hard enough. Photography isn't about doing what comes easy to you, it is about exploring how far you will go to accomplish your goals. I have been involved in photography since I was 13 years old, i'm 28 now and I can do many things that some photographers would find impossible to accomplish, and that is because I work at it. But that doesn't mean i'm going to stop working, real photographers never stop chasing the "Ne plus ultra" and some photographers spend summer vacations there. Frankly I won't be impressed until you develop the skills required to shoot 8X10 cameras and produce 13X19" hand printed Platinum prints like this: if your goal is to make pretty pictures, then you have a long way to go towards developing an appropriate aesthetic. Last edited by Digitalis; 02-05-2013 at 10:26 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
People Self portraits are not easy, but a lot of fun! Here are some in black and white.	Brian Wahl	Post Your Photos!	5	01-01-2010 01:47 PM
Are we too odd as well as too few or is it just me?	jptreen	Pentax DSLR Discussion	72	10-09-2009 02:59 AM
Machinery Macros are easy - Cars are hard!	Igilligan	Post Your Photos!	14	10-06-2009 05:00 AM
What are the best paper types for landscapes/architecture prints?	mike.hiran	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	3	09-13-2008 09:01 AM
Too easy???	Tom Lusk	Post Your Photos!	17	04-08-2007 07:51 AM

02-05-2013, 02:50 PM	#16
johnyates Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Saskatoon, SK Photos: Albums Posts: 1,345	Originally posted by JinDesu You'd be amazed how many things get in the way of a good landscape shot Ya, like mountains for instance. Mountains are all well fine and good--but they do interfere with the view.

02-05-2013, 02:57 PM	#17
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by johnyates Ya, like mountains for instance. Mountains are all well fine and good--but they do interfere with the view. Don't joke. I live in a city where all the beautiful buildings are surrounded with tall ugly one.

02-05-2013, 03:16 PM	#18
mattb123 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,872	Originally posted by JinDesu Don't joke. I live in a city where all the beautiful buildings are surrounded with tall ugly one. Sounds like an opportunity for some juxtaposition shots!

02-05-2013, 03:56 PM	#19
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	You can improve your technical skills both camera and post processing, buy better gear and learn the well establish rules of landscapes. Most everyone should improve at their landscapes given time, hard work and finding those places at times that most don't see everyday. But on the other hand, it seems we are only born with so much creative spark. And I can't say how likely or how much anyone could improve on that no matter how hard they work at it. So categories like "straight photography" that don't need technical perfection to carry the image along but do need more creative mojo seems more rare. YMMV.

02-05-2013, 04:32 PM - 1 Like	#20
desertscape Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,272	I've been shooting landscapes for 30 years and yes it is easy to shoot an average landscape shot. It takes a great eye and sometimes a rare event in nature to get a really nice landscape shot. Knowing when to be at a location is part of the equation. Predicting a scene and planning to shoot it helps as well. Waiting for something to happen, then chasing it, is sometimes too late. Here's an old film shot--- Santa Catalina Mts. \| Flickr - Photo Sharing!

02-05-2013, 06:20 PM	#21
johnyates Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Saskatoon, SK Photos: Albums Posts: 1,345	Originally posted by desertscape Knowing when to be at a location is part of the equation. Predicting a scene and planning to shoot it helps as well. Agreed. This app can be quite helpful => The Photographer's Ephemeris

02-05-2013, 06:50 PM	#22
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	My way to define the trials of landscape photography is to point out that to be good, you have to find a spectacular landscape with the perfect light for it. Then, realizing the limitations of the technology, you have to realize that you have 1/10th the colour depth, 1/1000 the of the dynamic range and 1/10th of the saturation. So you have to have a scene so spectacular in it's own way, that 10% of spectacular is still spectacular.

02-05-2013, 07:37 PM - 1 Like	#23
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,620	you do realize the moon is actually BEHIND the clouds, not in front of them, right?

02-05-2013, 07:51 PM - 1 Like	#24
Miguel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Near Seattle Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,743	Well if cutting and pasting visual components to create a pretty picture is your idea of a "landscape" then indeed it is too easy. I suggest you quit while you are ahead. The reality is that the make believe images you constructed illustrate a make believe world--one that has been shown before on countless insurance company throwaway calendars over the past 60 years. These are not real landscapes, especially in 2013; they are shlock. Recreating ersatz versions as you've done, without having one's tongue firmly in cheek, and expecting to be taken seriously as your modest title implies is, well, humorous on a whole 'nother level. So, thanks. I do think that the nature of landscape photography is worth talking about. The very definition of what a landscape photographic should entail is quite unsettling these days. Generally from an academic point of view, traditional landscapes of pretty places are considered uncreative and banal these days. Personally, while I love to make pictures of pretty places, I find making a photo of a more ordinary but still vital place to be more satisfying. But that's not easy. M

02-05-2013, 09:28 PM	#25
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,481	Originally posted by mikeSF you do realize the moon is actually BEHIND the clouds, not in front of them, right? Not in his world.

02-05-2013, 09:55 PM	#26
MSL Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Greater Toronto Area Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,749	Originally posted by wsteffey Today's cameras, even relatively cheap ones, have gotten so good that you can put one on fully automatic, point it in the right direction and get a decent result. If your first attempt is not quite what you see, put the camera mode on "scene" and try again. Still not what you see? Try bracketing, many camera's will do this for you automatically. Still not what you see? Try HDR. Again, many good cameras have this function built in. Still not satisfied? Take a RAW image or two or three (so you can eliminate pesky tourists) and work out the best exposure, contrast, color balance and shadows/highlights at home with a bottle of Bud close at hand. What you've written applies to photography in general, not just shooting landscapes. Sure it has gotten easier to take good photos, and certainly easier to take technically correct, but completely uninspiring photos. Millions of hard drives are littered with them. But the photographs that I would call "art" - that is still a reflection of the skill of the photographer. I use "art" in the sense of doing any activity to an unusual level of expertise - in the way that Gretzky was an artist on the ice, or Jordan on the basketball court. If it was all about the technology why would anyone specialize in black and white images? But the mere choice of excluding color is in of itself part of the creative process. Others have made similar comments so I apologize for not quoting. The camera is a tool - and it is up to the photographer to know how the tool works in order to capture what is there, and what isn't there. One final note - "art" doesn't end with the clicking of the shutter. Much can be done with post-processing, and the creativity shown adds another dimension to the image. I'm often amazed by what is done in the post-processing contests here - not because of the technical expertise of the tool (whether it be the user or built in macro functions and plug ins) but because of the vision that gets added to someone else's starting image.

02-05-2013, 11:00 PM	#28
Louicio Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Melbourne Posts: 432	It always easy to take bad photographs...

02-06-2013, 11:23 AM	#29
mrNewt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: ON, RH Posts: 2,181	Poor guy ... don't think he is coming back any-time soon ... ... Landscape is not easy ... is hours of planning and a little bit of luck ... I think we should of left it at that

02-06-2013, 11:27 AM	#30
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Originally posted by wsteffey Are Landscapes too Easy? ........... Only if all you aspire to are snapshots. A great landscape photo combines perfect placement of camera, perfect focal length selection, perfect timing, perfect light and is often the result of exhaustive planning as well as copious good fortune. When you have a portfolio of perfect landscape images come back and tell us they're too easy. Mike