Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-28-2009, 09:24 AM   #1
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Leicester, England
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 89
What is your definition of 'landscape photography'?

Spawned by a thread on another forum and my own inability to sort my thoughts clearly:

What is your definition of 'landscape photography'?

And what are the boundaries of your definition?

When does it become something else, and what are those something elses?

09-28-2009, 10:02 AM   #2
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Montreal (Canada)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 200
As soon there is something else in the photo that distracts from the landscape it's not landscape photography.


(yes, there are exceptions to the rule ... and yes mash-ups are acceptable ...)

Max.
09-28-2009, 10:49 AM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,759
To me, landscape photography is scenery, of any kind from wilderness vistas to urban ctyscapes - land or sea.
The primary subject is the scenery although the picture may contain other, secondary, elements such as people, animals or objects that are not truly part of the scenery.

The boundaries are the top, bottom and sides of my camera viewfinder or the picture frame.

It becomes something else when the dominant feature is not the scenery but some object(s) that make the scenery of secondary importance.

Mickey
09-28-2009, 02:01 PM   #4
PEG Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 57,760
QuoteOriginally posted by Graham67 Quote
Spawned by a thread on another forum and my own inability to sort my thoughts clearly:

What is your definition of 'landscape photography'?

And what are the boundaries of your definition?

When does it become something else, and what are those something elses?
I wonder why do you ask, is it for a competition or something? where the rules are not too clear.

09-28-2009, 02:45 PM   #5
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,482
QuoteOriginally posted by Thesorus Quote
As soon there is something else in the photo that distracts from the landscape it's not landscape photography.

Max's answer leaves a lot unstated. He presumes that it's understood what landscape photography is and simply defines when something that would otherwise be landscape photography ceases to be and becomes something else. Still, the criterion seems useful.

What Aristotle would do is ask how people use the word generally. I think it's pretty clear that "landscape" (especially in the photographic context) is generally used to refer to open land, outside the city, with little (often no) evidence of human habitation. Common subjects for landscapes include mountains and valleys, fields, lakes, rivers, waterfalls and coastlines, deserts, etc. Impossible to do landscape photography in New York City. I don't think Central Park counts as "landscape".

But I return now to Max's test: if something besides the landscape becomes the center of interest, then it's not landscape photography. What could that something be? Wildlife is the obvious answer, and I generally think of wildlife photography as something different from landscape photography - different esthetically, and also different in that it poses different challenges to the photographer. The wildlife photographer's alarm clock goes off around 4:30 am just like the landscape photographer's. But the wildlife photographer grabs his 300mm lens, while the landscape photographer grabs his 21 or his 15.

What else could convert a potential landscape shot into something else, besides wildlife? The presence of human beings in the shot can be very distracting. Indeed, most of the landscape photographers I know (including my brother-in-law, who is a very good and devoted landscape photographer) really don't like to photograph people. I know that I am not a landscape photographer, not just because I don't like to get up that early in the morning, but also because I would almost always rather have a person in my photos.

An interesting question is, is a photo of the ocean a landscape? I think not. But "seascape" isn't a photographic genre that has a lot of examples.

Will
09-28-2009, 03:06 PM   #6
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,643
I was going to post but .... well why follow Will? Ah what the heck a summary as I see it:

Landscape: Outside human (major) development and no wildlife. Land or sea
Wildlife: Well err that doesn't include Fido or Daisy the cow
Street shooting: Urban/town/village
Portrait: Studio or outdoor people controlled people shooting.
Macro: Close up in all it's various magnifications and forms.
Flowers, bees and bugs: Flowers, bees and bugs.
Birds: A subset of wildlife shooting that is much harder much of the time.
Commercial: Weddings, fashion, and any number of industrial photography work.
Journalism: Shooting for the news
War Journalism: Toughest job possible with a camera
Paparazzi: [expletive deleted] who make a living with a camera and make all of the above look bad to the public
09-28-2009, 03:34 PM   #7
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Leicester, England
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 89
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by kerrowdown Quote
I wonder why do you ask, is it for a competition or something? where the rules are not too clear.
No. No reason other than for the sake of creating a bit of discussion and pondering.

09-28-2009, 04:35 PM   #8
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Montreal (Canada)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 200
Well, I'm flabergasted by Will's answers!!! :-) Thanks for the analysis!

Max.
09-28-2009, 07:04 PM   #9
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: MT
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,349
I think the original post may have been looking for some of those gray areas like much of the European landscape photography that emphasizes the land/flora/fauna/lakes etc and just happens to have a cottage or two involved but not as focal points. It may include rock fencelines, power lines, orchard or treelines planted many years earlier. I think most agree that work like Brit, Charlie Waite does is clearly landscape photography regardless of human elements in much of his work. The publisher of his 1992 book The Making of Landcape Photographs: A practical guide to the art and techniques. didn't seem to mind that the book is littered with human influence in the landscape images.

Of that same general philosophy--that human elements don't eliminate an image from being defined as landscape photography--American, John Shaw includes the interesting farm/field landscapes of the Washington state Palouse region in his book, Landscape Photography. Interestingly, the front cover of Allen Rokach and Anne Millman's book Landscapes uses a human planted line of trees to offset a tulip farm. That book was published by Amphoto, one of the most prolific photography presses in the world. Surely their definition of "landscape" is a bit more broad than we have been discussing in this thread.
09-29-2009, 11:33 AM   #10
Veteran Member
mithrandir's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,895
Any SCAPE the includes LAND in it.
09-29-2009, 11:58 AM   #11
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada eh!
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 673
land·scape
noun
1. An expanse of scenery that can be seen in a single view: a desert landscape.
2. A picture depicting an expanse of scenery.
3. The branch of art dealing with the representation of natural scenery.
4. The aspect of the land characteristic of a particular region: a bleak New England winter landscape.
5. Grounds that have been landscaped: liked the house especially for its landscape.
6. An extensive mental view; an interior prospect: "They occupy the whole landscape of my thought" (James Thurber).
09-29-2009, 11:58 AM   #12
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,643
QuoteOriginally posted by mithrandir Quote
Any SCAPE the includes LAND in it.
sMaRt-AsS
09-29-2009, 01:05 PM   #13
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,482
QuoteOriginally posted by Ron Boggs Quote
I think the original post may have been looking for some of those gray areas like much of the European landscape photography that emphasizes the land/flora/fauna/lakes etc and just happens to have a cottage or two involved but not as focal points. It may include rock fencelines, power lines, orchard or treelines planted many years earlier. I think most agree that work like Brit, Charlie Waite does is clearly landscape photography regardless of human elements in much of his work. The publisher of his 1992 book The Making of Landcape Photographs: A practical guide to the art and techniques. didn't seem to mind that the book is littered with human influence in the landscape images.

Of that same general philosophy--that human elements don't eliminate an image from being defined as landscape photography--American, John Shaw includes the interesting farm/field landscapes of the Washington state Palouse region in his book, Landscape Photography. Interestingly, the front cover of Allen Rokach and Anne Millman's book Landscapes uses a human planted line of trees to offset a tulip farm. That book was published by Amphoto, one of the most prolific photography presses in the world. Surely their definition of "landscape" is a bit more broad than we have been discussing in this thread.

Excellent response that sets off a couple of thoughts.

There is in fact a quite distinct difference between European and American thoughts about "landscape", in reality, in painting, and in photography. My Ph.D. is in Classics and while I don't know much about ancient art, I do know that the Greeks and Romans not surprisingly made lots of pictures of outdoors scenes that LOOK pretty landscape-y to us, but which usually include a temple or something else like that, often with a human being or a god or at least a naiad or dryad thrown in for good measure. The ancients were not interested in mountains qua mountains, indeed, if you had suggested to them that they should be they would have thought you crazy - the way a farmer might laugh if you suggested he should admire his goats. Wild landscape (if I can use the term) was relatively rare even 2000+ years ago in Europe, and where it did occur, it was generally feared and not regarded as something beautiful in its own right. And that continues to be the attitude of most Europeans toward "wild landscape" right into the twentieth century. European landscape painters don't really get going until about the 18th century, and even then, they tend to paint tame landscapes.

What changed attitudes toward landscape was first the discovery of the New World, and then in particular the discovery of the American West. As we know now, the first great paintings of the West to make their way back east or to Europe were laughed at because people thought the colors were too weird to be believed. Then later they discovered they were wrong and the painters were right: the mountains and canyons and other landscapes of the American West are strange. But the strangeness took a while to register. It took naturalists like John Muir a long time to persuade other Americans - who were still fairly European in their mindsets - that wild landscape, a.k.a. "wilderness", was a thing of beauty that should be left alone and appreciated in its own right.

These discoveries - especially the West - had an impact on European ideas about art that was on a par with - but almost the opposite of - the impact that the rediscovery of the ancients had on the Renaissance. The Renaissance rediscovered what it means to be human; the late 19th century artists of the West rediscovered what it means to be wild and indifferent to humans.

Anyway, it ain't the presence of a stray person that turns a landscape into a non-landscape. If the human (or animal or house or sailboat) appears to be in the foreground and the landscape appears to be background, then we can at least say that it's not a "pure" landscape.

But it's important to keep in mind that generic purity is almost non-existent in any of the arts. And it's hard to pigeon-hole almost any interesting work of art. Parts of a Beethoven symphony seem to be songs; Shakespeare's plays are full of lyric poems and oratory and epigram; 18th century English paintings of the aristocracy often combine elements of landscape and portraiture; and so on. Thinking about genres is a lot like thinking about primary colors. A painting from Picasso's blue period is blue and it's interesting to notice that. But it isn't ALL blue.

Here's a painting I know in the Dallas Museum called West Texas Landscape. It has the word "landscape" in its title, so the artist (Harry Carnohan) apparently thought it was a landscape. And evidence of human habitation is front and center. But no humans. Stick a person in the middle ground - somebody small - and it would make a difference, but the painting might still be a landscape. Stick two people in the painting, especially in the foreground, and it becomes a painting "about" the people, rather than a painting about the austerity of West Texas.

Will

Will
09-29-2009, 03:07 PM   #14
Veteran Member
arbib's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Camby, Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 379
Well, after reading many responses, I have my own definition. It is a from a point of view living in more modern times, in urban and rural live. I can take the two words that make up "Land""Scape", and use those definitions. But, I am not a purest in my photographic expression! (OK, what is a "purist" can be another topic to figure out)..
I tend to go with a more modern interpretation., that I made up to suit my taste. As many have done already in this discussion.

A landscape has several divinations to me....
A) Open Land and Expanse images (used for Picture Post cards. The typical interpretation)
B) Urban Scenes that show a wide perspective of an area...(Can include both natural and man made structures)
C) Wide Perspective of a Modern City. (Taken from a high vantage point to show a large area of the cities expanse, or a wide to ultra-wide ground image of large man made structure or structures)
D) And Yes, I include "Sea-Scapes" because they will include some sort of man made and/or natural structures for the help of adding perspective and interest.
EDIT Added
E And Yes, floral close ups can be considered "landscapes" too. There are a part of the land after all.

So, to me.....The Term "Landscape" is used for more of an expansive Wide or Ultra-Wide viewpoint of any massive area that needs to be shown it all (or most) of it's glory. Which includes the traditional viewpoints to more modern viewpoints to anyones viewpoint that makes sense to them.

Last edited by arbib; 10-09-2009 at 09:34 AM.
09-29-2009, 07:47 PM   #15
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,700
I know one when I see one....

Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, definition, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A guide to using the 10-17mm DA for landscape photography amcinroy Pentax Lens Articles 11 11-17-2013 09:42 PM
New website - fine art landscape photography - need your feedback José Ramos Photographic Industry and Professionals 12 05-30-2010 08:14 PM
Lens choices for landscape photography insanoff Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 03-11-2010 12:54 PM
lens for landscape photography seymop Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 20 09-01-2008 07:05 AM
Landscape photography and a N.D. Filter? roverlr3 Photographic Technique 19 07-13-2008 07:30 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:57 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top