Landscape photos, boring?
Scott W
photography related threads I am starting a thread just on this
subject.
I believe there is no right and wrong on this subject, but views as to
why we find a given photograph interesting or boring.
So here is my take on it, a landscape photograph can be great when
done very well. Unfortunately it is not at all easy to do it well and
most landscape photos that I see are in fact very boring.
Landscape photos are at a large disadvantage over many other types of
photographs because they are missing some of the things that adds
interest to a photograph. What of the wonderful things about
photography is it can freeze an instant in time. This might catch an
expression on a person face, a bear as it catch a salmon or a football
player catching a pass or limitless other examples. Landscape photos
also for the most part are missing a human element, people tend to
make photographs more interesting. What is more interesting a photo of
a bear in the woods, or a photo of a bear in the woods chasing a
person? Landscape photos also tend to lack a feeling of history or a
place in time. I love old photos that show what life looked like
years ago. Even photographs that are 20 years old can give a feeling
of the time they were taken, and photos from a 100 years ago are
almost always interesting to view, as long as they show how people
were living their lives.
But even with all of those disadvantages there are still some
landscape photos that I do really enjoy. I think that to do landscape
photograph poorly is one of the easiest forms of photograph, the
subject is not moving you can easily use a tripod, you can take a long
time setting up the focus and aperture and exposure setting. But
doing landscape photograph really well is in someway one of the
hardest form of photograph, simply because the subject by itself is
not enough to make the photo compelling.
Scott
William Graham
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174082211.3...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
of a horse, and a rack like an elk....Then you can send it out to stand in
the middle of your landscape photo, and later on, people will crowd around
the hanging picture and say, "What the hell is that?"
Mark˛
Often, the key to landscape is being there, and being there isn't always
easy.
It took four days of trying before I got this shotdriving through
snow...standing in the middle of a temporary pond, hoping the sun would poke
through, and then knowing how to get DOF so that submerged grass...to
mountain peaks are all in focus, with proper settings, tripod, etc. These
are basics, but most ignore them:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/58828940/original
This next one meant convincing the highway patrol to let me pass, when they
were turning everyone else away due to snow...and then driving around in the
snow looking for interesting shapes and colors:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/71893527/original
This next one might seem like it's impossible to take a bad photo due to the
subject...but do a Google Images search of Haleakala...and you'll find skads
of shots of the same crater...that are total CRAP. I like mine...and these
colors are real. It took bucking everyone's advice (which was to shot at
sunrise) and realize that only a sunSET would bring out the amazing colors
here...and then it was waiting for weather...and then getting it right for
the few minutes the cloud offered up an opportunity (sun behind me):
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36134121/original
Those colors are real.
Some will find the above boring too...but to each their own. I find tons of
other photography subjets boring--where others get some sort of kick.
We're all different.
Mark²
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
helensi...@hotmail.com
here)@cox..net> wrote:
> William Graham wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
WOW, that is an amazing shot Mark. What a beautiful place to be.
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36134121/original
This one is beautiful too:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/58828940/original
Scott W
here)@cox..net> wrote:
> William Graham wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/75308653
And in 40 years I bet that one will have far more value to you then
the other three put together.
I an not saying landscapes can't be very good, but you put a person in
the photo and
capture a moment in time and then you really have something IMO.
Scott
Annika1980
>
> So here is my take on it, a landscape photograph can be great when
> done very well. Unfortunately it is not at all easy to do it well and
> most landscape photos that I see are in fact very boring.
Well yeah, you would say that. You live in the most beautiful place
in the world (Hawaii) so anything is gonna be a downer after that.
Hey, while we're on the subject of landscapes .... does anyone have
any comments about wedding landscapes? Specifically, crooked wedding
landscapes .... with kite surfers?
Colin_D
from the exif you shot it at f/20. Classic diffraction theory would say
that you cannot get a sharp image at f/20, but you seem to have done
just that. I've never taken my 300D smaller than f/11, but I'm gonna
run some shots at f/22 to see what can be done.
Colin D.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
michelo
>http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/75308653
>
>And in 40 years I bet that one will have far more value to you then
>the other three put together.
>
>I an not saying landscapes can't be very good, but you put a person in
>the photo and
>capture a moment in time and then you really have something IMO.
>
>
>Scott
Aren't they venomous when their colors are that bright?
Michel
Duncan Chesley
>So here is my take on it, a landscape photograph can be great when
>done very well. Unfortunately it is not at all easy to do it well and
>most landscape photos that I see are in fact very boring.
I think a landscape photo is well done when it evokes a mood or
reaction or feeling in me. In a landscape that reaction is strangely
independent of the subject of the photograph. Like the March picture
of the woods on my Ansel Adams calendar right next to me. I have no
clue where he took the picture, and it isn't really relevant.
Portraits are all about the subject. My reaction to a portrait is a
reaction to the subject. It makes a difference that it is a picture of
my son or of Albert Einstein.
Both types can be profound. Both can be boring. "Done very well" is
kind of secondary, like icing on the cake.
Cheers,
DuncanC
Duncan Chesley
wrote:
>It is interesting that when you travel to a place like Hawaii you
>realize very quickly what a spectacular landscape is. It's tough to take
>a bad photo in a place like that.
>
I took a few bad ones when I was there.
When my brother visited me in Hawaii, after a few days he said, "I
expected Hawaii to be beautiful, but I had no idea that it would be
this continuously beautiful."
Cheers,
DuncanC
Mark˛
Not this one. The blue and black one could have caused death by this sort
of contact. I know my froggies...having been born near the jungles of
Colombia, South America...worked in the Brazilian rain forest. :)
Mark˛
I'm not a math guy, so I can't argue your point...(David Littlewood, or
Roger, where are you??) but I do know that the DOF worked, and the picture
was just what I hoped it would be. And thanks. :)
Mark˛
> In article <1174097075....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> "Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 16, 5:56 pm, "Scott W" <biph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> So here is my take on it, a landscape photograph can be great when
>>> done very well. Unfortunately it is not at all easy to do it well
>>> and most landscape photos that I see are in fact very boring.
>
> take a bad photo in a place like that.
You'd be surprised how many bad ones are taken...even in such a beautiful
place...
Have a look at this:
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&gbv=2&q=Haleakala&btnG=Search
I don't know what on Earth they did to screw up so badly on their Haleakala
shots, but they are just horrible.
Paul Furman
> ...a landscape photograph can be great when
> done very well. Unfortunately it is not at all easy to do it well and
> most landscape photos that I see are in fact very boring.
>
> Landscape photos are at a large disadvantage over many other types of
> photographs because they are missing some of the things that adds
> interest to a photograph. What of the wonderful things about
> photography is it can freeze an instant in time...
There was the other discussion about the saleability of artsy farsty
blurry b&w photos versus crisp nature shots... I like them all. As I
look at my portfolio, the vast majority of shots fall into the category
of 'would be nice for a glance or a bit more in a magazine article where
it was relevant to the topic' but when I look for stuff that might be
suitable for someone to hang on their wall, the field narrows
dramatically. Then recently I went through my stuff looking for mostly
landscape shots suitable for postcards... I know that's corny but what
the hell, sunsets are genuinely pretty and that is a legitimate use for
those. And there might be another category of shots that would be fun to
show to friends at a photography discussion group, they might really get
a kick out of those & noone would really give much of a damn. I send out
a photo update email to a number of people and that's a fair game format
for most anything because it's just a moment's glance at each, and I
have a real tough time paring things down to less than say 20 shots in
my weekly emails, often much much more.
Suitable for hanging on a wall:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=framed-exhibit
Suitable for post cards:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=framed-exhibit&PG=3&PIC=15
This from 7 years of a couple hundred shots a week on average. I'm
working on another gallery of wildlife shots, some might be good for a
wall, probably none for post cards, all good for showing photog buddies.
And then there is commercial work, a whole other category with more
discrete types where only certain shots would be considered 'worthwhile'.
Scott W
You get pretty use to it. For me photographing the mainland holds
more interest simply because it does
not look like Hawaii. Last year we went to Alaska and had a blast, it
sure looks different then it does here.
Scott
Mark˛
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/36134121/original
You're probably right about that, Scott.
I have thousands of slides that my late grandfather shot in the 40s and 50s.
My mom told me that he didn't usually like to have people in his pictures,
preferring landscapes without them... So guess which slides I chose to scan
with time-consuming care? -Why, those few he shot with PEOPLE in them, of
course! :) They are the ones that have the most meaning for me.
Scott W
else wanted then when she passed away so I took them when the idea of
scanning them. Not only did she not get people in her shots but she
pretty much did not get any evidence of mankind at all, no building,
no cars nothing. There were a few photos of people and those were the
only ones I found interesting.
The vast majority of her photos are landscapes that have very little
interest.
Scott
Mark˛
I spend quite a bit of time browsing my family photos on the computer and
have them just about memorized by now. All of my photos are organized my
year, location, and event...so hopefully when someone rescues my hard drives
and back-ups, they'll find soemthing...and someONE they enjoy rediscovering.
Scott W
When I visit my parents I take a external hard drive and grab a copy
of all of their photos,
at least since the have been shooting digital, which was sometime in
2000. It is
kind of fun to look through their photos and nice to be able to do so
before they
die.
Scott
michelo
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:Y6JKh.48700$7g3....@newsfe14.phx...
Looking at them, I notice at least one or many of those raisons:
- Sun is too high (noon).
- Bad exposure.
- Bad Scan.
- Bad composition.
Michel
michelo
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:9MJKh.8091$M65....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
...
>
> Suitable for hanging on a wall:
> http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=framed-exhibit
>
> Suitable for post cards:
> http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=framed-exhibit&PG=3&PIC=15
>
Very nice work Paul.
Michel
Duncan Chesley
>You get pretty use to it.
After seven years of twice weekly body surfing trips to Makapuu I was
still always astounded when driving past Sandy, rounding Makapuu
Point, and looking down the Pali and out over Rabbit Island.
(This said with tears in my eyes while looking out over my keyboard
through very heavy sleet and rain at 8 inches of new snow on the
ground.)
Cheers,
DuncanC
Alan Browne
> So here is my take on it, a landscape photograph can be great when
> done very well. Unfortunately it is not at all easy to do it well and
> most landscape photos that I see are in fact very boring.
>
> Landscape photos are at a large disadvantage over many other types of
> photographs because they are missing some of the things that adds
> interest to a photograph. What of the wonderful things about
> photography is it can freeze an instant in time. This might catch an
> expression on a person face, a bear as it catch a salmon or a football
> player catching a pass or limitless other examples. Landscape photos
> also for the most part are missing a human element, people tend to
> make photographs more interesting. What is more interesting a photo of
> a bear in the woods, or a photo of a bear in the woods chasing a
> person? Landscape photos also tend to lack a feeling of history or a
> place in time. I love old photos that show what life looked like
> years ago. Even photographs that are 20 years old can give a feeling
> of the time they were taken, and photos from a 100 years ago are
> almost always interesting to view, as long as they show how people
> were living their lives.
Assuming you have a choice of uncluttered areas to shoot and that you
can return to it a dozen times a year at several times of the day and in
varying weather, you have a huge pallette of visual experience to choose
from.
Some people have a more natural inclination to composing great landscape
shots. I'm not one of them, on the other hand I could spend an entire
year shooting in southern Utah and that would yield many interesting and
possibly noteworthy photos. My Hasselblad shots from Utah and Colorado
last summer have many very good landscape shots. Max 7D too.
Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Mark˛
How about posting some of these?
Mike
worth it. Especially when shot on 4x5 or 120 :-)
--Mike
> This topic came up on another thread but since we need a lot more
> photography related threads I am starting a thread just on this
> subject.
>
> I believe there is no right and wrong on this subject, but views as to
> why we find a given photograph interesting or boring.
>
> So here is my take on it, a landscape photograph can be great when
> done very well. Unfortunately it is not at all easy to do it well and
> most landscape photos that I see are in fact very boring.
>
> Landscape photos are at a large disadvantage over many other types of
> photographs because they are missing some of the things that adds
> interest to a photograph. What of the wonderful things about
> photography is it can freeze an instant in time. This might catch an
> expression on a person face, a bear as it catch a salmon or a football
> player catching a pass or limitless other examples. Landscape photos
> also for the most part are missing a human element, people tend to
> make photographs more interesting. What is more interesting a photo of
> a bear in the woods, or a photo of a bear in the woods chasing a
> person? Landscape photos also tend to lack a feeling of history or a
> place in time. I love old photos that show what life looked like
> years ago. Even photographs that are 20 years old can give a feeling
> of the time they were taken, and photos from a 100 years ago are
> almost always interesting to view, as long as they show how people
> were living their lives.
>
Mike
> Hey, while we're on the subject of landscapes .... does anyone have
> any comments about wedding landscapes? Specifically, crooked wedding
> landscapes .... with kite surfers?
Can't let it go, huh?
Wm Gardner
Scott,
Thank-you for an actual photography related subject. Between the postings
named after a canned meat product and the ongoing squabble, there are
precious few of these.
As one who shoots primarily landscapes I felt a little on the defensive
about your point, only at first though. I realize that your point sort of
ties along with something I have been thinking about recently. While I
personally prefer a lack of human presence and the 'timeless' effect of
landscape images, you are completely right that so many of them are merely
mediocre. While I cannot account for everyone who thinks they have captured
a masterpiece, I can speak for my own experiences.
Many of us do not live near the subject we are attempting to represent in
our images. For example, one of my most favorite places to shoot is Crater
Lake NP in Oregon. However, I live well over a thousand miles away from
southern Oregon. It takes a few hours to drive to the airport, 5 more to fly
to Portland, and then several more hours to reach this area. There are only
a couple of times a year I can go there, they are scheduled months in
advance, and I cannot go there every year. This means that I am somewhat
dependent on fate/luck. Sometimes I come back with some very good exposures.
Sometimes I come back with some pretty mediocre ones. Sometimes the weather
is so bad that you cannot even see the lake right in front of you (note: if
you have never been there it is roughly 6 miles across. We are talking about
a huge lake here) as clouds tend to settle in the caldera. When I got my
first slides back I was really excited at how wonderful my images looked.
Well, until I started looking at everyone else's that were taken from the
same vantage points, with the same boring lighting conditions. That was when
I started to realize that my slides looked so good because it was such a
scenic location and because it triggered all those memories from the trip;
not because I had produced anything that was truly unique. Being closer to a
location gives you more opportunities to plan your shooting around what is
more likely to give you better results, as opposed to just shooting what
happens to be there because you may never be there again.....
I have since discovered that if I want my landscape work to stand out I have
to learn when NOT to shoot as well. For me, if I can recognize that the
slide will not be 'special', I am better off keeping the camera in the bag
and simply
enjoying the setting for what it is. It is my opinion that is something a
lot of people just do not do. In my opinion, when you shoot a landscape
without regarding the situation (great lighting, interesting sky, unique
composition, etc), it just tends to water down your overall body of work.
This is one of my biggest beefs with digital (just an opinion and I am in
the process of converting over myself; absolutely no need for some long
defense of how wonderful digital is and to inform me of what a Luddite I
must be), the tendency to shoot when it is really pointless simply because
it costs nothing and is easy to do. It is a fine line between "this is my
only chance" and "this is not worth the film"; one I struggle with all the
time. This sometimes means I come back from a trip with several rolls to
process and sometimes hardly have any. I would suspect that most of the
Hawaii images that have been referenced were not taken by folks who have
frequent (or sustained) access to the location.
If anyone is interested in what got me thinking about this, there is a
fabulous shot of Crater Lake on the cover of this month's Pop Photo by Marc
Adamus. Good enough to make me buy a magazine that I generally don't care
for. I have an image of my own that has been very well reviewed taken from
almost the exact same spot and seeing his made me say "How on earth did he
get that shot?". Once I read the captioning and found he only lives about 3
hours from there it me realize that I could never take that shot because I
am never there at the right time of year, would have to leave my wife
behind, etc.... Really hit me how much of a difference it makes to have many
opportunities to shoot a subject, especially with landscape photography. It
is not that you will not do everything right the first time, it is just
unlikely that you will be there at the right time to produce a dramatic
landscape image. Unless you start doctoring it up in Photoshop and don't
even get me going on that topic!
Well, enough of my rambling. Just my $.02.......
Thanks for your time,
Bill
--
"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."
-President Theodore Roosevelt
Wm Gardner
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:9MJKh.8091$M65....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
Very nice Paul. Very nice indeed!
Paul Furman
Wm Gardner wrote:
> [Re: Crater Lake]...When I got my
> first slides back I was really excited at how wonderful my images looked.
> Well, until I started looking at everyone else's that were taken from the
> same vantage points, with the same boring lighting conditions. That was when
> I started to realize that my slides looked so good because it was such a
> scenic location and because it triggered all those memories from the trip;
> not because I had produced anything that was truly unique. Being closer to a
> location gives you more opportunities to plan your shooting around what is
> more likely to give you better results, as opposed to just shooting what
> happens to be there because you may never be there again.....
>
> I have since discovered that if I want my landscape work to stand out I have
> to learn when NOT to shoot as well. For me, if I can recognize that the
> slide will not be 'special', I am better off keeping the camera in the bag
> and simply enjoying the setting for what it is.
My solution to that is to bring macro and telephoto lenses and just
switch perspectives. So it's the "GRAND CANYON!!" and the weather stinks
or glaring clear midday sun and I'm shooting bugs, birds mosses & lichens.
Wm Gardner
Paul,
Agreed. I will often do that as well as I carry my 105 Micro 95% of the time
along with the 80-200 2.8 & TCs. That certainly provides me options. When I
was at Grand Teton last weekend the mountains were socked in with clouds so
I ended up shooting moose & coyote instead. Doubt they look as good as
something a Frans Lanting or Tom Manglesen would have done but they are
certainly better than what a "Grand Teton" image would have been on that
day.
Thanks,
Pudentame
> "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>> I don't know what on Earth they did to screw up so badly on their
>> Haleakala shots, but they are just horrible.
>>
>
> Looking at them, I notice at least one or many of those raisons:
> - Sun is too high (noon).
> - Bad exposure.
> - Bad Scan.
> - Bad composition.
>
Taken with the wrong equipment - side scanning sonar:
http://www.mbari.org/data/mapping/hawaii/images/haleakala_3.small.jpg
;-D
Mark˛
Ya... That's why a recent thread was so wrong... The thrust of the thread
was that photography is "dead" due to all the zillions of digital cameras in
everyone's hands. My answer was that--just because there's a higher ratio
of crap, this doesn't kill good photography. In fact, it highlights just
how wonderful photography CAN be, and it makes the good stuff stand out.
Hundreds of thousands of people have photographed Haleakala...but as you've
seen, nearly all of their shots are absolute garbage. But their garbage
only serves to make a pleasing shot all the more satisfying.
Mark˛
> "Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1174082211.3...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> This topic came up on another thread but since we need a lot more
>> photography related threads I am starting a thread just on this
>> subject.
>>
<Large snip of very good stuff by Mr. Gardner>
> If anyone is interested in what got me thinking about this, there is a
> fabulous shot of Crater Lake on the cover of this month's Pop Photo
> by Marc Adamus. Good enough to make me buy a magazine that I
> generally don't care for. I have an image of my own that has been
> very well reviewed taken from almost the exact same spot and seeing
> his made me say "How on earth did he get that shot?". Once I read the
> captioning and found he only lives about 3 hours from there it me
> realize that I could never take that shot because I am never there at
> the right time of year, would have to leave my wife behind, etc....
> Really hit me how much of a difference it makes to have many
> opportunities to shoot a subject, especially with landscape
> photography. It is not that you will not do everything right the
> first time, it is just unlikely that you will be there at the right
> time to produce a dramatic landscape image. Unless you start
> doctoring it up in Photoshop and don't even get me going on that
> topic!
> Well, enough of my rambling. Just my $.02.......
>
> Thanks for your time,
> Bill
This was an excellent post, Mr. Gardner.
Time is so key to landscape shooting. What an understatement that is, too!
And you're right about watering down your work with mediocre lighting/sky
conditions. Part of what happens there, I think, is that here you
are...you've made it to that special "spot" and yet you have no light..and
you have no sky. At that point, it's easy to fall into "salvage" mode...and
just try to get what you can. For me, when I'm in that situation, I'll
usually take a few just to remember the moments and the views...but avoid
the prolonged shooting, because I know already that they won't make it into
a frame.
Mark˛
Ya, I remember wishing for weather at the Tetons, but it just never came. I
learned my lesson that day the dumb way... I kept shooting away, knowing
all along it would be disappointing. And yet still those images sit on my
hard drives and in my drawers. :) -And the main reaction they now generate
is NOT anything pleasant...-only a reminder that I never found what I was
looking for there. Hmmm... Maybe it's time to access the old delete button
after all this time... :)
-Mark²
Scott W
out and many have given me things to think about. So let's see if we
can get some momentum going and start a few more photography threads.
The problem in this news group is not the people who go off topic, it
is all the rest of us that can't seem to talk about photography.
Surely there is much more to learn from one another.
Scott
Harry Lockwood
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
> Wm Gardner wrote:
> > "Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1174082211.3...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >> This topic came up on another thread but since we need a lot more
> >> photography related threads I am starting a thread just on this
> >> subject.
> >>
>
> <Large snip of very good stuff by Mr. Gardner>
>
[Another very large SNIP]
>
> This was an excellent post, Mr. Gardner.
> Time is so key to landscape shooting. What an understatement that is, too!
> And you're right about watering down your work with mediocre lighting/sky
> conditions. Part of what happens there, I think, is that here you
> are...you've made it to that special "spot" and yet you have no light..and
> you have no sky. At that point, it's easy to fall into "salvage" mode...and
> just try to get what you can. For me, when I'm in that situation, I'll
> usually take a few just to remember the moments and the views...but avoid
> the prolonged shooting, because I know already that they won't make it into
> a frame.
The problem I have with many landscapes - and I emphasize that this is
MY problem - is the lack of a focal point. That shot of beautiful
rolling hills and puffy clouds would be so much better if there were,
off to the side, a broken down, rusting, 80 year old John Deere tractor.
Without that "distraction" the shot becomes a mere record of an
attractive scene. On the other hand, I find "cityscapes" very
interesting, perhaps because there is often a transient quality captured
in the image.
Oh, and they should be in B&W (he says, while donning flame-retardant
clothing.)
HFL
--
Change hlockwood to hflockwood in email address
Doug McDonald
THE thing that makes a landscape image special is usually what I call
"shape" and "form". Also lighting.
I'm not just referring to composition, which is what you do with the
raw materials. I'm referring to both the overall form (which is
the raw material for composition, e.g. Yosemite valley from THAT viewpoint)
and mid-scale form. It's that latter, for example, that makes the Sierra
Nevada and southern Utah so very special. One does not get the
overall nice mountain shape, the contrast of light, shapely rocks,
and isolated, well shaped trees, anywhere else I know of. I just visited
Patagonia last Christmas. It has wonderful mountains. But it lacks
the other features, on the whole. Another place that does rival the
Sierra Nevada is Mt. Kenya, especially the eastern slopes.
Luck in the lighting department, caused by clouds, can generate such
effects.
Great landscape photographers live near places with intrinsic
potential and spend countless hours waiting for the right light.
I have a good eye, and can tell whether a place has potential,
but I usually don't have the time.
Doug McDonald
michelo
"Pudentame" <no....@no.were.invalid> wrote in message
news:45fcb17b$0$28148$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
You are wrong. This is Art.
Michel
Mark˛
> Mark˛ wrote:
>
>> Ya, I remember wishing for weather at the Tetons, but it just never
>> came. I learned my lesson that day the dumb way... I kept shooting
>> away, knowing all along it would be disappointing. And yet still
>> those images sit on my hard drives and in my drawers. :) -And the
>> main reaction they now generate is NOT anything pleasant...-only a
>> reminder that I never found what I was looking for there.
>
> from a Grand Canyon trip in 2005 that engender the same
> disappointments, but the lesson I take from it is "gotta go back
> again."
Oh, for me, that's just a given. I know I'll be back, and I've actually
been back more than once.
> Like my ol' high-school coach used to say, "keep runnin' that play
> 'til you get it right!"
:)
William Graham
"Pudentame" <no....@no.were.invalid> wrote in message
> Mark² wrote:
>
>> Ya, I remember wishing for weather at the Tetons, but it just never came.
>> I learned my lesson that day the dumb way... I kept shooting away,
>> knowing all along it would be disappointing. And yet still those images
>> sit on my hard drives and in my drawers. :) -And the main reaction they
>> now generate is NOT anything pleasant...-only a reminder that I never
>> found what I was looking for there.
>
> Grand Canyon trip in 2005 that engender the same disappointments, but the
> lesson I take from it is "gotta go back again."
>
> you get it right!"
Yeah, but that means that like Ansel Adams and Yosemite, you've gotta live
there for years in order to get the shots you really want....There comes a
time when you just gotta pack it in and look for what you can when you've
got the time to do it.....
michelo
"Pudentame" <no....@no.were.invalid> wrote in message
Exactly, artists always research new way to express their feeling. : -)
Michel
Douglas.
"michelo" <mich...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:etkgpn$5rm$1...@dns3.cae.ca...
:
: >>
: >> You are wrong. This is Art.
: >> Michel
: >
: > According to the site, it was research.
:
: Exactly, artists always research new way to express their feeling. : -)
:
: Michel
:
Very nice side step Michelo... I must try that myself one day.
michelo
"Douglas." <dj4grou...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:wwkLh.13064$8U4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
By writing art with a capital I thought it exempt me of adding a smiley. But
it went unnoticed and he had to specify it was (scientific) research.
Michel
Wm Gardner
"Harry Lockwood" <hloc...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hlockwood-FFE59...@news.verizon.net...
Can't go there with you on the cityscape and rusty tractor, just differences
in taste I suppose. Will sometimes include barns, boats, and abandoned
buildings though. Not sure why one is OK and another is not..... I used to
shoot things like that but when I came back from my photography hiatus (late
'90s), I found that shooting people or urban areas no longer appeal.
However, you are not going to receive any criticism on your B&W comment
from me, at least not yet anyway (you are not a B&W zealot are you?). My
opinion on color tends towards the philosophy of it needs to be a
contributing element in the image; that it needs to be key to the
composition. Yes, one would likely find plenty of images on my website where
the color is not that phenomenal and they probably should be B&W but that is
the nice thing about a philosophy, isn't it? It gives us a goal to shoot for
and something to pontificate about but does not generally cause terrible
things to happen if we do not abide by it...... ;-)
Thanks,
Douglas.
:
: "Douglas." <dj4grou...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
You get that around here!
Mark˛
I think tractors are interesting, and barns are rustic, etc., but some
landscapes are worth looking at just for the beauty of nature itself,
without any insertion of man-made stuff. Your tastes of tractors and cities
seem to point to a fascination with man's footprint on the world, and
sometimes I find that very interesting. On the other hand, there's a place
for the plain, unadorned beauty of nature.
Paul Furman
> "Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>Wm Gardner wrote:
>>>"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>photography related threads I am starting a thread just on this
>>>>subject.
>>
>><Large snip of very good stuff by Mr. Gardner>
>
>>Time is so key to landscape shooting. What an understatement that is, too!
>>And you're right about watering down your work with mediocre lighting/sky
>>conditions. Part of what happens there, I think, is that here you
>>are...you've made it to that special "spot" and yet you have no light..and
>>you have no sky. At that point, it's easy to fall into "salvage" mode...and
>>just try to get what you can. For me, when I'm in that situation, I'll
>>usually take a few just to remember the moments and the views...but avoid
>>the prolonged shooting, because I know already that they won't make it into
>>a frame.
>
> The problem I have with many landscapes - and I emphasize that this is
> MY problem - is the lack of a focal point. That shot of beautiful
> rolling hills and puffy clouds would be so much better if there were,
> off to the side, a broken down, rusting, 80 year old John Deere tractor.
> Without that "distraction" the shot becomes a mere record of an
> attractive scene. On the other hand, I find "cityscapes" very
> interesting, perhaps because there is often a transient quality captured
> in the image.
>
> Oh, and they should be in B&W (he says, while donning flame-retardant
> clothing.)
I can see the point about endless boring landscapes but... My specialty
is California native plants and I often shoot them in gardens, and I
sell plants for gardens and people keep asking me for pictures of native
plants that look like they are in gardens where you can see a building
or a path or something but my instinct and desire is the opposite. I may
be shooting a lupine growing from a sidewalk crack but I always strive
to make it look like it's way out in the wilderness :-)
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more&PG=3&PIC=14>
Harry Lockwood
Mark,
You should have been a psychologist! You've got me nailed exactly.
Man's footprint on the world, for better or worse. And you're exactly
right about the unadorned beauty (and purity) is nature. Maybe it's
just that there are so many out there who can record it so much better
than I.
Harry Lockwood
"Wm Gardner" <wmga...@sendnospam.wi-net.com> wrote:
Thanks for the comments, Bill. They're right on.
But I'm afraid though that I am a B&W zealot, possibly by default. I
just can't get my arms around color the way many others can. In
addition, the process of making a beautiful, archival print as the final
product motivates me.
I'll be in Vermont this summer searching out those dilapidated buildings
and old tractors, perhaps with beautiful rolling hills and puffy clouds
in the background. In B&W, of course.
Harry Lockwood
Pudentame <no....@no.were.invalid> wrote:
> Do you think Ansel Adams sprang full blown from the head of Zeus with
> all his skills fully developed? Not according to Ansel Adams they weren't.
>
> Sounds to me like you're describing a photographer who realizes he's
> still learning his craft.
>
> That's one of the problems I have with some of the more pugilistic
> contributors to this group. They consider their skills to be beyond the
> point where they have anything further to learn or improve, trumpeting
> their work as the best that ever existed; work that is at best mediocre.
Yep, still learning my craft. And on the low end of the curve, as well.
However, now that I'm retired, I'll be pursuing it with a vengeance.
Frank ess
> In article <vmnLh.139121$dO6.1...@newsfe07.phx>,
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> Harry Lockwood wrote:
>>> In article <933Lh.108527$dO6....@newsfe07.phx>,
>>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wm Gardner wrote:
>>>>> "Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1174082211.3...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> This topic came up on another thread but since we need a lot
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> photography related threads I am starting a thread just on this
>>>>>> subject.
>>>>>>
<snippage has occurred>
I'm in HFL's camp with at least one foot, and Mark's with another:
Nature, as well as nature, can be excruciatingly beautiful on its own,
and it is a challenge to depict that in a way accessible to others. A
challenge I've yet to meet satisfactorily, sad to say.
Something I /have/ been able to do, and of which I've seen several
excellent examples in links from Usenet posts, is to drag some
footprints into perspective, not as footprints /per se/, but as traces
of history. It's sometimes exciting to show someone that the dirt
currently under their feet was once under the feet of remarkable
characters, that if earth had memory it could tell fascinating
stories.
As a minor example, look at a scene or two from a location in the
Santa Monica Mountains National recreation Area, just inland from
world-famous Malibu, California: Paramount Ranch. Hundreds of movies
filmed there, and TV shows (Whats-her-Name, Frontier Doctor, is a
recent example), and it was the site og serious auto racing by
internationally recognized drivers in landmark cars.
Here you see "The Devil's Hairpin", a principal character in the
eponymous Cornel Wilde film about road racing in the era. Not a great
movie, but one with plenty of on-track "action" for fans:
http://www.fototime.com/713C0E186878889/orig.jpg
The mote in the distance is my wife, attending to her #1 "son",
Xoloitzquintle "ET".
Here's more-or-less the same view, from my copy of a copy of a copy of
a poor transfer of the movie to VHS:
http://www.fototime.com/13FB03D65F9AE3E/orig.jpg
Remarkable that the vegetation feature on a far hill remains
identifiable, no?
Two more photos from near there, unadorned, as they say, and not
unattractive:
http://www.fototime.com/FA1FB7E7D134F1E/orig.jpg
http://www.fototime.com/2B2A4D520965A00/orig.jpg
They do have additional significance for Paramount Ranch racing fans,
as explained in captions visible on the album page* where other photos
from that day are presented, but stand on their own as representatives
of the nature of Nature, don't they?
* http://www.fototime.com/inv/B08964296367BE4
A year earlier, same venue, different emphasis; these folks are in
nature more car- and performance-oriented than Nature-minded, but
there it is, all around and under them:
http://www.fototime.com/inv/F913DC81056BC30
Resp'y,
--
Frank ess
Douglas.
: In article <kMGdncb6C_xzdGDY...@bright.net>,
monochrome as much as colour... The coarseness of the culture in Australia
makes 'in your face' colour all the rage here... Sad because I love
monochrome images.
Douglas
Pudentame
Sorry 'bout that.
Mark˛
Actually Frank...I'm not in one camp or the other... I just wanted to
mention how BOTH have merit, and that nature can be plenty and
more...without additional stuff thrown in. I also like traces of man's
handiwork, especially old stuff, like this truck:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/49382462/original
In the above example, it isn't so much man's handiwork's effect on
nature...as it is Nature's effect on man's handiwork. :) -Sort of an ashes
to ashes kind of thing... :)
There really is room for both, and an endless array of everything
in-between.
Thanks for posting.
Mark²
There are always certain post I read whenever I see their name, and yours is
one of them (that's a cue for my detractors to chime in, saying the opposite
about me... A one...and a two...and a three...Go!)
William Graham
"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:RlGLh.64786 is to drag some
>> footprints into perspective, not as footprints /per se/, but as traces
>> of history. It's sometimes exciting to show someone that the dirt
>> currently under their feet was once under the feet of remarkable
>> characters, that if earth had memory it could tell fascinating
>> stories.
This is why at one time, I had the idea of selling dirt (yes, dirt) from
around the world....Collect drums of dirt from the Appian Way in Rome, the
Sahara Desert, the Austrailian Outback, the Beach at Maui, or the French
Rivera, etc, and put it in envelopes and sell it on E-bay, together with a
certificate of authenticity, for several dollars each. I don't know why I
never persued the idea....I guess I couldn't handle having to tell someone,
when they asked what I did for a living, "I sell dirt".
Mark˛
I have a small collection of dirt, actually. :)
My favorite is my little bottle of dirt from my home country of
Colombia...but I also have dirt from Papua New Guinea, Korea, Hong Kong,
Equador, Alaska, East Germany, West Germany, Hawaii, Panama, Ukraine,
Canada, Mexico, Haiti, Puerto Rico, Brasil, and a number of others I can't
think of off hand.
It reminds me of a movie trailer I saw some years ago, introducing one of
the characters by saying "a man who owned a small piece of land..." -and
then they show this old guy holding up a big dirt-clod with a bit of grass
growing out the top...
:)
William Graham
"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
Well there....You see, there are people who collect dirt. So, one could make
a good living selling dirt samples to these people.....You could travel all
over the world, (and charge it off on your income taxes as a business
expense) looking at, and buying 55 gallon drums of dirt, and arranging to
have it shipped to your warehouse in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania. (or
wherever) Where your workers would weigh out 1/4 oz portions of it, put them
in little plastic envelopes, and get them ready for mailing out to all the
millions of dirt collectors in the world, along with the certificates of
authenticity that could be signed by notary publics who stood by watching
the process.
Please give me honorable mention when your company stock passes $100 a
share on the New York Stock Exchange.....And say "Hi" to Bill Gates for me
when you are out on the links......
Mark˛
Ah...but there's the rub! I have no interest whatsoever in BUYING dirt from
anyone. I only find enjoyment in the dirt that I've actually *personally*
picked up from these places. :)
>You
> could travel all over the world, (and charge it off on your income
> taxes as a business expense) looking at, and buying 55 gallon drums
> of dirt, and arranging to have it shipped to your warehouse in
> Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania. (or wherever) Where your workers would
> weigh out 1/4 oz portions of it, put them in little plastic
> envelopes, and get them ready for mailing out to all the millions of
> dirt collectors in the world, along with the certificates of
> authenticity that could be signed by notary publics who stood by
> watching the process. Please give me honorable mention when your
> company stock passes $100 a share on the New York Stock
> Exchange.....And say "Hi" to Bill Gates for me when you are out on
> the links......
You know... It just might work, William! Seriously. There would be a bit
of fun in owning a HUGE collectino of (perhaps) little glass vials of dirt
from, say, a hundred countries and all 7 continents... :)
I can see it on those TV shopping chanels as, "The gift for the guy with
everything...but this!"
:)
I ain't kiddin, Will! :) If they can sell a million pet rocks, you oughta
be able to sell 10 million "Little Pieces of Land."
Paul Furman
> William Graham wrote:
>>Mark˛ wrote in message
>>>William Graham wrote:
>>>>Mark˛ wrote
I've got a friend who collects sand or pebbles from her travels, and
puts them in a jar as a candleholder, we got some nice stuff from the
beach here & she took it back home to the Midwest (cell phone photo):
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/misc-photos/2006-10-15-pebbles>
Back to the topic of boring landscape photography!
Or hey, how about selling photos of exotic dirt (landscapes).
Mark˛
Don't you know that it's illegal to post camera phone picturs here?
But, Hey! -Nice dirt!
:)
Paul Furman
This is fair game because the entire camera component of the phone
measures 35mm across. It is 35mm landscape photography.
Mark˛
Ah!
Silly me...
William Graham
"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> of fun in owning a HUGE collectino of (perhaps) little glass vials of dirt
> from, say, a hundred countries and all 7 continents... :)
>
> I can see it on those TV shopping chanels as, "The gift for the guy with
> everything...but this!"
> :)
> I ain't kiddin, Will! :) If they can sell a million pet rocks, you
> oughta be able to sell 10 million "Little Pieces of Land."
You know, it should appeal to people who are history conscious......Having a
little piece of ground that might have been trod upon by Julius Caesar, or
Jesus, or Genghis Khan, or someone like that from the distant past......
People pay a lot more for things that aren't near as interesting....Some
movie queen's shoes, for example......I remember having a beer in the
drinking establishment in Munich where Hitler used to sit and make his plans
to take over the world.....It was a memorable brew, that one.......
William Graham
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:%uILh.10154$M65...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
Well, you could certainly include a photo of the place where the dirt was
collected when you mail it to the people who buy it....Sort of part of the
proof that you were actually there, and the dirt is authentic.
Pudentame
> I have a small collection of dirt, actually. :)
> My favorite is my little bottle of dirt from my home country of
> Colombia...but I also have dirt from Papua New Guinea, Korea, Hong Kong,
> Equador, Alaska, East Germany, West Germany, Hawaii, Panama, Ukraine,
> Canada, Mexico, Haiti, Puerto Rico, Brasil, and a number of others I can't
> think of off hand.
Hmmm? Never collected dirt, but I do have a genuine Iraqi sex stone.
Mark˛
Dirt is cheap...and this way...I can say I own a "bit of land" from all over
the world... :)