Landscape photos, boring?

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.

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

 

Yeah......You need a mechanical animal that has the body of a cow, the head
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?"

 

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

 

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

 

All very nice photos Mark, but this one I really like
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

 

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?

 

Mark, all those shots are good, specially the Half Dome shot. I see
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.

 

Aren't they venomous when their colors are that bright?

Michel

 

I hope that's not a poisonous tree frog on the kid's face!

 

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

 

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

 

Good paragraph.

Bad paragraph.

Let it go, Brett. The better person at this point will be the one who
first drops the whole thing and moves on.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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'.

 

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

 

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.

 

I went through the same thing with my Grandmother's slides. No one
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