Wish I could see that, it is such strange place. 2nd..many of the landscapes have been over done, so almost any image looks like a snapshot. (BTW - no one ever seems to explain what they mean by that statement).
We debate that in 2003 and I bumped it back into the ethics and philosophy forum. Maybe new people could go there and add their views.
Originally Posted by jbj
If the photographer doesn't have a emotion/passion for their subject, in this case the landscape. Then its going to be hard to find emotion in their photographs of that subject.
The wonderful thing (TO ME) about photography, is that it's a great big window into the photographer. That's what makes a photograph more then just a landscape, it becomes an insight into how WE SEE the landscape. If we don't have a passion for it, then that shows also. Every photograph we make gives the viewer our viewpoint of the subject. That viewpoint is not just about camera angle or other technical things. It's about us, and what we feel.
Exactly. I Wish I had written that - or have I?
Originally Posted by George Losse
It certainly sounds like me! - A lesson I've learned - not without some pain - over the years.
Ed Sukach, FFP.
Nicely related to a thread you have probably grown to hate me over but.....
I agree totally by those who think that you have to 'connect' with the lanscape you are trying to capture the essence of or perhaps enhance or subtly alter the essence of. Sometimes it hits me quickly, other times it can take a bit of being rained on and a few visits. I am frustrated by the times that I know what I feel, but cannot compose an image I feel has the potential to convey this (A case in point being a wood in N.Wales full of moss and hanging ferns that I have yet to expose an image in. I just cant get all my thoughts and sensory experiences into one image. I will keep visiting until I do.....). I know some would disagree, but it helps to understand what it is that moves you. I find that I am consciously aware of this, even if I find it hard to fully describe. The mechanics of operating the camera to 'get this' on film is the easy part as is filter selection to alter contrast/colour etc. Knowing what to get on film and how it should be portrayed in a print is the hard bit IMHO. In one case it might be wonderfully dramatic intimidating climatic conditions and another time the relationship betweeen folds in distant fields, so one cannot say in all cases how to do this. Goodness knows how many times I have failed to communicate what I have felt and want others to feel. I think if you know what you are trying to say to the viewer you are largely there.......the rest is the technical task of capture.
Some have suggested (in another thread) that the process can be subconscious, ie you feel things, but dont need to understand them to successfully get it on film and print it. I personally find that I do need to know what it is on some level to be able to know how to progress through the other stages (otherwise I would not know how to decide which filter to use or exposure and the myriad of other decisions if I did not know what I wanted to achieve and others to be able to see)
This thread's question is probably responsible for more frustration to me thn anything else in photography. Technical issues have simple(er) answers or lines along which to develop. When I am flummoxed on how to convey something, I am on my own!
Last Sunday morning, I hiked up to the top of Makapuu Point (about a 45 minute walk) in the dark in order to be able to photograph the sunrise. The point overlooks the Ka Iwi channel, and the you could see the sun rising behind the islands of Molokai, Maui and Lanai. Stunning!!!
Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
An experience that will stay with forever was (whilst working at a safari lodge in Zimbabwe) was going for a run through what had been a forested mountain. There had been a bush fire a few days before and the forest was gone. What was left was a martian landscape of rock, thick ash, flickering trunks still alight and OMG...the smells. Above this hellish scene (which was probably the most unusual run I have been on.......) Black eagles circled beneath a piercing sun and the quick resumption of 'normal life' was astonishing. For me this was an intensely powerful experience. The scene held the essence of nature for me. The utter rawness, power and unforgiving qualities we both admire and fear. Along with this came the fact that we bounce back. The animals bounced back (those which had survived) and instantly returned to the daily demands of life on earth. In some senses, despite the magnitude of what had happened, nothing had happened. Life goes on. Needless to say, I did not have a camera (or in fact own one) at the time, but experiences like this inspired me to get one...! I am a nature lover. The 'energetic charge' I get from then land, the sense of connection is quiet unlike anything else for me. I can walk out into a wood and get a surge of euphoria - literally a 'high'. Not adrenalin....but more of a happy drug 'love' kinda feeling. I would not say the same as a kiss with a beautiful woman ... but fueled by equally base instinct programming.
I have also spent many years elsewhere in Africa and in the same countries where the landscape was moving, the human dimension is not lost on me either. I am primarily but not exclusively a landscape photographer and have a great deal of appreciation for photographers who deal with either.
Having posted what I have posted on this subject, I will say that Hawaii is my favorite place on earth. I go twice a year and love it. I have done some landscapes there ( even though landscapes don't do too much for me) and I will say that it is beyond visually stunning. I grew up in the Rockies and that to me is also stunning but not as etherial (sp?) as my Hawaiian experience.
Originally Posted by roteague
So when I see a Hawaiian landscape the picture is only emotional to me because it triggers the feeling of being there. The sounds, smells, the peace, the serenity of the place.
When I first saw pictures of Hawaii, before going there, it was not emotional. Just beautiful. After being there many times the pictures trigger the emotions that I experienced while I was there.
One of the things that I've been working on has been to develop an awareness of what it is about a scene or some other subject that grabs my attention and produces an emotional response in me. Is it the colors? The space? Just what is it that made me stop and say, "Ooo, wow!"? Doing that seems to help the process of trying to figure out how best to convey a similar emotion in the image of the thing.
If the emotion is the result of a single perspective on the scene, it can probably be translated to film. If, however, it's a combination of different views, some of which my eye may have "zoomed" in on small details, that becomes more difficult to capture in a single image. If it's the smell (ala Tom's burnt forest), it's even more difficult to capture. Certainly, one might compose with a smoldering stump in the foreground, and include the devastation in the background. But, the effectiveness of the image relies on evoking a similar memory in the viewer's experience.
[COLOR=SlateGray]"You can't depend on your eyes if your imagination is out of focus." -Mark Twain[/COLOR]
Rio Rancho, NM
Now wait a doggoned minute, where did that woman's clothing go, and when did this switch to nudes?
Originally Posted by mark
One can make the argument that a landscape devoid of people is emotional but there is a paradox or two inherent in that. There are always two people at a minimum: the photographer and the viewer. The connection between those two people (even the same person, between now and the future or past) implies a whole host of relationships that can only be ignored by the deliberately blind.
Rocks and trees and clouds don't move people, people do.
I add emotion when I get something that looks like a photograph...
My family can here me cry out in joyful exultation from deep within the bowls of my basement..."Woohoo!"