This really is a question of "horses for courses" as my Dad would have said. It has to come down to individual compositions. If you're going for the 'hotel room art' look (thanks Mark!) - and many people do love that stuff - then I think people are out.
However, I like to see the balance between people and the country in my own pictures.
Morella, Spain. August 2003.
Belgrade, Serbia. February 2004.
I guess I'm cheating really, as these pictures end up not being pure landscapes. More accurately they're pictures of people in their environment.
I kinda like my landscapes without people, but that is just me. There are exceptions though.
Usually but there are exceptions: http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphot...3&ppuser=12229
Originally Posted by MurrayMinchin
I don't generally like people in them though.
Sometimes they sneak in there...
But not very often...People and obvious signs of human presence are sometimes included as a delibrate part of the image (silly me -- everything in my images is included on purpose). Except for the series of my boys in the environment, I have included "strangers" only once in a finished print...though I have included signs of human presence (roads, buildings, etc) more often.
left to right (all platinum/palladium)
Three shadows, Luffenholtz Beach, 2 1/4"
Three Boys, Yosemite NP, 8x10
Three Boys, Three Snags, Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park, 8x10
Last edited by Vaughn; 01-15-2009 at 10:16 AM. Click to view previous post history.
At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.
I think people (or evidence of people, e.g. roads, buildings etc) can lend tremendous emotional power to landscapes, as well as providing important scale cues. Scale and perspective cues are extremely important in landscape photography, of course, unless one is going for complete abstraction.
The bottom line for me is that I want the viewer to experience a real connection to a landscape. Sometimes one has to find a way to let the viewer experience the scale, if only vicariously, through an actual participant in the scene. I think viewers have a tremendous capacity for sympathetic feelings when they see what others are experiencing, and that line of thinking usually motivates me when I try to include people and evidence of people.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
A person or people can show scale, size in a composition. A fisherman near a lake can work, as it "matches". I think it depends on the comp, and for some including people enhances, or distracts.
Last edited by SilverGlow; 01-15-2009 at 09:57 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Coming back home to my film roots. Canon EOS-3 SLR, Canon EOS 1V SLR, 580ex flash, and 5D DSLR shooter. Prime lens only shooter.
I generally prefer without, but as a number of others have suggested, a figure can provide a sense of scale or provide a point of connection for the viewer and occasionally I have done that. Of course at some hot tourist spots, you have trouble getting the masses of humanity out of the way anyhow!
Originally Posted by MurrayMinchin
How about bears? They sort of look like people in fur coats when they are standing up.
A human form ma help to give size to the landscape and with a good composition it won't isturb the image. Personally I appreciate pinhole landscape with some human shadow in it
I'll just add that I recently wrote a little mini-review here of Ragnar Axelsson's book and actually, that's a fine example of what people can do for a landscape photograph.