Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,602   Posts: 1,622,449   Online: 855
      
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 51 to 59 of 59
  1. #51

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    florida
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,211
    Images
    2
    I go mostly without people in landscapes but there are times when they are important elements of the image and times when they can be considered part of the landscape. An example:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	dom sq.jpg 
Views:	40 
Size:	760.2 KB 
ID:	43095

    http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

  2. #52
    SteveR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Geelong, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    536
    Images
    5
    Like NT said, I think it really depends on the intent of the image. I like to look at pictures of a pristine wilderness, but for my own work, I find myself more drawn to compositions with some sort of 'trace' of human presence. I find the idea of nature claiming back what man has tried to make his own very intriguing, and a bit haunting. In my personal work, I feel it makes for a more powerful image... but then, coming across a beautifully unspoilt landscape is always marvellous!
    ____________________________________________

    My goal in life, is to be as good a person as my dog already thinks I am.

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7
    as said, depending on what you want to convey. i like people in landscapes if they enjoy it but it really has to fit the picture.
    but in general a human aspect makes it feel more reachable, more real, gives it a relation.. (not talking about tourists standing in front of a beautiful natural sight..)

  4. #54
    John Austin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern Forest Region, Western Australia
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    521
    Blog Entries
    3
    I don't allow people in my landscapes, and have been very abusive to friends and strangers who walk in my landscapes - Yes, if I am looking at a landscape I do own it!!!

    Where people are photographed in my land they are naked, the prime subject and I am very pleasant to them so they will work with me again

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23
    Generally, "no people" or I wouldn't call it a landscape; but specifically, "it depends". I have the fortune, and the fortitude, to get to shoot mostly in the west where it is usually not too difficult to find vast panoramas that seem untouched by man.
    Overall, I would just say that it can be a great composition, but becomes something besides a landscape with people as a significant compositional element.

  6. #56
    eclarke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    New Berlin, Wi
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,971
    Images
    71
    Trying to make rigid definitions is best left to camera clubs and the PSA. Don't want "yer hand o man" in your nature pictures, you'll be disqualified and won't get your ribbon...

  7. #57
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    In "urban landscape" IMO people is sometimes a necessary ingredient that must be present but must not draw attention to it, like salt or pepper in a course so to speak.

    Imagine a façade of a church. Now imagine the same façade, with two persons seen from back while entering the church. The two persons will be "small", will not detract the general attention and meaning of the photo from the façade, but will make "more sense" of that picture, a picture of a place where people go to pray not just a piece of architecture.

    Or, to make another example, imagine a city park with lake and boats on this lake with people rowing in them.

    Provided the people is relatively "small" in the economy of the picture, that they are not dressed in a way which would catch too much attention, and that they are not behaving in a way that would catch the viewer's attention (a raised arm, or maybe while being bent for collecting something on the ground, etc.) they could be just the "cheese on the macaroni", the right touch to make the picture better because the absence of people would not convey the natural atmosphere of the church, public garden etc., could actually give a sense of emptiness, somehow of sadness.

    Actually if one has to draw a line between "urban landscape" and "architecture" I would say it's the presence of people, which moves the attention from the "design" of the building, square, fountain, park etc. to the "function" and "life" of said building, square, fountain, park etc.

    Fabrizio
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  8. #58
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,820
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    Obviously posted by a very wise man, mainly because you agree with me.
    A third wise man here (or is it that fools never differ?).


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2
    if I'm in the wild somewhere, i prefer to shoot the "Real world", maybe there is a person or something in the frame. but it doesn't matter.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin