People in Lanscapes; Yes or No?

[Paul Jenkin]

This question always more difficult when talking about 'urban landscapes' as that genre is more about man's influence on the landscape and the interaction of people with towns and cities themselves.

Therefore, although there's no 'right or wrong' answer to the question but do you prefer your landscapes with or without people in the frame?

Personally, if I'm in the wild somewhere, I prefer not to have anything or anyone in the frame that takes my eye off what I'm trying to shoot - especially if it's clad in luminous Goretex...!

How about you?

[Ian Grant]

Usually no, but sometimes if it can't be avoided or occasionally where I feel it might add something. But most definitely not anyone who is with me.

I only shoot Industrial/Archaeological landscapes some in the countryside others are Urban, all show man's influences on the landscape.

Ian

[MurrayMinchin]

I prefer my landscapes unpeopled, and will even try to keep clear cuts, power lines, or highways out of the frame too. Where I live is so sparsely populated, and the places where I usually photograph are so seldom trod, that in 30 years of photographing I can't remember one time when I had to wait for somebody to exit a composition. True wilderness is so close at hand that that's what my photographs are about, not how people have impacted it.

I do have a few with fishing boats off in the distance, but they are rare exceptions.

Murray

[Sirius Glass]

I prefer my landscapes unpeopled, and will even try to keep clear cuts, power lines, or highways out of the frame too. ...

Murray

What he said.

I will rarely include people. When I do it is because they are needed for scale or because I cannot get them out of the photograph. If I keep people out of the landscape, then there are no indicators of the time or date of the landscape.

Steve

[VaryaV]

Depends on what you are trying to say with your vision.

[dpurdy]

As soon as a person is in the landscape, regardless of how small, the person becomes the subject. I personally don't want that. For me photography is not a study of people though it seems for most photographers, people are the most compelling and important subjects. IMO
Dennis

[jnanian]

Depends on what you are trying to say with your vision.

what she said ...

[Shmoo]

I'm one who prefers it...just my tastes, but people in the image gives a sense of perspective (relative height, width, space), and movement. But like Varya said, it depends upon YOUR vision.

[Toffle]

This is whers an ND-400 would come in handy. With a long enough exposure you can shoot to your heart's content, regardless of the odd passersby. I know a fellow who uses one quite regularly, and I've never seen a hint of ghosting in his prints.

Cheers,

[markbarendt]

There are very few pure (un-peopled, un-animal'd, un-tracked) grand landscape shots that I really like.

Yeah sure they're purdy and all that, but most just won't hold my attention, they feel kinda like hotel room art.

The ones that do keep my attention have something that is either fleeting or moving.

Two examples;

1-In NW NM Shiprock is an amazing sight and it's not tough to get it in great light and with a great sky with a bit of planning and patience, wait for the monsoons and have at it, you'll probably get something real nice with great color, texture, and sky. That said, there is only one shot I've seen of Shiprock that really stands out for me, it was done in B&W and has a cloud flowing over the top, a moody sky behind, and the print is stunning in detail, contrast, and quality. The weather for this particular shot is truly an oddity, the motion is palpable, and the quality is over the top.

2-Ocean coastlines with weather and waves that are framing or supporting the shot. Calm or Violent doesn't make a difference, I grew up close to the ocean and just have a soft spot there. Even still adding a human element or an animal takes it to the next level.