Quote Originally Posted by Shawn Dougherty View Post
I think the key here is not to merely step back and make a picture of a big scene but to apply the same level of organization used in "macro" work to larger areas. This organization of visual relationships on a grander scale, is in my opinion, one of the hardest things to pull off. I'd say Michael A. Smith would be one of the masters of such photography... I would site the following photograph as a breakthrough in my photographic seeing

http://www.shawndougherty.com/palmpoles.html


Simply stepping back isn't enough, but to step back and make something more than a representation of what's in front of you is the real challenge.

Just my .02c
Good points Shawn. Michael's work is a good example, butI would also suggest Jack Dykinga, Joe Cornish or Ken Duncan (for panoramic format) as well.

I didn't want to make my comments too tied to landscape photography, since I am aware that not everyone likes that kind of work, but I think the same principles apply. A grand landscape, is one where the viewer is led from the foreground through the image into the distant background. Many here seem to have trouble with seeing the image as a whole - they tend to see just a single object (however that may be defined), and while they do look at the object's surrounding, they never really give consideration to how that object interacts with or is part of the overall landscape itself.

Your Palm and Poles image is an excellent image (one that I would love to see hanging on a wall), but I see it as more of an intimate landscape; I can't find the relationship of the palms to the distant mountains (this is tough to do in a panoramic format).

Once again, this doesn't mean that the intimate landscape itself is bad. In fact, I have much more trouble photographing this concept myself, than I do the grand landscape (and I see it as something I need to work on).