Like to know what you think of these shots?
I wish we could find out how much post work was applied and how much is just the true raw quality of film.
I've attached the pictures to make it easier but I found the original article with the names of photographers here.
Though these are all very nice shots, most of those are pretty standard/typical pictures.
Like to know what you think of these shots?
I ask with complete sincerity because this topic is something I've thought a lot about lately: is there such a thing as a landscape picture (without humans or animals) that you would *not* describe as "standard/typical"?
In essence, I have to agree with you because landscapes are such a narrow category, when you think about it. There are only four elements for a landscape photographer to work with (fire, water, air, and earth). Purists would exclude from the category anything that includes manmade elements and any scenes that aren't expansive enough to warrant the "-scape" suffix, but even if you allow those, there is only so much room for "atypical" images. What would constitute one? A particularly exotic or remote location? A strong stylization through technique (e.g. light painting, long exposures, emphatic post-processing, etc.)? The effects of a rare natural disaster? The pursuit of 'ugliness'? Even these possibilities have been exploited a lot in landscape imagery, to the point that even photos of remote places like ice caves in the Yukon abound on the internet, and it seems that every Bristlecone pine and ruined shack in the west has been the subject of a light painting or star trails photograph (often both).
All photography is derivative to some extent, but it's especially true for those genres that rely heavily on 'found' scenes (as opposed to constructed ones). Landscape photography may be the most restrictive genre of them all in this regard. So I wonder what the future holds for it. Has the art world already dismissed it as too traditional, not edgy or trendy enough? Has the genre run its course? Or is it perhaps a special case where the limits of the category are what make it interesting?
Anyone have thoughts on any of these questions?
As for the original question of this thread, I find it very interesting that the 12 most popular film photographs on flickr would all be landscapes. Moreover, they're all, for the most part, landscapes that embrace the post-film aesthetic (i.e. punchy, crisp, grainless, vibrant, tonally complex, and purposefully vignetted). None of them strikes me as being really extraordinary or ambitious in terms of timing or craft, but they're all compelling images for one reason or another. I'd be interested to see the 12 most popular images on flickr that were created with digital cameras. I wonder if those too are all landscapes in this style.
As for the original question of this thread, I find it very interesting that the 12 most popular film photographs on flickr would all be landscapes.
All very good questions and points! And I hope I didn't take away anything from the original poster, they really are all very nice shots, but I feel like it's all been done before (and I've seen much better, on Flickr.) Popularity contests are never an indication of quality (e.g. Justin Bieber, Lady CrapCrap, Britney Spears, et al) but at the same time, what appeals to the most people can obviously have a bearing on trends and the direction artists send themselves.
That's why I posted the other Cole Rise photo with the floating astronaut lady. Technically it's just a simple landscape photo with a human subject added, but there is also something slightly surreal and a bit edgy about it, and it immediately got my attention when I first saw it (but of course, this is all subjective; others may find it boring compared to the long exposure waterfall landscapes that are stunningly beautiful, but have been done to death a hundred thousand times!) This [Cole Rise] is a photographer that is trying to take a tired subject and doing something new with it.
But I don't know, I'm personally no where near where I want to be with my own photography (or music) so I shouldn't be one to criticize anything, to be honest...
From the article's title: 10 Most Popular Flickr's Analog Landscaps Uploaded in 2012
So not too surprising they are all landscapes.
However I did enjoy your post. One thought is that landscapes may have been done to death but they are never exactly the same. Some of the truly great images have required a level of commitment you won't find in a snapshot. Your own work attests to this. You can visit the same spot time and again to get just the right light.
Though these are all very nice shots, most of those are pretty standard/typical pictures.
Funnily enough, one of those is from a Flickr friend of mine whose photography I've admired for quite awhile (and I think he was one of the original programmers of Instagram or something) named Cole Rise. The photo in that article they included (the little shack) is not one of his best. He usually does really incredible and often surreal work using a Hasselblad (he's also a pilot so he gets great aerial shots.)
And here again, though not his best shot, is one of my favorite analog shots of his; all done in-camera -
But I don't know, I'm personally no where near where I want to be with my own photography (or music) so I shouldn't be one to criticize anything, to be honest...
So I'm wondering if there is such a thing as a really original landscape photo (that is, a photo 'of' an outdoor environment as opposed to its inhabitants), or are we left with appreciating those that are just really well done? And if so, does that mean that landscape photography is a hopeless relic?
I agree that what makes landscapes exciting is the ephemeral nature of them, but, outside of constructing/setting-up scenes with props or characters, there is only so much the 'maker' can do to produce "atypical" landscapes. Some might find this state of affairs pathetic or depressing, but I prefer to think of it as liberating. If landscape photographers can be excused from the pursuit of novelty, then we're free to go about making "traditional" images of extraordinary scenes...and maybe we can even call it "art"!
Like to know what you think of these shots?
I wish we could find out how much post work was applied and how much is just the true raw quality of film.
If you don't mind me posting one of your own pictures I think that this was a perfect example of a shot that really "did it" for me.
The light is fantastic but also the positioning and exposure and haze all has a wondrous appeal and all those elements have come together to create this one image that will probably never be created again.
Although I prefer taking people pictures there is so much repeat. So many styles copied, reused and rehashed. I don't think you can get this pure capturing of a moment like you can with landscapes.
#3 has a really nice quality of light and vantage point, very Phrasikleian while #5 is very Doylemesque.
The initial shots are all pretty generic, nothing really unique about them at all. There are some beautiful shots in there, but they have all been done before, a million times over thanks in part to places like Flickr.
I think that for landscape photography we are nearing the point where everything has been captured already. Maybe not to its fullest potential or in the most creative of ways. It takes the Phrasikleia's and Doylem's of the world to keep showing us new scenes. Boat loads of obscene and obnoxious tourists hit Antarctica and Alaska daily with their 5D Mk III's and L series lenses for example, doesn't mean they are going to come back with good pictures though.
What was unique is no longer and as society in general needs more intense entertainment the artists go there also. Back in the early 90's we had an artist here in my town that took famous landscape paintings of the local area and then proceeded to spray paint fluorescent crop circles on them, for the sake of art, apparently.
When I see that replicated in landscape photography by sticking foreign things into a landscape because it's considered pushing the boundaries, I shake my head and remember the crop circle graffiti.
Whilst I enjoyed and found humorous the picture of the surreal landscape with the bouncing astronaut lady, would I want it on a wall in my home? No. Do I consider it a landscape? No.
I'm not a traditionalist and I'm far from conservative, but I consider a landscape a landscape. Can landscapes be reinvented or reinvigorated in some way? Do they need to be, would be my reply?
I think for landscapes to be "competitive" these days they have do something besides just take a pretty picture of some nature, it should be more conceptual and focus on the design. Like what was done here http://cnnphotos.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/spotting-beauty-in-the-shadows/
I think for landscapes to be "competitive" these days they have do something besides just take a pretty picture of some nature, it should be more conceptual and focus on the design. Like what was done here http://cnnphotos.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/spotting-beauty-in-the-shadows/
zombiecakes are you saying that good composition and a fascinating subject are not enough to hold the attention of the average joe?
The idea that landscapes have to be "competitive" is what saddens me about this whole topic. Are we really that disconnected from Nature that it has to be messed with to make us admire it? Why does a mountain range need to be turned into a Warholesque neon treatment to make it more edgy? Hell, why not make a reality TV game show about Landscape Photography that'll grab the young ones attention.... Ooohhh, the anticipation, is he going to go with the fish eye or the pancake?! OMG, she stuck a tomato soup can on that rock, what originality! I can see the tweets now....
Maybe that's where the cityscapes and industrialscapes come in to the picture. They work perfectly with stylised treatments and artsy approaches and are definitely more competitive. I've seen architectural and street shots from back in the 30's to 50's that could fit this stylised design niche and would be perfectly at home in any funky art gallery today. What we commonly and frequently think of as innovating is quite often actually reproduction...
When I think about "Landscape Photography", the terms edgy, stylised, artsy, and competitive, don't leap to mind for me. You can take a shot from a different angle or point of view and process it differently to the norm, but then it starts becoming too surreal when taken too far. It is a traditional art form and there's nothing wrong with that, hell, people still do traditional embroidery you know, they haven't taken it all neon and LED infused flashing threads just yet!
Things have cycles to them, and in regard of popularity, maybe it will get more popular again as people get sick of being surrounded by harsh (so called cutting edge) images. We are effected by what we see and eventually people cotton on to this and change their artworks in their homes. People who work long, hard hours at work want to surround themselves in beauty at home, generally as an escape from the chaos.
Things have cycles to them, and in regard of popularity, maybe it will get more popular again as people get sick of being surrounded by harsh (so called cutting edge) images.
If landscape photographers can be excused from the pursuit of novelty, then we're free to go about making "traditional" images of extraordinary scenes...and maybe we can even call it "art"!
I personally don't let that bias deter me; I'm going to keep on doing what it is that makes my heart thump and hope that other people like what I do too.
If all photographers can be excused from the pursuit of novelty, then we're free to go about making "traditional" images of extraordinary scenes...and maybe we can even call it "art"!
Too many times I see really good photographers just taking the same exact photo over and over and over again (see the Photo of the Day thread as a prefect example.) Photos of the same subject, be it landscapes, sheep/flowers/birds what have you, and as good as they are (and they are quite good in most cases) they are just not stretching themselves artistically; they've become all too comfortable with what they do. And if they are content with that, so be it, but personally, I can't do that.
I guess what I was trying to say previously, it's not about trying to be novel or purposefully edgy, it's about getting out of your comfort zone and growing as an artist.
Too many times I see really good photographers just taking the same exact photo over and over and over again (see the Photo of the Day thread as a prefect example.) Photos of the same subject, be it landscapes, sheep/flowers/birds what have you, and as good as they are (and they are quite good in most cases) they are just not stretching themselves artistically; they've become all too comfortable with what they do. And if they are content with that, so be it, but personally, I can't do that.
I always try to get out of my comfort zone and shoot something that is new [to me] and I usually fail at doing so... and that is when you learn and grow as an artist; from those failures.
Great discussion though from everyone!
The idea that landscapes have to be "competitive" is what saddens me about this whole topic.
I guess what I was trying to say previously, it's not about trying to be novel or purposefully edgy, it's about getting out of your comfort zone and growing as an artist.
I always try to get out of my comfort zone and shoot something that is new [to me] and I usually fail at doing so... and that is when you learn and grow as an artist; from those failures.
Great discussion though from everyone!
I think that in this case the idea of being "competitive" is marketability, not one-upping the other guy. I can understand that. I would love to find the secret sauce that allows me to make a living off of what I enjoy. Until that happens I'll have have to swallow the investment in equipment, time and learning.
I've enjoyed the banter here, no hostilities, a good hearty discourse! I hope I didn't offend anyone with my thoughts, that wasn't my intention.
... maybe I should be concentrating on perfecting one style/subject/genre. But, at the same time, for me at least, I just can't seem to settle on doing the same thing over and over, where as those that do, and that have perfected it, maybe I admire them more than I care to admit. Even though I may say "seen that already a hundred times before" deep down inside, maybe I'm just a little envious that they've made such a perfect capture, and am humbled that I don't have the discipline to spend that much time/effort on any one style... looks like I need to reflect more on this.but there does come a point when it's best to 'lock in' to your specialty and refine your style.
<snip>
I actually think people should do *more* of shooting the same photo over and over again, but each time trying to get it that much better.
Exactly, I took that quote to mean competitive in the sense of marketable. YMMVLairdKnox, I was responding directly to the following quote:
I think for landscapes to be "competitive" these days they have do something besides just take a pretty picture of some nature, it should be more conceptual and focus on the design.
Things have cycles to them, and in regard of popularity, maybe it will get more popular again as people get sick of being surrounded by harsh (so called cutting edge) images. We are effected by what we see and eventually people cotton on to this and change their artworks in their homes. People who work long, hard hours at work want to surround themselves in beauty at home, generally as an escape from the chaos
That is my point, we already had the "pretty landscape" cycle. God have we ever had that cycle. That was the main cool thing in the 80's-90's. Every doctor's office in america has a smorgisboard of colorful slow exposure landscape photos. It has become so overdone that it is approaching kitsch status, if not already there. How many times do we need to see *insert famous mountain* or *random babbling brook*?
These days people are more drawn to something conceptual, a lot of people are getting sick of pretty colors and slow exposed water. They want something new, something we havent seen before. Sure they may be copying someone elses style but the style is new enough that it still provides something fresh, or it may not even be a new style, it may have been popular in the 20's and died out long before any of us were born, the point is that its new to us.
That is how art and fashion work, after something gets done to death it gets retired until a new generation picks it up again. Usually something very different emerges to rebel against the norm, ie the lofi movement popular with all the hispters these days is a reaction of the advances we've made in digital photography to make the perfect sterile photo, they are sick of everything being perfect and are resorting to technology that would have been considered sucky in the 70s