that is the most annoying thing that humans introduced to photography. to me it doesn't matter how is it labeled, it doesn't matter if composition is purist or not, what matters is to make the photographer happy with the shot. if the photographer doesn't take the shot because some purist thinks that the shot doesn't fit in some label, the joy of photography is gone.
I think the idea that you can exclude human elements from the landscape is dubious. Particularly in a small densely inhabited place like the UK, almost everywhere has been shaped by human activity. A field is a human element. A stand of trees can be a human element. The wildflowers might only grow there because someone, sometime cleared that land. The photograph itself is a human element, the more so the more you process it.
I can't help thinking there is something a little misanthropic about wanting to remove the human from the landscape.
I completely agree Olli. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. I think it is an odd definition and agree that there are very few places left in the world that haven't been altered by man in some way. It would defiantly give a skewed impression of the world if landscape photographers only focused on these.
From Perspectives on Place, on of my favourite books on landscape photography by J.A.P Alexander: “It is not necessarily the land that makes the landscape, but how the photographer approaches, works with, and presents the finished photograph wherein the artistry lies.
Thank you so much for your comment and for sharing the quote which I can definitely relate to. I do have a copy of this book which I can highly recommend.
My own definition is broad - simply a picture or view of the land - and so I would include intimate landscapes. Time clouds judgement and we forget the extent to which we have altered and ‘improved’ the land to better serve our needs. As you observe Gill, there is little that we have not changed in some way. When the fields and hills themselves are a record of our hand, should these too be excluded in competitions?
Thank you very much for your comments Michela. I think your definition is a good one and it is the one that I would relate to. I have always used human elements in my images simply because they are part of the story of the landscape and excluding them is not always easy or necessary.
An interesting subject Gill that's open to endless debate. Certainly in our part of the world, East Anglia, there is precious little "natural" landscape except maybe at the coast and even then we should be aware of how human structures (eg groynes) can affect the way that the sea and the land interact. In the end, does it matter? We have urban landscape, industrial landscape, rural landscape, intimate landscape, coastal landscape and probably several more that I haven't thought of. Perhaps we shouldn't get too hung up on labels.
I absolutely agree Michael. I guess when setting rules for competitions it is a way of defining certain aesthetics (all be it one that is rather odd). At the end of the day it all comes down to what story we want to tell and I don't think labels play a part in that.
I find the definitions you mention "odd"... after all, for example, what is a typical Yorkshire landscape without a barn or drystone wall in it? Or a Cornish landscape without a derelict engine house or enigmatic standing stone? Landscape has been altered by man for 1000's of years... why would a solely mountain environment be more of a true landscape than the massive Flow Country of Caithness & Sutherland which was created by neolithic settlers removing the tree cover and creating peat bog? I live in Cumbria - it's sublime landscapes, even high up owe a lot to the hand of man...and sheep! I'm very much with you on this.... I love a boat shed on a lake, an old barn or a drystone wall...you'd be hard pressed on GB to find a completely pristine, untouched environment.
Absolutely Jayne, I completely agree. Yet there are competitions out there that ask for landscape images to contain no human elements or at least if they do to make sure they are not a focal point or main component of the image.
As you say I think there is almost no part of the globe that isn't man altered to some degree so I find this exclusion strange too.
Thank you very much for reading and commenting and I am glad you enjoyed the post. 🙂
What a great blog Gill! Being a fan of landscape photography myself, having hard and fast rules goes against the meaning of the title "Landscape". In my opinion, if the intention and main purpose of the image produced and is mainly about the natural environment, then the addition of man made inclusions should be allowed, provided they do not detract from the core principles of landscapes and become intrusions.
I agree Stephen. Thank you so much for your comments. I for one will be continuing along the same path as it is hard to exclude man made elements from the landscape in the south of England. 🙂
Interesting blog, the landscape is what we make of it, and what we choose to shoot. I would like to see how those bonkers purists photograph and where they go to photograph it. From the land, sea and space man has been and left his mark! As said stone walls visible in many of the money shots in the dales, lakes and mountains. Sea defences old and new that have altered our coast line, and if we are to take in global warming, the rise in sea levels is due to human activity! So where on the planet do you go where man hasn't had influence? A recent read would indicate the far depths of the ocean! Even if an unexplored place is found, how do we cover up our foot prints or the trampled fauna? Let's stop being silly, landscape is all around us, shoot it for what it is, showing it at its best, or perhaps how we the human race has effected it! Photographers are no different to painters and artists of old, it's our world for us to capture! Oophs best get off the soap box! Really enjoyed the blog and the comments so far.😀
Thank you very much for your comments Chris and I agree with everything you say. I think we should embrace man made elements, they are part of the landscape and as such are part of the story. 🙂
Gill, that sunrise picture is sublime, in my opinion. The colors are beautiful, and your eye follows the line of boats to the "corner" and then up to the gorgeous sky. Equally, though, is your heath picture. I would like to lie in that field, feeling the breeze and looking up at the sky. It feels impossible to enjoy nature without some other person or man made element, at the least there. And sometimes it can help lead the eye. Thank you for this share. What you had to say resonated with me, because I was thinking about my own time in nature this morning and how it is rare to be truly alone in any landscape. XO
Hi Gill. For me landscape photography definition is trying to reflect natural scenery and its beauty. I’m more than happy to include man made objects as part of the story, but I’m primarily trying to convey the landscape they sit in. James Popsys takes images of what he calls “Human Nature” and I think his photographs focus more on the human influence, even though they are still positioned in a landscape. Ultimately I think it depends on the main subject and its prominence and of course the viewer’s own interpretation. Another great blog and lovely images. I particularly like the heath shot.
Thank you very much for your comments David, I am glad you enjoyed the post. I have been watching James Popsys on YouTube and enjoy his images and the ideas behind them. I don't have a problem with man made elements in my images and will continue to photograph them as they are part of the landscape and story that I want to tell.
I do not have any problem at all whether or not there are man made structures or shapes in a landscape photograph as long as they blend in. If they stand out then it could be argued that the image is of them rather than the surrounding countryside. I wonder whether some photographers are getting too pedantic over such issues rather than standing back and admiring (and photographing) the total view.
However, as a long time photographer who has now had to physically revert to carrying a compact camera and primarily taking photos of (what seem to be commonly called) intimate landscapes I will be interested on how you approach such images and distinguish them from close up and macros. Sorry
Thank you very much for your comments Bill and I agree with you regarding man made structures.
I too do a lot of intimate landscapes and consider these to be small scenes (small sections of the landscape usually excluding the sky) where as a macro shot for me is much more focused with fewer elements. I suspect there are many schools of thought on this subject too and again maybe we should just take pictures and forget about the labels. I think these only come into play for competitions and any situation where we need to categorise our images.
I've seen (or interpretted) landscape photography and nature photography being used separately and combined as one genre. It's also similar to wildlife photography, many portrait images you see especially will have no signs of human presence, yet there are plenty of images that incorporate more habitat that will show that influence, especially in urban and farmland. For better or worse we live in a landscape dominated by humanity so whatever we choose to include/omit from the frame is up to us and the story that we want to tell
For a change I often go out with the intention of finding beautiful views that also include the downright ugly. I walk around Marazion looking for the most obscure views of St Michael's Mount over rooftops or through scaffolding etc. Last week it included views with all the people queuing at the end of the causeway. One of the images included the town clock so I called the series "Views and queues at half past ten."
Just a bit of fun really and certainly not chocolate box images.
Thank you so much for your comments Peter and I am glad you enjoyed the post.
I love your idea of 'Views and Queues' - great title and an interesting challenge. I think it's good to work in series or small projects and this one sounds great fun! 🙂
Some lovely images here Gill and a thought provoking topic.
I think, especially on such a heavily populated island with very few truly untouched places remaining, it would be very hard to make images without some sort of human element in them, be they be abandoned buildings or the land itself that will have been shaped by humans for farming, forestry etc. It makes me wonder if an image that included an old dew pond or even remote standing stones would be eliminated from a competition that asks for purely natural landscapes...surely a true picture of the land is what we should be presenting.
Thank you very much Lin, I am glad you enjoyed the post. I agree with your comments and have no problem myself including man made elements in my images - they are after all a true representation of the landscape.
labels, labels, labels.
that is the most annoying thing that humans introduced to photography. to me it doesn't matter how is it labeled, it doesn't matter if composition is purist or not, what matters is to make the photographer happy with the shot. if the photographer doesn't take the shot because some purist thinks that the shot doesn't fit in some label, the joy of photography is gone.
I absolutely agree. Thank you so much for your comments. 🙂
I think the idea that you can exclude human elements from the landscape is dubious. Particularly in a small densely inhabited place like the UK, almost everywhere has been shaped by human activity. A field is a human element. A stand of trees can be a human element. The wildflowers might only grow there because someone, sometime cleared that land. The photograph itself is a human element, the more so the more you process it.
I can't help thinking there is something a little misanthropic about wanting to remove the human from the landscape.
I completely agree Olli. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. I think it is an odd definition and agree that there are very few places left in the world that haven't been altered by man in some way. It would defiantly give a skewed impression of the world if landscape photographers only focused on these.
That is exactly what I was thinking while reading this. Thank you for putting it I into written words here!
From Perspectives on Place, on of my favourite books on landscape photography by J.A.P Alexander: “It is not necessarily the land that makes the landscape, but how the photographer approaches, works with, and presents the finished photograph wherein the artistry lies.
Thank you so much for your comment and for sharing the quote which I can definitely relate to. I do have a copy of this book which I can highly recommend.
My own definition is broad - simply a picture or view of the land - and so I would include intimate landscapes. Time clouds judgement and we forget the extent to which we have altered and ‘improved’ the land to better serve our needs. As you observe Gill, there is little that we have not changed in some way. When the fields and hills themselves are a record of our hand, should these too be excluded in competitions?
Thank you very much for your comments Michela. I think your definition is a good one and it is the one that I would relate to. I have always used human elements in my images simply because they are part of the story of the landscape and excluding them is not always easy or necessary.
An interesting subject Gill that's open to endless debate. Certainly in our part of the world, East Anglia, there is precious little "natural" landscape except maybe at the coast and even then we should be aware of how human structures (eg groynes) can affect the way that the sea and the land interact. In the end, does it matter? We have urban landscape, industrial landscape, rural landscape, intimate landscape, coastal landscape and probably several more that I haven't thought of. Perhaps we shouldn't get too hung up on labels.
I absolutely agree Michael. I guess when setting rules for competitions it is a way of defining certain aesthetics (all be it one that is rather odd). At the end of the day it all comes down to what story we want to tell and I don't think labels play a part in that.
I find the definitions you mention "odd"... after all, for example, what is a typical Yorkshire landscape without a barn or drystone wall in it? Or a Cornish landscape without a derelict engine house or enigmatic standing stone? Landscape has been altered by man for 1000's of years... why would a solely mountain environment be more of a true landscape than the massive Flow Country of Caithness & Sutherland which was created by neolithic settlers removing the tree cover and creating peat bog? I live in Cumbria - it's sublime landscapes, even high up owe a lot to the hand of man...and sheep! I'm very much with you on this.... I love a boat shed on a lake, an old barn or a drystone wall...you'd be hard pressed on GB to find a completely pristine, untouched environment.
Absolutely Jayne, I completely agree. Yet there are competitions out there that ask for landscape images to contain no human elements or at least if they do to make sure they are not a focal point or main component of the image.
As you say I think there is almost no part of the globe that isn't man altered to some degree so I find this exclusion strange too.
Thank you very much for reading and commenting and I am glad you enjoyed the post. 🙂
What a great blog Gill! Being a fan of landscape photography myself, having hard and fast rules goes against the meaning of the title "Landscape". In my opinion, if the intention and main purpose of the image produced and is mainly about the natural environment, then the addition of man made inclusions should be allowed, provided they do not detract from the core principles of landscapes and become intrusions.
I agree Stephen. Thank you so much for your comments. I for one will be continuing along the same path as it is hard to exclude man made elements from the landscape in the south of England. 🙂
Interesting blog, the landscape is what we make of it, and what we choose to shoot. I would like to see how those bonkers purists photograph and where they go to photograph it. From the land, sea and space man has been and left his mark! As said stone walls visible in many of the money shots in the dales, lakes and mountains. Sea defences old and new that have altered our coast line, and if we are to take in global warming, the rise in sea levels is due to human activity! So where on the planet do you go where man hasn't had influence? A recent read would indicate the far depths of the ocean! Even if an unexplored place is found, how do we cover up our foot prints or the trampled fauna? Let's stop being silly, landscape is all around us, shoot it for what it is, showing it at its best, or perhaps how we the human race has effected it! Photographers are no different to painters and artists of old, it's our world for us to capture! Oophs best get off the soap box! Really enjoyed the blog and the comments so far.😀
Thank you very much for your comments Chris and I agree with everything you say. I think we should embrace man made elements, they are part of the landscape and as such are part of the story. 🙂
Thank you!
Gill, that sunrise picture is sublime, in my opinion. The colors are beautiful, and your eye follows the line of boats to the "corner" and then up to the gorgeous sky. Equally, though, is your heath picture. I would like to lie in that field, feeling the breeze and looking up at the sky. It feels impossible to enjoy nature without some other person or man made element, at the least there. And sometimes it can help lead the eye. Thank you for this share. What you had to say resonated with me, because I was thinking about my own time in nature this morning and how it is rare to be truly alone in any landscape. XO
Thank you so much for your comments Danielle, I am glad you enjoyed the images. 🙂
Hi Gill. For me landscape photography definition is trying to reflect natural scenery and its beauty. I’m more than happy to include man made objects as part of the story, but I’m primarily trying to convey the landscape they sit in. James Popsys takes images of what he calls “Human Nature” and I think his photographs focus more on the human influence, even though they are still positioned in a landscape. Ultimately I think it depends on the main subject and its prominence and of course the viewer’s own interpretation. Another great blog and lovely images. I particularly like the heath shot.
Thank you very much for your comments David, I am glad you enjoyed the post. I have been watching James Popsys on YouTube and enjoy his images and the ideas behind them. I don't have a problem with man made elements in my images and will continue to photograph them as they are part of the landscape and story that I want to tell.
I do not have any problem at all whether or not there are man made structures or shapes in a landscape photograph as long as they blend in. If they stand out then it could be argued that the image is of them rather than the surrounding countryside. I wonder whether some photographers are getting too pedantic over such issues rather than standing back and admiring (and photographing) the total view.
However, as a long time photographer who has now had to physically revert to carrying a compact camera and primarily taking photos of (what seem to be commonly called) intimate landscapes I will be interested on how you approach such images and distinguish them from close up and macros. Sorry
Thank you very much for your comments Bill and I agree with you regarding man made structures.
I too do a lot of intimate landscapes and consider these to be small scenes (small sections of the landscape usually excluding the sky) where as a macro shot for me is much more focused with fewer elements. I suspect there are many schools of thought on this subject too and again maybe we should just take pictures and forget about the labels. I think these only come into play for competitions and any situation where we need to categorise our images.
I've seen (or interpretted) landscape photography and nature photography being used separately and combined as one genre. It's also similar to wildlife photography, many portrait images you see especially will have no signs of human presence, yet there are plenty of images that incorporate more habitat that will show that influence, especially in urban and farmland. For better or worse we live in a landscape dominated by humanity so whatever we choose to include/omit from the frame is up to us and the story that we want to tell
Absolutely Alex. Thank you so much for your comments. 🙂
Great blog BTW! 😊
Very interesting Gill.
For a change I often go out with the intention of finding beautiful views that also include the downright ugly. I walk around Marazion looking for the most obscure views of St Michael's Mount over rooftops or through scaffolding etc. Last week it included views with all the people queuing at the end of the causeway. One of the images included the town clock so I called the series "Views and queues at half past ten."
Just a bit of fun really and certainly not chocolate box images.
Love the Tunstall Heath image you posted.
Thank you so much for your comments Peter and I am glad you enjoyed the post.
I love your idea of 'Views and Queues' - great title and an interesting challenge. I think it's good to work in series or small projects and this one sounds great fun! 🙂
For me it's any picture of the 'land', whether rural, urban or where the two meet - I can appreciate each.
I agree George and thank you very much for your comments. 🙂
Some lovely images here Gill and a thought provoking topic.
I think, especially on such a heavily populated island with very few truly untouched places remaining, it would be very hard to make images without some sort of human element in them, be they be abandoned buildings or the land itself that will have been shaped by humans for farming, forestry etc. It makes me wonder if an image that included an old dew pond or even remote standing stones would be eliminated from a competition that asks for purely natural landscapes...surely a true picture of the land is what we should be presenting.
Thank you very much Lin, I am glad you enjoyed the post. I agree with your comments and have no problem myself including man made elements in my images - they are after all a true representation of the landscape.