http://petapixel.com/2015/01/31/will-real-landscape-photography-please-stand/#more-157150
What do landscapers here think? Same same shot of MBS ok?
What do landscapers here think? Same same shot of MBS ok?
One person's rant about landscape photography
- Thread starter UncleFai
- Start date
There's always competition. people are always striving to be better than the others especially when money is invoved. and technology is always evolving. wont be surprising if one day very realistic landscape images are created with computer graphics.
Last edited:
most landscapes people take don't have that soul anymore.
not sure about the rest, but i find that most photographers just want to "shoot that nice scene" instead of going out, planning something to achieve and putting a soul into the final photo that evokes emotions.
not sure about the rest, but i find that most photographers just want to "shoot that nice scene" instead of going out, planning something to achieve and putting a soul into the final photo that evokes emotions.
in all honesty, I would be in the same boat as most people. art isn't something that was easily picked up and many of us would simply take the best shots we could. pertaining to the emotion, feelings and thoughts within the shot--how many of us actually could convey that in our shots? there is only that many "artist" or "da vinci" or "picasso" in this world.
imagine if every single photographer could be that "artist", there would be no differentiation anymore. my final 2cents would be; we could create art but that doesn't make us artist, just as how one could cook but that doesn't make them a chef.
imagine if every single photographer could be that "artist", there would be no differentiation anymore. my final 2cents would be; we could create art but that doesn't make us artist, just as how one could cook but that doesn't make them a chef.
before ones can put their soul into their art, they need to master their craft first,
there is no born artist, even a talented person need to put in a lot of efforts to hone their skills.
how to master ones craft? just spend at least one thousand hours on the subject.
there is no born artist, even a talented person need to put in a lot of efforts to hone their skills.
how to master ones craft? just spend at least one thousand hours on the subject.
I'd agree with half of that statement, there are some who has the eye for such things. you can see their shots to be meaningful though the shot may be technically inaccurate, or could've been crafted better.
as much as one could spend thousand of hours on the subject, they could be technically accurate with their skill in the craft. However, crafting an art would require something in-built. Hard work would get someone that far, talent would be the one that takes them beyond that.
I believe there are some of us who are meant to go further in some direction while the others in another. That's why there are natural born leaders, while some are natural born support.
Last edited:
UncleFai, any of your own thoughts about it?
I'd really prefer you air your own thoughts too, than just throw a touchy issue here and expect everyone to 'duke it out'
For me, I think I can relate to that article.
Personally, I feel I am caught between the 2 styles.
Perhaps age plays a part.
The younger shooters tend to accept this sort of over-contrived/surreal style.
Older shooters often go for the more 'natural' look.
I find that I like both, though I can relate that the trend is towards this more modern over-contrived style.
A kind of one-upmanship perhaps.
You can do 3 exposures, I can do 20
You do 1min exposure, 1 do 5mins.
You blend in 5 shots, I blend elements from 20.
By the end of it, the relation between a crafted image and attempting to capture what was 'there' becomes blurred.
Then again, its also a valid form of expression of what it was 'there' using modern methods and techniques at the person's disposal.
Perhaps, in the past, one just needed to one-up the next photographer by 'getting there'.
CS for example has a younger user base.
I tend to find that we go for the modern style more often.
On a forum like FM forums or Pentax forums, I tend to find that there are more older folks there and the style is more "traditional"/"natural" ("" since thats a style/approach and not necessary true in a complete sense of the word since editing was needed to get there too)
In the end, I just think that its various styles.
I like both when nicely done.
I can also find one too 'old man style' at times.
Or find the other too 'over-contrived, over the top' on others.
My few cents.
I'd really prefer you air your own thoughts too, than just throw a touchy issue here and expect everyone to 'duke it out'
For me, I think I can relate to that article.
Personally, I feel I am caught between the 2 styles.
Perhaps age plays a part.
The younger shooters tend to accept this sort of over-contrived/surreal style.
Older shooters often go for the more 'natural' look.
I find that I like both, though I can relate that the trend is towards this more modern over-contrived style.
A kind of one-upmanship perhaps.
You can do 3 exposures, I can do 20
You do 1min exposure, 1 do 5mins.
You blend in 5 shots, I blend elements from 20.
By the end of it, the relation between a crafted image and attempting to capture what was 'there' becomes blurred.
Then again, its also a valid form of expression of what it was 'there' using modern methods and techniques at the person's disposal.
Perhaps, in the past, one just needed to one-up the next photographer by 'getting there'.
CS for example has a younger user base.
I tend to find that we go for the modern style more often.
On a forum like FM forums or Pentax forums, I tend to find that there are more older folks there and the style is more "traditional"/"natural" ("" since thats a style/approach and not necessary true in a complete sense of the word since editing was needed to get there too)
In the end, I just think that its various styles.
I like both when nicely done.
I can also find one too 'old man style' at times.
Or find the other too 'over-contrived, over the top' on others.
My few cents.
one last cent to share if anyone bothers;
art has been viewed as a truly subjective matter--just like how most artworks would never get a 100% (just like the subject or major in school). The reason to why any art related competition would have a panel of judges, and how the scores are averaged out. The same photo submitted to a few different competition might fair differently across. It depends on the the style preferred, accepted or even liked.
a piece of art in the gallery that cost over thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions might mean nothing to the common eye. I'll be all honest and say that even if I stumbled upon a lost Vincent van Gogh's art in a flea market, I might just walk pass it. In an all honest point, I'll probably not recognize Peter Lik's Phantom even if it was shown to me.
to me, an art becomes valuable when someone of stature or maybe of certain wealth appreciates it and wish to purchase/own/admire it. else, it would just be another piece of art that gets washed away in the wave of time--especially in the time of technology and internet.
art has been viewed as a truly subjective matter--just like how most artworks would never get a 100% (just like the subject or major in school). The reason to why any art related competition would have a panel of judges, and how the scores are averaged out. The same photo submitted to a few different competition might fair differently across. It depends on the the style preferred, accepted or even liked.
a piece of art in the gallery that cost over thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions might mean nothing to the common eye. I'll be all honest and say that even if I stumbled upon a lost Vincent van Gogh's art in a flea market, I might just walk pass it. In an all honest point, I'll probably not recognize Peter Lik's Phantom even if it was shown to me.
to me, an art becomes valuable when someone of stature or maybe of certain wealth appreciates it and wish to purchase/own/admire it. else, it would just be another piece of art that gets washed away in the wave of time--especially in the time of technology and internet.
I generally like to hear others out (after all this is a forum for discussion) more than having my own say. In this case, since I am totally amateur in photography, especially landscape photography, all the more I should listen more and talk less... but anyway, since you asked...
As someone pointed out, I generally go "wow, that's a perfect technical execution!" - and I will try and try to replicate it, in the process of learning. Along the way, if I feel I did a reasonable job, and I needed a pat on the back, I will go show off some better shots to friends.
But at the higher level, I think I would want to look at things at a different angle, looking for that shot that is "different". That's the (don't like using this big bombastic word but...) "creative" process.
Anyway, I do agree with your comment about styles and taste.
To certain extend, this article mirrors the photographs which it dismisses as everyday-repetitive "consumer" level work. Haven't we seen these I-wanna-be-different soapbox rant too many times before?
I asked more as a "Come, lets talk about it" kind of query.
You are too humble.
To me, you have done well in the genres you have ventured into.
I don't think we need to be 'expert' to just share some thoughts.
Else, there might just only be silence to all topics
As for the article, really just different style/pref (perhaps with age group playing a part too).
I see his point. It's not just photography, and it's not new. You've probably already seen Youtube vids of 8 year old kids shredding on guitars, playing Van Halen or Steve Vai solos note for note. Amazing technical prowess. More complex stuff than Hendrix or Clapton were doing at their peaks. But technical ability is only the foundation, and it alone does not make you an 'artist'. Some of them might go on to hone their creative skills later, some may not.
Or the many Chinese painters reproducing the masterpieces (buy a Van Gogh-equivalent of 15 bucks!)
Of course, this period of copying is sometimes part of the process of developing your own style, for those with the inclination. But I think for many, duplicating a popular photo (or at least the style) is an end itself. If so, that's fine, but I wouldn't call it 'art'.
Or the many Chinese painters reproducing the masterpieces (buy a Van Gogh-equivalent of 15 bucks!)
Of course, this period of copying is sometimes part of the process of developing your own style, for those with the inclination. But I think for many, duplicating a popular photo (or at least the style) is an end itself. If so, that's fine, but I wouldn't call it 'art'.
Was a sincerely question to you when I asked....
Because I am like most photographers, which you mentioned, who try hard to get a nice shot, and I still cannot, except for some lucky fluke..
Was wondering whether if you make detailed planning each time you go photo shoot and always evoke emotions each time before you pressed the shutter.
Congratulation to you if you have..
not sure if my points are relevant but i'll say this...
not many of us have the luxury of revisiting a certain location repeatedly or even have the opportunity to recce the place before the actual shoot. landscape photography would mean hours/days/weeks or even months of planning. someone who has access to a beautiful view/scene would have an advantage to know the best time to shoot, the best vantage point at that certain hour and the best day of the season to shoot.
having been to some countries myself, i'll say the scenery changes so drastically over the seasons that you'd have to be there a year to capture the beauty that resides in each location. if my memory serves me correctly, i might have stumbled across an article of someone shooting the exact same view over the 4 seasons at different time of the day. each of which has its own story to tell--white snow, falling leaves, blossoming flowers and blue skies at dawn, noon, dusk and night.
for someone to have created a masterpiece, i've one thought on this matter; either luck or patience. luck for someone with an eye to find that moment at the right place or simply wait at the right place for that right moment.
not many of us have the luxury of revisiting a certain location repeatedly or even have the opportunity to recce the place before the actual shoot. landscape photography would mean hours/days/weeks or even months of planning. someone who has access to a beautiful view/scene would have an advantage to know the best time to shoot, the best vantage point at that certain hour and the best day of the season to shoot.
having been to some countries myself, i'll say the scenery changes so drastically over the seasons that you'd have to be there a year to capture the beauty that resides in each location. if my memory serves me correctly, i might have stumbled across an article of someone shooting the exact same view over the 4 seasons at different time of the day. each of which has its own story to tell--white snow, falling leaves, blossoming flowers and blue skies at dawn, noon, dusk and night.
for someone to have created a masterpiece, i've one thought on this matter; either luck or patience. luck for someone with an eye to find that moment at the right place or simply wait at the right place for that right moment.
IMHO, those landscape photos the author seen simply lack the human touch. So, though they were perfectly taken or made, soon it will become boring.
this looks boring
this looks exciting
the lightning looks awesome....but without the Statue of Liberty and the human civilization in the backgrd, it is just another awesome lightning shot
and this won't look majestic without the human subjects....
this looks boring
this looks exciting
the lightning looks awesome....but without the Statue of Liberty and the human civilization in the backgrd, it is just another awesome lightning shot
and this won't look majestic without the human subjects....
