Terry,
Please can you explain why you consider invalid my statement that "the presence of a human in a landscape photo can provide a sense of scale that otherwise would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve."?
In my forties, I took advantage of a teaching opportunity, moved to England and promptly joined a very dedicated local "photo club" - a great group who placed far more value on the photograph than the equipment used to make it (a nice change from what I'do experienced in my "home" country, Canada). After showing a few times and becoming despondent about the lack of enthusiastic response to my landscapes, I asked a few members and a couple of judges about it. Invariably the response came back regarding the lack of people in my landscapes. Well, I thought, I can
add people to my landscapes as well as the next person, but it's not the way I, personally, like landscapes.
About a year later it finally came to me why I prefer not to have people in landscapes and why my English friends seem to feel differently (perhaps not all, but certainly the ones in the circles I got to know). It all has to do with context....
I grew up in Canada enjoying the great outdoors and near wilderness experiences of canoeing and backpacking and camping in places that were basically empty of people. In fact, to hear people from another campsite on the same lake somehow diminished the experience. Even our family cottage is situated on a relatively busy lake, but with almost no human presence on the opposite shore. I revel in the absence of humanity. I crave the moments when I can look out on a landscape and enjoy nature as it exists naturally - romantic as it sounds!
While fell walking through the immensely beautiful and relatively barren Yorkshire Dales, it struck me that we saw people regularly throughout the day. Every 15 to 30 minutes we either passed other hikers or were passed by hikers, as I stopped to photograph the landscape. The same thing was true EVERYWHERE we went hiking in Britain. Bingo - now I know why my English friends want people in there landscapes. (Really, it's just an untested theory.)
And, perhaps, long-winded as it seems, this is your answer. It's not "right" or "wrong" to have people in landscapes, it all depends on what your personal experience has been. I know that to many people, even many here in Canada, my landscapes are generally more "accepted" if there is a person or people in them - but then, that's not me. I'm not about to add people just to satisfy those who "need" a person.
It might just be worth a study - why
do people feel the need for people in landscapes?