Landscape

[RSL]

Rob,  Not only do I not recall exactly where focus was placed, I couldn't care less. For a scene like this one, at f/8 it doesn't matter where the camera was focused unless you're pointing it at your feet or at a distant cloud. The D800 with a 24-120 f/4 set at f/8, zoomed to about 60mm and focused at roughly 50 feet, which is what's going on here is going to give you good focus from about 30 feet to infinity. Minimal sharpening will raise those limits. I guess I don't understand what you're getting at.

[luxborealis]

Terry,

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.

Yes, and I was born yesterday. For those who appreciate "the presence of a human in a landscape" - fine. But I, for one, don't. That age-old adage has been around as long as there have been landscapes in any medium - and for people like me, it's just as invalid today as it was when it was first stated. If you're making documentaries, fine, you need a scale. But not everyone is making documentaries when they trip the shutter.

[AreBee]

Terry,

That age-old adage has been around as long as there have been landscapes in any medium - and for people like me, it's just as invalid today as it was when it was first stated.

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."?

[Tonysx]

As they say in Canada, "Eh?"

I'm sure you can manage the same monosyllabic response in America since you claim Colorado/Florida as your home.
I'm fairly certain that you don't need a dictionary but just in case....
Nope - as they say in Canada/America - can't be bothered. Since you've been taking images for 72 years you would do well to accept any criticisms with a "Thanks, I'll bear that in mind" type of response.

[RSL]

That would be nice, Tony, but the fact is, I haven't the remotest clue what it is you want me to keep in mind.

[Isaac]

But not everyone is making documentaries when they trip the shutter.

True. Some use the presence of people in a landscape to provoke an emotional response -- the awesome immensity of a mountainside overwhelming tiny figures. Some use the absence of people (absence of scale) in a landscape to puzzle -- after a sequence of closeups, a long distance image of canyon side.

[RSL]

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.

But it's not just a sense of scale that makes landscape that includes a human blow away landscape that's nothing but "nature." People are always interested in people, and people are the ones who look at visual art. Dogs couldn't care less, nor could horses or cows. I'll go out on a long limb and say that when a human is in a picture the human always is the center of the picture's focus (emotional focus, Rob, not camera focus).

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I love nature as much as anyone loves it, and there's a lot of it in Colorado and in Florida, as there was in Michigan where I grew up. But what's striking and wonderful about nature is what's in it. You need to be there to appreciate it properly. Landscapes without humans or the hand of man make nice wallpaper.

[Jeremy Roussak]

I think that without man to observe it, nature, landscape in this case, from the point of view of man, doesn't exist.

Bishop Berkeley lives again!

Jeremy

[luxborealis]

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?

[RSL]

Bishop Berkeley lives again!

Hi Jeremy,

Not quite. As I understand Berkeley he believed things exist only in the minds of their observers. That's not what I'm saying. I believe things exist independently of their observers but that without observers their existence is meaningless. Maybe I misunderstand what Berkeley's saying but I don't think so.

[RSL]

That's a fascinating tale, Terry. Based on what you're saying I can understand why you prefer nature without people. But my background isn't all that different from yours. I grew up in Michigan and spent summers in a quite empty northern part of the state, in a cottage with a hand pump, outhouse, and a lake for a bathtub. At 14 and for three years following I'd occasionally spend a couple days in the woods with a bedroll and a 22 rifle, loving every minute of it. In the late 1950's I lived in Beausejour Manitoba for nearly three years, and, again enjoyed the outdoors as often as I could. Since 1965 I've spent a lot of days in the Colorado mountains and enjoyed those days too.

But nature without people is not a photograph of nature without people. I enjoyed nature without people (I say "enjoyed" because now I'm old enough that I can't reasonably go off alone into a landscape without people.) To me a photograph of nature showing the hand of man wins hands-down over a photograph of nature without people. A work of art is not the experience upon which it's based. It's a work of art.

[AreBee]

Russ,

...nature without people is not a photograph of nature without people.

Nature would continue to go about her business if people ceased to exist. People are but a part of nature.

By your rationale every nature photograph should feature all living things.

[RSL]

Nature would continue to go about her business if people ceased to exist

So what?

[luxborealis]

That's a fascinating tale, Terry. Based on what you're saying I can understand why you prefer nature without people. But my background isn't all that different from yours. I grew up in Michigan and spent summers in a quite empty northern part of the state, in a cottage with a hand pump, outhouse, and a lake for a bathtub. At 14 and for three years following I'd occasionally spend a couple days in the woods with a bedroll and a 22 rifle, loving every minute of it. In the late 1950's I lived in Beausejour Manitoba for nearly three years, and, again enjoyed the outdoors as often as I could. Since 1965 I've spent a lot of days in the Colorado mountains and enjoyed those days too.

But nature without people is not a photograph of nature without people. I enjoyed nature without people (I say "enjoyed" because now I'm old enough that I can't reasonably go off alone into a landscape without people.) To me a photograph of nature showing the hand of man wins hands-down over a photograph of nature without people. A work of art is not the experience upon which it's based. It's a work of art.

Good point, Russ, but I just can't agree with the your perspective of "a photograph of nature showing the hand of man wins hands-down over a photograph of nature without people". My story certainly has validity for me, but I understand that everyone's experiences are different and many may feel the need for the hand of man in natural landscapes. But we'll have to agree to disagree as I strongly feel the hand of man does not elevate landscapes to a higher plain; it might work for some landscapes and some people, perhaps even for many, but not for all.

Where we do agree is your final point: "A work of art is not the experience upon which it's based. It's a work of art", which, to me makes the hand of man in any work of art is irrelevant. Your point of view and my point of view on this topic differs and that's a good thing!

[RSL]

Fair enough, Terry. We agree to disagree. Without rancor.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Not quite. As I understand Berkeley he believed things exist only in the minds of their observers. That's not what I'm saying. I believe things exist independently of their observers but that without observers their existence is meaningless. Maybe I misunderstand what Berkeley's saying but I don't think so.

That's not quite the observation to which I responded, is it?

I think that without man to observe it, nature, landscape in this case, from the point of view of man, doesn't exist.

I'm content that your current formulation differs from Berkeley's, anyway.

There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
If the juniper tree
Discontinues to be
When there's no-one around in the quad."

Jeremy

[RSL]

That's not quite the observation to which I responded, is it?

I think that without man to observe it, nature, landscape in this case, from the point of view of man, doesn't exist.

I don't think Berkeley included that modifying phrase in his philosophy.

[Cartagenaphoto]

+1

Btw, nothing wrong with "rejecting" a critique. That is called a debate, a difference of opinion. Which is not the same as rejecting someone's right to critique.

+1

[Cartagenaphoto]

Hi Russ.

The photo dosen´t speak to me. There is to many things going on. But it could be my current mood, what I just looked at or something else that makes me say that.
Any way there is as many opinions on photos as there is people. Well almost ;-)

But the colors and contrast in the shot me like.

David

[BobDavid]

I have a strong visceral reaction to this: vertigo. I like the figure--she ads to the drama. When I was a kid in college, my buddies and I would go rock climbing in Minnesota--lots of cool places along Lake Superior and up along the boundary waters. Height didn't bother me then. Over the past fifteen years, since my early 40s, I've gotten progressively more fearful of heights. When my eye focuses on the woman in the frame, I imagine I am seeing the view from her point of view. And that is when the queasiness sets in. I also find her mysteriously attractive, which further draws me into the story.