Will the Real Landscape Photography Please Stand Up ?

[RSL]

Ah, now we're into philosophy. Why do anything? That's always up to you, Jeremy. Many people don't do much other than, eat, sleep, go to the bathroom, and watch TV.

But this kind of thing isn't about whether or not you enjoy it or whether or not doing it "suits you." It's about what a work of visual art conveys to its viewer.

The point I hoped I'd made abundantly clear is that in visual art it's the experience that matters, not correspondence to "reality." In high mountains, like the Rockies, the experience that comes across often has little to do with true linear perspective. A camera -- unless you have a very weird lens on it -- gives you something very close to true linear perspective. You can dork around with the result in Photoshop all you want, but with a scene like "Among the Sierra Nevada", the relationship between the foreground and background simply isn't there -- unless you cut and paste; a corruption that's always obvious to anyone with eyes to see.

Bierstadt could have painted "Among the Sierra Nevada" on Mars and the effect still would be the same. No, you'll never actually see the scene Bierstadt painted. It isn't an accurate portrayal of "reality." But if you've spent enough time in the mountains to have seen changes of season, visual distortions caused by fog and changing light, and the other tricks weather can bring on, Bierstadt's "unreal" depiction will be more likely to strike you as true than any photograph you've ever seen.

[elliot_n]

Gursky.

[amolitor]

Russ's point is perfectly clear, geez.

As soon as you start altering perspective and whatnot in photoshop you're clearly in the land of "painting", or near enough.

If I say "car crashes are bad for you, but massages are good for you" pointing out that certain VERY SLOW car crashes actually have a massaging effect is ridiculous and misses the point.

[Isaac]

Russ's point is perfectly clear, geez.

Russ insists and insists that no photograph will ever convey to him the feeling conveyed by Bierstadt's painting "Among the Sierra Nevada."
That is hardly something others are in a position to question.

Meanwhile: Is the narrow range of photography that accompanies bratwurst and beer on a huge TV monitor somehow "real landscape photography" to the exclusion of the wide range of photography shown in exhibitions ?

As soon as you start altering perspective and whatnot in photoshop you're clearly in the land of "painting", or near enough.

"Composite portraits are absolute quackery! What's next, composite landscapes?" The Photographic News, January 1888

[Stefan.Steib]

Wow - being a bit busy and returning here I found six pages of discussion ! A joy to see : Photography lives as long as we all feel it

I have another thesis that I would like to induce to this:
Universal Reality is not existing, even pointing the camera in one direction at a certain time with a lens will alter the image according to the moment you press the button.
Photography is now reaching a point that a "photoshop" painting can look like an unaltered Photo and paintings may look like altered photos.
A row of Photos is called timelapse and even transfers into film, film on the other hand can be shot pretty static with very few movements, so it looks like a photo,
we have reached a point where immersive media are transitioning into each other. Why not use this ?
The viewing media of the future will be huge 8k screens. This will also alter the way people will look at "images" - static or moving.
A slight change of light, a cloud moving over the subject, a leaf falling from a tree..... all this could be part of it.
And of course a lot more.

Will the real landscape "photographers" of the near future be using immersive media imaging to express themselves ?
Is "pure" photography exhausted and tried to the limits of endless repetiton ?

What do you think ?

Greetings from Germany
Stefan

[Isaac]

What do you think ?

That seems to be a list of techniques. If those techniques are just used to make pretty pictures …

[NancyP]

Landscape photo-essay has more uniqueness than individual image, and expresses the individual photographer's subjective experience of being in that location. Time-lapse could be involved for some image components.

Someday if I am at a "popular" location, I plan to photograph left-over tripod holes. 

[fdisilvestro]

Bierstadt could have painted "Among the Sierra Nevada" on Mars and the effect still would be the same. No, you'll never actually see the scene Bierstadt painted. It isn't an accurate portrayal of "reality." But if you've spent enough time in the mountains to have seen changes of season, visual distortions caused by fog and changing light, and the other tricks weather can bring on, Bierstadt's "unreal" depiction will be more likely to strike you as true than any photograph you've ever seen.

I wonder if there are perceptual phenomena or illusions that influence the way we perceive landscapes when we are there, which cannot be recorded by the camera (e.g. the moon illusion).

[Diego Pigozzo]

Images that are liked by many people, are liked by many people because they show what is liked by many people.

I think this is the point the author of the article misses completly.
He seems to think that it's possible to produce "uncommon landscape photography" and still get them liked by many, while my opinion is that a landscape photo (or a photo in general) is either for fews or for many.

Just as examples of "landscape for few": http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=84069.0 or Karl Hurst's Booths series (https://www.flickr.com/photos/karl_hurst/)

[AreBee]

Diego Pigozzo,

...my opinion is that a landscape photo (or a photo in general) is either for fews or for many.

What is it about images that are liked by few people that makes few people like them?

[Diego Pigozzo]

Diego Pigozzo,

What is it about images that are liked by few people that makes few people like them?

Good question, which probably has many answers as many viewers.
One answer could be "I like it because it shows a certain beauty where others sees just uglyness".

[jjj]

Ah, now we're into philosophy. Why do anything? That's always up to you, Jeremy. Many people don't do much other than, eat, sleep, go to the bathroom, and watch TV.

You brought up "why bother to do anything?", not me.

But this kind of thing isn't about whether or not you enjoy it or whether or not doing it "suits you." It's about what a work of visual art conveys to its viewer.

Actually it can be about what suits you or enjoyment and you could even be the viewer.

The point I hoped I'd made abundantly clear is that in visual art it's the experience that matters, not correspondence to "reality." In high mountains, like the Rockies, the experience that comes across often has little to do with true linear perspective. A camera -- unless you have a very weird lens on it -- gives you something very close to true linear perspective.

Lenses despite all the wittering you get by some people [ahem Ray  ] have no influence on perspective. Perspective is a result of one's position relative to something else. Lenses changing perspective is one of the biggest myths in photography.

You can dork around with the result in Photoshop all you want, but with a scene like "Among the Sierra Nevada", the relationship between the foreground and background simply isn't there -- unless you cut and paste; a corruption that's always obvious to anyone with eyes to see.

The picture you rave about is a cut and paste in itself and a good PS artist can do exactly the same thing with pixels rather than oils and with the right base imagery could recreate that painting.

Bierstadt could have painted "Among the Sierra Nevada" on Mars and the effect still would be the same. No, you'll never actually see the scene Bierstadt painted. It isn't an accurate portrayal of "reality." But if you've spent enough time in the mountains to have seen changes of season, visual distortions caused by fog and changing light, and the other tricks weather can bring on, Bierstadt's "unreal" depiction will be more likely to strike you as true than any photograph you've ever seen.

You can still do the same thing via photography and PS. Just because you personally have not seen an image like this painting does not mean there are none or it can't be done.

[RSL]

Interesting, Jeremy. The burden of your extended arguments is: "You can do the same thing with a photograph." Yet, you can't come up with a demonstration that this is true.

[Isaac]

The burden of your extended arguments is: "You can do the same thing with a photograph." Yet, you can't come up with a demonstration that this is true.

He can't be bothered coming up with a demonstration that this is true for you, because it would just be so you can then say, "That's not quite what I meant and it proves nothing anyway".


Insist and insist that no photograph will ever convey to you the feeling conveyed by Bierstadt's painting "Among the Sierra Nevada". It's a matter of your subjectivity, only accessible to you - not a question of fact or general opinion. You are witness, advocate, judge, jury, and sole interested party.

[RSL]

You are witness, advocate, judge, jury, and sole interested party.

For once you're right, Isaac. And the same thing applies to anybody looking at a work of art. The rest of what you said comes across as background noise.

[HSakols]

To put this discussion in perspective one really should read this: http://landscapephotographyblogger.com/did-velvia-film-change-landscape-photography/

[jjj]

Interesting, Jeremy. The burden of your extended arguments is: "You can do the same thing with a photograph." Yet, you can't come up with a demonstration that this is true.

Russ that are an awful lot of images out there with exactly the same techniques as used in the painting you like is done via Photoshop. If you managed to survive this long and still be unaware of such work, that's a remarkable achievement on your part. Heck I even pointed you towards Hag, who did the same thing in the darkroom decades back and posted a cityscape of mine where perspective had been rejigged in PS. But I guess unless someone recreates that very specific painting you like via PS, you will continue to deny the possibility.
There's also this new fangled invention called google which allows to find Photoshop composited landscapes. Whether you like them is another matter.

[RSL]

Thanks, Jeremy. It was interesting to look at that display of Photoshop composited landscapes. I get the same feeling from them that I get from HDR driven to its most absurd by those who've just discovered HDR and find it's such a happy toy. It's pretty clear you haven't spent much time in the mountains. I'm still looking for a photograph that has the same real feel of the mountains you get from great mountain paintings. There certainly aren't any in that collection.

[jjj]

Thanks, Jeremy. It was interesting to look at that display of Photoshop composited landscapes. I get the same feeling from them that I get from HDR driven to its most absurd by those who've just discovered HDR and find it's such a happy toy. It's pretty clear you haven't spent much time in the mountains.

Why would that google chosen election of images have any bearing of how much time I've spent anywhere? I'm a keen mountain biker by the way and I do in fact like being in elevated places. I only live a short cycle ride from the Peak District, which can be seen from back of our house. Sheffield is also the centre for climbing in the UK.

I'm still looking for a photograph that has the same real feel of the mountains you get from great mountain paintings. There certainly aren't any in that collection.

That's not a curated selection, if you google landscape paintings you get a similar lurid selection. I wouldn't then condemn all landscape painting as a result of looking at that quick search.

[RSL]

Well, Jeremy, I'll have to concede that if it was possible to remove Leon Trotsky from early Bolshevik party photographs it may, well, be possible to do what you're suggesting. Now show me an example and I'll have to concede the argument.