Eric, you might think this is just a light-hearted comment that you´ve made, but you don´t know just how close to home your thought is.
<snip>
Let me diffuse inevitable attack and wasting of much effort at the start: in no way do I place myself on any high alter of superiority here; remember, I´m the one who admitted unease with doing landscape without people.
Hi Rob,
Yes, my comment was meant as a light-hearted jab. I think I understand where you are coming from, and it amuses me that I have just about the opposite reaction to landscapes with and without people in them. Most often, if a beautiful landscape has people in it, my reaction is a bit like encountering some boor's thoughtless litter beside the road.
IMHO, if you put a person (or persons) in a photograph, then the image immediately becomes a statement about the person (or persons) and not about the scene itself. If you love the natural scene, the way I do, people become a distraction, unless the photo really is about the person(s).
So if there were a person in Michael's lovely dune scene, I would be tempted to clone her/him out!
And, to modify your statement sightly, let me say "In no way do I place myself on any high alter of superiority here; remember, I´m the one who admitted unease with doing landscape
with people."
Different strokes for different folks.
From one old geezer to another, with regards,
Eric