Is Landscape Photography "Static"?

[rabanito]

I am not so sure. I accept that subjects in "street" are usually moving and, with some bad luck, could strike back
But there is all it is to it
If you are doing landscape there is the rotation of the earth and the meteorology changing the light continuously and, if you are not there at the right time and with the right weather, the static objects are changed.
They are "Morphing" :-)

It is a different dynamic but IMHO absolutely not static.
Landscape is not only the "objects".

It's not "l'instant decisif" of HCB but you have to move, take as an example "The Making of 'Moonrise - Hernandez' "
A short while later all is gone. Probably forever.

They are different realms.

Opinions?

[faberryman]

I'm not sure worrying about whether something is static or moving is all that helpful. What are you trying to achieve at that level of analysis?

[Rob C]

I'm not sure worrying about whether something is static or moving is all that helpful. What are you trying to achieve at that level of analysis?

You have much to learn about Spanish political thought process!

:-)

[rabanito]

I'm not sure worrying about whether something is static or moving is all that helpful. What are you trying to achieve at that level of analysis?

I'm asking for opinions on a subject that interests me.

The subject was commented in another topic and made me curious.

I'm here to learn from the more experienced, not to "achieve" anything.
I could just post pictures and look at the pictures of others. But I expect more from a forum

[faberryman]

You have much to learn about Spanish political thought process.

I have much to learn about many things. Unfortunately, time is running out.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Inter-departmental rivalry is a fact of life. Sales hates Marketing, Accounting hates both, and vice versa. The same with genre photographers. Street photographers look down on Landscape photography, and vice versa.

The whole thing is just plain silly and does not deserve a serious debate.

[Rob C]

I have much to learn about many things. Unfortunately, time is running out.

I gave up trying when I found my failure level.

They say that when you fail you should try, try, and then try again. However, if you fail again after that, give up because there's no point making a fool of yourself.

That was sound advice!

:-)

[BAB]

Hum trees are moving and growing rivers are flowing and so is lots of things in the landscape so are the static? It depends on how you determine static. To show weather in a landscape is how you can make great landscape images, the ones with out seem lifeless.

[Rob C]

I'm asking for opinions on a subject that interests me.

The subject was commented in another topic and made me curious.

I'm here to learn from the more experienced, not to "achieve" anything.
I could just post pictures and look at the pictures of others. But I expect more from a forum

You are right to expect more.

1. You are not correct in your analysis of street, because as is painfully obvious in this community, streets are where people often get lost amid all kinds of twists and turns and false signals. It is not a simple open and shut situation but, indeed, very much like Pandora's box.

2. You make a valid point about Earth being in a state of perpetual motion, but it is still when observed from the perspective of the man about to click the shutter, things such as wind being an unavoidable reality, especially if you live on an island or near the sea.

Regarding the morphing from season to season, taking the longer view, as it were, then people have already performed the experiment of shooting within their own tripod holes at regular intervals in order to track comparative stages of the annual bump and grind of Mother Nature. I'm not sure about the morality of this process, but what would I know? Neither do I know if those people have proved a point or simply completed a project of doubtful value.

On the concept of landscape being creative, which I kinda think is where you are looking for debate, then I have to say that again, I'm not a true believer. That said, not for a moment do I deny that some rare photographers have the ability to take what's already there and, via technique, turn a pig's ear into a prettier ear, but an ear is ever an ear. Simply selecting an angle and a lens, waiting like Job for a change of circumstance, doesn't quite cut it for me, because all of those steps appear passive. If you can't get landscape to respond to you, do something to your request, then you admit you do not have final control, and can only make the best of a tough situation. Perhaps final control is where painting proves the painter's superiority as artist?

Regarding Hernandez, if the tale is to be believed, it was closer to a case of street than landscape: no time to ponder, just to react. Does that make St Ansel a genius?

[luxborealis]

Yes, landscape photography is static - if you make it so.
No, landscape photography is not static - if you make it so.

Perhaps you’re feeling like me: SSDD. I’m seeing a lot of the same old same old, and am tiring of it: different places, but all shot at the golden hour with or without moving water. Landscape photographers seem to have progressed through the eras of the “painterly black-and-white” then the “‘straight’ grand black and whilandscape photography is static - if you make it so.
No, te” and into the era of the “golden hour moving water” (with some astrophotography thrown in for good measure) and are stuck there.

My feeling is landscape photography needs a new paradigm. Maybe Ed Burtinsky is on to something – and I’ll add ‘sadly’ as the environmental state of affairs is not looking good.

[Rob C]

Yes, landscape photography is static - if you make it so.
No, landscape photography is not static - if you make it so.

Perhaps you’re feeling like me: SSDD. I’m seeing a lot of the same old same old, and am tiring of it: different places, but all shot at the golden hour with or without moving water. Landscape photographers seem to have progressed through the eras of the “painterly black-and-white” then the “‘straight’ grand black and white” and into the era of the “golden hour moving water” (with some astrophotography thrown in for good measure) and are stuck there.

My feeling is landscape photography needs a new paradigm.

That's why the spacecraft to Mars.

Rob

P.S. And that made 20,000 posts, and I'm knackered.

[luxborealis]

P.S. And that made 20,000 posts, and I'm knackered.

Wow! That’s quite a feat, Rob. Congratulations!

[rabanito]

The whole thing is just plain silly and does not deserve a serious debate.

A somewhat hard way to put it.
Still, in my short life I've learned even from the "silliest" persons.

And "silly" is only a point of view.
They say (not me, for God's sake!) that there are no silly questions and something about the answers
Maybe this apply to debates too :-)

[rabanito]

You are right to expect more.

1. You are not correct in your analysis of street, because as is painfully obvious in this community, streets are where people often get lost amid all kinds of twists and turns and false signals. It is not a simple open and shut situation but, indeed, very much like Pandora's box.

2. You make a valid point about Earth being in a state of perpetual motion, but it is still when observed from the perspective of the man about to click the shutter, things such as wind being an unavoidable reality, especially if you live on an island or near the sea.

Regarding the morphing from season to season, taking the longer view, as it were, then people have already performed the experiment of shooting within their own tripod holes at regular intervals in order to track comparative stages of the annual bump and grind of Mother Nature. I'm not sure about the morality of this process, but what would I know? Neither do I know if those people have proved a point or simply completed a project of doubtful value.

On the concept of landscape being creative, which I kinda think is where you are looking for debate, then I have to say that again, I'm not a true believer. That said, not for a moment do I deny that some rare photographers have the ability to take what's already there and, via technique, turn a pig's ear into a prettier ear, but an ear is ever an ear. Simply selecting an angle and a lens, waiting like Job for a change of circumstance, doesn't quite cut it for me, because all of those steps appear passive. If you can't get landscape to respond to you, do something to your request, then you admit you do not have final control, and can only make the best of a tough situation. Perhaps final control is where painting proves the painter's superiority as artist?

Regarding Hernandez, if the tale is to be believed, it was closer to a case of street than landscape: no time to ponder, just to react. Does that make St Ansel a genius?

Hernandez:
Possibly I didn't express myself well. Blame it on my poor English :-)
The case of Hernandez was just an example. My idea is about LIGHT changing, not over the seasons but from one hour to the other.  This doesn't make anybody a genius and I didn't imply that.

I'm a great admirer of HCB, Robert Doisneau and others. But it is not what I do.
I play guitar like others play clarinet. Different sounds, both music (or noise)
And if a painter is superior to a photographer depends on what he/she paints.
Garbage is garbage, independently of the medium :-)


As for having control, other than "Le Baiser de l´Hotel de Ville"  I consider street photography just to happen
The photographer just interprets something according to his projections, as probably do the public
Nothing wrong with that but probably the same mechanism as with Landscape

[RSL]

I am not so sure. I accept that subjects in "street" are usually moving and, with some bad luck, could strike back
But there is all it is to it
If you are doing landscape there is the rotation of the earth and the meteorology changing the light continuously and, if you are not there at the right time and with the right weather, the static objects are changed.
They are "Morphing" :-)

It is a different dynamic but IMHO absolutely not static.
Landscape is not only the "objects".

It's not "l'instant decisif" of HCB but you have to move, take as an example "The Making of 'Moonrise - Hernandez' "
A short while later all is gone. Probably forever.

They are different realms.

Opinions?

Hi Rab, Interesting that you should use Moonrise Hernandez as an example. Ansel slammed on his brakes and, as he put it, "almost ditched the car." He couldn't find his light meter when he was on top of the car and had to guess at the exposure. He tried to make a second exposure but by the time he closed the slide, pulled the film holder and reversed it, the sun had left the crosses. It was an awful lot like street where you never have quite enough time for what you try to do. Read http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/WhyClicktheShutter.html for a comparison between Moonlight Hernandez, and Moonrise Yosemite Valley, which is much closer to normal landscape.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

A somewhat hard way to put it.
Still, in my short life I've learned even from the "silliest" persons.

And "silly" is only a point of view.
They say (not me, for God's sake!) that there are no silly questions and something about the answers
Maybe this apply to debates too :-)

You realize that the comment about “static” landscape was a bait from landscape haters and you took it? Who cares if the landscape is static or not? Debating virtues of landscape photography with landscape haters is... well, futile (if you don’t like the word “silly”).

[Two23]

It is a different dynamic but IMHO absolutely not static.
Landscape is not only the "objects".

There is a saying from the 5th C. BC Greek philosopher Heraclitus: "No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.”

So yes, nature is every bit as dynamic as "street."  Maybe even more so.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkLp9d7HKuA

Kent in SD

[James Clark]

There is a saying from the 5th C. BC Greek philosopher Heraclitus: "No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.”

So yes, nature is every bit as dynamic as "street."  Maybe even more so.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkLp9d7HKuA

Kent in SD

Agreed.  In fact, I’d argue that the fundamental nature of man is much more rigid than the changing of the world around us. 

[Martin Kristiansen]

The landscape is obviously not static but it seems to me the Landscape Photograph is mired in some kind of static aesthetic. If a photograph is worth a thousand words I find that frequently landscape photography simply says "pretty" over and over a thousand times. Its like a 7 course meal consisting of nothing but desert items. May sound like fun but it quickly becomes monotonous.

[Ivophoto]

My father was a landscape photographer.

He could wait hours for the correct light to fall over a landscape. Eventually he went back in another season to get the good light.

If the second hand of your clock is your measurement, landscape is static, it changes if you slow down and work according the hours hand or even a calendar.

And yet it can be a matter of a split second to catch that line of shade or that reflection in the water.

Seriously underestimated discipline.


Mastering the effects of the calendar and the hour of the day and pushing the button on that split second makes stunning photography, not only landscape.

Add this to the effects of the era, social and political, and you get the unbelievable exciting playground of the open minded photographer.