Castlerigg stone circle
- Thread starter Ed Sutton
- Start date
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,618
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
Indeed. Do we have to look at the ice cream van and can't have nice golden hour light but only misery and rain? Does it have to be my reality? No thanks.
Many of us live and breathe beautiful landscape. It is really not our fault when somebody chooses the wrong time of day or the wrong weather to visit...
I like the concept of the OP. I'd say it's more documentary than pure landscape but I think it's interesting to see the wider context of these locations. There are some stunning shots of Castlerigg but because photography creates the illusion by what it excludes, there is a minds eye creation of what the location is like. I think it's akin to what do radio presenters look like These images may shatter the illusion but to me actually demonstrate the skill and ability of photographers who create wonderful pure landscape images.
I wouldn't be against a thread showing the wider reality of popular landscape locations
I wouldn't be against a thread showing the wider reality of popular landscape locations
- Messages
- 650
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
I like these images. If they were labelled 'street' rather than landscape they'd be more easily accepted I think. But, more importantly, they show something crucial - just how little unspoilt landscape we have left, and how some of that is packaged and commodified. Surely those of us who love wild places also have a responsibility to document the threats to them? I take 'pure' landscape photos - but I also take pictures of inappropriate human impacts. When the Snowdonia Society had its 50-year celebration conference, it showed a projection of some of these images of the Snowdonia National Park, to demonstrate the threats it is trying to defend against. Let's picture both realities - the good, and the not so good (or downright bad).
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That is a good point - although if you think we have it bad - head to the Alps - hiking trails everywhere, cable car lifts, ski lifts, random lodges in the middle of nowhere. Big villages and challets at the head of Lakes etc etc.
OP
- Messages
- 7,895
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
Not taking the p***. But stirring a little! Also pointing out what might be seen if landscape photographers turned round and took photos. I looked at Durdle Door on Google. It's nowt like you might imagine from all the pretty pictures we see of it.
Perhaps, too, there's a point about pigeon-holing photos into genres being daft, and about how we all repeat the clichés of those genres - be that street or golden hour landscape photography. The idea of a Documentary section for TP was rejected. So where can you put pictures about people and landscape?
Perhaps, too, there's a point about pigeon-holing photos into genres being daft, and about how we all repeat the clichés of those genres - be that street or golden hour landscape photography. The idea of a Documentary section for TP was rejected. So where can you put pictures about people and landscape?
- Messages
- 251
- Edit My Images
- No
Sensitive much?
I like the idea of documenting these honey-pot locations and how people interact with them, as well as their 'reality'.
- Messages
- 10,866
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm never disappointed when I first walk onto the field at Castlerigg despite the numerous times I've been there, its an amazing and breathtaking place. To be honest I barely notice the social periphery
- Messages
- 11,792
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm with you 100% with these. I may not have taken these images exactly myself but its good to see someone doing it, posting them on here, and fielding the inevitable (I'm afraid) criticism from "landscape photographers".
I find the popular definition of landscape photography so restrictive. For me, if it's taken out in the landscape, it's landscape photography.
That is NOT, I hasten to add, dismissive of popular landscape photography. There is always a place for great photographs of locations taken at the right time of day with stunning light. But they do need to be counterbalanced by more realistic visions of our landscape.
I find the popular definition of landscape photography so restrictive. For me, if it's taken out in the landscape, it's landscape photography.
That is NOT, I hasten to add, dismissive of popular landscape photography. There is always a place for great photographs of locations taken at the right time of day with stunning light. But they do need to be counterbalanced by more realistic visions of our landscape.
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The environs will probably look pretty much as they do now. The Lake District hadn’t changed much in the last 30 years, few more houses up, same nasty little narrow roads, and it’ll be just the same in 100 except the fence and gate will be new and the van will have moved on - the damage has been done already
Last edited:
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I know what you are getting at - and I see the point even if I won’t do it myself.
But these pictures you mention - the stunning light, beautiful location/composition are just as realistic - the nice light happened and the location is there and is no less realistic than something more like this. The nice light, still water etc may happen less but it happens often enough to not be a once in a life time scene. Plus as it’s prettier they’ll always be more sought after, more memorable, more cherished as experiences and images/art work.
You see this - people are very nostalgic about the past - be it old art works, old music, old cars. Old cars in particular-people lovingly reminisce about old cars but forget how quickly they rusted, manual choke, over heating on the motorway etc yet many go out of their way to drive an old car.
The grim truth about the past, war, famine, disease, dirt generally gets over looked and the past is seen through Rose tinted spectacles. It’s the human condition - and landscape images tend to fall into the “pretty catagory because people (me included) romantise the countryside and cling on to a notion of an uninhabited area as a something worthwhile, something to hold on to, something to celebrate rather than face the grim truth we’ve toileted most of our country.
As you know I shoot in one area a lot and something Ive started to do is consciously compose images that show no obvious man made interference or people in the shots. There’s just some I won’t take as you catch a bit of road, hiking track, road sign, chair lift as I have a romantic idea, notion even, of what the area should be and not what it is (a through route to Inverness from Glasgow and yes I drive there). I’m a hypocrite and I know it but when I’m there I’m on cloud nine and portray my vision through my composition and timing.
- Messages
- 11,792
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Great post, Steve.
Yes, of course, they exist, and they are realistic up to a certain limit. It is the skill of the landscape photographer to portray them as well as they possibly can, and I photograph a lot of Welsh ones myself. The limitation appears when these romanticised images are the only ones that can be found of the landscape. To illustrate what I mean, as you may know I've been publishing postcards of (mainly) the Welsh National Parks for more than 30 years, and clearly one accentuates the positive in the images that one chooses for the cards. Over that same period in what might be descibed as my "personal work", which has been made available in books and exhibitions, I've been photographing the less salubrious parts of Wales and even subjects within the National Parks in a more "documentary" style - although I would argue it's all landscape.
It is a way I have found of being true to my subject matter. I've sometimes said that the more "documentary" stuff is an antidote to the postcards!
There is a good argument for excluding every single human artifact from landscape images if possible, but I can remember a discussion on here with Pookeyhead in which he stated that there are no entirely unspoilt areas anywhere in Britain (or in the developed world, come to that). I argued that it's not quite as simple as that, which he found difficult to accept. What I'm sometimes not happy about are images which include a building or a structure of some sort (lighthouse, distant cottage, etc) as an aid to composition or as a focal point to an image if its presence doesn't say anything else. I'm sometimes very strict with myself about that.
Yes, of course, they exist, and they are realistic up to a certain limit. It is the skill of the landscape photographer to portray them as well as they possibly can, and I photograph a lot of Welsh ones myself. The limitation appears when these romanticised images are the only ones that can be found of the landscape. To illustrate what I mean, as you may know I've been publishing postcards of (mainly) the Welsh National Parks for more than 30 years, and clearly one accentuates the positive in the images that one chooses for the cards. Over that same period in what might be descibed as my "personal work", which has been made available in books and exhibitions, I've been photographing the less salubrious parts of Wales and even subjects within the National Parks in a more "documentary" style - although I would argue it's all landscape.
It is a way I have found of being true to my subject matter. I've sometimes said that the more "documentary" stuff is an antidote to the postcards!
There is a good argument for excluding every single human artifact from landscape images if possible, but I can remember a discussion on here with Pookeyhead in which he stated that there are no entirely unspoilt areas anywhere in Britain (or in the developed world, come to that). I argued that it's not quite as simple as that, which he found difficult to accept. What I'm sometimes not happy about are images which include a building or a structure of some sort (lighthouse, distant cottage, etc) as an aid to composition or as a focal point to an image if its presence doesn't say anything else. I'm sometimes very strict with myself about that.
OP
- Messages
- 7,895
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
Hmmm. I used to visit the lakes almost weekly back in the mid/late 1980s. I don't think I've been back since the late nineties until yesterday, driving roads I used to travel regularly. There were more changes than I thought there would be. Lots more brown signs all over the place for one thing.
In another 30 years the mountains might all be covered in trees and the sheep all eaten by lynx!
It's odd that some man-made features are happily embraced by 'landscape' photographers. I've seen plenty of romanticised shots of reservoirs on TP. Dry stone walls and stone field barns seem reasonably acceptable too. But road signs, pylons and people? Reach for the clone tool!
There is an irony in showing only pictures which present a landscape as unchanged, wild and without people. It encourages folk to go see it for themselves and degrade it even more. You can blame Wordsworth and his mates for starting that trend!
- Messages
- 11,792
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Very true. It adds to what I was trying to say above
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The last comment is very interesting - it’s a new way I haven’t thought about my photography or the type of photography I do.
The comments about old barns, old walls comes back to the romantic nostalgia that’s part of the human condition. People see old stone walls, old cottages, old reservoirs (think Elan Valley/Ladybower) etc in much the way they see an untouched vista - as something to look at with fondness. I’m guilty of it. I’ve shot 3 trips to the Elan Valley - not just because I think it’s pretty but probably because of some misguided notion of nostalgia that looks to a time gone by.
And remember once the past is gone it’s gone - the future we can change, influence and look forward to. The past is done and lost of people do what they can to cherish and look at it more fondly. Hence post cards of sheep in the dales with dry stone walls with an old stone barn will sell but a scene with a road and parked up Kia and Pylon in the distance won’t.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,618
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
I have no problem with anything man made in my shots as long as it suits my narrative. I'm not a journo and I can and I am very selective about what I want to see, where to go and what to photograph. My most commercially successful "landscape" images feature prominent man made structures, namely that big bridge. Of course there are things better left to documentary genres. And even then it can still be portrayed much more positively, unless it was the aim to specifically portray it in very poor light (pun intended). I don't have problem with people in the shot either. People visit these places and if you want to show it you can pick a suitable weather for that and select the right models, and have them interfacing with the landmark in a preferable way. It can still be pretty uplifting commercial shot. You can't just have a complete mess, at least it has to be orderly mess like in the renaissance Dutch paintings. We are not journalists and we want to have things as much as possible in control. Sometimes leaving this or that out is the best option there is.
If you come in rainy misery through the mud all wet then that becomes your reality. It is not necessarily mine or someone else's even when we get there. We choose to come when it all works and is rewarding. I also don't tend to stick around ice cream vans or hide around the gates in the bushes but proceed to the final destination and get exploring and composing.
Since the miserable infrastructure of the lake district has been already brought up I will also weigh in on this. It has shagged my car every time I got there, and frankly I will just drive past in along M6 towards Scotland... There is nothing wrong with new and modern infrastructure as long as it is built and styled responsibly. Look at Milau viaduct in France for example. I really don't mind most that at all unless it is some intentionally ugly brutalist concrete structure, or worse a highly secured globalist goblin hideout.
What does degrading of landscape really mean? I'd put it somewhere along the lines of irresponsible mining or destruction of forests. The serious stuff. If we start getting all in the arms about someone living in countryside or walking up a mountain it is going very deep down that rabbit hole. How about sheep degrading landscape. The deer? The sea birds, well the cormorants in particular...? Natural events, errruptions. Is it meant to magically stop changing and we just have to all lock ourselves in the horrible brutalist stinky mega cities like Birmingham, or worse London (presuming the elites will just lock up all the royal gardens from the precariate)
If you come in rainy misery through the mud all wet then that becomes your reality. It is not necessarily mine or someone else's even when we get there. We choose to come when it all works and is rewarding. I also don't tend to stick around ice cream vans or hide around the gates in the bushes
but proceed to the final destination and get exploring and composing.Since the miserable infrastructure of the lake district has been already brought up I will also weigh in on this. It has shagged my car every time I got there, and frankly I will just drive past in along M6 towards Scotland... There is nothing wrong with new and modern infrastructure as long as it is built and styled responsibly. Look at Milau viaduct in France for example. I really don't mind most that at all unless it is some intentionally ugly brutalist concrete structure, or worse a highly secured globalist goblin hideout.
What does degrading of landscape really mean? I'd put it somewhere along the lines of irresponsible mining or destruction of forests. The serious stuff. If we start getting all in the arms about someone living in countryside or walking up a mountain it is going very deep down that rabbit hole. How about sheep degrading landscape. The deer? The sea birds, well the cormorants in particular...? Natural events, errruptions. Is it meant to magically stop changing and we just have to all lock ourselves in the horrible brutalist stinky mega cities like Birmingham, or worse London (presuming the elites will just lock up all the royal gardens from the precariate)
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Much as it once was?
Maybe but that is
1. Not widely known
2. Is so far gone in the past that it’s not well remembered or documented.
There was a reason 500yrs ago our forebears saw fit to get rid of wolves, bears and big cats - they’re a risk to human life and live stock - the food we eat. We import most of our food so that in a sense is less of an issue than it once was - but with Brexit coming the reality is we will eat more of our own live stock and lynx, bear and wolves don’t fit in too well with that. Combine that with a human population density that has to be ten fold higher...
Plus people’s romantic notions of the countryside as being a safe and welcoming place to go with their families, pets etc is going to be tested when big cats, wolves and bears get to work,
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,618
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
And you've also shot the said Milau viaduct, Forth bridges, all the modern Clyde cityscape... you just shoot what you find attractive and what allows you to express yourself. There is no need to apologise for photographic some damn old barn. I am sure you walked right past hundreds of them and didn't shoot them because the overall scenery wasn't right.
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And these are the shots that tend to make money but don’t get the same enjoyment out of them. These are prominent structures and shots primary focus on the structure and immediate space around it - they’re taken to make money first and foremost. I admire architecture too and it shows what we’ve achieved as a people and not all our impact has been bad - the Millau viaduct and Forth bridges being prime examples of that as they are aestheticly pleasing, structurally impressive and some have cultural/ historicall significance (think Montserrat or Toledo, or Chambord)
Last edited:
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
It isn't particularly tested in, say, the US and Canada, where those beasts still roam. Thankfully the reintroduction of wolves is going well too.
And it is widely known that much of the Lake District and other regions were previously heavily forested. Reintroduction of that wouldn't go amiss either, imo.
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It isn't particularly tested in, say, the US and Canada, where those beasts still roam. Thankfully the reintroduction of wolves is going well too. [emoji4]
And it is widely known that much of the Lake District and other regions were previously heavily forested. Reintroduction of that wouldn't go amiss either, imo.
The US/Canada have much less population density and much stricter controls in national parks. They’re prestine and unspoiled, and unpopulated with people. Plus of course distance between farmed land and wolves etc is greater. Combined with a more heavily armed population which can defend itself against more readily and the issue isn’t as bad as it would be here.
I still think it’s very naive to think we can co-exist in close proximity with bears, wolves and big cats. Even in the US bears and wolves can kill people. People tend to have a very romanticised view regarding wildlife and see bears etc much in the same way I see the landscape - but the reality could be quite a lot more bothersome than a ripped lake or bit of road that needs cropped out a picture.
I had a client from Australia - ok no bears there but killer snakes and spiders - put it this way there was no love lost and I suspect that’s why our forebears exterminated bears and wolves - because sharing our space with them was extremely troublesome.
There’s a case of a bear chasing 150 sheep off a cliff in southern France - food they eat. Also a case of a bear mauling a hiker in the Italian Alps - I fail to see the benefits they’d bring. If it’s culling deer - we humans are more efficient and nothing a few game keepers with guns couldn’t sort out in a couple of years.
The replanting of trees - ecologically that’s most sound I would say though.
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,618
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
Not so for me really. It either falls to the pretty or interesting side vs the ugly, unattractive and repelling. That forms the sole reason whether I would go and shoot it as a personal project. I may get commissioned to photograph something like a tower block and then it is my job to make it look like the best case scenario.
I really didn't think any more about shooting Milau for sales than I did with Mont Blanc and guess which one has sold better... Famous wild countryside can sell just as well or better.
There is obviously an element of being out in a healthy unpolluted environment, being physically active and all that. That creates the additional attraction element to creating in wild nature.
I know some of you can make the unattractive things look interesting. You can spot the little details and work on that. My hat is off to you. It is not so with me. Well not most of the time anyway...
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,618
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
I'd be far more worried about ticks and mosquitoes spreading all sots of nasty viruses, ebola and flu epidemics and the likes and last but not least the common acidman and common knifeman if you are headed for some cityscapes.
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There is that.
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
You yourself have a romanticised view of US national parks.
Beautiful, they are (I've been lucky enough to visit quite a few), but pristine and unpopulated they aren't. Camp grounds, RV parks, car parks, hotels and gift shops abound.
As for the animals, let's take Yellowstone as an example. A very quick Google returns this:
From 1980-2002, over 62 million people visited Yellowstone National Park. During the same period, 32 people were injured by bears. The chance of being injured by a bear while in the park is approximately 1 in 1.9 million.
There have been no recorded incidents of a wolf attacking a human since their reintroduction into the park.
The truth is, Steve, humans don't wipe out (or bring them to the brink) animal species because predation or danger or even fear, they do so out of greed and arrogance...simply because they can. Here, beaver and otter are good examples, and in the US, bison.
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The odds are low but if there were no bears these 32 people would be alive or not injured - and what ecological benefit to they bring?
In a more densely populated and far smaller country such as the UK the death rate by bear would be much much higher - and you’ve ignored the real risk to live stock, the subsequent damages to an already fragile rural economy and food supply at the very time we might need it more that bear/wolves/big cats would jeopardise.
There’s no fun in extermination of species and I doubt our forbears thought - let’s kill lots and lots of lynx for fun - no it was done out of necessity and function.
What’s most interesting is those who seem most up for wolf/big cat/bear reintroduction and who were most anti fox hunting/badger culling are those who that are furthest away - you for instance live in SE England. Those more local to it seem much more apprehensive.
I’ll take your point that they’ve trashed their NPs a little - I was under the impression you needed a permit to enter, fires and littering were forbidden and strict enforcement was in place.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 29,465
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
No permit is required to enter, though an entrance charge is levied at many**. There are rules regarding fires, but of course are widely ignored. And littering exists wherever humans insert themselves, without exception.
**A few operate on a limited ticket or lottery basis, such as The Wave.
And yes, I live in the south east, but I hail from The Peak District National Park, (hope to return) and would happily have encouraged reintroduction.
- Messages
- 8,308
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
Noooooo! http://www.pylonofthemonth.org
Photography is about documenting as is. Leave the fluffy cloud s**t to the painters. Now, where's my coat...
- Messages
- 23,512
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
I've shot there twice now, and the beach area is very much as we see it photographed - the caravan park is quite a long way from the beach, and much higher up.
- Messages
- 3,098
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think Alf's post summed up the thread quite accurately. In my opinion if you were trying to compare the 'unreality' as you say, you'd have thought a little more in the framing and content. The images are simply documenting.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 7,895
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
Simply? That's a bit dismissive of documentary photography.
- Messages
- 23,512
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
I wonder if perhaps the images are a bit too 'Martin Parr' and the usual cues we look for are mostly missing, so they become documentary because the messages they're trying to convey aren't being received?
OP
- Messages
- 7,895
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
No doubt. How you read photographs is determined by the sort of photographs you tend to look at on a regular basis.
- Messages
- 3,098
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Possibly because I see three signs, a gate, a person and an ice cream van.
I wouldn't class them similar to Martin Parr's images, although I haven't seen all his work.
OP
- Messages
- 7,895
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
Maybe in subject matter. I actually find Parr's signature style is surprisingly difficult to mimic. So I don't try.