Home turf vs. exotic locations

Messages
339
Edit My Images
Yes
Do you have a 'special area' you like to revisit and explore in detail for photography? Perhaps it's just somewhere that's local, or perhaps it's somewhere that has a special meaning to you. Or do you prefer getting out to far flung places in search of dramatic and different landscapes?

For me, I'm much happier if I can get something good in my beloved Peak District, although the landscape doesn't have the same drama as Scotland and certainly not Iceland or the Alps. But I grew up walking in the Peaks, and taking and sharing pictures of it's locations has a personal aspect that's missing in other locations.
 
After spending 3 weeks in the Pyrenees and Alps I can safely say I get more out of shooting there than here.

Don’t get me wrong, Skye and Glencoe are amazing places but pretending they can hold a candle to the scenery in Italy, France and Spain is just silly. If you like lakes, mountains, or just mountains nothing in the UK can match mainland Europe or further afield for drama, excitement and atmosphere.

There are folk who are happy to take boring little pictures of boring little places. Not me. You need to travel and see the world beyond your own little patch imho.
 
Last edited:
Surely it depends where your home turf is? If it’s somewhere like the Peak District or the Lake District it a little different. For some they would consider that an exotic location.

Going regularly to a local place would let you get it in the right light and weather conditions where as far flung places are more of a hit and hope.
 
Surely it depends where your home turf is? If it’s somewhere like the Peak District or the Lake District it a little different. For some they would consider that an exotic location.

Going regularly to a local place would let you get it in the right light and weather conditions where as far flung places are more of a hit and hope.

You see I've been to both of these and don't rate them compared to what's near me, but what's further (Alps, Pyrenees etc) as much more exotic and exciting. TBH England to me is something you drive through to get to France and there is not much that tickles my fancy there. There is a reason so many English landscapers head to Scotland and why so few Scottish landscapers feel the need to go the Peaks or the Lakes. However, Scottish landscapers really need to have a crack at France etc.

Agree on the right light and weather comments but it's fun to see new places, learn what works photographically for you there and just be somewhere different to where you normally go.
 
I would certainly argue that UK has world class landscapes just as good as the Alps or Pyrenees but certainly in a different way. Maybe there are fewer of them and they are more spread out but they are certainly there. There is little wrong with Scotland or parts of Wales other than commonly miserable weather outlook. Sadly I need to drive a long way to any of them except maybe Bristol / Clifton bridge which is only an hour away. That is probably my "home turf" location because the rest is just 2nd rate. Malverns are OK just not that special. You can get lucky with seasonal changes and weather in midlands (one of my favourite shots is just 30min away taken last summer) but you need luck and work very hard to make it work - probably a long telephoto too.
 
You see I've been to both of these and don't rate them compared to what's near me, but what's further (Alps, Pyrenees etc) as much more exotic and exciting. TBH England to me is something you drive through to get to France and there is not much that tickles my fancy there. There is a reason so many English landscapers head to Scotland and why so few Scottish landscapers feel the need to go the Peaks or the Lakes. However, Scottish landscapers really need to have a crack at France etc.

Agree on the right light and weather comments but it's fun to see new places, learn what works photographically for you there and just be somewhere different to where you normally go.
That’s kind of my point, ultimately depends where you live whether the answer is going to be exotic or home patch. Personal views are often going to depend on where they live (you don’t rate the lakes or peaks as much of the part of Scotland you live in whereas people like myself will drive 3-6hrs to get to them as where I live in Bedfordshire isn’t as exciting as the peaks or lakes). I agree visiting the more exotic places beyond our small locals patches is good life experience, but it does make me wonder about the environmental impact us photographers have chasing images that many photographers likely already have.

I do like to shoot locally where I can. There is something about shooting local that means you can play the odds to get that chance to capture it in stunning light. It’s just a shame those more mundane locations in stunning light can get overlooked compared to the more exotic locations in ok-ish light.
 
That’s kind of my point, ultimately depends where you live whether the answer is going to be exotic or home patch. Personal views are often going to depend on where they live (you don’t rate the lakes or peaks as much of the part of Scotland you live in whereas people like myself will drive 3-6hrs to get to them as where I live in Bedfordshire isn’t as exciting as the peaks or lakes). I agree visiting the more exotic places beyond our small locals patches is good life experience, but it does make me wonder about the environmental impact us photographers have chasing images that many photographers likely already have.

I do like to shoot locally where I can. There is something about shooting local that means you can play the odds to get that chance to capture it in stunning light. It’s just a shame those more mundane locations in stunning light can get overlooked compared to the more exotic locations in ok-ish light.

I wouldn’t worry about the environmental impact in terms of CO2.

Many togs fly on flights that are going anyway and the relatively small number of serious photographers driving in cars/campervans is tiny.

The damage to the landscape is another one but if you go to the Alps the damage isn’t done by a small group of togs but by the skiing industry and hikers and the erosion and infrastructure that goes with catering for these two groups.
 
Living in the Peak District would be photography paradise compared to commuter Surrey where I life. That being said, I do have a favourite common that I go to again and again, and while it looks quite drab on first look there’s always something to photograph somewhere, somehow.
 
After spending 3 weeks in the Pyrenees and Alps I can safely say I get more out of shooting there than here.

Don’t get me wrong, Skye and Glencoe are amazing places but pretending they can hold a candle to the scenery in Italy, France and Spain is just silly. If you like lakes, mountains, or just mountains nothing in the UK can match mainland Europe or further afield for drama, excitement and atmosphere.

There are folk who are happy to take boring little pictures of boring little places. Not me. You need to travel and see the world beyond your own little patch imho.
Boring little pictures in boring little places . Have you seen what Scott Robertson can do in 10 square feet of a Scottish forest or the series of images he can create with a telephoto lens and one Scottish peak
 
Boring little pictures in boring little places . Have you seen what Scott Robertson can do in 10 square feet of a Scottish forest or the series of images he can create with a telephoto lens and one Scottish peak

Not all of us like woodland pictures - I really do not like them and woodland scenes are a perfect fit for the "boring little picture" description :D

I'd argue a Scottish peak isn't a boring little place.
 
Not all of us like woodland pictures - I really do not like them and woodland scenes are a perfect fit for the "boring little picture" description :D

I'd argue a Scottish peak isn't a boring little place.
Of course hes plenty more than woodland pictures but I honestly think the drama and atmosphere in his stuff is unreal and my point being he hasn't went to the end of the Earth for it . Suppose it makes you wonder what he could capture if he did go to the Alps etc
 
Of course hes plenty more than woodland pictures but I honestly think the drama and atmosphere in his stuff is unreal and my point being he hasn't went to the end of the Earth for it . Suppose it makes you wonder what he could capture if he did go to the Alps etc
Trust me, that fella let loose in the Alps would hit it out the park.
 
I'd argue a Scottish peak isn't a boring little place.

No but it is possible to photograph one "boring-ly", and on the opposite side there's something to be said for the challenge of taking something seemingly mundane and creating something wonderful from it.

Woodland photography, boring little pictures? Why, how dare you!
 
Of course hes plenty more than woodland pictures but I honestly think the drama and atmosphere in his stuff is unreal and my point being he hasn't went to the end of the Earth for it . Suppose it makes you wonder what he could capture if he did go to the Alps etc

He sort of did go to the end of the Earth. Scotland is not your boring Midlands flatlands. How many of you go to Scotland like some special once-in-a-long while escape full of special opportunities, not replicated elsewhere? Seriously it would be a great challenge for someone like Scott Robertson to come to midlands and hit it out of the park. Personally, the place hit me so hard than my output went down 10-fold in the best case, and even worse if you only count local work. It is B O R I N G. Yes, I have some really great "outliers" but these are very hard and involving to come by.

Woodland... yes it can be done nicely but these can't be just any odd little disorderly boring piles of twigs or stumps. It is typically done so badly that it really has a very bad name amongst many of us. I'll see if I can pull out at least 5 from my archives that would be eligible to be woodland but not precisely a straight landscape from the forest. Bluebells come to mind, but that's just probably too good to be woodland INTIMATESCAPE.
 
Do you have a 'special area' you like to revisit and explore in detail for photography? Perhaps it's just somewhere that's local, or perhaps it's somewhere that has a special meaning to you. Or do you prefer getting out to far flung places in search of dramatic and different landscapes?

For me, I'm much happier if I can get something good in my beloved Peak District, although the landscape doesn't have the same drama as Scotland and certainly not Iceland or the Alps. But I grew up walking in the Peaks, and taking and sharing pictures of it's locations has a personal aspect that's missing in other locations.


I prefer to explore and really get to know a place rather than driving all over the world snapping away without me having any real understanding. Don't get me wrong, I've been to the Alps and walked on glaciers too and I agree its far more impressive and amazing than the Lakes is, but without really knowing it I'm just a tourist taking snaps - hopefully better snaps than most tourists but snaps nonetheless

I've not bothered with Scotland for the same reason that I just don't have the time to get to know it as I do the Lakes, so again I'd just be doing the same touristy photo-spots and hoping everything comes together on one trip. Some pals of mine did this earlier this year with a whirlwind tour for 10-days adding in a couple of islands too but the weather was against them and they've got nice snaps at best

For me then, the Lakes is 'enough' as its a place I feel truly at home and one I'm moving close to shortly as well where I'll have even more opportunity to shoot it on a weekly basis :)

Dave
 
I like the Lincolnshire Wolds. I particularly like Lincolnshire churches. The scenery changes daily through the year and requires a good knowledge of both geography and agriculture if you want to make the most of it.

I am of the school that wants to get to know their subject intimately and then use their imagination to produce a variety of pictures, each new and with their own story to tell.
 
I think there’s a lot more skill in turning a typically mundane scene into a masterpiece than rocking up to a beauty spot and coming home with the same pictures as everyone else.
Couldnt agree more . Any half decent photographer dropped in an amazing landscape can produce great work much more easily simply because whats infront of them. Thats why I choose Scott Robertson as an example as he shoots images of Scotland I have never seen the likes of from anyone else. No offence to anyone but when a thread come up here titled "scottish landscape " I dont even look anymore as I seen it 1000 times before , in the same light, taken from the same spot, using the same post processing and the same composition.
 
Last edited:
Couldnt agree more . Any half decent photographer dropped in an amazing landscape can produce great work much more easily simply because whats infront of them. Thats why I choose Scott Robertson as an example as he shoots images of Scotland I have never seen the likes of from anyone else. Not offence to anyone but when a thread come up here titled "scottish landscape " I dont even look anymore as I seen it 1000 times before , in the same light, taken from the same spot, using the same post precessing and the same composition.
Hmm I’d say it only needs a half decent camera;) Look for the tripod holes in the ground. Photographer or even just a person to push the shutter button almost becomes irrelevant.
 
I like the Lincolnshire Wolds. I particularly like Lincolnshire churches. The scenery changes daily through the year and requires a good knowledge of both geography and agriculture if you want to make the most of it.

I am of the school that wants to get to know their subject intimately and then use their imagination to produce a variety of pictures, each new and with their own story to tell.

There's also the point that landscapes aren't only always pointy and dramatic; you can have intimate little moundy hills, or brooding, horizontal and desolate places too (sometimes the latter need the helping hand of a dramatic sky). Just to get it out the way, I'm speaking as an armchair critic rather than a seasoned shooter, I haven't travelled that much or really done good landscape photography, but I enjoy looking at images and art.
 
I’m another fan of the Lincolnshire Wolds and visit often, but I need to go to other areas as well to keep things interesting for me. As nice as the Wolds are, the weather or scenery isn’t as dramatic as places like the Peak or Lake Districts which aren’t too far away. Both of those areas feel like home from home for me and I’m able to find my own spots, love going to both. I just can’t turn up a place I have no connection with and take engaging pictures, that’s probably why I have no interest in photographing places like The Alps or Icelandic volcanoes etc.
 
One thing I would roll into the conversation is that local 'boring' places are good for honing skills, so that if you DO get a spectacular landscape in front of you, there's a good chance you won't botch it badly.
Definitely. I'm always amazed when visiting the national parks how everyone is going to the same old tripod holes when there's countless spectacular views, if you can shoot 'boring' places well you'll see pictures everywhere in more dramatic areas
 
I prefer to ...

I feel pretty much exactly the same, replacing Lakes with my local spots (Delamere Forest & Marbury Country Park). Spending time in an area allows me to get to know it throughout the seasons, and, over the years, watch the land change. I walk the same route every day - through our local village. Some days I run it, some days I cycle it, but when I walk it, I take a camera with me. Over the last few years, not only have I got better pictures of it, but I've documented it through the seasons and in very different light. They're my favourite land photos, but I don't think many people would want them on their walls. That's OK though.

get something good in my beloved Peak District
I think when you use words like "love" to describe an area, you're onto a winner. Work That Matters will start to come out of you & your camera because you actually care about what you're taking a photo of. I went to Yosemite & the Grand Canyon. The photos are - as Dave said - snaps. And to be honest, it was really difficult to take a bad photo. I'm sure if I went to Iceland, I'd do the same, or Scotland - or even (for me) the Lakes.

Toni makes a point that I burn into my students as they go off round our local college for their photo assignments. If you can get a good composition or interesting image in drab, uninspiring surroundings, imagine what will happen when you get something good in front of you.
 
This thread (amongst other things) has inspired me to only shoot landscapes within my own county for the next year. Don’t get me wrong if I’m on holiday somewhere exotic I may take a few but there won’t be any landscape specific trips outside my own county.

I don’t live in the Lake District, I don’t live in Scotland and I don’t live near the sea but I do have beautiful valleys at my disposal.

Only yesterday I got lost in deep forest locally and stumbled across the most amazing scene.
 
OTOH after this year I want to get out into amazing landscapes more, rather than just putting up with the same old slightly (sometimes very) dull local stuff.
 
I love going to exotic locations to photograph. It's really not just for the results because actually, they are far from guaranteed but it's really the whole adventure/exploring/excitement of it all. But locally I live on the doorstep of Northumberland and have Cumbria and Weardale within an hour or so as well. Spoilt for choice and probably a decent place to live for a landscaper but other than very local stuff, I rarely actually go to the more well trodden locations just because I'm bored of seeing stuff from there. I've actually just started a little project to start deliberately exploring some of the more rural parts of Northumberland that I haven't seen photo'd anywhere. It's a challenge and I've no doubt some of it will be mediocre but it's something that's really got my interest up.
 
I'm a little curious too, at the idea that there's apparently only about 20 or so scenes in Scotland worth shooting, because they keep coming up again and again.
 
I'm a little curious too, at the idea that there's apparently only about 20 or so scenes in Scotland worth shooting, because they keep coming up again and again.

In all fairness even the great US national parks could be easily condensed to the top 20 shots in each. This has less to do with actual landscape variety at these location, or to a lesser extent - the skill; I would mostly put it down to access and accessibility. The far north highlands have a very dramatic scenery, some of which could easily compete with the "Jewels of the crown" Glencoe and Skye for the "wow factor". Well the hard reality is that Glencoe is accessible within around 1:30 from Glasgow Airport (I've done it quicker) via A82 and Skye is a further 2-3 hours. At least Skye is accessible via major road and not only by ferry. That is the major point. The north highlands require another 2-4 hours of hard core driving. Roads are terrible at places (some suspension damage is certain), there is high risk of deer and not too many places to stop for all day lunch, etc. So even from Glasgow you are looking at a minimum of 6-7 hours one way, and that doesn't take into account awful slow drivers that you need to constantly jump over and push over to the kerb. :) Unless one day we have a good motorway all the way north, or flying cars little will change to make these hit top 20 spot.
Likewise few people go seriously climbing hills for photography. Nobody is ever up there for the sunset, or sunrise. These are daytime visitors with the only interest of just climbing another Munroe in any conditions and walk back down immediately after. The most pathetic places of all in Scotland is surely Ben Nevis. Everyone is going walking there just because. The views are nothing special at all. The best image can be arguably had half way up. But nobody even bothers with that. Not all locations are worthy the top 20 spot no matter what.
 
Last edited:
Surely it depends where your home turf is? If it’s somewhere like the Peak District or the Lake District it a little different. For some they would consider that an exotic location.

Going regularly to a local place would let you get it in the right light and weather conditions where as far flung places are more of a hit and hope.


Surely it depends where your home turf is? If it’s somewhere like the Peak District or the Lake District it a little different. For some they would consider that an exotic location.

Going regularly to a local place would let you get it in the right light and weather conditions where as far flung places are more of a hit and hope.


This is a fair point as I do not live in a national park, by the coast or have mountain range near by !
So for me it is farmers fields, abstract scenery, isolated tree in a field for that iconic moody tree shot ! lol
 
That's true for me too - 'spectacular' is generally not going to happen unless it involves sky or flood water.
 
I don't live in the Peak District any more, but it's not far from Nottingham. By 'home turf' I really meant your usual haunt, somewhere close enough to get to reasonably often and get to know well, but not necessarily where you live. I have overlooked some places in and around Nottingham, because I have only lived here a few years and haven't developed enough of a feel for the place. I found some shots by someone else, 15mins away, that shows there's potential I am missing on my doorstep. I like the rolling landscape and 'arable abstracts' here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/steve-t201/albums/72157671581702154
 
I don't have the luxury of national parks, the coast, or even really any hills where I live. Mostly flat countryside around here. Avebury is very close, but I'm bored to tears of it having shot it countless times over the years. It's always fantastic being able to visit exotic places. Be it Snowdonia & The Lake District, or somewhere like Yosemite. When I ultimately view all my images though the best ones for me personally are all from local patches, places I can revisit and work the landscape. Some of these spots I don't see any other images appear on flickr or social media, yet I take some of my favourite work in there. It's all down to what you see and enjoy really. I'm perfectly happy spending countless mornings in a small patch of heathland, and it's taught me a bucket load more about composing an image than when I used to drive around the UK stamp collecting. I still visit national parks, as a photographer it's a beautiful treat every now and then to see some big landscapes, but I won't be heading to the well known spots and using the same tripod holes.

Everyone can shoot what they want though, I don't have anything against someone wanting a catalogue of photographs of the well known compositions, I just don't want to join them on that journey. Much the same as Steve doesn't want to shoot woodland.
 
I don't live in the Peak District any more, but it's not far from Nottingham. By 'home turf' I really meant your usual haunt, somewhere close enough to get to reasonably often and get to know well, but not necessarily where you live. I have overlooked some places in and around Nottingham, because I have only lived here a few years and haven't developed enough of a feel for the place. I found some shots by someone else, 15mins away, that shows there's potential I am missing on my doorstep. I like the rolling landscape and 'arable abstracts' here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/steve-t201/albums/72157671581702154
I really enjoy rolling countryside images like that. Even those would beat the flat fields I have close to home..
 
Back
Top