is landscape photography over?

The gate at Mam Tor is a prime example. Everyone and their dog just does the same picture over and over. It's like that lonely tree that is in the Lake District or somewhere that everyone does as well.

I go somewhere and take photos then look at other people's and it's funny to see how many are basically the same and I've just repeated what they've done too :)

There also seems to be a run on swirly milky water and blurry trees at the moment. The pier in the milky water is one that is totally done to death. Same with light painting that was all the rage a couple of years ago.
 
My take on the article was “dead as a creative outlet” rather than dead as a business or dead as no one is doing it. We see posts on here asking “best places for photos in the Lake District” or where ever and I always wonder if the world really needs another picture of Ashness bridge (TBH I have yet to see a picture of that bridge that moves me in any way). It is a case of each to their own but for me it does seem that a lot of photography in general, not just landscapes, is becoming painting by numbers; go here with this lens and filter when the sun is 4 degrees above the horizon and press the button. I really do understand that a lot, perhaps the majority, of people on this forum seem to be technicians, mainly in it for the gear and the article makes that point

“Plus, landscape photography is one of few permissible outlets for sensitive masculine self-expression that combines nicely with a male obsession with gear and craft.”


But it does seem to be becoming increasingly hard to find that “self-expression” that doesn’t just look like a substandard “me too” version of what has gone before.
 
It seems more of a discussion of cliche or "honey-pot" locations, geez I hate that term.

If you go to the same spot as someone else and take a picture it's still new, no one else will ever repeat what you have done as it's a capture of that very moment in time.

I love landscape photography however there does appear to be certain rules that the majority will critique your work against, are there any lead in lines, the rule of thirds, must have fore, mid and back ground interest etc.
 
It's pictures of the moon which bore me. Unless there is something else in the frame, they are all going to be the same.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
It's pictures of the moon which bore me. Unless there is something else in the frame, they are all going to be the same.
Steve.
Click to expand...

But with everything theres the exceptions. I quite like the supermoon rising images, sometimes with objects silhouetted.
Theres some excellent landscape images on this forum, ones that make you want to go there.

Just need to sort the wheat from the chaff
 
Steve Smith said:
It's pictures of the moon which bore me. Unless there is something else in the frame, they are all going to be the same.


Steve.
Click to expand...

I know what you are saying but I think they are a different type of 'toggery though, more about gear and technical prowess and I think people post them because they are proud of their effort and for crit on how to improve.
 
How do you carve out your own unique means of expression? It seems like all that can be done has been, so 1 or 2 silly people moved on to Nutscapes (don't Google if at work, lol).
 
an1uk said:
How do you carve out your own unique means of expression? It seems like all that can be done has been, so 1 or 2 silly people moved on to Nutscapes (don't Google if at work, lol).
Click to expand...

Why did I google it :LOL: definatley a different take on the cliche shots
 
If you want to carve out something new then you need to forget the "rules" and try something new. It may work it may not and it certainly won't be to everyone's taste, but like everything as long as you like it does it really matter what anyone else thinks?
 
I sort of see what the author means but his perspective is more nostalgia than anything else, landscape photography probably hasn't been pioneering since the days of Ansel Adams but does it really matter.

Despite the doom & gloom headline the opposite is true, landscape photography is more popular than ever and very much alive and well, you trip over landscape photographers everywhere these days. Ok so they might be taking similar photos but personally speaking, to me a great view is always a great view as many times as it's photographed, as long as one of those photographers isn't stood in the middle of it with his tripod ;-) For most people it's a hobby that gets them out into beautiful scenery taking in the best Mother Nature has to offer and gives people great satisfaction being able to capture some of it on the camera...I'm certain it'll be around for a very long time.

Simon
 
Last edited:
Michael Batten said:
It seems more of a discussion of cliche or "honey-pot" locations, geez I hate that term.

If you go to the same spot as someone else and take a picture it's still new, no one else will ever repeat what you have done as it's a capture of that very moment in time.

I love landscape photography however there does appear to be certain rules that the majority will critique your work against, are there any lead in lines, the rule of thirds, must have fore, mid and back ground interest etc.
Click to expand...

True to a point. I was at one of my customer's homes this week and he asked if I'd been to the Peaks recently - which I had, and to shoot (you guessed it! - that gate at Mam Tor)... I showed him my picture on flickr and he said something along the lines of "wow thats great - I tell you what that's exactly the same as a Christmas card I have) ... so off he went to get it and came back with it, I was expecting it to be exactly the same (as he had said) but although it was a shot of the gate and the great ridge it was nothing like my shot of it - but he put the card up against my phone and still proclaimed as to how exactly similar they were :p :)

I do understand it when people say things like that same gate, that same 10 stop shot of a milky water pier shot etc. but I guess the light, composition and technicality of the shot is guaranteed to be different every single time, there's no way you can get exactly the same light, angle, composition of another photo taken at that same scene.
 
Very thought provoking and interesting article.

I agree that it's almost impossible to come up with something truly 'original' in landscape photography as its nearly always been done before you. The nature of landscapes means its a very easily accessible subject to shoot, it's literally all around you in all manor of forms, so no one is ever stuck for something to capture. I wasn't into photography before the digital age but having now done this for only 11months, it's apparent to me that it's quite easy for complete novices to be taking technically competent and at times excellent images in a relatively short amount of time, with enough application and nous.

I don't agree that it's dying though, I see plenty of people getting into landscapes as its a great way of getting out in the fresh air and in alot of cases getting some exercise.

The notion of clichés is probably an article on its own, my take is that I'm not personally driven to visit the honeypot places anymore, they just don't grab me and I prefer the challenge of trying to create my own take on a given area. It does sometimes surprise me however that many so-called 'pros' and even semi-pros show an alarming lack of imagination at times, even when surrounded by astounding natural beauty they will still traipse to the same spots and churn out nice, but ultimately underwhelming and unoriginal images. Ultimately though, having gone through the process of visiting alot of these locations, people will always continue to shoot them, and for the hobbyist especially, why not? For many its an interest and these location clichés are that for a reason; they're simply beautiful and compelling places. For alot of people just being there is as important as taking the picture, which is totally understandable and acceptable. I guess what I'm probably getting at is at hobbyist level landscape is quite healthy but for those creators trying to make a living from it the battle to try and produce something really groundbreaking is getting tougher all the time.
 
Last edited:
Michael Batten said:
It seems more of a discussion of cliche or "honey-pot" locations, geez I hate that term.

If you go to the same spot as someone else and take a picture it's still new, no one else will ever repeat what you have done as it's a capture of that very moment in time.

I love landscape photography however there does appear to be certain rules that the majority will critique your work against, are there any lead in lines, the rule of thirds, must have fore, mid and back ground interest etc.
Click to expand...


........not to mention golden hour light, which swamps any other colours naturally present with a blanket of orange.........

Going back maybe a year or so our dear (possibly) departed friend Pookeyhead said much the same sort of thing while managing to upset a lot more people than this author does. He used St Michaels Mount as an example of all landscapes looking the same. The funny thing was, when you search online for images of St Michaels Mount you find that there is a wide variety of moods, times of day, compositions, etc, so I couldn't quite understand what he was taking about!

But I do agree that there is a tendency for landscape photographers to shoot the same locations at the same time of day as everybody else does. On this forum, for example, the view from the Quirang at sunrise appears every so often and those images do look very similar to each other. There is then the rather predictable series of "great image"-type comments but I get quite annoyed; there has to be more to landscape photography than this, surely?
 
Last edited:
Originality is not a bad thing but to me its not the be all and end all. I don't mind seeing, or indeed taking, the same image over and over again. Light, weather conditions, time of year all give an image its own mood, soul and feeling. I'd rather see a great example of the Coupall falls in Glencoe rather than some drab image where no tripod has been before of some nondescript path in a woods taken purely to be original.

Cliches are often clichés because they work. I know the shot @jerry12953 means about the Quaring. I took it without prior knowledge that it was the shot everyone takes...but...I scouted the area and in my view it is the best angle. Same with the coupal falls in Glencoe, done to death but Christ its such a bonnie scene its hard to resist.

In a day and age where good camera gear is relatively cheap, attainable and where photography has now been a long standing profession and pass time there are very few places that are beautiful that haven't seen a tripod.

I don't worry about. Worry about getting it right and so long as you enjoy being out and about, keep at it.
 
Last edited:
SFTPhotography said:
Originality is not a bad thing but to me its not the be all and end all. I don't mind seeing, or indeed taking, the same image over and over again. Light, weather conditions, time of year all give an image its own mood, soul and feeling. I'd rather see a great example of the Coupall falls in Glencoe rather than some drab image where no tripod has been before of some nondescript path in a woods taken purely to be original.

Cliches are often clichés because they work. I know the shot @jerry12953 means about the Quaring. I took it without prior knowledge that it was the shot everyone takes...but...I scouted the area and in my view it is the best angle. Same with the coupal falls in Glencoe, done to death but Christ its such a bonnie scene its hard to resist.

In a day and age where good camera gear is relatively cheap, attainable and where photography has now been a long standing profession and pass time there are very few places that are beautiful that haven't seen a tripod.

I don't worry about. Worry about getting it right and so long as you enjoy being out and about, keep at it.
Click to expand...

There's always room for photographs of the great locations, like Snowdon from Llyn Mymbyr in Wales which is only a few yards from the road....... I go back there again and again. But alongside those there has to be a place for exploration and experimentation. It has almost got to the point, I feel, where UNLESS an image has got the lead in line, the golden-hour light, the 10stop ND filter - you know what I mean - it is automatically rejected by other photographers. They are looking to see if the rules have been followed first. Too often nowadays it's as if the cart really does come before the horse.
 
jerry12953 said:
There's always room for photographs of the great locations, like Snowdon from Llyn Mymbyr in Wales which is only a few yards from the road....... I go back there again and again. But alongside those there has to be a place for exploration and experimentation. It has almost got to the point, I feel, where UNLESS an image has got the lead in line, the golden-hour light, the 10stop ND filter - you know what I mean - it is automatically rejected by other photographers. They are looking to see if the rules have been followed first. Too often nowadays it's as if the cart really does come before the horse.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a box ticking exercise mentality going on - not only in composition but processing style. Crucially you forgot reflections ;)

To me a great image is a great image. I've seen a few from well known spots, and a few from ones I've never seen before. I am guilty, particularly in my own patch, of going to tripod holes. I go myself and I take workshoppers there. I tend to explore really only when I go abroad and yes, its exciting, but the familiar is also wonderful just going to a place you know and love.
 
I love Scott robertsons images , he runs about glen Coe and the likes and always takes images I have never saw before , it's a breath of fresh air and his stuff is stunning . To the original question , I have a friend who makes a living from landscapes and he would say it's very much alive .
 
Techniques can be learned, but I think that Elliot Erwitt's words ring the most true for me... "All the technique in the world doesn't compensate for the inability to notice." Importantly that rings true for those viewing/critiquing photographs just as much as those taking them.

There's another discussion about Thomas Heaton kicking about and it prompted me to look at some of his videos. There's one photo in particular where he used a long exposure on running water to get this ice-cream swirly effect "to lead the eye" into the tree. This kind of foresight/creative vision/noticeability coupled with the base technique of "leading the eye in" made a very dramatic photo which I would never have even thought about. I might have gone "ND10, ISO200, f11 then let the shutter speed be what it may", whilst he wanted around 9 seconds to get the perfect "whorl" in the water. That level of thinking is what elevates a "landscape photographer" from an amateur in my mind. (of course this could all have been retro-added after a happy accident if you were particularly cynically minded)
 
jerry12953 said:
There's always room for photographs of the great locations, like Snowdon from Llyn Mymbyr in Wales which is only a few yards from the road....... I go back there again and again. But alongside those there has to be a place for exploration and experimentation. It has almost got to the point, I feel, where UNLESS an image has got the lead in line, the golden-hour light, the 10stop ND filter - you know what I mean - it is automatically rejected by other photographers. They are looking to see if the rules have been followed first. Too often nowadays it's as if the cart really does come before the horse.
Click to expand...

That's hit the nail firmly on the head. Instead of looking at your scene with your own eyes you instantly think, rule of thirds, lead in, foreground, mid and background, f11, it's like a robot processing something because you want to be accepted by the masses.

SFTPhotography said:
Yes, there is a box ticking exercise mentality going on - not only in composition but processing style. Crucially you forgot reflections ;)
Click to expand...

Exactly, I remember watching Masters of Photography on Sky Arts this year and thinking that the main thing that seperates the "experts" from the many is exposure. I can look on 500px, Flickr et al., and see hundreds of breathtaking images (although most are the result of great Photoshop skills) and what seperates those togs from say a Joe Cornish is the brand that comes with being a Joe Cornish, Ansell Adams, Clyde Butcher etc.

I've shown a Clyde Butcher book to someone who isn't that taken with photography and they are like "that's a bit boring" same with Ansel Adams, as togs we might see them and think wow that's amazing because it's the name that comes with it rather than actually looking at the work with your own eyes without the expectation that the name makes the photo.
 
There's always a place for reflections, Steve. I love 'em. But it's kind of like too much ice cream; the first bowl is fabulous, but the second doesn't quite hit that spot in the same way. And yes, processing style comes into it too; there's another thread where the photographer seems to process the **** out of the images and the end result is just "so what" to my eyes.

But to go on to Joe Cornish, as mentioned above, he was the one photographer that Pookeyhead used as an example of why and how landscape photography was dead. In fact Mr P showed his hmmmm....lack of familiarity .... with the genre because JC is a relatively recent convert to digital and most of the work in most of his books was shot on film. Personally I have a huge respect for JC, because his images always (.....usually) have that indefinable something extra. Despite that i can think of one or two in his books which were prime examples of the ghastliness of overdoing the golden hour light.....
 
an1uk said:
so 1 or 2 silly people moved on to Nutscapes (don't Google if at work, lol).
Click to expand...
Don't look, Ethel!
But it was too late....

It's safe to say I won't be doing one.
 
jerry12953 said:
There's always a place for reflections, Steve. I love 'em. But it's kind of like too much ice cream; the first bowl is fabulous, but the second doesn't quite hit that spot in the same way. And yes, processing style comes into it too; there's another thread where the photographer seems to process the **** out of the images and the end result is just "so what" to my eyes.

But to go on to Joe Cornish, as mentioned above, he was the one photographer that Pookeyhead used as an example of why and how landscape photography was dead. In fact Mr P showed his hmmmm....lack of familiarity .... with the genre because JC is a relatively recent convert to digital and most of the work in most of his books was shot on film. Personally I have a huge respect for JC, because his images always (.....usually) have that indefinable something extra. Despite that i can think of one or two in his books which were prime examples of the ghastliness of overdoing the golden hour light.....
Click to expand...

I quite like the work of Joe Cornish but my favourite photographers are probably Colin Prior and Ian Cameron.

Golden light is great, I love it, but I take your point its not the be all and end all.

And you can never ever have too much icecream ;)
 
stumac said:
I love Scott robertsons images
Click to expand...
Just googled him and there is some great stuff there, thanks for pointing us in his direction. What's more it seems very relevant to this discussion because I think there are some really creative takes on landscapes in his work
 
All of these "rules" turned me off trying landscape photography. My landscapes would be original, but not liked. Where I live, we enjoy bright, sunny, cloudless blue skies more than half the year; and I see beauty in those sunny days and in the "boring" flat-ish landscape around here that most people don't appreciate.
 
Stuart Mc said:
Very thought provoking and interesting article.

I agree that it's almost impossible to come up with something truly 'original' in landscape photography as its nearly always been done before you. The nature of landscapes means its a very easily accessible subject to shoot, it's literally all around you in all manor of forms, so no one is ever stuck for something to capture. I wasn't into photography before the digital age but having now done this for only 11months, it's apparent to me that it's quite easy for complete novices to be taking technically competent and at times excellent images in a relatively short amount of time, with enough application and nous.

I don't agree that it's dying though, I see plenty of people getting into landscapes as its a great way of getting out in the fresh air and in alot of cases getting some exercise.

The notion of clichés is probably an article on its own, my take is that I'm not personally driven to visit the honeypot places anymore, they just don't grab me and I prefer the challenge of trying to create my own take on a given area. It does sometimes surprise me however that many so-called 'pros' and even semi-pros show an alarming lack of imagination at times, even when surrounded by astounding natural beauty they will still traipse to the same spots and churn out nice, but ultimately underwhelming and unoriginal images. Ultimately though, having gone through the process of visiting alot of these locations, people will always continue to shoot them, and for the hobbyist especially, why not? For many its an interest and these location clichés are that for a reason; they're simply beautiful and compelling places. For alot of people just being there is as important as taking the picture, which is totally understandable and acceptable. I guess what I'm probably getting at is at hobbyist level landscape is quite healthy but for those creators trying to make a living from it the battle to try and produce something really groundbreaking is getting tougher all the time.
Click to expand...

Very well put Stuart.
 
sirch said:
Just googled him and there is some great stuff there, thanks for pointing us in his direction. What's more it seems very relevant to this discussion because I think there are some really creative takes on landscapes in his work
Click to expand...
Indeed , he has an eye that most don't especially because the areas he photographs in have been done to death yet his stuff is still different and stunning !
 
Byker28i said:
But with everything theres the exceptions. I quite like the supermoon rising images, sometimes with objects silhouetted.
Theres some excellent landscape images on this forum, ones that make you want to go there.

Just need to sort the wheat from the chaff
Click to expand...

Yes, when there's some other context, they can be good... then you get those masterpieces of Photoshop where someone pastes a far too big moon into an image in front of the clouds!


Steve.
 
stumac said:
Indeed , he has an eye that most don't especially because the areas he photographs in have been done to death yet his stuff is still different and stunning !
Click to expand...

He's good. He's probably one of the best, if not the best, at using long lenses in landscape photography to pick out a great scene within a scene.
 
One of the reasons people like to copy images taken by others is (imo) because it helps prove to the less experienced photographer that landscape photography can be done to a high level with their rudimentary skills and experience and much less rudimentary equipment. If I turn up at location wherever, set up the tripod, set the camera to the recommended settings and get a great (for me) image it helps me realise I'm not wasting my time and I will be able to take great pictures if I continue to work at it. Next time I can apply those setting to a different location, maybe tweak them a bit and go from there.

I also believe that anybody with an interest in photography is generally over-saturated with images, techniques etc etc hence why articles like the above get published by other people with interests in photography. A couple of years ago every second thread on here was somebody bemoaning the over-popularity of selective colouring which the public still really like for example. That's the same with landscapes, generally on here it's a massive echo chamber of what is and isn't great landscape photography, complaints about competition judging choosing things which are too un/original (delete depending on which explains why your image wasn't selected) whereas in the real world most people like what they like and they'll always like what they like so the big name photographers will continue filling the calanders, postcards and coffee table books with the roughly the same things but some competitions chose something a bit different in order to drum up some interest.
 
Ok, set the settings to those used in the image which inspired me to drive to the same place in similar conditions to attempt the same photo.
 
ivandobski said:
Ok, set the settings to those used in the image which inspired me to drive to the same place in similar conditions to attempt the same photo.
Click to expand...

Although this is laudable what exactly is being achieved? It's the same as taking a piece of tracing paper and putting it over a painting and saying look what I did. You may as well as buy a book of train numbers and stand on a platform taking down the numbers as this is essentially what is happening.

Copying images and compositions is fine but in the end you're not actually helping yourself improve in any way by doing this. Maybe this is what people want and I know when I first started I did the same. But it soon becomes apparent that you're just a copyist. I soon got bored and started on the road to creating my own work.

Last week I did a one to one with someone who I met last year. Most of the day was spent teaching the guy first the basics of composition. Then into seeing what lies around and how the light is falling and then to starting to see if he could find his own way, which he did. Instilling in him to stop and think. To look around and every detail of what was in front of him. Net result of this? He essentially took just 3 images throughout the whole day which were a country mile way from what he was doing before.

Landscape is popular because of its accessibility. The area around Glencoe/ Rannoch Moor/ Glen Etive is a great example whereby you can literally park the car and walk across the road to get a shot. I can guarantee you that this coming weekend you can drive to that waterfall in front of Buachaille Etive Mor and there will be loads of photographers crawling around the place. I'm surprised the local authority hasn't installed a turnstile that you drop some coins in to get to it!

Landscape photography is alive in terms of getting out there. In terms of finding a tutor and a course. BUT if you want to make money like in the old days of stock photography then that is definitely dead in the water and won't earn you anything.

Is originality lacking? No, I don't think it is at all. It's just that there is so much more accessibility to images everyday through things such as Instgram etc that we feel bombarded with imagery.
 
Last edited:
LANDSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHY: Morris dancing or Sigur Ros?!?
It's Bananarama's 'Ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it', surely?
 
That was 'Fun Boy Three with Bananarama', surely? :whistle: ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top