More than 457 metres...

Messages
650
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
With my tongue only slightly in cheek: Edward Weston apparently said “Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn’t photogenic.” OK, it should have been 457 metres, but Weston was American. But is this true in Britain, now? No it's not, and indeed the reverse is true - for a landscape photographer in the UK, nothing is worth photographing unless it's more than 457 metres from a road, and preferably much more. Why? Because everything close to a road has been done, and often overdone. Locally (north Wales) there's the lone tree of Lyn Padarn, the Snowdon horseshoe from Llynnau Mymbyr, South Stack lighthouse, all the castles - I could go on. To produce photos that are a bit different, a map and a good pair of boots are as important as the camera. Boots that will take you more than 457 metres.
 
On that basis, I wasted a lot of time and effort with my 70+ miles of walking over a week on the Outer Hebrides with the camera gear this year...

Time spent on the Outer Hebrides is never a waste. Just being there is enough and if you get some shots its a bonus.

Dave
 
I know from experience that you can get some great shots from the roadside too. There is, in the world of landscape photography, a machismo I think about pictures that require little physical effort to get to or to take - that these pictures are somehow less valid, less worthy just because someone didn't humph a load of gear for 30 miles in -30c in the dark up 3000m of elevation gain.

I don't see it like that. I don't like hiking, and for me to enjoy taking a picture and a place the less hiking the better. That said, some shots do require distance from the car and I have done many this way, but the most enjoyment for me is never too far from the car. Some of my best shots are within the 457m radius, and some are more than 10x the distance.
 
Last edited:
It's an interesting thread, so thanks for posting.

My thoughts are this. Sometimes shots near a road are an advantage. Because with changing light and limited time you can quickly get back to the car and change location to somewhere that may end up working a lot better. If you had specifically hiked to a location with a shot in mind but the light at the time favoured a different valley and different shot for example you won't make it in time on foot.

However, the above approach can lead to a lot of manic packing up and moving around. I really enjoy some of the shots I see where good photographers have clearly gone for a walk with their camera late on in the day. Then taken the opportunities as they have seen them. I feel like @Stuart Mc and @Nick Livesey have both done this in the past and got some great photos. Worst case they enjoyed a nice walk and the fresh air. I'd like to do more of this style as a way of relaxing and seeing things as they happen, rather than chasing shots and forcing things.
 
I don't think it really matters in general. If I were driving past then I'd probably stop & set up a shot of the lone tree at Lyn Padarn - Why? Because it's something I've not yet done even if 2,371,251 other people have ;)

If I were to shoot the Clifton Suspension Bridge, Clevedon Pier, Weston Pier, lone tree at Priddy, Chew Valley Lake amongst others (locally) then you can park pretty close. I don't mind that at times (esp if it's a last minute sunset rush!), but I also quite like the hiking & knowing that the shot/area I want is a mile or two away & I can have a good 4+ hours out & about.
 
... because with changing light and limited time you can quickly get back to the car and change location to somewhere that may end up working a lot better.
Galen Rowell was an arch-exponent of this approach, but he was an American from what must be the most lavish nation on Earth. There's an environmental cost, though ...

Does the shot have to be the only thing, or is life more inclusive and about the whole quality of being - are those of us who are landscapists (or birders, or whatever you like) prejudicing the environment of the very thing that we claim to love?

I'm not a pedant or a purist, but there are trade-offs ...
 
Last edited:
I frequently heard a friend make a similar statement but he used 300yds; he needed hips replaced. I have just checked and Edward Weston was not a well man in his last decade. Both of these photographers were able to produce successful original interpretations despite these limitations. So having a range limit is not desirable but may be necessary for some.

Dave
 
A great picture is a great picture, no matter how far from your car....

indeed. Although if you are that far away from it it won’t show much in the image.
 
It's an interesting thread, so thanks for posting.

My thoughts are this. Sometimes shots near a road are an advantage. Because with changing light and limited time you can quickly get back to the car and change location to somewhere that may end up working a lot better. If you had specifically hiked to a location with a shot in mind but the light at the time favoured a different valley and different shot for example you won't make it in time on foot..

That’s how I shoot local tbh. Arrive hideously early and check the lay of the land, if it’s naff and not working move on and undo it with another. Sometimes Rannoch Moor is where it’s at, sometimes at the Buachaille and sometimes further up.

On foot it’s do or die - you cannot undo it. I usually have a specific shot in mind so if it doesn’t work all I’ve had is a walk unless by the grace of god I spot something mega on the way up or down or in and out.

And I’ll say it - I like driving a lot. Hiking I don’t so the less of it the better. I like a couple of hours in the car - a couple of hours on foot not so much. For others it’s different.
 
Last edited:
I know from experience that you can get some great shots from the roadside too. There is, in the world of landscape photography, a machismo I think about pictures that require little physical effort to get to or to take - that these pictures are somehow less valid, less worthy just because someone didn't humph a load of gear for 30 miles in -30c in the dark up 3000m of elevation gain.

I don't see it like that. I don't like hiking, and for me to enjoy taking a picture and a place the less hiking the better. That said, some shots do require distance from the car and I have done many this way, but the most enjoyment for me is never too far from the car. Some of my best shots are within the 457m radius, and some are more than 10x the distance.

If you haven't taken your award winning photo after trekking up the Himalayas, prayed alongside some local monks for a perfect sunset, suffered frost bite and had to be evacuated, then I am not interested tbh :ROFLMAO::popcorn::spam:

There is a lot of stigma with landscape photography of shooting the same place that has been done to death. But if I haven't been and taken my own photo interpretation of it, then why should I end up having to trek 3000 miles for some internet points? It's much more fun if you go and take the photos you want to take, rather than the photos you think someone wants you to take. The Urban Exploration scene is the same; people become exhausted / snow blind from seeing the same places posted on a forum again and again.
 
There is a lot of stigma with landscape photography of shooting the same place that has been done to death.
For me the stigma is purely internal. I derive infinitely more satisfaction from shooting a scene that I've found for myself than from re-cooking somebody else's shot, even if I find out afterwards that I wasn't being so original after all (*cough Lago d'Antorno cough*).

It's much more fun if you go and take the photos you want to take, rather than the photos you think someone wants you to take.
Preaching to the choir there brother/sister*
*delete as applicable
 
Is the main thrust to produce a sellable image, or to experience a given place on the planet in an engaged way even if no image is made?

But this is a photo forum, so I can understand a certain prejudice.

Scenery is one thing, but getting tired and worn on a long day out might produce a mesh of memories that are scarcely recordable in any media.
 
Is the main thrust to produce a sellable image, or to experience a given place on the planet in an engaged way even if no image is made?

But this is a photo forum, so I can understand a certain prejudice.

Scenery is one thing, but getting tired and worn on a long day out might produce a mesh of memories that are scarcely recordable in any media.

You don’t need to humph loads of gear and walk for miles to experience a place. I’d argue you don’t even need to get out of your car. Open your eyes.

Why would you want to experience physical pain and exhaustion-where’s the fun in that?
 
Why would you want to experience physical pain and exhaustion-where’s the fun in that?
That's a question mountaineers and sportspeople have been asking for years, and answering that the journey is the reward...
 
Couple of thoughts. For me, the place and the photo are completely interlinked; by walking through a landscape my feel for it increases (in a way that looking from a vehicle can never do) and so my photographic response improves (not necessarily good, but better); the pictures I value most are ones I've found by wandering and becoming immersed in the landscape. Second, yes it can be tiring and weather can be challenging, but even at my age the rewards massively outweigh the downsides (and it keeps you fitter). And third - to pick up on a point droj made - some years ago I calculated the carbon emissions due to an individual's landscape photography. Travel (car or plane) is easily the major cause of emissions.
 
It's an interesting thread, so thanks for posting.

My thoughts are this. Sometimes shots near a road are an advantage. Because with changing light and limited time you can quickly get back to the car and change location to somewhere that may end up working a lot better. If you had specifically hiked to a location with a shot in mind but the light at the time favoured a different valley and different shot for example you won't make it in time on foot.

However, the above approach can lead to a lot of manic packing up and moving around. I really enjoy some of the shots I see where good photographers have clearly gone for a walk with their camera late on in the day. Then taken the opportunities as they have seen them. I feel like @Stuart Mc and @Nick Livesey have both done this in the past and got some great photos. Worst case they enjoyed a nice walk and the fresh air. I'd like to do more of this style as a way of relaxing and seeing things as they happen, rather than chasing shots and forcing things.

Bit of a divisive subject lol - for what it's worth I think many cliched views become that as a result of being both photogenic and highly accessible. The accessibility in my view being just as important as the location's aesthetic quality in many cases. I've been to many hotspots that I feel wouldn't have become honeypot locations at all if there was a 2 mile walk involved. I've also been to many viewpoints that are far more spectacular/pleasing that will never become cliches because the physical effort required to get to them is too great. This isn't to deride easy access locations, as many are stunning.

There's no doubt though that if you want to create something a bit different in the current climate you're going to have to get off your arse and walk to it in most cases, especially these days with the advent of YouTube and Instagram driving high footfall towards already popular tourist/photo locations. Depends what your aims and ambitions are really - there's always the argument that 'the image is always different because the conditions are always different' which is true to a point, though ultimately the percentages of you producing something original/compelling by heading to heavily photographed places using this rationale is pretty low (though I must stress not impossible, and can be overcome by relentless persistance). Yes there's a chance you might get rainbows and unicorns once in a thousand, but most of the time the images will look largely the same as most others taken from those places. But then if that's what satisfies the photographer and that is their intent, ultimately that's all that matters really. One thing that is often overlooked I feel in photography circles is physical fitness - calling a spade a spade, landscape photography on the whole (and what I've observed out in the field and with clients) isn't the preserve of many who value this particularly highly (nothing wrong with this, each to their own) though it can be a limiting factor and a reason why many stick to shooting easy access locations.
 
I often go out with a disabled friend who loves his photography. His disability means his mobility keeps him close to the car, and certainly not over rough terrain. For him, the pleasure is being out with the camera and getting memories. For me, the pleasure is helping a friend achieve that. Maybe the images are not fantastic, but they are his and that's what makes them special.
 
Bit of a divisive subject lol - for what it's worth I think many cliched views become that as a result of being both photogenic and highly accessible. The accessibility in my view being just as important as the location's aesthetic quality in many cases. I've been to many hotspots that I feel wouldn't have become honeypot locations at all if there was a 2 mile walk involved. I've also been to many viewpoints that are far more spectacular/pleasing that will never become cliches because the physical effort required to get to them is too great. This isn't to deride easy access locations, as many are stunning.

There's no doubt though that if you want to create something a bit different in the current climate you're going to have to get off your arse and walk to it in most cases, especially these days with the advent of YouTube and Instagram driving high footfall towards already popular tourist/photo locations. Depends what your aims and ambitions are really - there's always the argument that 'the image is always different because the conditions are always different' which is true to a point, though ultimately the percentages of you producing something original/compelling by heading to heavily photographed places using this rationale is pretty low (though I must stress not impossible, and can be overcome by relentless persistance). Yes there's a chance you might get rainbows and unicorns once in a thousand, but most of the time the images will look largely the same as most others taken from those places. But then if that's what satisfies the photographer and that is their intent, ultimately that's all that matters really. One thing that is often overlooked I feel in photography circles is physical fitness - calling a spade a spade, landscape photography on the whole (and what I've observed out in the field and with clients) isn't the preserve of many who value this particularly highly (nothing wrong with this, each to their own) though it can be a limiting factor and a reason why many stick to shooting easy access locations.

I agree with most of what you say, Years ago you could take a photo sitting in a car as both cars and cameras were less common and the internet didn't exist for the majority.

Now families can have several cars and kids 5 years & up (many younger than 5) have camera phones so anything in easy reach of the road could have been photographed to death.

If the photos are for personal use then anything is fair game but if you want something different you do need to go walkabout, especially the 'to die for' wildlife shot you have to get away from the madding crown.

I once went in to a Forrest where red squirrels were know to be found. I got some really good shots then I heard a noisy family. It took them 5 mins to reach where I was and I heard the (almost shout) let's go and see the squirrels (by this time they had all gone). After 5 mins of continuous loud talking they walked off muttering complaints about there not being any. It took another 5 mins for them to get out of earshot at which point the squirrels returned. I see so much more wildlife when I'm out by myself or another photographer than I do with the wife and she know to be quiet so she doesn't scare it off.
 
I once went in to a Forrest where red squirrels were know to be found. I got some really good shots then I heard a noisy family. It took them 5 mins to reach where I was and I heard the (almost shout) let's go and see the squirrels (by this time they had all gone). After 5 mins of continuous loud talking they walked off muttering complaints about there not being any. It took another 5 mins for them to get out of earshot at which point the squirrels returned. I see so much more wildlife when I'm out by myself or another photographer than I do with the wife and she know to be quiet so she doesn't scare it off.

Don't get me started on the "family trip to the reserve..." It's obvious I'm trying to photograph something when I'm on one knee and pointing my lens across the lake, so why not just stop for a few seconds so I can get my shot... Then there's the kid that MUST chase the ducks...... It's a bloody wildlife reserve. One parent got rather annoyed when I told his kid to stop kicking out at the ducks.... :mad::mad::mad::mad:
 
Back
Top