Critique Using people to enhance landscape photography

LightPhonics

LightPhonics

Messages
70
Name
Jamie
Edit My Images
Yes
The 1st one is not a great shot but the No 2 and 3 are much better .The cloud movement in the 2nd adds to the image.
 
I'd say the people need to be appropriate to the image to work well

In 1 - had they looked like hill-walkers rather than ill-equipped tourists it'd have worked better

2 - looks more like an attempt at an environmental portrait than a landscape with a person in

3 - the girl from 2 would have been a better fit

So yes, people really can add to the story of the image or create a whole new meaning to it, but only if they 'fit' if you see what I mean :)

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
I'd say the people need to be appropriate to the image to work well

In 1 - had they looked like hill-walkers rather than ill-equipped tourists it'd have worked better

2 - looks more like an attempt at an environmental portrait than a landscape with a person in

3 - the girl from 2 would have been a better fit

So yes, people really can add to the story of the image or create a whole new meaning to it, but only if they 'fit' if you see what I mean :)

Dave
Click to expand...
Thanks, that's a great point
 
Like number 1.

Number 2 is rather posey. And number 3 has been seen too many times before (not that that means you shouldn't shoot it, it's just not that interesting).

Take photos with people, and without people. Don't worry about classifying them as "landscape" or anything, who cares? There's no reason you should 'stick' solely to one or the other, unless you're working on a specific project that prescribes you should.
 
i personally dont feel i need people in a shot of landscape
if so then its mrs toad and then it becomes a family snap
i would warn that you need to choose your people carefully, their dress, and whether they are in fact posing for the shot
a shot of the lake district for instance with some walkers...not necessary people you have set up...is more natural and part of the scene
being dressed correctly to suggest what the scene is mainly a favourite for...fishermen as well...skiers...etc
cheers
geof
 
Last edited:
It is all a matter of personal preference as to the presence of people in landscapes. There is no right or wrong.
I mostly go along with Geoff "i personally dont feel i need people in a shot of landscape", but then I prefer not to see people at all when walking and will happily dodge any that do turn up.
 
The landscape as the subject for pictures is a relatively new thing. There was a time when it served only as a backdrop to allegorical scenes in paintings. But even so many well known landscape paintings contain people - think of Constable's paintings for a start.

A figure can convey context, or scale, be a point of interest, or simply be a device to enhance the overall picture. A trick Constable used was to include a smallish figure wearing something red. The splash of red sets off the other colours (mostly greens - the complimentary of red) and brings the picture to life.

Of course there comes a point when the figure/s become the subject. But I wouldn't worry about pictures being 'landscapes' or portraits' or any other label that might be tagged on to them. Just try to make good pictures.
 
You get a good sense of scale from a landscape shot with people in it, especially in the absence of man-made structures. Depends how much of the person can be made out (it's often best to keep them small in frame) but you can reflect the fashions of the day, and also give an indication of time too. It can sometimes work quite well.

If there are some people moving into my frame I'll often fire a few shots off while waiting for them to move on, just to see if anything interesting comes out of it.
 
For me, #2 and #3 work really well, but the figures are possibly too large in #1? It's not really so much adding scale there, as a combination of portrait and landscape with neither winning.
 
If you look at older OS maps you'll see the front page photo is generally a landscape without people. Maybe 5 or so years ago they decided this wasn't how people (OS map purchasers!) generally regarded the landscape, so now the photos have people in them or obvious references such as bicycles. They're still pretty much bright, if not always sunny, whereas the lighting in your shots gives quite a sombre mood to them.
 
Have a look at the paintings of Caspar David Friedrich to see examples of how the use of a figure in the landscape can enhance the scene and provide a sense of scale and drama. Done well it can really enhance a landscape, but it requires as much thought about how you place the people in the scene as our does to compose the landscape itself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspar_David_Friedrich

Wanderer in the Sea of Fog is an image that's inspired many landscape photographs of hikers - http://www.artcyclopedia.org/art/caspar-david-friedrich-wanderer.jpg
 
Ed Sutton said:
A figure can convey context, or scale, be a point of interest, or simply be a device to enhance the overall picture. A trick Constable used was to include a smallish figure wearing something red. The splash of red sets off the other colours (mostly greens - the complimentary of red) and brings the picture to life.

Click to expand...

Constable may have used it but with over-use it can become a terrible cliché...the walker in the red cagoule (or the red sports car) as seen in countless picture postcards.

In my opinion a figure can sometimes really MAKE a landscape for the reason Ed mentions, but it has to be done really well to be successful. I don't think any of the three shown above work that well but that's no reason to stop trying.:)
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
Constable may have used it but with over-use it can become a terrible cliché...the walker in the red cagoule (or the red sports car) as seen in countless picture postcards.
Click to expand...

Don't you diss my red cagoule! :D


autumn walk by Dave Lumb, on Flickr
 
Sometimes it works but mostly it doesn't ... for me none of the 3 work but it's only my opinion :)
 
I've been trying to implement a bit of 'person for scale' into some of my landscapes recently.
It can be quite hit and miss, but when it works, it does tend to work well.
Two examples where I think it has worked in my experience

21549840915_cc6b38e0d0_c.jpg


22247188795_26db68cf0b_c.jpg
 
Just personal preference but in landscape photos I prefer to have my attention drawn to the landscape, I feel a person can distract from it unless it's a silhouette or very small in the frame to show scale.

The post by Duncan above is exactly what I'm referring too, the first is (more or less) a silhouette and the second and third are that small that they are not a distraction and it make you think about the size of the landscape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top