| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/05/2006 02:41:46 PM · #26 |
Scenery Versus People....
that's like asking
Spiderman Versus Batman
|
|
|
|
12/05/2006 02:44:42 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Spiderman Versus Batman |
Batman.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2006 03:02:08 PM · #28 |
What fascinates me about photographing landscapes is how mutable they are; the light, the season, the time of day, the atmospheric conditions, all reveal some different aspect of the landscape. I go back tot he same places over and over again to explore this mutability; not because I'm lazy, but because it's what I do...
  
Robt. |
|
|
|
12/05/2006 03:16:43 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Scenery Versus People....
that's like asking
Spiderman Versus Batman |
No quibble: Superman! |
|
|
|
12/05/2006 03:17:47 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Scenery Versus People....
that's like asking
Spiderman Versus Batman |
Catwoman! :) |
|
|
|
12/05/2006 03:27:05 PM · #31 |
Listening to you, I am beginning to understand that it comes down to where we are at: you for example find connection in exploring the natural world..I think I like being behind the physical body of a camera and given the license to really LOOK at people...I relate to Mary in that "people scare me" too, but the camera allows me to look people in the eye...maybe that's why People Photos are more intriguing to me.
I love looking at artist's landscape portfolios..the type that explore the personality of land, but generally landscapes that are just Beautiful for effect somehow lack story/history/depth...
And then on an entirely different note: the human body, taken in the right light/crop/angle, can have incredible landscape nuances too!! |
|
|
|
12/05/2006 03:31:35 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I find good landscape work harder than portraits, because you can always ask a person to do that gesture again. Landscape photography is often frantic, rapidly changing, stressful and a constant panic. Shooting people is at least a bit more relaxing & less fleeting. |
I don't mean to gainsay you but couldn't you go back to the same location over and over again and even plan to be there the best time of day for sweetest light in that location.
I'm guessing Canon Beach at sunset (or sunrise?) is a no brainer and any given sunny day, over a few (1-2) hour period you can probably take a thousand shots.
Great models on the flip side, are pretty easy to work with if you know what you're doing AND have decent control of your light(indoor and out).
Message edited by author 2006-12-05 15:50:38. |
|
|
|
12/05/2006 03:36:18 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I don't mean to gainsay you but couldn't you go back to the same location over and over again and even plan to be there the best time of day for sweetest light in that location. |
You could, and it'd look different every time. The best landscape shots capture something different, not just 'what it generally' looks like.
Galen Rowell's 2 mile sprint to line up a rainbow and Monastery before the weather changed always comes to mind when someone says landscape photography is relatively calm and repeatable.
Same way with people you can shoot thousands of shots that show them, but only maybe 1 that really captures their spirit.
Mediocre is always relatively easy.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2006 03:59:13 PM · #34 |
I agree that it's not hard to get a fairly good landscape shot, but very hard to get the exceptional shot.
I think of this one as a shot I could have had but didn't quite get because in the frantic moment of pulling a u-turn on the highway, pulling over to an overlook and shooting I left the camera on ISO 800 and underexposed which led to a ton of noise. The rainbow lasted 3 minutes tops.
I also think of this shot (not mine). It is such an awesome capture of a phenomenon which happens only a few days a year and is not super-easy to get to.
Natural Yosemite Firefall
Message edited by author 2006-12-05 15:59:37.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2006 04:02:52 PM · #35 |
There are a few popular locations that turn up all the time and yep, they'll all look different minute by minute but they'll usually look amazing at any interval.
I used Canon Beach as a classic example of that point and there's another spot that looks great 99.99999 % of the time...some rock structure in the mid-west USA with a big hole through it (damn, can't remember the name of the place)but I never saw a bad pic from that place.
I kinda messed this (first ever) pano up but I figured out what I now need to do and as I see it, I can go back almost any nice day/afternoon weather providing and nail it.
Message edited by author 2006-12-05 16:26:54. |
|
|
|
12/05/2006 04:05:28 PM · #36 |
This sort of play of sunlight, clouds and rain doesn't happen very often either, I expect
Or this much water in a place like Death Valley
I think the aspect of control missing in landscape and present in portrait work is part of the difference in difficulties in both types of photography.
I think though, the reason landscapes score better is fewer reasons to vote them down, not more reasons to vote them up. Not so much opportunity to politicise or annoy certain demographics with a pretty scenic, than with say a pretty child or pretty woman.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2006 04:21:46 PM · #37 |
| Amused. Just look how many people posted landscape shots in this thread versus how many posted shots of people. Grin. |
|
|
|
12/05/2006 04:22:11 PM · #38 |
I've always been a people photographer, from journalism to portraits to weddings, the main subject of at least 90% of my photography has always been a person.
I do tend to favor people photography in challenges - a bit of bias on my part. Landscapes, in general, bore me... there are a few that blow me away though.
Now since, there seem to be many here that work with landscapes, I wonder if they may exhibit a bias toward that type of photography, much as I do portraits? If this were the case, there would likely be more voters that do vote with a bias toward landscapes.
I can't find numbers to support any of this, nor would I know what to do with the numbers if I did have them, but it is a thought...
|
|
|
|
12/05/2006 04:25:18 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Amused. Just look how many people posted landscape shots in this thread versus how many posted shots of people. Grin. |
I'm 50/50. I've posted 2 portraits and two landscape shots.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2006 04:28:21 PM · #40 |
|
|
|
12/05/2006 04:47:00 PM · #41 |
| I once had two uncles who were photographers, neither could even conceive digital and they're both long since dead. One lived in California and was into cinima; the other lived in Washington and shot stills. Both were top notch in their fields, both shot landscapes and people, and both had the same philisophy: if a picture doesn't tell a story of at least a thousand words, it's not worth filming (granted, film and its processing then wasn't cheap). My point, whether landscape or portrait, tell the best story you can at the time. I doubt very much that Ansel Adams started out where he ended in his art and I know he shot both people and landscapes. I think people shoot what they are confortable shooting, however, everyone needs to try something different. There's always the delete button if you don't like it. |
|
|
|
12/05/2006 10:32:51 PM · #42 |
I like both about evenly. I do notice that I shoot a lot more landscape than I do people, and the people shots are generally candid. I also noticed that when I look at pictures from long ago, that the ones with people in them, even doing ordinary things, seem more full of information about the place and time than the ones without people. In portraits, it seems that the old saying that the "eyes are the window to the soul" is the way I look at them. If a portrait is one that the mood, the lighting, the angle and the click all happen at the right time, the subject's personality tends to spill out of the frame and causes me to pause and think for a minute about what this person must be like, or to connect with the subject's emotion. With landscapes, I tend to be thinking about first the general "first glance" overall impression, then the details, and end with thinking about what the photographer's thoughts were when the shutter clicked. I'm one of the "Hang a U turn in traffic and go back and get that moment before it changes" kind of shooters, and seem to get my most interesting pics that way. One of the problems that I have is that many of my friends know my truck, and drive the same roads as me, so they stop to see if I am having vehicle trouble while I'm shooting wildlife or landscapes near the road.
On another tack here, what about macro landscapes? I see a lot of macro in the challenge photos as well. I enjoy macro because my camera can see better than I do up close.
Maybe that would better explored in a new thread. |
|
|
|
12/05/2006 10:44:11 PM · #43 |
Sometimes I can't decide ...
 |
|
|
|
12/07/2006 11:04:01 PM · #44 |
I see macro topped the diagonal challenge.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/20/2025 07:51:55 PM EDT.
