The Fantasy-Land(scape)

[photophorous]

I've always approached landscape photography as a semi-documentary style of photography. I like to find something I can see with my own eyes, and that I consider to be interesting and/or pretty, and then photograph it in a way that records the feeling I had at the time. The art in landscape photography comes in when someone tries to express the feeling of the scene, and I think many times this leads to exaggerations in post-processing. I don't like to collect building blocks to take home and piece into an impressionistic calendar photo of a fantasy-land that nobody will ever see in real life, because it doesn't exist. But, that seems to be what people have come to expect from a landscape photo.

Don't get me wrong. I'm fully aware that nature can create some fantastic scenes all by itself, and I try to photograph in those situations too. It just seems like people have grown bored with nature unless it does something fantastically unreal. I wonder sometimes if this expectation stems from the fact that so many people never see these scenes in real life. Does anyone else think society has come to expect something unrealistic from nature? Could it be because the landscape photographers of today spend so much time in post-processing that all semblance to reality is lost, and thus people no longer know what is real and what isn't?

I'm not trying to judge any specific style of photography, or make excuses for my own poorly executed photos. I know I still have a lot to learn. I'm just trying to figure out how to remain true to my own goals and expectations, and still have others enjoy my photos without wondering why they're not like the fantasy-landscapes that have become so common. I'd like to open up a discussion about what we expect from landscape photos and why.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks,
Paul

[darkman]

.... It just seems like people have grown bored with nature unless it does something fantastically unreal. I wonder sometimes if this expectation stems from the fact that so many people never see these scenes in real life. ....
Thanks,
Paul

Personally, I don't think this is just a landscape phenomena, it's more broad based than that.

For my taste, irregardless of the type of photography, too many photo's are overworked. Yet, they do have a bling factor that many, especially on-line, seem to gravitate too. I also think some of this has to do with the size of the images as seen on line. At web based sizes, much of my favorite work would look busy and trite. Simplify and over emphasize is of the order.

My opinion, mostly because I'm not trying to make a living out of photography, is to do what you enjoy and not worry about what sells; either in monetary terms or hits/reviews/comments on a web site.

Mike

[drg]

Paul,

One question that always seems to be slighted is if the artistic photographer is working to communicate a particular message, emotional, inspirational, or other are they not required to use all the tools at hand that are needed? Does a realistic or documentary approach have the necessary range to express what the artist seeks to show?

The Realism topic I am too concerned has lost out to eye-candy. If I, for example, never see another photo of Red Rocks again I will be happy. Been there, seen it, shot it, have my own memories and photos of it and 9999 out 10000 photos I've seen are just plain bad! And those are the 'good ones'.

If you are happy with your work, that is probably important. Of course you are free to change and improve as you see the need or as you desire. None of this prevents you from improving or exploring how to make the photographs that you want.

There are particular artists both photographic and otherwise who play to the most simplistic and visceral with the single purpose of selling and promoting their work. Nothing wrong with that. Commercial photography is all about mass appeal. But it does have certain boundaries. How often have you seen a wildly popular landscape that is an storm? Not very often. Too many people, as Mike points out, want 'bling' or what I call eye-candy. No challenge or unsettled feelings, and it should match the furniture!

Realism can have severe limitations. Among them of course is that what we do photographically is not real to start. Whether film and many choices of emulsion, digital be it a D-SLR (and each manufacturer will give you a 'different' type of photo) or a back for you M/LF view camera 'reality' will be distorted. Then the presentation itself will differ from reality. Large print, projections, transparency, technology for printing, toning material and many more options all will change the image.

The art of all this is a continuing and lifelong process of learning not only what works, but why and how we use it to have a result we can confidently point to as our own.

[photophorous]

Personally, I don't think this is just a landscape phenomena, it's more broad based than that.

For my taste, irregardless of the type of photography, too many photo's are overworked. Yet, they do have a bling factor that many, especially on-line, seem to gravitate too. I also think some of this has to do with the size of the images as seen on line. At web based sizes, much of my favorite work would look busy and trite. Simplify and over emphasize is of the order.

My opinion, mostly because I'm not trying to make a living out of photography, is to do what you enjoy and not worry about what sells; either in monetary terms or hits/reviews/comments on a web site.

Mike

Hi Mike,

Thanks for commenting. I agree that this is not just an issue with landscapes, and I think you make a good point about internet viewing sizes. I think the small size and low resolution of the photos we view on the web limit the effectiveness of landscape photos more than most other types of subject matter, because like you said, the details are just lost. That could explain why the pumped up photos attract more attention. To me, it's the intricate details of a landscape photo that make it so interesting.

Paul

[photophorous]

Paul,

One question that always seems to be slighted is if the artistic photographer is working to communicate a particular message, emotional, inspirational, or other are they not required to use all the tools at hand that are needed? Does a realistic or documentary approach have the necessary range to express what the artist seeks to show?

The Realism topic I am too concerned has lost out to eye-candy. If I, for example, never see another photo of Red Rocks again I will be happy. Been there, seen it, shot it, have my own memories and photos of it and 9999 out 10000 photos I've seen are just plain bad! And those are the 'good ones'.

If you are happy with your work, that is probably important. Of course you are free to change and improve as you see the need or as you desire. None of this prevents you from improving or exploring how to make the photographs that you want.

There are particular artists both photographic and otherwise who play to the most simplistic and visceral with the single purpose of selling and promoting their work. Nothing wrong with that. Commercial photography is all about mass appeal. But it does have certain boundaries. How often have you seen a wildly popular landscape that is an storm? Not very often. Too many people, as Mike points out, want 'bling' or what I call eye-candy. No challenge or unsettled feelings, and it should match the furniture!

Realism can have severe limitations. Among them of course is that what we do photographically is not real to start. Whether film and many choices of emulsion, digital be it a D-SLR (and each manufacturer will give you a 'different' type of photo) or a back for you M/LF view camera 'reality' will be distorted. Then the presentation itself will differ from reality. Large print, projections, transparency, technology for printing, toning material and many more options all will change the image.

The art of all this is a continuing and lifelong process of learning not only what works, but why and how we use it to have a result we can confidently point to as our own.

You make a lot of good points. I just want to be clear that I think an artist should use whatever means they have to get their message across. I guess I just feel like most of the people who like these overdone landscapes have either lost touch with what a realistic landscape should look like, or they know its not real and prefer it. Either way it seems sad that people are bored with reality. But, it’s not just about realism. I also don’t understand why people expect a certain kind of lighting and weather in a landscape, like you mentioned about storms. Golden hour lighting and perfect weather are nice, but other things are nice too.

I just got back from a backpacking trip in Colorado. It was cloudy off and on all day every day and we got afternoon rain four out of five days. The rain was no problem though, because we were expecting it; it’s always like that in the mountains. I think I got some good shots with moody brooding skies but I’m almost certain if I posted one for critique, people would suggest I go back early one morning, when the sky is clear and use a polarizer. Most of the time with landscapes, my goal is to recreate the feeling of being there, but if all I was showing was the most unusual of weather and lighting, then I would most likely fail. And even though the sky may be clear and nice some of the time, showing only that seems incomplete at the very least. I know that when I’m there, I don’t sit around wishing the weather was perfect. I can enjoy it regardless of the weather, and I want to be able to show that.

I guess this thread is kind of pointless, because I’m just venting my frustrations. I should just keep doing my thing and not worry about the people who expect something else. Thanks for commenting.

Paul

[Medley]

Paul, I think a lot of the perception surrounding highly processed photos comes from our perception of what constitues a "professional" image, and the expectations of advertising and other media.

I recently had a client come to me with a photo he had taken, wanting me to do the post-processing. In finding out what he wanted done he said "I want it to look like it came from a magazine." I knew exactly what he was asking for, and returned the result about 20 minutes later. He was overjoyed. I had subjected the file to the same sort of over-processing (for lack of a better term) that we're discussing here.

What dawned on me then is that the folks who create these images (and get them printed publicly) are the ones seen as being "successful", and the images themselves are deemed "professional"- all because it's what the industry seems to expect.

If that be the case, may I never become a "successful photographer".

- Joe U.

[darkman]

I guess this thread is kind of pointless, because I’m just venting my frustrations. I should just keep doing my thing and not worry about the people who expect something else. Thanks for commenting.

Paul

No! I disagree! I would much prefer to talk about images, imaging, art, etc. than pixel peeping. I think the end result is much more important than the equipment used.

These are the reasons I don't post much on photo sites anymore. They've become more about equipment than the actual capture.

[photophorous]

Paul, I think a lot of the perception surrounding highly processed photos comes from our perception of what constitues a "professional" image, and the expectations of advertising and other media.

I recently had a client come to me with a photo he had taken, wanting me to do the post-processing. In finding out what he wanted done he said "I want it to look like it came from a magazine." I knew exactly what he was asking for, and returned the result about 20 minutes later. He was overjoyed. I had subjected the file to the same sort of over-processing (for lack of a better term) that we're discussing here.

What dawned on me then is that the folks who create these images (and get them printed publicly) are the ones seen as being "successful", and the images themselves are deemed "professional"- all because it's what the industry seems to expect.

If that be the case, may I never become a "successful photographer".

- Joe U.

Hi Joe,

This is interesting. If I'm reading it right, you seem to be saying that advertising has at least some effect on what is considered successful art...at least for photography. Many of the photos that people see in magazines and consider to be successful or professional, are actually in advertisements, or they're intended to sell a magazine. It makes sense that advertising would want to use the most eye-catching photos. People then associate that type of photo with success and want the same in terms of art prints or their own prints. I realize there is probably more to it, but this makes sense to me. It's starting to seem like the average viewer of these photos has a short attention span.

Thanks for commenting.

Paul

[photophorous]

...I would much prefer to talk about images, imaging, art, etc. than pixel peeping. I think the end result is much more important than the equipment used.

These are the reasons I don't post much on photo sites anymore. They've become more about equipment than the actual capture.

I agree...at least at this point in my learning. I feel like I've figured out most of the technical stuff, or I simply need to practice what I know. Now, it's the composition and artistic aspects of photography that I need the most help with. But this is also the hardest part to discuss. I don't know how to explain a lot of my opinions about what's good and what isn't, or about what I want to do with my own work. I know it when I see it, but I don't necessarily know what it is.

[another view]

I'm fully aware that nature can create some fantastic scenes all by itself

It just doesn't happen very often... Patience, grasshopper.

During the time of BC (before computers), really the only way to get a good nature/landscape shot was a mix of knowing what you wanted on film, being in the right place at the right time, having the equipment and technical experience to use it - and a little bit of luck. The more you shoot, the luckier you get, etc. Occasionally the stars would align, conditions would be perfect and you'd get a photograph to be proud of.

Look at the work of photographers who spent many years working in their area, like Jim Brandenburg, Ansel Adams and Galen Rowell - not that they didn't travel, but they really got to know their home base, and knew what could happen and where to be if it did happen. The more days you're out, the more chances you have for this to happen. Luck = Preparation + Opportunity.

Those are the first three guys who popped into my head, and sadly only one of them is still living.

Fast foward to today - everything's fast. We don't wait for anything, like finding out obscure specs on a camera so new we can't even buy it. Fast food. Anger when the weather delays our travel (even though it may create excellent photography). We have all of these tools to create a stylized photograph while sitting on the couch and watching TV, so why should we wait for nature to create its own fantastic scene?

I might be a little too young to be a full-fledged curmudgeon (38) but I'm working on it. I think heavily styled images are a popular style because it's new. Like most things that are popular, they're not popular for long. Ten years from now, a lot of heavily styled images will look very dated. Some will be excellent still, but probably not most of them. And I don't mind delays (airports, etc) to some extent - gives me a chance to catch up on podcasts...

[reverberation]

I am finding this to be a very interesting conversation. I had responded to the post last night but deleted my response as I felt it did not address the original posts questions. I really like some of those fantasy landscapes, but the strange thing I find is that in every case I have seen, the artist is looking to make the image more realistic. I think that modern society has a problem dealing with shame. Fundamentalism, and the radicalization of religious expression has created a society where individuals are not comfortable engaging in nonconformity. Essentially that is the gist of the post I deleted.

Paul, I really understand where you are coming from. I never listen to anyone else regarding what I shoot. Online, there seems to be a cult of personality developing, where people develop personal bonds and tend to insulate themselves from ideas that threaten to split the group into different camps. On photoshop sites this trend leads to "recipes" for images. I imagine it is like the early salons. I understand why digital images need to be sharpened. This is a crucial first step to processing them.

I mostly shoot film. My sister just sent me a shoebox filled with some of my negatives. They all had been removed from the glassine, since I have been gone three years, I am thinking they have been left to bake in extreme heat for a good deal of that time. I have just scanned maybe 200 frames where I am documenting shadows, very dark pictures. I like them. I have just as many that are light, all highlights. I have as many that are all midtones. Some are exposed the way everyone else would, they are pictures anyone could take. They are good pictures, but I like the really dark and light stuff best.

The question you need to answer, that you ask yourself, what have I to say.

[Frog]

I was at the Puyallup Fair today and the first place I always visit is the photo expo.
Many fine and a few not so fine photos there but as I went along and started wondering how the heck did this guy get this shot,(one would have had to sit on top of a mountain in winter waiting for horses to happen by) I realized that many of these prize winnign photos had been severely edited. I won't say photoshopped as there are so many programs out there that can do the same.
I'm wondering if there should be different categories.
I don't have an answer but I know that if someone captures a fantastic scene and displays it with minimal editing, I appreciate that more than the 'glamour' landscapes that have been heavily manipulated.