Landscape Photography. Where's the good stuff?

[Toby Deveson]

Hi, I'm realtively new here and thought I'd combine two threads in one....a "rant and rave, get things off my chest" with a "please look at my work and hello everyone".

I am a photographer and have been for over 15 years. I specialize in black & white photography and more specifically b&w landscapes. My site is at www.TobyDeveson.com where alot of my work can be seen.

So, he thinks to himself, where do I go to make this more than a "hello, please look at my work" sort of a post. Lets see where it goes....hmmm!

I'll keep it relevant to what has become the bulk of my work and passion - Landscape photography. So, is it still seen as the easy option to take, the distant cousin to figurative photography, reportage, portraiture and documentary?

Sure the psychological, mental side to it may be easier. No one other that yourself to deal with. But if it is an easier, poorer option why are there so few decent images out there. Why is there so much mediocre and dare i say it **** work floating around. I cant remember the last time I saw a body of work that took my breath away and left me green with envy. Including Ansel Adams....

They say the cream rises to the top. Well where is the cream? Why is it if I go to a book shop, exhibition or browse the net for some documentary (the other strand to my work) I find a reasonable amount of excellent work (yes there is alot of rubbish too), but if I look for an equivalent high standard of landscapes...nothing. It's not the subject matter of documentary work. i.e war zones, dismembered bodies or tragic stories of human despair making the work more powerful. I look beyond that at the quality of work. If you are going to stuff a lense into someones face while they are suffering at least dont offend them with producing mediocre work and rely on their plight to make your name. (In the same way as if taking a landscape, dont rely on nature to give you an image, create something different and unique... if you can). (and that touches on another debate..is it right to make art out of peoples' suffering or should a photographer just report)

So again, assuming there are the same amount of landscape photographers as documentary etc, where is the quality work???

Is landscape photography easier? Am I just a cynic with a big chip on his shoulder? Or is it infact alot harder to create something different and unique. Is it just seen as the easy genre but is infact the hardest to perfect. I have certainly found it a huge challenge to acheive results that i am happy with. Alot more so than documentary or portraiture.

Discuss...hmmmm...

[Speed]

Hi, I'm realtively new here and thought I'd combine two threads in one....a "rant and rave, get things off my chest" with a "please look at my work and hello everyone".

I am a photographer and have been for over 15 years. I specialize in black & white photography and more specifically b&w landscapes. My site is at www.TobyDeveson.com where alot of my work can be seen.

So, he thinks to himself, where do I go to make this more than a "hello, please look at my work" sort of a post. Lets see where it goes....hmmm!

I'll keep it relevant to what has become the bulk of my work and passion - Landscape photography. So, is it still seen as the easy option to take, the distant cousin to figurative photography, reportage, portraiture and documentary?

Sure the psychological, mental side to it may be easier. No one other that yourself to deal with. But if it is an easier, poorer option why are there so few decent images out there. Why is there so much mediocre and dare i say it **** work floating around. I cant remember the last time I saw a body of work that took my breath away and left me green with envy. Including Ansel Adams....

They say the cream rises to the top. Well where is the cream? Why is it if I go to a book shop, exhibition or browse the net for some documentary (the other strand to my work) I find a reasonable amount of excellent work (yes there is alot of rubbish too), but if I look for an equivalent high standard of landscapes...nothing. It's not the subject matter of documentary work. i.e war zones, dismembered bodies or tragic stories of human despair making the work more powerful. I look beyond that at the quality of work. If you are going to stuff a lense into someones face while they are suffering at least dont offend them with producing mediocre work and rely on their plight to make your name. (In the same way as if taking a landscape, dont rely on nature to give you an image, create something different and unique... if you can). (and that touches on another debate..is it right to make art out of peoples' suffering or should a photographer just report)

So again, assuming there are the same amount of landscape photographers as documentary etc, where is the quality work???

Is landscape photography easier? Am I just a cynic with a big chip on his shoulder? Or is it infact alot harder to create something different and unique. Is it just seen as the easy genre but is infact the hardest to perfect. I have certainly found it a huge challenge to acheive results that i am happy with. Alot more so than documentary or portraiture.

Discuss...hmmmm...

And welcome to PR!

As for your comments on landscape photography...

It could very well be that since landscapes are your passion, you have a higher standard than most. Entirely possible.

It could also be that photographers have gotten themselves into a rut. This is the popular style today (pick a style), so everyone is doing it this way. An example: Personally, I don't really care for the "veil" effect on waterfalls. That's not what I see when I see a waterfall. But it seems like everyone, and I mean everyone, is enamoured with that style of shooting waterfalls and that's ALL you see. I don't care for it, but if everyone else likes it, then good for them. I shoot my waterfalls with shallow apetures and fast(er) shutter speeds, and I like my results.

It could also be that it has become old hat to you. You've been at this a while and you've seen it all. Or maybe you're experiencing a mild case of burnout. It happens. Have you read this post?

Photography. Art or Crap?

I have seen some incredible landscape shots here on PR. Hopefully, folks will use this thread to start posting some of their shots.

BTW, where did you shoot your shot? I like the sun blown out in it like that. Part of why I like it is because it's unusal!

Here's a shot of the Linville Falls, shot at f4, 1/90th of a second. The heck with ND filters and one second exposures! ;-)

[Steph_B]

Hi, I'm realtively new here and thought I'd combine two threads in one....a "rant and rave, get things off my chest" with a "please look at my work and hello everyone".

I am a photographer and have been for over 15 years. I specialize in black & white photography and more specifically b&w landscapes. My site is at www.TobyDeveson.com where alot of my work can be seen.

So, he thinks to himself, where do I go to make this more than a "hello, please look at my work" sort of a post. Lets see where it goes....hmmm!

I'll keep it relevant to what has become the bulk of my work and passion - Landscape photography. So, is it still seen as the easy option to take, the distant cousin to figurative photography, reportage, portraiture and documentary?

Sure the psychological, mental side to it may be easier. No one other that yourself to deal with. But if it is an easier, poorer option why are there so few decent images out there. Why is there so much mediocre and dare i say it **** work floating around. I cant remember the last time I saw a body of work that took my breath away and left me green with envy. Including Ansel Adams....

They say the cream rises to the top. Well where is the cream? Why is it if I go to a book shop, exhibition or browse the net for some documentary (the other strand to my work) I find a reasonable amount of excellent work (yes there is alot of rubbish too), but if I look for an equivalent high standard of landscapes...nothing. It's not the subject matter of documentary work. i.e war zones, dismembered bodies or tragic stories of human despair making the work more powerful. I look beyond that at the quality of work. If you are going to stuff a lense into someones face while they are suffering at least dont offend them with producing mediocre work and rely on their plight to make your name. (In the same way as if taking a landscape, dont rely on nature to give you an image, create something different and unique... if you can). (and that touches on another debate..is it right to make art out of peoples' suffering or should a photographer just report)

So again, assuming there are the same amount of landscape photographers as documentary etc, where is the quality work???

Is landscape photography easier? Am I just a cynic with a big chip on his shoulder? Or is it infact alot harder to create something different and unique. Is it just seen as the easy genre but is infact the hardest to perfect. I have certainly found it a huge challenge to acheive results that i am happy with. Alot more so than documentary or portraiture.

Discuss...hmmmm...

Hi Toby,

I am also pretty big on Landscape photo. It was (and still is) my main interest (one day I'll work out the gut of doing People!). It also does not necessitate expensive gear such as sport or wildlife. But most of all, it's a good excuse to go out there!

I am not yet blase by Tim Fitzharris, John Shaw or John Fielder photographs. When you look closely, you find all kind of differences between these giants of landscape photography. Some of their work is so awesome and inspiring that I could stay for hours browsing through their gallery. For me landscape photo. is a testimony of how things are out there. It's an invitation for us (city dwellers) to go and explore, and protect what is unique.

For a little while, I myself thought that I knew everything about the technique, and that my shots could very well compete with professionals.... and then I happened to enter the Ansel Adams Gallery in Yosemite.... They expose work from quite a few artists. My photography does not even come anywhere close to what I saw there. This gave me a renewed motivation to think more about composition and light... but it also made me understand that, while my work attracts the attention of people coming to my house or my office, it is possible to do much better and convey the beauty of nature with such a force that visitors would forget for an instant the main reason of their visit. Well, that's my goal anyway!

Ok , I have only 4 years behind me, and I might change my mind in a few years...

I had a look at your work, and it's definitely different than what most landscape photographers are doing... By using BW and not-so-classical exposure, you are able to deconstruct the landscape into its more primitive components... this is almost an impressionist version of landscape photo. While I am not yet sure what kind of emotions your shots are stirring, this is most definitely intriguing.

PS: I am not a great fan of Ansel Adams myself. I hope I am not going to burn in H**** for saying so!


Cheers,

Steph.

[opus]

Personally, I have an extremely difficult time with landscapes. That's one of the reasons I got away from photography once I got out of high school...the only subject I thought I could pursue anymore once I got away from the "journalistic" environment (yearbook and newspaper photography) was landscapes, and I dislike them. To me landscapes, when you're in them, are the combined experience of sound, space, light, smell, texture, depth and color, and it's really hard to share the experience when you can only capture half of those.

I think they are one of the most difficult subjects to shoot.

[Toby Deveson]

Yes yes yes, landscapes are the most difficult. You have less to work with, more to find, more clichés to escape from. Personally I document the landscape I am in. Partly because that is where i come from photographically. I use an old 35mm nikkormat and a 24mm lense. Nothing more. and my feet. I print in the darkroom and I print full frame, no cropping. I photograph what I see there and then, no waiting. It's my own personal challenge to do what i can whatever the weather, light or surroundings. So yes i document. But that does not mean i can't do it creatively or put a little of myself into it.

And that is where the crux of the matter is. Whatever the genre, people rely on others or gimmicks to create a "nice" picture. People say what a beautiful picture of a waterfall, when 99% of the time, it's a mediocre picture of a waterfall, blurred water or not. It's the waterfall itself that beautiful, nothing to do with the photographer. It's the suffering of the landmine victim that makes it a powerful image. Not the fact that the photographer has exposed his own soul and talent by creating something unique out of a situation or landscape, becuase 99% of the time he/she hasn't. There are too many mediocre photographers out there passing themselves off as professionals. Take a so called beatiful landscape, sepia tinted etc, strip it all away to the bare minimum, to the bones of the composition(geometry), textures, and magical ingredient of atmosphere and there is often not enough there to stand up in the cold light of day. Nothing to make it that something special.

It is incredibly difficult to include that magic something to find it and transpose it onto film in a unique and individual way, in the same way as you can see a painting and recognise the artist or hear music and recognise the composer.

Very few photographers acheive this.

As for the combined experience of sound smell etc, true Kellybean, but name an art form that can do this. cinema? painting? music? We try to make something different from what we see and experience, not recreate it. It's a question of finding the medium that best suits us and acquiring the experience and knowledge we need to express our talents...or not!

Steph B, Ansel Adams, is technically amazing, yes, but then so should all photographers be. Its part of photography, we have it too easy, taking films to labs or printers or uploading and downloading. Creating art is hard work, there is stuff to learn. Compostion is a science, always has been, there is history and the more knowledge we have the more second nature it becomes and the more natural it is to break the rules.Prining a good print takes years of experience as does developing a film. Ansel Adams was a pioneer in many things, but take away the technique and you are left with the beauty of the landscape. Very little of the photographer as a person. But then he was the landscape. But I agree, there a only a handful of his images that leave me seething with jealousy (and that is how to judge how good an image is. If you feel sick and inspired at the same time because you want it to be you who took it) The rest do nothing for me.

Speed, the various techniques, slow shutter etc I suppose are down to individual taste. An image that leaves you breathless will do just that whatever the technique. but yes there are countless clichés floating around. As I said above strip them all down in your minds eye and see whats left. Is it still a good image? Is it an image that only you as a photographer or he/she could have taken? If 50 photographers visited that place one after the other, is it an image that none of the others would have come up with? Harsh criteria to judge others by (and most importantly you own work) but I believe the only way to learn!

The image in the snow with the sun was in Wales in december 2001. I'm glad you like it

Steph B, thankyou for your comments on the compostions. I love as you say deconstructing the components. I love playing with the eye, taking it where it doesnt want to go, yet without causing discomfort. I strive to find that magical atmosphere, and if I cant, then I try and give an image something else. Doing the unexpected with the composition is a great challenge and a fine line to walk. I'll put an example of this below taken in finland last summer, where does the eye go? where is the horizon? the hills either side seem at different heights, it breaks all the rules, plays with and teases the eye, yet doesnt hurt it, doesnt disrespect it. And I believe it also has that magical ingredient of atmosphere (its still quite a new image, I may yet change my mind). Also below is the obligatory waterfall shot from Yoho national park in the canadian rockies, seeing as we were talking about them!

Toby

[Taniqua]

Hi i am a student at Hariwich High School and im doing a report in photography class on you. I havn't found a lot of information on the internet so i was wondering if you could tell me a few things about you.

[Old Timer]

Hi i am a student at Hariwich High School and im doing a report in photography class on you. I havn't found a lot of information on the internet so i was wondering if you could tell me a few things about you.

Hey nice to have you here Taniqua. If you are looking for Toby Deveson this is probably not the right spot. If you will notice he only had 5 post here and the one you linked to is from four years ago. I doubt that you will get a response from this post. Sorry but stick around there are a lot of very good photographers here to learn about and learn from.

[Frog]

Someone's been digging into the past. I've never seen this post before.

I will say that landscape photography is more difficult than most think.
There is so much out of the photographers control such as light conditions and whether the horse turns its butt towards you at the last second. Worst of all are the jet contrails.
You also have to be willing to get up very early and there's always something in the way of those perfect compositions.

[Taniqua]

ok thank you