ViewFinder Photography Forum

General discussion - our photography living room. Talk about aesthetics, philosophy, share your photos - get inspired by your peers! Moderated by another view and walterick.
ViewFinder Forum Guidelines >>
Introduce Yourself! >>
PhotographREVIEW.com Gatherings and Photo Field Trips >>
Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    Moderator Didache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    London England
    Posts
    2,040

    Is travel photography dead?

    Hi all

    I confess that this particular subject has been inspired by some debate in the other forum I belong to, but it certainly has relevance for people like me who travel a fair bit.

    The gist of it is this: Is travel photography as a genre a dead duck? To begin with, how do you define it? If I travel to, say, India and take a bunch of pictures, then that presumably counts as travel photography. But what about a native Indian photographer taking exactly the same shots - that presumably ISN'T travel photography, because it is his home! So what exactly IS travel photography in the first place, and should there even be such a genre?

    And if it is related to travelling from home, how far do I have to go? Another country? A few miles? In times past, "travel" photography" was probably exactly that, with intrepid adventurers going to exotic places, lugging their full-frame camera with them, and presenting images of places that few people of their day could ever hope to see in real life. In these days of relatively cheap travel and ubiquitous digital cameras, does the whole concept really apply any more?

    Secondly, consider what passes for a lot of travel photography: a lot of it (to be honest) consists of brightly dressed poor people posed against equally colourful decay. Maybe that is a little bit of a generalisation, but isn't that precisely what people "think" of when they think of India (to use my previous example)? Seems to me that there is an implicit western mindset behind those kind of pictures, and perhaps even a kind of neo-Colonialism which could be read as offensive - I wonder what the average Indian might think of the images that a western visitor to India might bring back and show to his friends?

    Now, someone will jump in here and say "What about the excellent travel photography in National Geographic, etc?" Without wishing in any way to decry the wonderful images you can find in mags like that, you could make a very strong argument that National Geographic (for instance) is really more about documentary or journalistic photography than travel photography per se.

    I know I have raised more questions than answers and I certainly don't have all the solutions - maybe it is genuinely in flux at the moment. But it certainly has me thinking.

    Cheers
    Mike
    Last edited by Didache; 05-08-2007 at 09:55 AM.
    Mike Dales ARPS
    My website: www.mikedalesphotography.co.uk

  2. #2
    Senior Member readingr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Basingstoke UK
    Posts
    4,564

    Re: Is travel photography dead?

    Mike,

    What a great question, can I expand the question to include portrait, land, or sea scapes as they too can fall into this complex category.

    I have never in all my travels categorised my photos as Travel Photography, they have always been land or sea scapes or some other category like portraits, architecture.

    So in many ways it never existed as a category for me.

    Roger
    "I hope we will never see the day when photo shops sell little schema grills to clamp onto our viewfinders; and the Golden Rule will never be found etched on our ground glass." from The mind's eye by Henri Cartier-Bresson

    My Web Site: www.readingr.com

    DSLR
    Canon 5D; EF100-400 F4.5-5.6L IS USM; EF24-70 F2.8L USM 50mm F1.8 II; EF 100 F2.8 Macro
    Digital
    Canon Powershot Pro 1; Canon Ixus 100


  3. #3
    project forum co-moderator Frog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    wa state
    Posts
    11,195

    Re: Is travel photography dead?

    'Travel photography' may not have a commercial market under that title as pictures from anywhere in the world are now accesible to the general public. Photo groups I belong to are scattered throughout the world and I always enjoy the posted photos as it allows me to see the geography, wildlife, and people of those regions that I would otherwise never see.
    I do think 'travel photography' has a personal niche in peoples lives. When one goes on a trip, near or far, they don't want to just buy scenic postcards even if it might be cheaper.
    They want the sights of things they saw as they saw them with themselves and freinds and family perhaps included in the picture. They want to keep the memories not only of the popular tourist attractions but of those sights that were of interest to them. See Speed's Myrtle Beach hot tub photos. There is no market for them but in years to come he and his wife can see these and they will bring back fond memories of his travel.
    My traveling days have become very limited now but I can relive the limited travels I have had with photos and will continue to use my camera on any future travels I may be so lucky to enjoy.
    Keep Shooting!

    CHECK OUT THE PHOTO PROJECT FORUM
    http://forums.photographyreview.com/...splay.php?f=34

    Please refrain from editing my photos without asking.

  4. #4
    Senior Member swmdrayfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Mi
    Posts
    2,474

    Re: Is travel photography dead?

    I think it depends on several criteria. If you're on vacation, no matter the destination, one would tend to classify these as 'vacation photography'. If you happen to be a photographer working for an airline, tourist magazine, cruise line and the like, then those could be classified at 'travel photography'. A guy taking shots for Conde Naste Traveler is far different from a guy who's on vacation with the family at the same location.

  5. #5
    Moderator Didache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    London England
    Posts
    2,040

    Re: Is travel photography dead?

    I thought this one might stir up a little debate!

    Roger: I am with you on that one: I rarely classify any of mine as "travel photography" per se.

    Frog: I think swmdrayfan puts his finger on part of it. We all take pics on vacation - but these are, strictly speaking, holiday photos, not really "travel photography", at least the way the genre is usually understood. This is exactly what I meant about the difficulty of definition.

    Maybe I will dig out an image or two to show what I mean and post it later.

    Cheers
    Mike
    Mike Dales ARPS
    My website: www.mikedalesphotography.co.uk

  6. #6
    Senior Shooter Greg McCary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Rome Ga.
    Posts
    10,550

    Re: Is travel photography dead?

    Travel Photography to me is if you set out, with gear in hand, to travel to a specific location with the intent on taking serious photography and rarely see home. I travel my local area all of the time looking for subjects of interest. But an hours drive is really as far as I ever go. But I would certainly not consider myself a Traveling Photographer.
    I would consider Tuna a traveling photographer, and a very good one at that.
    One day I hope to do exactly as Tuna.
    I don't think that you are a traveling photographer if you just take pictures while on vacation.
    Mike if your trips around the world specifically revolve around your photography and that's what you are there for you might be a traveling photog?
    Greg
    I am like Barney Fife, I have a gun but Andy makes me keep the bullet in my pocket..

    Sony a99/a7R

  7. #7
    drg
    drg is offline
    la recherche de trolls drg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Route 66
    Posts
    3,404

    Re: Is travel photography dead?

    Mike,

    Great topic. I've seen several discussions on this various places. Seems like it being the time of year that residents of the Northern Hemisphere plan summer travels, this subject becomes topical.

    I no longer subscribe to National Geographic for a variety of reasons including the famous pyramid shot (though it was years later that I stopped getting it), and remember NG tried to elevate itself by producing NG Traveller.

    My problem with 'great' travel photography is that it has for a long time just been another subject for a commercial photographer. Load up a shoot crew, a whole bunch of gear, get on a plane, hire a local 'fixer', spread cash around to get access and a week later you've got a layout! No person traveling for the sake of traveling is going to see many of those views, sunsets or unique perspectives in their travels. I know I am cynical.


    Some of the great exploration photography isn't necessarily technically very good. I saw some early b/w photography and have a small book of it from early trips up and down the Orinoco and some Amazon jungle work, that isn't great. But it is unique and very accurately depicts the journey of the explorer(s) in question.

    Travel photography is many times a fancy word for 'vacation' encouraging photography. It is eye candy much of the time. How many people go to Hawaii expecting one thing and find out that in a tropical climate it rains A LOT! Of course it is warm enough it doesn't matter.

    Conde Nast or the various other publications of that genre, are about selling a very particular product. Whether the photos are current are not is also sometimes not important. I've got a copy of what will remain for now a unnamed travel mag from the 70's that had been using the same photographs from Corsica for nearly twenty years! Sure, it was a Great Kodachrome image, but a lot of new construction just wasn't in the photo!

    More later,
    CDPrice 'drg'
    Biography and Contributor's Page


    Please do not edit and repost any of my photographs.






  8. #8
    Senior Member readingr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Basingstoke UK
    Posts
    4,564

    Re: Is travel photography dead?

    Quote Originally Posted by Didache
    I thought this one might stir up a little debate!

    Roger: I am with you on that one: I rarely classify any of mine as "travel photography" per se.

    Frog: I think swmdrayfan puts his finger on part of it. We all take pics on vacation - but these are, strictly speaking, holiday photos, not really "travel photography", at least the way the genre is usually understood. This is exactly what I meant about the difficulty of definition.

    Maybe I will dig out an image or two to show what I mean and post it later.

    Cheers
    Mike
    Funny, I always get accused of not taking holiday (vacation) snaps by the boss. Does that say something about my photography:thumbsup:

    Roger
    "I hope we will never see the day when photo shops sell little schema grills to clamp onto our viewfinders; and the Golden Rule will never be found etched on our ground glass." from The mind's eye by Henri Cartier-Bresson

    My Web Site: www.readingr.com

    DSLR
    Canon 5D; EF100-400 F4.5-5.6L IS USM; EF24-70 F2.8L USM 50mm F1.8 II; EF 100 F2.8 Macro
    Digital
    Canon Powershot Pro 1; Canon Ixus 100


  9. #9
    has-been... another view's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rockford, IL
    Posts
    7,649

    Re: Is travel photography dead?

    Quote Originally Posted by Didache
    But what about a native Indian photographer taking exactly the same shots - that presumably ISN'T travel photography, because it is his home! So what exactly IS travel photography in the first place, and should there even be such a genre?
    I disagree. I see Travel Photography as a commercial genre (IOW you're trying to make money at it) and no matter what you're trying to shoot, you'll have an advantage by living in that place. If you're in a city in India (for example) for a few days, chances are you'll come home with some images you really like. But if you see those things every day, they may only appeal to you when something really special is happening - whether it be the light, weather, something in bloom or an event that's happening. When an outsider - say NG Traveller Magazine - views the shots of these two people, the difference may be huge.

    Rockford, Illinois isn't exactly high on most people's lists of places they'd really like to visit someday. I still could have opportunities with local and state tourism boards, hotels and conference centers with photography they would want for their own publications - and that's true in most places.

    You can still do serious photography with the possibility of selling it for stock or to tourism boards, etc on a family vacation. Your time will be much more limited of course - and lower your chances of getting a really special shot, but it's still possible to do it. I don't have kids, but usually find that early AM is a good time. Late afternoon/evening light usually doesn't fit into the schedule though.

  10. #10
    Moderator Didache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    London England
    Posts
    2,040

    Re: Is travel photography dead?

    another view - are you implying that travel photography is purely about making money? Seems to me that's a pretty narrow view there, and there are plenty of outlets (eg any of the main national photographic associations) who recognise travel photography as a genre for competitions etc, where money is not a consideration.

    Cheers
    Mike
    Mike Dales ARPS
    My website: www.mikedalesphotography.co.uk

  11. #11
    Viewfinder and Off-Topic Co-Mod walterick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Phoenix AZ
    Posts
    4,655

    Re: Is travel photography dead?

    I had a hard time coming up with my own definition of "travel photography" for this thread. Originally, it was "any picture taken while traveling." Then, I realized that pictures taken locally could also be used as travel photography if used to generate tourism. So, I changed my definition to "any picture of a place used to draw other people to that place." Then I realized that still lifes or pictures of kids starving would constitute travel photography but aren't necessarily intended to draw folks to that place. So... I am still working on my definition. How about:

    1) Any picture taken while travelling
    and/or...
    2) Any picture of a place used to draw people to that place

    I guess that about sums it up for me...

    And, is it dead? Not by my definition! ;)
    Walter Rick Long
    Nikon Samurai, Mamiya Master, Velvia Bandit


    Check out the Welcome Thread

    My photography on Myspace

  12. #12
    Firefighter Tyson L. Sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Newark, Ohio
    Posts
    1,613

    Re: Is travel photography dead?

    I see travel photography as a commercial genre also, I could take several shots of interesting points here in Ohio and call it travel photography. Since my goal would be to market to local tourist info centers and publications. To call yourself a travel photographer, well thats another topic. So where do the lines get drawn, "travel photography" and "travel photographer"? These items are two different things. just like the question "when are you considered a Photographer?

    I got to put my boots on:idea:

    How can I be lost
    If I've got nowhere to go?

    Sony a55 16-50mm 2.8 ssm Minolta 50mm 70-300 dt 5.6

  13. #13
    News & Rum-or-ator opus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Southeast Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,505

    Re: Is travel photography dead?

    I attended a Travel Photography conference. Yes, it was all about making money. It was about taking pictures that would be used in books and magazines that help "sell" a location in one way or another. The focus of the conference was to help the attendees create the best photos possible for publication. One of the teachers "traveled" a lot and had some really great shots, which he blew up on canvas and sold as wall art.

    Bottom line was, he was making money selling his slides to magazines.

    Faculty and sponsors for the conference were either: photographers, or publishers.

    In conjunction with the travel photography was a travel writing conference. And those people were learning how to tailor their work for publication in newspapers, magazines and books. I personally was advised to start creating travel articles for newspapers, and shop them around to newspapers around the country. One article could make it into many newspapers. When my shots got good enough, then I could submit to magazines. I realized that I could write "travel" articles (and photos) of my own home surroundings, and sell the work to newspapers elsewhere. Someone was going to travel to my location someday.

    As far as using "travel photography" in competitions, well, I think that's not a very well-thought out concept. It sounds like a genre, but you raise the important issues around it.

    One more thing. At this conference, Ethics were discussed. It was pointed out that many "travel" shots (especially in third-world countries, or places with rich ancient history) were set up to remove the Wal-Mart bags and such. One really great desert shot was explained as, "just a little to the right was a major highway, and a little to the left a grassland started. But this shot makes it look like it's all desert."

    Bottom line that I came away with is, if the shot is beautifully executed and can be sold to someone who is promoting a certain location, then it can be considered "travel" photography.
    Drink Coffee. Do stupid things faster with more energy.


  14. #14
    Moderator Didache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    London England
    Posts
    2,040

    Re: Is travel photography dead?

    How about this for a definition: "Travel photography is photography that gives a sense of a place" ?

    That definition may or may not include commerial work, and it is not conditional on how far away from home you might be.

    Cheers
    Mike
    Mike Dales ARPS
    My website: www.mikedalesphotography.co.uk

  15. #15
    has-been... another view's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rockford, IL
    Posts
    7,649

    Re: Is travel photography dead?

    Quote Originally Posted by Didache
    another view - are you implying that travel photography is purely about making money?
    Like I said, I think of "travel photography" as a commercial genre, like someone might specialize in still life or portrait work. I photograph when I travel, but I've just thought of it as photography; no real emphasis on anything other than what I see. I'm not doing it with an eye for what might sell versus what I feel like doing. If I were trying to make some money at it, I'd be careful where I went and when I went there so that I would improve my odds in getting saleable photographs for any trip I took. Two examples:

    I recently sold an image to a canoeing magazine. I'm a kayaker and was out one night at a local lake. I came in when the sun went down and saw these old aluminum canoes against the water which was reflecting the colors of the sky. But - I didn't have a camera with me. Went back the next night but clouds came in, so no shot. I think it took two more nights before I saw the same thing again; this time with a camera. If I had to leave the area the next day, I wouldn't have the shot so there is a huge advantage for shooting locally - you get to know the place very well and can wait for the conditions that you want.

    I just got back from a trip to the north woods (Michigan's UP). Most of the images I see of the area include bright summer sun (promoting great weather and fun outdoors) and fall colors which are exceptional up there (beautiful scenery). The only thing I really could shoot with any hope of commercial success is possibly some of the waterfalls because they're at maximum flow about now. However, the trees are only starting to bud so you'd have to do your best to keep anything other than evergreens out of the frames. I could have spent a week doing this - or longer, of course - but there was a lot more that I wanted to see even if it wasn't at 100% yet. I still like the area and just wanted a vacation.

    I see contests in much the same way as commercial work - it's all competitive. Someone with no knowledge of what you went thru to get your shot will pick the winners. They don't care if you just stepped out your back door and got it, or planned the trip for six months. They just care about the image that they're looking at. Actually, I wrote a blog on this awhile back...

  16. #16
    Senior Member racingpinarello's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Mountain View,CA
    Posts
    849

    Re: Is travel photography dead? No

    What is travel photography? I don't think vacation photos always count as travel photography.

    Travel photography are photos that inspire people to travel and to see the place that you photographed. It's not about making money, it's about creating inpiration to see a location.

    National Geographic is not travel photography, it's journalistic photography that makes you care about a subject.

    In my opinion, most people don't do travel photography well and it's not easily defined. As long as planes are full, there are 5 or 6 major travel websites, and people want to travel there will always be a need for travel photography. What's going to fill travel catalogues? I have photographs that have inspired travel to Argentina, and also to a local park. I have made nothing from that inspiration.

    Like Anotherview...he was kayaking and his photo makes people want to kayak. That's travel photography.

    When people go to a location and do photography, it's called landscape, cityscape, or just plain photography.

    Loren
    Loren Crannell
    LC Photography
    Visit My Website

    * Any photographer worth his salt has 10,000 bad negatives under his belt. - Ansel Adams

  17. #17
    Moderator Didache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    London England
    Posts
    2,040

    Re: Is travel photography dead?

    Thanks for all the responses guys. I think it indicates the difficulty of defining what travel photography really is, or where it fits in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps better to think of it as photography which gives a sense of place, and which may include OTHER genres such as portraiture, architecture, landscape, documentary, etc.

    Cheers
    Mike
    Mike Dales ARPS
    My website: www.mikedalesphotography.co.uk

  18. #18
    Senior Member readingr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Basingstoke UK
    Posts
    4,564

    Re: Is travel photography dead?

    Quote Originally Posted by Didache
    Thanks for all the responses guys. I think it indicates the difficulty of defining what travel photography really is, or where it fits in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps better to think of it as photography which gives a sense of place, and which may include OTHER genres such as portraiture, architecture, landscape, documentary, etc.

    Cheers
    Mike
    Mike,

    As part of the work I do in computers I have helped people design taxonomies and its not easy and it is very dependant on your goals.

    In Photography it is difficult to create taxonomies and then to fit something like Travel Photography into the correct place because you would end up with a taxonomy that looks something like

    Landscapes
    Portraits
    Travel
    Landscapes
    Portraits
    Seascapes
    Seascapes

    So you could have a sub class of a major class as a Taxonomy which is not always the best way of doing it for the subject matter.

    In photography it would be better to include a flat taxonomy with no subclasses and just add photographs to many categories.

    So Travel could therefore mean anywhere including where you live, and as you said it is a category which defines a photograph which encourages someone to travel to a location. So they could be pictures in a Travel brochure, Magazine, War zone, Famine, landscape, seascape, portrait... I know of someone who traveled to a location just because he saw a picture of a steam engine.

    Or better not to think of Travel as a category as its too difficult to define.

    Roger
    "I hope we will never see the day when photo shops sell little schema grills to clamp onto our viewfinders; and the Golden Rule will never be found etched on our ground glass." from The mind's eye by Henri Cartier-Bresson

    My Web Site: www.readingr.com

    DSLR
    Canon 5D; EF100-400 F4.5-5.6L IS USM; EF24-70 F2.8L USM 50mm F1.8 II; EF 100 F2.8 Macro
    Digital
    Canon Powershot Pro 1; Canon Ixus 100


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •