What makes a good travel photograph

A quality image that makes people want to go there. Needs to clearly show an interesting aspect of the place and the people. Your thoughts?

Bukhara, Uzbekistan

Should definitely show something unique about the place. You don't go to Uzbekistan to take pictures of a McDonald's (unless you work for McDonald's). And it doesn't need to be a selfie. Shouldn't be a selfie. The fact you took a photo means we know you were there.

Yes NetR - definitely no selfies. What is the difference between a good travel photo and a holiday snap? Maybe travel photos tell more of a story rather than being images of famous landmarks etc.

Captures/conveys the experience that the user felt? I don't think it necessarily has to make the viewer want to go there, maybe just the opposite.

Interesting topic right now because I've recently been posting photos from a ~6 month road trip.

I tell as story. I create a slide show movie that I can play on computers or UHDTV. I include airport, ship, people including me and my wife, landscapes, still lifes, and signs that show where I am. I include transitions shots and short video sections to spice it up. After post processing everything, I edit it on my PS Premiere Elements to add interesting transitions, titles and credits at the end. I'll add music which really improves it selecting songs that mirror where I was and what I was doing. I may include a menu system. I keep it to less than thirty minutes, half would be better so I don't bore family and friends. Here are two short ones I put on YouTube. The scuba one was from scanned Ektachrome slide film taken thirty years ago. The other Coney Island show was more recent using micro 4/3 digital. These don't have any movie clips; all slides.

https://www.youtube.com/user/AlanClips

Depends on the audience.

• For ME, it is what will bring back memories of the trip. This includes stuff that may be of no interest to anyone else.
  
• My father wanted to keep in the slide tray a LOT more stuff than I wanted, because it gave him memories.
   
  
• For others, family and friends, a picture book of where we went and what we saw.
  
• For others, sales/marketing, to get them to want to go where I went.
  
• Some of it is artistic, l would put it up on a wall of my house.
  

Does travel photography have to be a series of images about the experience or is one image enough for the concept of 'travel'

Problem is I'm not sure that there's a good definition of "travel photography". One man's travel photograph is someone else's documentary, someone else's fine art, someone else's landscape, someone else's nature, or urban landscape, and on we go virtually for ever. There's no photograph I've seen that is exclusively travel and not something else (and maybe more than one something else ) as well. On the positive ID side I guess you should have to travel to get it- so if you want to consider a series "Travel" then possibly best not to have your house in shot! OTOH even pictures of my house might be considered "Travel" for someone else.

 

Personally I tend to use "Travel Photography" as a term to mean that the work doesn't really fit into what I ( though maybe not you) consider a higher cause like fine art, landscape, or documentary. So whilst on one hand I imagine that people like Kenna and Burtynsky might look askance if their work was described as "Travel" (even though they travel to make it) , I am quite happy to accept that the 90% of my photographs that no-one will ever see are perhaps best described as "travel".

 

There might be another way of approaching this through the eyes of the Travel Industry, who I'm sure have a reasonably clear view of what they think Travel Photography is - something they can use to promote a destination, a trip. The photography where it never rains, the sky's always blue, and people are always having fun!

 

But the thing about "Travel Photography" is that its a reasonably uncontroversial, benign, label. People don't say "I don't agree that this is travel" as they do for example with nature. It carries no content or quality liability on behalf of the photographer.

i don't think there's any difference between travel photography and non-travel photography in terms of quality. A photo of a mosque, say, in Bhukara need not be any better than a photo of one's local church. Photo quality is not dependent on latitude or longitude. However the mosque photo can take on added meaning because you might not see it again and therefore I agree with Gary when he says good travel photos bring back memories.

 

Having said that, I went to Uzbekistan in 1984 and I didn't take any photos and I can't remember much about the trip but even after looking at Ian's photo (and other peoples' photos) I can't remember much. Maybe I would have remembered more if I had taken my own photos.

i don't think there's any difference between travel photography and non-travel photography in terms of quality. A photo of a mosque, say, in Bhukara need not be any better than a photo of one's local church. Photo quality is not dependent on latitude or longitude. However the mosque photo can take on added meaning because you might not see it again and therefore I agree with Gary when he says good travel photos bring back memories.

 

Having said that, I went to Uzbekistan in 1984 and I didn't take any photos and I can't remember much about the trip but even after looking at Ian's photo (and other peoples' photos) I can't remember much. Maybe I would have remembered more if I had taken my own photos.

 

And as we all get older, it become harder to remember. So photos help to trigger the memory. And even if we can't remember that specific photo, we can look at the photo and think about the trip.

 

Having been to Germany on business, I wish I had taken a LOT more photos than the few that I did. Because I can remember general stuff of the scene, but I can't remember the details, and I will likely never go back :(

I think this guy's got the idea

Think there is a difference between images you take so that you can remember your travels and those that are taken primarily to share or publish. There would be a fair amount of crossover but there is definitely a category of 'travel photography' that is at the fine art end of the spectrum. This also raises the question about the distinction between postcard travel images and types seen in publications such as National Geographic Traveler. I see these as travel photography.

Good travel photographs must incorporate 3 things:

context--show objects, people, wildlife, etc., in context, not isolation. The essence of place.

scales-- don't go for just close up shots but include pull-back shots to show perspective.

Authenticity-- don't go for the cheesy, posed pictures.