Favorite landscape photographers

<p>I guess it's impossible for me to say that I like *both* Ansel Adams <em>and</em> the HiRise pictures, though for very different reasons. I didn't realize this was a zero sum game.</p>

<p>I'm dumbfounded that anybody could find any picture of Mars "boring." (However, since you said it, I do believe you're telling the truth.) I remember the very first picture from Mars, from one of the Rovers, of a flat bunch of red mud and rocks. It gave me chills. I was awestruck. And I still am.</p>

<p>As to "except for the few that are chosen for publication," isn't that what photography <em>is</em>? Before, during and after? Or are all of your pictures spotted at first glance, and executed perfectly with none that are boring or worse?</p>

<p>If it's a photograph, and it's a landscape, it qualifies as a landscape photograph.</p>

Julie, first pictures from the Mars rovers? I guess I'm telling my age when I echo your astonishment, but in regards to the first images from the Viking missions, back in the 70's. A photograph does not need to have solely artistic intent to be beautiful. The first images of the Earth from the Moon, taken with a Hasselblad on the Apollo missions, are incredibly beautiful and moving, even with the embedded scale hashes. Being a bit of a nerd, I find much technical photography very engaging, both artistically and from the standpoint of the craft involved in capturing and processing the images. Take, for example, much of the imagery captured by the Hubble. It is the essence of technical photography, but the subject matter combined with its processing and presentation is extraordinarily beautiful and awe-inspiring. Another case would be a microphoto of syphilis taken with polarized light, and printed on a necktie. It was an amazing piece of abstract art, and I truly wish I had purchased it when I had the chance. It would have been a great conversation starter as well...

Edited March 29, 2017 by DavidTriplett

David, I'm going to just blather on a little here in response to your post, since we seem to be on the same vibe ...

 

There's a whole line of thought that considers what happened when instrumentation took us to places we can't go; when we have to trust in the instrument. But from a non-scientific point of consideration, "landscape" for many people, is something, the beginning of which or the near end of which, you (could) stand on. I think the moon turned into a "landscape" when the first astronaut jumped up and down on it. A landscape is felt. It has weather.

 

When I look at Hubble pictures (which I love: who doesn't), I can feel my mind kind of groping around for how I *might* stand on or in those places; or just how to make them into places (where one could be). Bringing that down to earth, if I look for a "landscape" what am I looking for? Only certain places are landscapes (I'll drop the quotes), but I seem to know them when I see them; it's the same thing that I seem to think I can find in the Hubble pictures. Whatever it is, something in me thinks it knows it when it sees it. Like a birddog knows a scent.

Landscape, cityscape, seascape, moonscape, stellarscape... From where I sit these are all the same kind of image, just of different flavors. They all illustrate/memorialize some segment of the universe in which we live, whether or not we can actually be there. From this standpoint, Hubble has as much validity as Adams. Just sayin'...

I am going to be a volunteer at Pinnacles National Park starting this Saturday so I imagine I will be taking some landscapes. However I was not going to carry a camera while on duty. I will just come back on my as I find a view that I think should be photographed. I shoot 35mm B/W so it's not going to be a grand thing. My job will be out on the trails so I will see the entire park over and over.

 

 

I did look up some of the photographer names that were mentioned and I think they are all really great. .

Qin Yuhai exhibition:

ebb and flow

 

.............

Martin, I don't think any of the claims that are made on the video are true. While the work is lovely, I've seen that kind of water photography done by many other photographers.

 

I think Roni Horn's Dictionary of Water or Gursky's Bangkok among others, are much more interesting and original.