Does subject matter in nature landscapes photography?

<p>Many claims that subject does not matter in photography and everything mostly relay on photographer ability. Without any doubt a good subject without the photography skills does not give justice to a nature landscape, such as bad light, exposure problem, loss of contrast, shadow detail, blurrings and so on. But what if a photographer has at his disposal just a monotonous environment to photography at? I mean for istance, a marine coast hundreds miles with the same rock formations, where the coast almost keep the same level from sea beetween 1 and 10 feets high, where the wave are ofter low and very rarely can reach 1,5 ft and where the tide may rise the level not more the 6 inches. Still, a forest where there are the same two/three type of trees, with extremely rare fog formation. <br />thanks for looking / commenting <br /></p>

<p>One mans monotony can be another's inspiration. Subject matters less than imagination. An experienced photographer will make something from what appears to be very little.</p>

<p>The main subject of photography is light: how it moves through the atmosphere, falls on subjects and reflects from them. When one is aware that he or she is recording the properties of light, subjects and equipment become secondary.</p>

<p> Everything matters, but how one looks at things is what makes one photograph different from another.</p>

<p>Antonio,</p>

 

<p>An artist should be able to find something worth photographing anywhere on the planet.

Sometimes, it just takes a different perspective.</p>

 

<p>For example, your coastline would be overflowing with tide pools. Get on your knees or belly

and you’ll be overwhelmed with an endless variety of crustaceans, anemones, starfish, and

the like. Or, maybe it’s a barren wasteland. Photograph it at high noon and the stark light will

turn it into a moonscape, something that’s rare indeed on this planet. Or, there could be the

minimalist approach: photograph the seamless blue of the sea merging with the seamless blue of

the sky, with but a single lone wavelet or bird or something-or-other to break the monotony. Or

perhaps the beach is a collecting ground for trash, and you could make a statement about the

careless despoilment of our home even in such a remote area. Or —</p>

 

<p>— or, by now, you should get the point. If you care to observe your surroundings, you will

discover that they are worth observing. Combine that with skill and patience (such as waiting for the

right light, or visualizing the scene under different weather conditions and returning when those are

right, or…) and equipment, and the world truly is your canvas.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>Subject matters, but topic does not. You need enough of a subject to catch and hold someone's attention with the composition; but, topic does not matter because any set of shapes could do that. Pretty topics are usually a sign of poor ideas anyway.</p>

<p>Perfectly stated, Luis.</p>

<p>In any kind of photography I think subject is the key. Every photograph needs to have a subject and landscape is no different. It does not have to be as obvious as say, a portrait of a single person, but it still needs to be the focus of the photo.</p>

<p>Just my 1/50th of a dollar.</p>

<p>Antonio,</p>

<p>As the witch said to the wizard, "How do you change a dog into a fox?" Of course, the wizard replied, "On a good night, in a dark bar, about a six-pack should do it."</p>

<p>Yes, a good photographer can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but who wants a pretty sow's ear? I would rather start with a beautiful silk purse and make it more beautiful.</p>

<p>Mark</p>

<p>I don't think a good photographer will necessarily make a good photograph anywhere. I think there are just places and things some don't respond to as well as others. In most cases, the lack in imagery is really that there isn't any connection between the photographer and the place other than it is pretty. The best work is produced, by any level photographer, when there is a connection between the photographer and what they photograph.</p>

<p> When faced with a boring scene that you discribed I just do not shoot. Film and processing is expensive and I need to be moved emotionally in some way before I shoot. If I am reading right you are asking if you need a specific subject or can the subject be in a global sense the entire scene at hand. The answer is it's the shooters choice and vision. You decide what is beautiful.</p>

<p>I like the way Luis put it — I wonder, Luis, if your photos demonstrate the same succinct quality as your writing.</p>

<p>The quality Hemingway spoke of in bullfighting, metaphorically suggesting that the best art demonstrates purity of line through the maximum of exposure.</p>

<p>But I do understand the sentiment that prompted the OP. I spend too much time in my own neighbourhood, too. I try to exercise all of my creative instincts to their pathetic max, using the moods of light to illuminate the elements of design in an engaging composition. And I try to consider it always to be technical practice, preparing me to respond in full control when there is actually a magical moment to capture.</p>

<p>(I wonder if my photos demonstrate the same careful involution as my writing).</p>

 

<p>Darn. Operator error.</p>

<p>Oops.<br>

Sorry.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Best Work is produced, by any level photographer, when there is a connection between the photographer and what they photograph</p>

</blockquote>

<p> So true, John. <br>

Same with any other art, (or artist). Sometimes it helps to pick up a book, watch a documentary, go to school, try a new line of work, change your perspective, talk to strangers, hop in the car and get lost, and basically pull your proverbial photographic head out of your ass and be human for a while, and actually find those connections, instead of trying too hard to dig out a meaningful shot out of a situation that obviously means nothing to you. A drive through the volcanic plateaus of eastern Oregon and Washington will put most people through sleep, until you read, or speak to someone who knows its' geological history, and drive and explore, and find yourself digging for more information, and hiking remote, wild areas that aren't near any major roads and towns. I took a lot of shots on a fire in Hells Canyon, on the Idaho side. We worked between White Bird and Riggins, Pittsburg Saddle area for a month, and later that year I found a book on its' history. What is now a National Recreation Area, and designated wilderness was once inhabited by many tough, and interesting people, and there is little trace of a lot of it there now, aside from what's been preserved and protected. The scenery was beautiful enough to move me to take photos, but looking through the shots now, with what I've learned after the fact, is an ambivalent experience. On the one hand, I'm glad I took the shots, but I sometimes wish I knew what I know now about the area beforehand. Not that I had much time for sightseeing, but still.... </p>

 

<p>Nature's topics/subjects are important to people who are engaged in the world, both "serious photographers" or people who view photography. </p>

<p>Some photographers are both excellent and engaged. Salgado, for example, who photographed "nature" importantly in Africa.</p>

<p>I think the most accomplished "nature photographers" are by inevitably people who are photographically interested in subjects/topics like preservation of wild areas, , destruction and recovery of landscapes, agriculture's role, activism vs industry. Think about the Amazon or the lumbering industry in the US, or think about Ansel Adams.</p>

Subject matter is allways very important in photography, but not all of us can visit exotic places, or fully stoked studios equipd with the most modern equipment . This is why Brian Perterson is one of my facvorite photographers, because in his book "Understanding Exposure", he makes the Extrordinary out of the Ordinary.

<p>composition can make anything look interesting, here is a small river partly covered in snow with some dead trees in the background.<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8864272">http://www.photo.net/photo/8864272</a></p>

<p>Antonio's OT : " Does subject matter in nature landscapes photography? "</p>

<p>While many make beautiful backyard photos, unknown "subjects" can't create as much interest as can exotic or "important" places. Never have, never will. </p>

<p>We aren't mere eyeballs, we're a complex of visual abilities, memories, curiosity, educations, cultures, and imaginations. The more associations we make with an image the more potential the image has to be significant for us and for others.</p>

<p>Obviously, an environment we find as uninspiring as Antonio finds his wouldn't be as photographically rewarding as it would be for another photographer who sees the same environment differently, perhaps with more photographic subtlety, more of an awareness of waves and weather, more insight into the geology and history. Don't birds fly there, don't fish die and wash up with sea weed, and isn't there dried salt and shoreline erosion, sand, shells?</p>