Landscape/Nature Monotony

[andrewdawsongallery]

I can't say I'm sick of landscapes in general, but certain locations

need to be put on the shelf. (Banff, AZ slot canyons, Yosemite...)

I still see images of places I've never seen that amaze me, but

there's a "me too" approach to a lot of landscape work.

 

I'm surprised no one has talked about environmental impact

images. We can get so fixated on making "beautiful" shots, we

forget one of the most powerful tools we have as photogs. You

may not get the oohs and ahhs, but it sure makes a statement.

[imaginator]

I have found that the same scenes can look quite different when the weather and light change. A good example is when there are dark clouds in the background, but the forground is lit by sunlight (even partially diffused) Another example is foggy mornings... the low angle sunlight, long shadows, and the fog create a wonderful look. On clear days, I seek out backlit subjects, and at night I use the light of the moon (great for moving water... silky blurs and "mist") Bland, overcast days are great for avoiding harsh shadows... nice diffuse light can be a blessing. Morning dew, warm morning or evening light, reflections on water, twilight, ice crystals, ect. provide interesting photo ops. Also, as mentioned, close-ups are a great way to experience the intimate "micro scenes" Even a 1:2 "macro" lens can be very useful. Be creative... look around... look up, look down, look all around. Composition can be a powerful tool. Avoid the usual... be bold. By the way, there was a really cool eclipse of the moon recently, but the sky here got cloudy just as it approached totality. How many of you considered using this to advantage? (assuming you had clear skies) Right now there is major aurora activity (I'm screwed again... full overcast here) I could go on, but you get the idea, and I haven't even touched on wildlife and insects... many more possibilities. Monotony? No way!

[vandit]

I think an earlier poster was spot on target when he said that if landscape photography bores you, then landscape photography is not your thing.

 

If you take a landscape photo just to have a pretty/inspiring photo, then I can see how it gets boring. There is no passion. I feel the same way about most street/people photography - I find it to be mostly mundane shots of mundane people doing mundane things. That article on B&W Fine Art photography on Luminous Landscape is a great article - the author gets into great detail about the fine art potential of a photo that I *personally* would have tossed into the trash without even a second look.

 

For me, nature photography is an extension of my love for the outdoors, and there is no way/no I can get bored with taking these type of photos. A photo that does not speak to me isnt a perfect image - it is one that needs more work.

 

In fact, I have to admit that I find your comment that you've seen "perfectly composed images that dont mean anything" to be surprising for a number of reasons, not the least being the idea that there is such a thing as a "perfect composition", especially in such a subjective area.

 

I would suggest that if it doesn't mean anything, it is not perfectly composed -- atleast as far as your individual tastes go. It may very well be perfectly composed for someone else. Or it may also very well just be a less-than-perfect shot.

 

My 2 centimes worth,

Vandit

[dennis_fallon1]

As a viewer of the impressive photography here on dpreview, I can take a standalone nature image and say "wow !" ... but looking at a page of thumbnails; clicking on page 2, coming back a couple times a week, then there becomes a certain sameness that does get fatiguing. I bypass thumbnails of what I know are impressive images, because I saw basically the same thing yesterday. And copycats, too ... someone posts a wide angle closeup of a cow in an alpine meadow and for the next two weeks, wide angle closeups of cows in alpine meadows ! However, none of that concerns my own photography. I clicked on www.timecatchers.com after looking at an image from one of the contributors, and while it's initially impressive, there's a sterile cookie-cutter sameness to all of the postcard images there. They pale in comparison to some of the very creative stuff that Brandenburg's done recently, even if a lot of the latter wouldn't sell on a postcard or standalone print. My two cents ...

 

- Dennis

[bob_k2]

The same can be said for any type of photography, not just nature shots.

 

Take "Nudes" or "Girls' Butts," for example. How many variations of *this* subject have we all seen?

 

All butts are basically the same, but yet there is enough variation there to interest and excite us. If butts or nature don't excite us, then we should find subjects that do.

 

-

[jason_elsworth3]

I have just posted an article on my website that will be an ongoing collection of thoughts on creativity.

 

http://www.jasonelsworth.co.nz/creativity.html

[daniel_erwin]

Some good points made above ... food for thought. Basically what I love about photogaphy is that I already love to be outdoors and I can bring something back to capture "being there." I agree that the best subjects are those one is passionate about. I've come to the conclusion that what I photograph is first and foremost for me. If other people like it (e.g., art directors, people who buy prints), then I can also share it with others. I also find it very relaxing to be absorbed in challenging myself to do the best that I can do with whatever scene I happen to be at (even if conditions aren't "ideal"). Some of my best images have come from totally unanticipated circumstances, while others from returning to the same spot a number of times until I was able to capture the concept that I had the first time I was there. Having said that, I am not a full-time professional, so if that is your perspective there is always the risk of it becoming "just a job". But I think it all comes down to one's own attitudes. I do think that is important to impart one's own fresh perspective on a scene, rather than to make a "copycat" image. While that is ok for beginners, it really isn't an individual statement. I don't think one has to go off the deep end either. Just be your unique self and make images that are meaningful to you.

[tom_hill1]

On occasion I've found myself frustrated with how similar my photography looks from day

to day. I think it's more due to me going to the same spots day after day after day. When

I do go somewhere different, I've been very successful and satisfied with the results. The

other thing I've found is if you happen to be shooting a location with several all

photographers and find you're self doing exactly what the other guys are doing you'll

probably find yourself wondering why you images aren't original. Go to a place like Mono

Lake in California you'll find dozens of photographers on weekends doing exactly the

same thing. I distinguish myself by usually being the person doing some differently like

shooting low to the ground, shooting panos, or just point the camera opposite from

everyone else.

 

Cheers

[saikat.pathak]

Very good points made in many posts above. Truly, if you find something boring, it's not for you. Try something else. In the world of photography it seems almost all shots have been shot before, hence nothing is "original" anymore. This seems particularly true for nature photography and more so for landscapes. However, as many have correctly said, it does not matter if the scene or one quite similar, has been photographed before....as long as I haven't photograph it. If I take a shot, it is MY point of view, my effort, my shot. That is all that matters. If I can do it well so that it is appreciated by others on a stand-alone basis, then that puts a smile on my face, provides enough inspiration to chase the next landscape shot. As for me, I too see landscape photography as an extension of my love for the outdoors.

[gooseberry]

<p>Unfortunately, I tend to agree with the 'monotony camp' -- aesthetically pleasing and technically correct images that don't move me anymore. For example, I was at first fascinated by John Shaw's and Arthur Morris's work, but now the novelty wore out: yet another fern, yet another bird... (Required specialisation and resulting repetitiveness are what put me off from considering a professional career in photography.)</p>

<p>But the same goes for my own work, and being an amateur I shoot many things. Once in a while I manage to get a picture I'm really happy with, and I still do get a moment of 'kick' out of it, but then I ask myself "so what?" and the honest answer to this question is that there sadly is no point to it. Guess I'm longing for some meaning, whereas challenge for its own sake is just diverting attention to obscure the problem rather than to solve it. </p>

<p>Have I become burnt out? I'm missing my previous enthusiasm. I'll keep searching for a new inspiration.</p>