Looking For A Few Good Landscapes

[john_kasaian2]

Hello! At the risk of sounding too simplistic, I'd like to submit this for your consideration: An architect once defined a successfully designed building as one that would attract people walking by, inticing them to enter even if they had no reason to enter, as if the building were a place where people would want to be. OK so I guess the guy didn't design prisons, but transferring this concept to landscape photography, do you think a successful landscape would be a photo taken somewhere a viewer would, deep down inside, like to be standing and seeing the sight a photographer captured on film? Do you think this would make a successful landscape or is it too simplistic to consider? What are your thoughts?

[steve_gangi2]

Good question. To me, a great landscape is one that I can "lose

myself" in, one that gives the feeling that I am not just looking at

a picture but that I am actually there. It has to have all the

ingredients - light, shade, depth, texture etc.

[michael_a._smith1]

A good photograph of a landscape needs to fulfill the same criteria as

a good photograph of anything else: first it must be a good picture. It

has nothing at all to do with whether a viewer would like to be there

or not. And what makes a good picture? That's another question

enntirely, a question that has nothing to do with subject matter. As I

have said in the past, "It is how one sees rather than what one sees

that makes any photograph interesting." Many can photograph in the same

place, but only very few will make good pictures there. In each case

the subject will be the same, but it is how that subject is seen that

determines whether it is a good picture or not.

 

<p>

 

Michael A. Smith

[john_kasaian2]

I completely agree that different photographers can shoot from the

same location and each will see it differently, and that some

photographers---successful ones I guess---can convey their own

feelings toward a time and place more successfully than others, but I

find that those feelings are more often than not universal, which

explains the wide appeal of the likes of Ansel Adams etc... but it

doesn't explain other photographers who make the mundane, everyday

views many take for granted(or find offensive) and turn them into

treasures every bit as successful as say, Glacier Point. Perhaps it

is the vision of the photographer that can make the everyday 'on par'

with the National Park icons. Toshio Shibata's retaining walls come

to mind. When I see one of his photos, I think that I'd really like

to be seeing this image in person---same feeling I get when I see

Ansel Adams shot of Vernal Falls or Atget's Paris. I guess what I'm

wondering is, is this feeling universal among those who find

something deeper when looking at pictures? If I am set up at a place

I really enjoy being at---in spite of wind, snow, snakes or whatever--

-and if I can convey that sense on film and in my prints---can I or

should I expect that a viewer will feel (or maybe feel) the same

freshness---interest---serenity(insert you own words here)---that I

feel when taking the photo? Or, maybe I just have too much time on my

hands!

[upscan]

John: you ask fundamental questions which merit good discussion. Here

is my take: Human beings are very diverse, so diverse that what

appeals to one may cause disgust to another. I remember once seeing a

first price being awarded at a major Photographers society

conference. Had someone genereously offered the print I would have

quickly thrashed it. To my eyes it was UGLY and without any

redeeming features. Evidently not to everyone. Add to this the fact

that art judges like to show their preeminence by being different.

That sets them aside, they think, as being superiously endowed. Yes,

there are times when admiring a photograph I wish I could be there

where it was taken, but not always, as I know that photographs

capture a fleeting moment which may never again appear quite

identically.

Commercial success does depend on others liking your work. If that is

important to you then market research on what people buy is also

important. More than anything, I think a photographer must search

within him/herself and take measure of his inner satisfaction with a

picture, much more than worry about what others think. That is not

to say you cannot learn from people whose talent and knowledge you

respect, only that ultimately, you alone can judge your own

fulfillment.

[michael_a._smith1]

If I am set up at a place I really enjoy being at---in spite of wind,

snow, snakes or whatever-- -and if I can convey that sense on film and

in my prints---can I or should I expect that a viewer will feel (or

maybe feel) the same freshness---interest---serenity(insert you own

words here)---that I feel when taking the photo?

 

<p>

 

Not at all, John.

 

<p>

 

Although it is the reality of the subject before you that captures your

attention, the feeling one has while photographing is determined by

myriad factors. The physical reality before you�the very real three-

dimensional space, the light, the colors, the sounds, the smells, the

weather�is of course a major factor. Of the others, some are more or

less stable, such as one�s world view and the general state of one�s

psyche and health. Other factors are more fleeting, such as the time

you have available (it is hard to be calm and contemplative when

rushed, whether by quickly changing light or the need to be somewhere

else), the other people who may be present, your dreams from the night

before, or a conversation you may have just had. All of these factors

contribute to determining your mood, which in turn may affect how you

feel about what is before you.

 

<p>

 

Speaking for myself : Realizing the absolute impossibility of trying to

create for others and to recreate for myself, in a two-dimensional

black and white photograph, the feeling of the multi-faceted experience

of having been at the scene photographed, my goal when making

photographs is simply to make the best picture I can and thereby to

provide, both for myself and for the viewer, a new experience�one of

the photograph itself.

 

<p>

 

One can only photograph the specific. But through the specific the

universal may be reached. That will happen to the extent that one is,

within oneself, in contact with the universal. One will see it in the

specific. In that way the photograph may become more than what it is a

picture of and be something more. One doesn't try to do this any more

than one tries to get one's feelings in the photograph. The feelings

are there (or not) and the connection to the universal will be there

(or not) and it is best not to think about any of that and to

concentrate instead on making the best pictures one can.

[wayne__]

I think a few miscellaneous rare people might NOT want to be at the

place, if they enjoy the landscape, but not the average person. Most

see, then want what they see if they liked it. Lets not overcogitate

this. Its that bloody simple. In other words, yes.

 

<p>

 

Show people a nice landscape and invariably the words are "ooooh,

where IS that". That isnt an idle question. Our most popular natural

sights are also the most photographed. That isnt a coincidence.

 

<p>

 

Its why I usually dont reveal where I shoot my few landscapes, and why

I decided never to sell to calendars and such. People dont get

it. Why would I show them something and then not tell them how to get

there?

[gwrhino]

........the feeling of the viewer that "he wants to be there,

experiencing that moment" is one an argument I have heard used by

critics that trash color landscape. The local art critic for the major

newspaper in this cowtown once likened virtually all color landscape

to pornography in that, like pornography "the viewer wants to be

there/ or to possess the moment depicted."

 

<p>

 

I find it interesting that he did not group B&W landscape in the same

category as color.....either the viewer desires to be in/and or

possess the moment depicted in a monotone less than one in

color......or (maybe) he feels the monotone abstracts the moment

enough to keep viewers from getting sexually excited.

 

<p>

 

Of course this kind of snobbery ignores the possibility that the

artist has vision and created an image with power, albeit with color

materials. Certainly he classifies the feeling of "wanting to be

there" (when viewing art) as a markedly less pure reaction

than.....well, other feelings, I would guess.......

 

<p>

 

So, if ya'll look at an image and think, "god thats beautiful, wish I

could have seen it happen" SHAME ON YOU, YOU PERVERT. (John, we won't

tell...it'll be our dirty little secret.)

http://georgestocking.com

[domenico_foschi]

DOes the subject , the landscape really matter? Yes.

But what matters most? As someone stated before is the ability

of the artist to translate the "visualization" in silver. I have in

mind some pictures of artists like Stieglitz , images of non

particularly beautiful places , by landscape photographers

standards, that have become classics because of the ability of

the photographer to "channel" his or her vision succesfully on

the paper.

Beauty is everywhere, it takes a sensitive eye to isolate it and

show it to the world.

To look with courage, not with gimmics.....

[wilhelmn]

How about the "landscapes" of Robert Adams? Nothing beautiful there;

definitely not a place I'd like to be. But the second half of Lewis

Hine's dictum: Two things to be photographed, things to be

appreciated and things to be changed.

[tony_galt]

I think the criterion you mention--the observer of the photograph wanting to be there--describes a successful postcard or travel article illustration, both, of course, important forms of landscape photography. To me, however, a successful landscape that goes beyond that level, really shows me things I might not have noticed at all had I been there. Things like this might include: how particular shadows fall into interesting patterns at a particular time of day, the dramatic curve of a particular tree branch against a blurred background, or the way the curve of a little waterfall echoes the curve of a tree limb overarching it when seen from a particular angle. Seems to me that our job as landscape photographers is to make the natural world interesting even to people who may have already stood more or less exactly where we stood but who didn't see what we saw. Therefore the tools we have that allow us to emphasize and isolate pattern are extraordinarily important. These include such things as longer focal length lenses, exposure techniques like the zone system, and chemical or digital darkroom manipulation.

 

<p>

 

Tony Galt

[adrian_ngasi]

I think most of you have define the issue very deeply. I view

photography on the following basis 1) simplicity of the image 2) what

will make the viewer ask him/herself what was the photographer

thinking when taking the photo relatively to space, time, mood etc.

Of couse light, texture, angle, shadows being constant. Serenity is

for tourism commecial and art is about the powerful emotions the

object conveys.

 

<p>

 

Adrian

[john_elder1]

HEY! What's a landscape photographer?

[wayne__]

I should have qualified my response to color landscapes. I think B&W

landscapes can have a different effect, not necessarily stimulating

the "I must go there" response.

[john_kasaian2]

What wonderful input! I thank you all for your efforts to clarify

this issue. When I show one of my landscapes to someone, I feel like

a little kid saying "I want to show you something!" Why? To share a

place and moment in time, even with a complete stranger. If that

stranger can feel even a little of my enthusiasm for the print in

front of him/her then I think the photo is successful, and the

stranger not really such a stranger after all. I guess to ask for

any more is unrealistic, but when I see a dynamic landscape, be it a

craggy peak or retaining wall along a japanese highway, I'm still

going to think "man, I wish I could be there!

[michael_a._smith1]

When I show one of my landscapes to someone, I feel like a little kid

saying "I want to show you something!" Why? To share a place and moment

in time, even with a complete stranger.

 

<p>

 

John,just be clear that the place you are sharing is the spot where you

are when you have this encounter with person you are showing your

photograph to, and the moment in time you are sharing is the moment of

the encounter with this person.

[alan_lemire]

To paraphrase Weston "...here is the thing, to photograph a tree, have it

be a tree, and yet, have it be more than a tree."

It took me a long time to realize what he was saying, but I think that I

finally understand.

I feel that a successful landscape photograph somehow "involves" the

viewer. If it gets the person to ask questions about where it was, how it

was done, or even why, I think that it becomes successful.

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

IMO the most succesful prints I have seen are those that made me stop

and say WOW!!!

No need to want to be there, no special or particular reason, they

just had that extra "thing" that made all the elements in the print

fit perfectly to create a stunning whole.....as I write this I

remember the first time I saw an exhibition by Paul Caponigro, go

check one of his prints and you will know what a landscape should be

like.

[xx]

The image that makes the viewer say,"I want to go there", is a

failure. The image that takes the viewer there and beyond to what the

photographer saw and felt, is a success.

[steve_gangi2]

That's about what I said, about the feeling that you are there

somehow. Wanting to be there is not a criterion. I like pictures of

snow swept mountains. The craggier the better. Do I want to be

there? No, I hate being frozen. It's the strength of the picture

itself. There are occasionally "industrial" landscapes for lack of a

better term, that are downright unsettling and creepy. Wanna be

there? Again the answer is no. But, they get a response. That gut

response, before having time to analyze makes them a success.

[stephen_longmire]

I find these lines at the end of Jack Gilbert's poem, "Poetry is a

Kind of Lying":

 

<p>

 

Degas said he didn't paint

what he saw, but what

would enable them to see

the thing he had.