brad_hiltbrand Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Although I just expressed my opinion that there was no need to add too many new forums to Photo.net, there is a real need for a dedicated Landscape Forum. I think this has come up from time to time in different threads, but there has been no clear response of which I am aware. I am mostly interested in Landscape photography. Most of those like myself are forced to use the Nature forum and gallery for lack of a better category. True, landscapes are often about the natural environment, but the art is not really about nature itself. Landscapes are quite different from wildlife photography, and are obviously not about flower closeups, and cityscapes do not exactly fit into the Architecture classification. I have been constantly frustrated by the varied posts in the nature forum and gallery, feeling that many photographs and discussions need a place distinct from pictures of flowers and critters. The new travel forum does not really address the problem either. Although I am against having too many forums, I know I am not alone in feeling that the Nature forum does not properly serve people primarily interested in landscape photography. I see landscape photos displayed and discussed in the Nature forum and gallery, the Architecture gallery, the Other gallery, and even the dreaded Uncategorized gallery. Yet landscape photography is sometimes all of these things, and none of them. There is a real need for a dedicated landscape forum, one that encompasses photographers using all sorts of different equipment from digital and 35mm film to large format photography. Do any others agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 No, well at least I don't. Remember galleries are totally seperate from forums, and I'm only addressing the issue of a Landscape Photography FORUM. As far as that goes I think the nature forum is fine - except of course it's about natural landscapes, not cityscapes. My guess is that the vast majority of photographers who think of themselves as doing landscape work probably also consider themselves nature photographers and are happy with the nature photography forum. As far as a landscape GALLERY section goes, that's Brian's territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian deichert Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 No. I feel that the nature forum serves my needs, despite the fact that I do not go out into the field with high-caliber telephoto lenses to photograph critters. There are plenty of landscape and critter threads, as well as general-purpose nature threads that address issues common to both landscape and critter photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian deichert Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 p.s. We have a travel forum? Where? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian deichert Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 D'oh. Never mind -- just saw that it's in the works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad_hiltbrand Posted June 2, 2003 Author Share Posted June 2, 2003 Bob's post clarified something for me that I should have more clearly thought out and expressed. What I want most is a logical place for landscape photographs. It is true that the nature forum is not so overwhelmed with posts that a dedicated landscape forum is necessary. But a simple glance at any gallery page will show that folks have no real idea where to place landscape photographs. They end up in Nature, Architecture, Uncategorized, Other, etc, none of which seem to make sense sometimes. I think I know a landscape photo when I see one, and there is just no single best place here to put them here at photo.net I will not comment further on this issue. I did not intend to be rude, obnoxious, or pushy. Thanks for helping run a great web site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike sisk Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 I have to agree, there's no good place in the either the forums or the galleries for contemporary landscape photography. But, there's no good place for nude puppy dog pictures, either. It seems that "landscape photographers" fall into two broad categories. The first group sees landscape as the grand natural scene without the hand-of-man. The second group includes man-made elements. The former fits into the nature section just fine, the latter doesn't. There's a lot of ground between these two groups -- they represent different philosophies. That being said, you'll find a lot of landscape shooters hanging out in the large-format section. They won't make too much fun of you for using a "little" camera. Just don't say that "digital" word.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 "Landscape" does cover a wide range of topics as Mike points out. The "New Topographers" shot urban landscapes and I have serveral landscape photography books which contain few, if any, images that could be entered in a PSA "Nature" competition. The problem with a landscape gallery is that it would be different things to different people. The nature shooters would be confused (is it nature or is it landscape) the architecture people would wonder if their New York City skyline shots are architecture or landscape! So is "landscape" really the best term for the images you're looking to categorize in the gallery (let's leave out the forums for now). Maybe "urban landscapes", but that may be too narrow. Just how do you define a "landscape" anyway? I'm not against a gallery classification, it's just not clear what it would be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_lawrence Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Bob, I have a simple suggestion: why don't you just rename the Nature forum to the Outdoor Photography forum. Then just add several more categories (flowers, wildlife, natural landscapes, urban landscapes) to the "Older Questions" folders that will be part of the new Outdoor Photography forum. I think this would satisfy most of the flowers, wildlife, natural landscape and urban landscape photographers. I agree with Mike Spinak that a separate Landscape forum could be annoying. But I think renaming the Nature forum to the more inclusive name such as �Outdoor Photography forum� would be enough to make most urban landscape photographers feel more at home. Just my two cents... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacsa Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 bad idea. People will consider it a perfect place for asking about how to photograph their buddies in a rollercoaster in Six Flags. I don't think that would be a fine mixture with the current themes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_kennedy Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Chalk me up as "happy the way it is," too. I don't use the image critique forums, so maybe there's a reason to separate it as a category over there, but IMO we have enough discussion forums as it is, and landscape fits in nicely with "nature." As for urban landscapes, what does that mean exactly? I agree they don't belong in a nature forum unless the "real" subject is nature, such as some sort of unusual weather phenomenon over the man-made stuff. Otherwise, depending on the subject, I think architecture (photo of a bridge, for example), travel (city skyline), or street (shot includes people) categories would be best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 There's no way I'm renaming the Nature forum "Outdoor Photography" (even if I could, which I can't). It's not about outdoor photography, it's about nature photography. That's why we called it the Nature Photography Forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_lawrence Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Bob, I know that currently the Nature Forum is about nature photography. I just thought there might be a benefit to expanding the scope of the forum to include other types of outdoor photography. Actually, I don't mind how the Nature forum is currently setup and its current scope of topics. I just thought expanding its scope would enable all types of landscape photography to have a central home on photo.net. But I'm happy with the status quo also. And I wouldn't like a separate landscape forum apart from the current nature forum. So I prefer you kept things as they are than follow through on Brad Hiltbrand suggestion. My two additional cents� Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_bundick Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 DON"T CHANGE THE NATURE FORUM!!!! But I don't understand why one could not categorize a photo as a landscape, and have often wondered why this classification was left out. True the term "landscape" can and does mean different things to different people, but I don't see how that precludes it's use as a classification. I don't think people would be confused by different types of landscapes showing up on a search. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike sisk Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 I wouldn't want the Nature section renamed, either -- it's been here a long time. And it's not just a division between scenic landscapes and urban landscapes, either. For lack of a better term I refer to these landscapes as "contemporary landscapes". Examples are the work of Karen Halverson that show nature landscapes but include her SUV in the picture, Terry Evans' aerial prairie photographs (which often include roads, fields, etc.), Richard Misrach (everything from bombing ranges to twilight skies), Len Jensel, and Ed Burtynsky's industrial landscapes. I might also include some of the work of J.E. Stimson for his turn-of-the-century (19th to 20th) landscapes of prairie towns. These works aren't urban at all. But they're not pure "nature" either since they include man-made objects. While I don't advocate the creation of a landscape forum here, it is a pretty broad subject matter that isn't easily pigeonholed into another forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawrence_smithers Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 Landscape is and always will be one of the most important outlets for photography. One Doctoral student of my aquaintance spent three years in Europe studying landscape in the fine art galleries as a basis for his doctoral thesis on the design and creation of estheticly pleasing landscapes in forest areas. He used photography as his major tool in gathering data. I think that both a forum and a gallery are warranted and I would hope to see much discussion of composition within the forum. While it is true that scientific knowledge of land and landscapes is intrinsicly part of the natural sciences field it is significantly different from what I see and read in the nature forum. Pleas give us a Landscaoe Forum and Gallery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 Well, I hate to sound negative, but if we had a landscape forum (and I don't have any intention of creating one at this point), my guess is that it would consist of question about what the best landscape lens was and what sort of tripod and film were needed for landscape work. We'd also have the usual debates as to whether you could take landscapes with 35mm or whether you really needed MF or LF -and of course whether digital was suitable for landscape work. We just don't get discussions of composition and form. Anywhere. In any forum. Ever. (Well, maybe I exagerate. I'm sure someone, sometime, somewhere has brought the subject up). Anyway, a forum is a non-issue for now. I'll bow to Brian as to whether he thinks a landscape category in the gallery section is a good idea. I'd have no objection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrett_kwakkestein Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 I am in support of a landscape thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_owen Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 me too !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn_kroeger Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 In all deference to Bob, right now the nature forum is top heavy with bird photography questions, lead by which ballhead should one buy for an ungodly expensive f/0.5 5000mm telephoto! Give us a separate landscape forum! There we can discuss composition and lighting and what tripod head one needs when using an f/0.5 12mm tilt-shift lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnps Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 It has to be said that photo.net is a great site, well run and supported. But I am 99% a landscape photographer and have always found it odd that there isn't a landscape category in the gallery. I won't be complaining and will continue to praise photo.net but by not having a landscape category I simply think they have got it wrong. Andy Rouse is a wildlife photographer, Ansel Adams was a landscape photographer. I have never heard either of them described as a nature photographer. Just my twopennorth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uk_wanderer Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Did some one say "nude puppy dog pictures". I thought this was a family site! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe604 Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 <i>But a simple glance at any gallery page will show that folks have no real idea where to place landscape photographs. They end up in Nature, Architecture, Uncategorized, Other, etc, none of which seem to make sense sometimes. I think I know a landscape photo when I see one, and there is just no single best place here to put them here at photo.net</i><p> <i>But I don't understand why one could not categorize a photo as a landscape, and have often wondered why this classification was left out.</i><p> <i>But I am 99% a landscape photographer and have always found it odd that there isn't a landscape category in the gallery. I won't be complaining and will continue to praise photo.net but by not having a landscape category I simply think they have got it wrong.</i><p> But, there is a <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?rating_type=photocritique&topic_id=1481&category=Landscape">landscape category</a> in the gallery. --Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mottershead Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 As just pointed out, there is a Landscape category in the Gallery. There are also "Nature", "Birds", "Insects", "Flowers", "Underwater",and "Macro". These obviously overlap and they includeseveral of the most popular categories. (Contrary to the common impression, the Landscape category is also the category with thehighest average ratings, not the Nudes category.) If I were setting up the forums from scratch, it would not be the same as what has developed over time -- what we have now. One thing that would be different is that Landscape would not be subsumed under Nature. How the actual should constrain the ideal is a perpetual human issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I think we need fewer forums, and *anything* that's off-topic for a given forum should be immediately shunted to the General Questions forum and dissolve in 24 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now