One person's rant about landscape photography

[Kit]

erm.... having the human touch in photographs does not literally means including humans in them.

 

[oracle0711]

Good one Kit. I have to agree.

erm.... having the human touch in photographs does not literally means including humans in them.

 

[sammy888]

not sure if my points are relevant but i'll say this...

not many of us have the luxury of revisiting a certain location repeatedly or even have the opportunity to recce the place before the actual shoot. landscape photography would mean hours/days/weeks or even months of planning. someone who has access to a beautiful view/scene would have an advantage to know the best time to shoot, the best vantage point at that certain hour and the best day of the season to shoot.

having been to some countries myself, i'll say the scenery changes so drastically over the seasons that you'd have to be there a year to capture the beauty that resides in each location. if my memory serves me correctly, i might have stumbled across an article of someone shooting the exact same view over the 4 seasons at different time of the day. each of which has its own story to tell--white snow, falling leaves, blossoming flowers and blue skies at dawn, noon, dusk and night.

for someone to have created a masterpiece, i've one thought on this matter; either luck or patience. luck for someone with an eye to find that moment at the right place or simply wait at the right place for that right moment.

well said.

 

[pinholecam]

IMHO, those landscape photos the author seen simply lack the human touch. So, though they were perfectly taken or made, soon it will become boring.

this looks boring

I beg to differ on this shot.
The landscape is good for one.
Then that shadow of the mountain that the photographer is shooting from being casted on the clouds is an OMG! to me.

 

[can100D]

erm.... having the human touch in photographs does not literally means including humans in them.

Not necessarily must hv "humans" but hv things related to human. eg man-made objects as in this pic

 

[can100D]

I beg to differ on this shot.
The landscape is good for one.
Then that shadow of the mountain that the photographer is shooting from being casted on the clouds is an OMG! to me.

I did not say this is not good. How can a photo in the NG be not good.

As the author mentioned, those photos he saw are exceptionally good. But he just felt that something is missing.

So i am saying maybe that something could be the human touch.

 

[Kit]

Not necessarily must hv "humans" but hv things related to human. eg man-made objects as in this pic

In the context of this thread,the "human touch" is something which has more depth than what one can see(literally) in the photographs.

 

[unclejosh]

i would agree with the "human touch" as something that could be felt within the shot. a personal touch or signature style that defines a photographer and their own style. not a human aspect--as in literal human or man-made item within the shot.

all the shots that can100d has shared with us from NG, they are good but i wouldn't say these are exceptionally good as well. some of them lack that depth mentioned as well. the way the shot could portray a certain emotion rather than just showing the beauty of the place with exceptional technical execution.

 

[kei1309]

Was a sincerely question to you when I asked....

Because I am like most photographers, which you mentioned, who try hard to get a nice shot, and I still cannot, except for some lucky fluke..

Was wondering whether if you make detailed planning each time you go photo shoot and always evoke emotions each time before you pressed the shutter.

Congratulation to you if you have..

nope. i run around randomly and shoot.

you've been a member since 2003 so i assume that you're more experienced than i am. but here's a tip which i'm not sure if you already know of:

keep your eyes open for a good vantage point and think about how you will represent that scene in a digital negative.