Upload & Sell: On
| p.1 #9 · San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge |
It has been brought to my attention on another thread in this forum that the "Landscape Forum" is not suited for photos in a city or with people, so if this thread is deemed inappropriate I'm content with it being removed and or relocated to another forum. I've no wish to violate the spirit of this forum. I contacted the moderator to inquire about whether the thread should be moved.
The moderators of this forum will weigh in with their interpretation of the boundaries of "landscape." And congratulations to you for being aware of the issue and open to considering a placement in a different forum.
I moderate some similar forums elsewhere that focus on landscape subjects and this sort of question comes up a lot. With some photographs the situation is black or white—photos of your cat are not landscape, but photos of wild rivers and mountains and such are. But there are always these tricky gray areas, and in the end the moderators end up having to make some subjective decisions. I can tell you from personal experience that it is difficult and that you always worry a bit about seeming inconsistent.
In my personal view, a landscape photograph may include a thing like a bridge as a subsidiary element of the overall scene. For example, it is possible to imagine a photograph that is primarily a landscape or seascape image in which the bridge appears. (The history of "landscape," which is mostly a history of painting, clearly recognizes and even embraces this idea.)
However, when the constructed object (bridge, building, roadway, etc.) becomes the primary subject of the photograph, the image (as beautiful and compelling as it may be) fits much better in categories other than landscape. A landscape photography typically "tells us" something about the landscape, whether by showing the whole of it or by revealing its nature by showing us small bits and pieces.