Your title clearly asks the question Does this count as 'landscape' ??
If you knew for certain at the time you initially posted this picture perhaps you might have titled it differently, like "Big wooden boxes and a tractor." So why did you ask a question and then open yourself up for answers you clearly didn't want to hear?
If you, or a few of the other more vocal members (One of whom seems to always pipe up whenever Jim Fox makes a comment he disagrees with) think it's a landscape that's fine, heck if you had posted a picture of a narwhal they would still call it a landscape just to argue. But you asked opinions, so just remember there are many also who don't think it's a landscape at all, and as I said, if I'm in doubt I simply post elsewhere.
Most people won't even respond if they aren't interested so I wouldn't consider this an accurate survey as far as if this is a landscape.
krug wrote:
Sorry bobbytan to disagree with you but personally I do believe this to be a landscape image - just not a conventional one !
But let us not waste time arguing and just get on with our work - there is surely room enough for a little leeway.
My opinions are only as valid as yours i.e. they don't count for much, but if the Administrator says "This is not a Landscape, not in any sense" then it is NOT a landscape image ... unless you you wish to challenge that as well.
krug wrote:
Sorry bobbytan to disagree with you but personally I do believe this to be a landscape image - just not a conventional one !
But let us not waste time arguing and just get on with our work - there is surely room enough for a little leeway.
Yes, I piped up here (One of whom seems to always pipe up whenever Jim Fox makes a comment he disagrees with)...and so did you. I felt the OP's question was fair game, but Jim's and your comments offered little in the way of actual criticism of the work, and the basis why it didn't fit here. In other words, an even-handed and COURTEOUS response. Neither of you offered that.
We all deserve a bit of respect for our opinions, until they become The Law.
By the way: why do YOU pipe up whenever Jim comments on this "issue?" And almost IMMEDIATELY afterwards?
Have a nice summer...
And bobbytan- I don't believe Jim is the moderator/admin here any more; it's on Fred, now.
krug wrote:
Personally I believe that 'Landscape' needs to include more than the spectacular and that it is essential to include interesting aspects of the more down-to-earth realities of our more common environments - which inevitably in the modern world will include the intrusion of 'the hand (and footprint) of man'.
I enjoy most aspects of 'landscape' and hope that FM will continue to encourage variety and experimentation.
I agree with you that sometimes a landscape is improved by the inclusion of some "hand of man" objects like a wooden bridge over a bubbling creek, but what you have here is dominated by the "hand of man" with very little natural landscape. An image which the main subject is "hand of man" and has extremely little natural environment to it is an extreme stretch to be called a landscape photo.
Variety and experimentation of your photography is great and should be highly encouraged, but it still needs to be presented in the right forum to the right audience. Personally I come to the landscape forum to view natural landscape images and I go to the street forum to view street images. I'd hate to see our display forums become a free for all.
I posted an image that I was pleased with, but was not sure where to post it but wanted some outside opinions about it from a forum which often has enlightening things to say. I gave it a lighthearted title because I knew it was a loose fit (at best) in this forum - but as I had been photographing fenland farms and farmland all day I sort of saw it as "landscape" in some form.
I really had no intention or expectation of stirring up the somewhat heated controversy that has ensued - as I have already said I apologize if I have offended anyone. However I remain wary of exclusive definitions and categories in art and would strongly encourage breadth and experimentation from those who are minded to do that. I enjoy and often applaud the work of those who have a different approach.
I posted an image that I was pleased with, but was not sure where to post it but wanted some outside opinions about it from a forum which often has enlightening things to say. I gave it a lighthearted title because I knew it was a loose fit (at best) in this forum - but as I had been photographing fenland farms and farmland all day I sort of saw it as "landscape" in some form.
I really had no intention or expectation of stirring up the somewhat heated controversy that has ensued - as I have already said I apologize if I have offended anyone. However I remain wary of exclusive definitions and categories in art and would strongly encourage breadth and experimentation from those who are minded to do that. I enjoy and often applaud the work of those who have a different approach. ...Show more →
Krug, as I stated I think everyone should be encouraged to experiment with their photography and be applauded to do so. What I don't want to see is all forms of photography be displayed on one forum as I have zero interest in some types of photography and now just skip looking at those forums. If we start "loosening" the posting rules...where does it stop? This past weekend I shot a birthday party which was held in a yard that contained a nice pond. Should I post some of the portraits in the landscape forum because of the nice pond in the background? What about an eagle diving for a fish because of the nice lake into which the eagle was diving? R what about the soccer player because of the nice green field.
Once we start on a slippery slope, it's hard to stop. There is a reason why we have different image display forums focused on different forms of photography.
I would agree with most here that the image is not a landscape.
I think it fits more closely in City, Street & Architecture. Perhaps more "industrial"
I think if you look at the content on this forum, it is overwhelming "natural landscape".
Buildings are almost always old or deteriorating and set in a scene that is not man made.
There are plenty of categories to choose from.
I can see this fitting in the city, street, architecture board. However, I have no problem with this as a landscape photo if that's what you see it as. The subject is really no more 'man made' than tree farms, Icelandic churches, or picturesque seaside villages, all of which are commonly posted here.
Yeah, there is a small but vocal group of traditionalists here that try to enforce their narrow definition of what a landscape is. They are welcome to their opinions, but there are plenty of others here with a broader view.
Landscape photography shows spaces within the world, sometimes vast and unending, but other times microscopic. Landscape photographs typically capture the presence of nature but can also focus on man-made features or disturbances of landscapes.
If you wondered why your beautiful landscape photographs often are considered personae non gratae at art museums and prestigious galleries, know that the wheels were set in motion during the rise of Modern Art, when Realism and beauty began to fall out of favor. Moreover, if your photographs are designed to evoke emotions or represent personal interpretations and ulterior meanings, these qualities will disqualify your work as worthy art in the minds of many Modernists.
There are no rules in photography. I think its a landscape for what its worth. Its not a photo of a mountain, or wild flowers, or the sea, but it certainly shows some land. Its not the normal "chocolate box" kind of shot that people often associate with landscapes, but it makes a refreshing change. Even the most artificial environment is ultimately made by nature, because people are aspects of nature too. Helps to avoid cliche too, we all of us need shaking up now and then to make sure our vision stays fresh.
Like the grey texture of the boxes, and the way they dwarf the tractor. Nicely observed image.
rw11 wrote:
Moreover, if your photographs are designed to evoke emotions or represent personal interpretations and ulterior meanings, these qualities will disqualify your work as worthy art in the minds of many Modernists.
As someone who spent part of his growing-up years on a farm - and that farm "being the landscape," I like your image very much. Thanks for posting. It is certainly a relief from just another of hundreds of photos of the tedious icon images so oft repeated here, ad nauseam.
Then I would say Modernists are strange If your photographs evoke emotions or represent personal interpretations and ulterior meanings, they are by definition art.
I like the image. Probably would have put it in City.
There are no rules in photography but there are unwritten rules. If "anything goes" in photography, why do we bother to have different categories such as landscape, nature/wildlife, cities, portraits, PJ/street photography, wedding, macro/close-ups, abstract, etc, etc. Why not have just ONE all-encompassing category called photos or images where one can post a portrait of one's cat, a landscape of Iceland, a hockey game, one's wedding photos, etc, etc .... all on the same single forum?
A no-rule policy is not a good rule to have. We have to at least observe and respect the unwritten rules. Some lines have to be drawn for the sake of order.
David Baldwin wrote:
There are no rules in photography. I think its a landscape for what its worth. Its not a photo of a mountain, or wild flowers, or the sea, but it certainly shows some land. Its not the normal "chocolate box" kind of shot that people often associate with landscapes, but it makes a refreshing change. Even the most artificial environment is ultimately made by nature, because people are aspects of nature too. Helps to avoid cliche too, we all of us need shaking up now and then to make sure our vision stays fresh.
Like the grey texture of the boxes, and the way they dwarf the tractor. Nicely observed image....Show more →
"There are no rules in photography but there are unwritten rules. If "anything goes" in photography, why do we bother to have different categories such as landscape, nature/wildlife, cities, portraits, PJ/street photography, wedding, macro/close-ups, abstract, etc, etc."
Well, we can use our common sense. If I have a photo of a couple in a wedding dress I would find it hard to call that a "landscape" (might be possible of course) but it might reasonably be allocated to "wedding"" or "portrait" categories.
I think in photography we can all get just a little conservative, images like the OP posted open things up a bit.
David Baldwin wrote:
"There are no rules in photography but there are unwritten rules. If "anything goes" in photography, why do we bother to have different categories such as landscape, nature/wildlife, cities, portraits, PJ/street photography, wedding, macro/close-ups, abstract, etc, etc."
Well, we can use our common sense. If I have a photo of a couple in a wedding dress I would find it hard to call that a "landscape" (might be possible of course) but it might reasonably be allocated to "wedding"" or "portrait" categories.
I think in photography we can all get just a little conservative, images like the OP posted open things up a bit....Show more →
That couple with the wedding dress by the ocean...wouldn't that be the same as this industrial scene with an implied beautiful landscape behind the stacks? See...slippery slopes without any rules as everyone then has their interpretations.
I absolutely agree that we have to use common sense. And I was earlier trying to define what qualifies as a landscape image ... which is that the landscape is the dominant part or focus point of the image.
If a wedding couple is only a small part of the image and the emphasis is definitely on the landscape it can qualify as a landscape image, but if the wedding couple is the center of focus and dominant part of the image, it is not a landscape image. The operative word is "dominant".
David Baldwin wrote:
"There are no rules in photography but there are unwritten rules. If "anything goes" in photography, why do we bother to have different categories such as landscape, nature/wildlife, cities, portraits, PJ/street photography, wedding, macro/close-ups, abstract, etc, etc."
Well, we can use our common sense. If I have a photo of a couple in a wedding dress I would find it hard to call that a "landscape" (might be possible of course) but it might reasonably be allocated to "wedding"" or "portrait" categories.
I think in photography we can all get just a little conservative, images like the OP posted open things up a bit....Show more →
If this was my photo and I was submitting it to a stock photography site. of all the tags I'd give this image (farm, tractor, agriculture, stacks, etc) "landscape" is one I would not use. To me it fails to meet that criteria. YMMY
(One of whom seems to always pipe up whenever Jim Fox makes a comment he disagrees with)...and so did you. I felt the OP's question was fair game, but Jim's and your comments offered little in the way of actual criticism of the work, and the basis why it didn't fit here. In other words, an even-handed and COURTEOUS response. Neither of you offered that.
