‘Pure’ Landscape Photography Versus Including the Human Element

[Tin Can]

Like!

[Vaughn]

God dang parking lot snuck into my photo -- and worse, two people were walking in the parking lot!

[Peter Lewin]

I understand what you are saying, but I think a lot of people who do what they do, do it because it makes them happy / brings them joy like "beauty". Nothing wrong with that, we all have to do something to keep on keeping on if you know what I mean.

Ultimately I think this is the answer. There are those in the forum who enjoy taking pictures of trees and waterfalls. We have threads for those. There are also those who enjoy taking pictures of urban scenes and historical buildings. We have threads for them too. In fact, if I go to the "landscapes" thread, I can find a number of pictures that look a heck of a lot like Ansel's view of Yosemite. I'm sure that the forum members who took all of these pictures enjoyed both being there, and the process of making the image. It still comes down to whether one enjoys making images of unvarnished, untouched nature, or whether, like myself, they prefer images that include a man-made stone wall, or telephone pole, or an entire man-made structure. Neither is better or worse, they reflect the images that we each think have value.

[Merg Ross]

It still comes down to whether one enjoys making images of unvarnished, untouched nature, or whether, like myself, they prefer images that include a man-made stone wall, or telephone pole, or an entire man-made structure. Neither is better or worse, they reflect the images that we each think have value.

Hi Peter,

Exactly; well said. Why not both?

Best,
Merg

[j.e.simmons]

Those PSA rules camera clubs use drive me crazy. A landscape cannot contain the hand of man. Tell that to Edward Weston.

[fotopfw]

In the Netherlands it's all very easy, it's not possible to find a landscape that is untouched by humans, past or present. Our country is that small, that every corner is or has been used by man.

[Tin Can]

My interpretation of the Petal Pixel title and story is some of us MUST show our actual reality

‘Pure’ Landscape Photography Versus Including the Human Element

Yes, some 'art' is beautiful even photographs but our modern 'art' imaging legacy is false

I don't enjoy war images, but they are reality without the smell/sound

1970 a coworker back from Vietnam showed us all in the Post Office what he really saw

stacks of 35mm prints

bodies

not in body bags

a naked girl running in Vietnam is very clear in my memory

I copied legally WW11 art poster propaganda in ARTIC archives when exhibited

[John Layton]

I do believe that Edward Weston considered it a politically radical act, especially during wartime, to create photographs without evidence of human activity.

[pgk]

Here are two 'landscapes' from where I live. One shows an apparently near untouched scene of an island and shore, the other an almost totally man influenced scene with numerous obvious man made elements. As far as I'm cincerned both are perfctly valid landscapes but I am not sure that even the apparently untouched one would bear careful scrutiny if printed. There are minor man made elements and the island is not as 'natural' (whatever natural means) as it has been modified in terms of its cover by, man.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...1&d=1649676536
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...1&d=1649676567

[Tin Can]

Elon thinks we need to make off planet

Plans

I do believe that Edward Weston considered it a politically radical act, especially during wartime, to create photographs without evidence of human activity.