Camera Labs

Hi folks,

Pascal Riben's recent thread "Landscapes need people" by Pascal Riben started me wondering. The classic landscape painters often included people and yet I have a gut feeling that a far smaller percentage of natural, as opposed to urban, landscape photographs can say the same. Of course a painter has the ability to pose his subjects in a landscape in such a way as to enhance the scene, something that might be more difficult to arrange in a photograph unless those subjects were friends.

I've added a very simple poll but polls are pretty blunt tools so please share your thoughts as well.

Bob.

P.S. I deliberately left out the poll option "Sometimes, it depends on the scene" as that would just suck up all the votes.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

I think adding people in to a landscape can mainly be put down to 2 reasons (although I'm sure there are hundreds more, this is just my thoughts...)

1. To have the person in the photo! I.e. taking a photo of a spouse, friend etc in front of an amazing landscape. This I suppose is more of a portrait with a great background than a landscape and can be a bit tricky as you have to make sure the person (people) don't get lost in the landscape, but is still what most people will probably do at scenic locations.

2. To give a sense of scale. In this case you can show just how huge that rock is or how high on a mountain you are etc by including people (either focal point or background) in the scene. This could look great, but the framing needs to be right otherwise it just looks like you didn't wait for them to get out the way!

That's my thoughts anyway! I have to say I don't think you NEED people in a landscape though....most of mine don't anyway!

Sorry i cant vote on this subject as neither options to vote on will work with me. I find it interesting to take a landscape shot with people in it. Especially if they are not posing as this gives a more portrait feel to the picture.
Some times it works and other times it dosent. I always found it very interesting to shoot with people only if they are working within the frame of the picture. ie http://www.flickr.com/photos/oakfield_p ... 953350867/

Not a great shot but you get the idea. Then again people can spoil a landscape too.
Its generally up to every individual what he wants to take away from his shoot.
For me its down to each location on its own merits.

Regards
Patrick Mullan
Rossinver Co Leitrim
Ireland.

_________________
Canon 40D, Canon 17-85 usm,Canon 75-300 4-5.6 111 usm fujifinepix s6500fd, tripod, monopod, various basic filters and a canon speedlite 580EX11

I think whether to include or not to include people in to landscape photography is depend on the purpose of the photo. If the purpose is to showcase the beauty of landscape scenery, than it does not have to include people. On the other hand if the purpose is to show there are connection and interaction between people and the environment (in this case is landscape scenery), than adding people in to it is a certainty. Just my 2 cents though

_________________
“Photography is about a single point of a moment. It’s like stopping time. As everything gets condensed in that forced instant. But if you keep creating these points, they form a line which reflects your life.” – Nobuyoshi Araki

site: http://www.stellarminor.wordpress.com

Sounds rather anthropocentric.

Landscapes don't need people, but people do need landscapes.

The human element in a photograph is there to illustrate scale or to aid someone in making sense of the photograph or to make some statement.

Landscapes don't need people, but photographers can choose what they want to include in their picture.

I couldn't vote as it's not that black & white.

Speaking of black & white, Ansel Adams' shots wouldn't have been as special had they included people.

People can add scale and some perspective, but the human eye is draw towards human shapes and therefore away from the landscape - which should be the focus of the image

_________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/53061745@N02/

Panasonic G3: 9-18mm, 14mm, 20mm, 45mm

As others have said this is not a clear cut case of yes or no.

I have landscape shots which include cows in a field, in that case they are part of the landscape. I have shots of rolling hills with no animals in them and I also have shots of beaches with people in them.

If people are part of the landscape or add interest to the composition then yes they should be there. If they are detracting from the shot then it is best to PP them out.

_________________
Nikon D90
Nikkor AF-S DX; 18-105 f/3.5-5.6G VR, 55-300 f/4.5-5.6G VR, 35mm f/1.8G
Speedlight SB-700

http://keystrokesukimages.com

Hi folks,

Good discussion. And sorry to those of you you didn't feel able to vote - I was trying to explore the extremes when I constructed the poll. I haven't voted yet but I guess I usually fall into the "wait for them to go away" category. But as an example of a composition that would be pretty ordinary without any people here's "Salisbury Cathedral from the Meadows" by John Constable:

I guess the trick with photography is to include people without ending up with something that looks like a holiday snap of someone's "Aunt Dahlia". Forum Moderator Thomas managed to avoid that trap very nicely in his thread People on the Beach: The definitive Thread.

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

Well Bob, when I make a photograph I don't think categories. I just try to make an image. One may call it a landscape or a portrait in context or a documentary photograph or something else, I won't try to compose/frame a shot according to some category rule.
As well I won't blur the background when photographing a person just because a portrait has to have a blurred background. If I think that the background adds to the image I won't blur it because it has a person in the foreground and it should be a portrait. But that's just my 2 cents

_________________
Radu
Canon PowerShot S100
Canon 50D , SIGMA 10-20 f3.5 ,Canon EF 24-105 L IS USM, Canon EF 100/2.8 macro Canon EF 50/1.4 ,Canon EF 85 f1.8,Canon EF-S17-85 4-5.6 Old Tamron 28-300 inherited from my Canon Rebel G film camera
Canon580EXII
http://www.errre.net

Agreed with speed12, my thoughts exactly.

_________________
Flickr

I like to include people to give sense of scale, but if possible I will always take one with and one without

_________________
Canon 450D, S5 IS and A510
photographic blog

I agree techuser
Although anything that gives scale will do for me. The grand canyon is fantastic but catch a shot with say a tourist helicopter flying in the canyon and it gives a whole new feel to the grandeur of the place.
Something in the forgraund imo is also a way of introducing scale even if its just a bush or some grass stalks.

Hi Bob,

That is an interesting question. Bypassing the "that depends" option, I think that - on balance - the most compelling landscapes are the ones with life other than plant-life. Not necessarily people - although that is good too - but some life.

Certainly there are many landscapes with life that are horrible too...I've proven that with my own attempts many times. And yes, there are some stark, barren landscapes without people that it would be ungracious to claim weren't good.

But all in all, I think an element of life brings with it, something the lifeless ones do not have.

Cheers

_________________
Nikon stuff and other stuff, but not nearly as much stuff as I really want!