Landscape Photography: So what is a landscape?
16th April 2012
Landscape Photography
So what is a landscape?
This is a question that has been posing all sorts of concerns for the members of my local club recently. Bridport Camera Club (www.bridportcameraclub.co.uk) has competitions throughout the year and it has come to light that not everyone has the same understanding.
For me, Landscape, is a generic term used to describe the view in front of view. It can of course include fields, hills & mountains, but the question seems to be what else can it include?
Wikipedia: Landscape Photography: Photographs typically capture the presence of nature and are often free of man-made obstructions.
Dictionary: a section or expanse of rural scenery, usually extensive, that can be seen from a single viewpoint. OR a picture representing natural inland or coastal scenery.
One of the big questions for me is : Can a landscape include buildings, or the sea/coast?
So for competitions such as 'Landscape Photographer of the Year' entries are accepted including just about anything, although they do sometimes add sub-categories (Urban View), but certainly buildings and the sea/coast are actively encouraged.
In a recent landscape competition I had an image rejected as it showed St Pauls Cathedral in its own City landscape and the judge decided it was not a true landscape. He wanted to see fields and flowers.
In an upcoming competition, 'Churches in the Landscape' again the rules have been stipulated that no urban/city landscapes are allowed. So the image above from Dartmoor's St. Michael de Rupe should fit the remit, but can you see the landscape? or enough of the landscape? or is it just a church on a hill?
So what do you think? Should the term landscape be sub-divided into urban, city, sea-scape, coastal etc. or should the judges be a bit more flexible in their interpretation? Let me know your thoughts and feelings and join in the discussion for The Shed.
W: www.theshedphotography.com
B: www.theshedphotography.blogspot.com
So what is a landscape?
This is a question that has been posing all sorts of concerns for the members of my local club recently. Bridport Camera Club (www.bridportcameraclub.co.uk) has competitions throughout the year and it has come to light that not everyone has the same understanding.
For me, Landscape, is a generic term used to describe the view in front of view. It can of course include fields, hills & mountains, but the question seems to be what else can it include?
Wikipedia: Landscape Photography: Photographs typically capture the presence of nature and are often free of man-made obstructions.
Dictionary: a section or expanse of rural scenery, usually extensive, that can be seen from a single viewpoint. OR a picture representing natural inland or coastal scenery.
One of the big questions for me is : Can a landscape include buildings, or the sea/coast?
So for competitions such as 'Landscape Photographer of the Year' entries are accepted including just about anything, although they do sometimes add sub-categories (Urban View), but certainly buildings and the sea/coast are actively encouraged.
In a recent landscape competition I had an image rejected as it showed St Pauls Cathedral in its own City landscape and the judge decided it was not a true landscape. He wanted to see fields and flowers.
In an upcoming competition, 'Churches in the Landscape' again the rules have been stipulated that no urban/city landscapes are allowed. So the image above from Dartmoor's St. Michael de Rupe should fit the remit, but can you see the landscape? or enough of the landscape? or is it just a church on a hill?
So what do you think? Should the term landscape be sub-divided into urban, city, sea-scape, coastal etc. or should the judges be a bit more flexible in their interpretation? Let me know your thoughts and feelings and join in the discussion for The Shed.
W: www.theshedphotography.com
B: www.theshedphotography.blogspot.com
Comments
By David Baker: How about the inclusion of an animal or bird. I have recently had a photograph rejected from a landscape photographic site where I had included a bird in silhouette within a sunset over the sea. The bird was less than 2 % of the image but to my way of thinking gave a sense of place ie the coast. The photo was deemed 'wildlife'
Your opinion would be useful. Many thanks David