Define "Landscape"

[Gaerek]

OK, it seems we all agree that landscape should not have any people, animals, etc. Or at least, not unless they are in the far distance, such as a huge shot of New York or Vegas with the people appearing as small as ants.

I wouldn't even go that far. Some might think "nothing but the land! No manmade anything, animals, humans, etc!" But really if say, the barn in #1 was a small aspect of the shot, but added a focal point with it's surroundings, I personally believe that would fall under the definition of landscape. In the scenario there, the shot would likely be better because you have something interesting to look at in the shot, instead of say, trees, mountains and grass. Maybe I'm a bit non-traditional, but I wouldn't get too caught up with strict definitions, rules, and things like that.

However, talking to the instructor will give you the best possible understanding of the assignment. Hopefully, he'll just say to shoot what you think a landscape is. That would likely mean his definition isn't so strict.

 

[Big Mike]

As many have said, it's just a word...so it can mean whatever you want it to mean.

To me, I'd say that a landscape is a picture (photo, painting, macaroni on construction paper) that has the 'land/scenery' it's primary subject.
So some might say that in the first image, the barn is the main subject...thus it may not be a 'landscape' to some. Maybe if you zoom out, and show the barn, with the surrounding area in the shot, it becomes more of a landscape...it's very debatable.

It's certainly not a requirement, but some might say that a landscape should have a foreground, mid-ground and background. Those are certainly elements that help to create depth in a landscape.

Some might also say that an aspect to landscape photography is that is represents what the scene looked like to someone who was there. You are taking photos of things that are there, in the light that is available to you. Of course, there is no rule that you have to make the photo as realistic as possible...on the contrary, some really great landscape artists excel at showing a scene in a way that can't be seen with the naked eye.

 

[Fleetwood271]

As many have said, it's just a word...so it can mean whatever you want it to mean.

To me, I'd say that a landscape is a picture (photo, painting, macaroni on construction paper) that has the 'land/scenery' it's primary subject.
So some might say that in the first image, the barn is the main subject...thus it may not be a 'landscape' to some. Maybe if you zoom out, and show the barn, with the surrounding area in the shot, it becomes more of a landscape...it's very debatable.

It's certainly not a requirement, but some might say that a landscape should have a foreground, mid-ground and background. Those are certainly elements that help to create depth in a landscape.

Some might also say that an aspect to landscape photography is that is represents what the scene looked like to someone who was there. You are taking photos of things that are there, in the light that is available to you. Of course, there is no rule that you have to make the photo as realistic as possible...on the contrary, some really great landscape artists excel at showing a scene in a way that can't be seen with the naked eye.

Thanks Big Mike!

 

[Fleetwood271]

OK, it seems we all agree that landscape should not have any people, animals, etc. Or at least, not unless they are in the far distance, such as a huge shot of New York or Vegas with the people appearing as small as ants.

I wouldn't even go that far. Some might think "nothing but the land! No manmade anything, animals, humans, etc!" But really if say, the barn in #1 was a small aspect of the shot, but added a focal point with it's surroundings, I personally believe that would fall under the definition of landscape. In the scenario there, the shot would likely be better because you have something interesting to look at in the shot, instead of say, trees, mountains and grass. Maybe I'm a bit non-traditional, but I wouldn't get too caught up with strict definitions, rules, and things like that.

However, talking to the instructor will give you the best possible understanding of the assignment. Hopefully, he'll just say to shoot what you think a landscape is. That would likely mean his definition isn't so strict.

Thanks Gaerek!

 

[WesternGuy]

Fleetwood271, I am going to throw in my 0.02¢ worth here, having been a landscape photographer, amongst other genre, for many years. I think that all three of your images portray landscapes of some type or another (well, maybe not the barn), with the third one being what might be considered the more traditional type of landscape - foreground with a "land" component, a background with a "sky" component and a horizon that separates them (a la Ansel Adams)...I tend to agree with a lot of what has been said here, however, there are a group of photographers who are shooting what they call Intimate Landscapes, a term coined, I believe by Eliot Porter. These are smaller, intimate scenes of part of the landscapes, often with no horizon or sky at all. I would offer you these examples of Porter's work...Eliot Porter, Intimate Landscapes Portfolio being some examples of his intimate landscapes. This other article may also help in distinguishing intimate landscapes from the larger, typical landscapes we tend to think of...5 Tips to Discover Intimate vs. Grand Landscape & Nature Photography

As someone who has been an amateur landscape, nature and wildlife photographer for many, many years I must confess that I have never really thought about what constitutes a landscape image and what doesn't, but I must say, I am more interested in pursuing Intimate Landscapes these days, because, to me, the artistic aspects are more challenging - my opinion, and I doubt that everyone will agree with me, but to me, from where I am in my landscape photography, the move away from more traditional landscapes, which I have done for years, to the intimate landscapes represents, for me, an evolution of me as a landscape photographer.

I would add two comments, HDR photography is now becoming the purvue of a lot of traditional landscape photographers, as you see more and more of this type of process being used in landscape photography - I think, for example, your third image would have been, perhaps, an excellent candidate for this approach. The other point is that of Urban Landscapes...there are a number of photographers who have begun, or are shooting urban settings as landscapes, and personally, I do not have any problem with this approach. A number of them are also using HDR to process their Urban Landscape images. For example, if you establish yourself at a high vantage point above an urban area and shoot a cityscape, what's the difference between the end result and a typical landscape? In my mind nothing, only the subject matter contained in the final image. Alternatively, if you capture a small part of a series of buildings, or a large bridge with buildings and water components in the image, is this a "landscape"? Is a sunset captured over a considerable expanse of ocean with water as the foreground and sky as the background, a landscape? I would answer yes to these questions, others will not.

Is there a conclusion here - I don't know, but I would hope that you can begin to understand that there really is no one single definition of what constitutes "landscape" photography. I am sure this doesn't help but confuse you, but for the purposes of an assignment, I think I might stick with the more traditional approach (unless your instructor is one who is interested in creativity) and try and implement some of the elements of composition in my final product - line, shape, colour, pattern and texture components and see how I could introduce some of them into my final product. Hope this helps a bit...

Regards,

WesternGuy

 

[LarryD]

Landscape is simply an expanse of scenery that can be seen in a single view...

Do not get caught up with the word "land" in the word as historically it only means a tract or expanse, (such as "The land of the North") and not strictly land (earth and plants) exclusively..

It is a carry over from Dutch painters in the 16th century who painted expanses of their townships, countrysides, and environment called Land Scapes (Views of the Lands), and differed from traditional portraits and still-life foods and flowers..

All three of your photos are "landscapes", for if they aren't, then what are they ?