I have this problem each time I visit a forum such as this. It relates to the way in which photography is currently classified. The common terminology revolves around subject matter; landscape, portrait, street, sport, nature, and the technique used; macro, natural light, studio, etc. My problem is that if I were to pick a group I'd be in a quandary as to which predominates, if that is the objective. Example shown. Most would, I assume, under the current system, call this a sea scape, a sub-set of landscapes I believe. When taking the photo, the idea of recording a scape of any sort doesn't enter my head. What usually goes through my head, as with this shot, is the primary aspects of the interpretive aspects of what I perceive the photo to look like when finally hanging on the wall or displayed on a monitor. I know the viewer might have a simpler approach and call it a seascape, and although it would be nice for them to make a deeper interpretation, it's not all that important for my determination which includes elements of interpretation such as description, explanation, aesthetic, interpretive and even ethics. So where do I do from here? Do I conform or do I create my own classification system?