Rolk Loc: South Central PA

Linda had posted a thread earlier highlighting some landscapes that
were images taken much closer than the so-called traditional landscapes.

There was a discussion there and on an earlier post about "intimate" landscape
photography which I found to be quite interesting. While I certainly do enjoy the
many gorgeous images posted of those traditional landscapes, I am particularly
drawn to a closer look at Mother Nature's offerings without going macro.

There's just something about the textures that are so intriguing, I had to post
what I feel are intimate landscapes. I encourage further discussion on this
topic as well as critique of what I've submitted here.

And, please, feel free to add your own "intimate" landscapes.
Tim

Flowering trees in our front yard

(Download)

A closer look at the beautiful colors and shape of a bush in Key West.

(Download)

Just a gorgeous, old, gnarly tree.

(Download)

Getting closer to a traditional landscape, but certainly "intimate."

(Download)

Another gnarly tree...almost an "in-camera" abstract

(Download)

Definitely "intimate," definitely not SOOC...LOL. Please check out "download."

(Download)

IDguy Loc: Idaho

I wouldn’t classify these as landscapes. I’d have to research the definition again to say why. Let’s see where others weigh in.

They are interesting images nonetheless.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

These are indeed nice photos, but I also do not see them as landscapes.

Rolk Loc: South Central PA

Thank you for taking the time to check these out, IDguy, and for leaving your comments.

I think if we go back to the original purpose of this section, we can all agree that this series
certainly isn't a traditional landscape, but does fall under the guidelines as outlined by R.G. here:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-567003-1.html

And was further supported by the conversation in Linda's thread, here: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-569453-1.html

Again, thank you for your thoughtful and kind input.
Tim

Rolk Loc: South Central PA

Thank you, Jay. I'm glad you liked them, and you might want to check out
the two links I just listed for IDguy...

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

blackest Loc: Ireland

Putting landscapes in boxes is hard work , i think we have more of an area and its kind of fuzzy but that's fine. As long as people are getting along and enjoying the section, all is good.

I don't want to be drawn into policing photographs, there are so many threads in the section there will be something to like and that will be different for everyone.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Your last shot holds a delightful surprise!

Several of these, like my photo #3, may be pushing the definition since there was no ground, though as R.G. said, the definition is loose - and I see as I am writing this, blackest has commented here.

IMO your low angle with the stream is an excellent lesson in how to get close and still retain information about the surroundings. Your last shot is similar, and how fun would it be to remove the upper half, then flip the result vertically?

Your gnarly tree bark closeup is a wonderful study of textures. And the red/yellow/green bush a visual feast.

I'm so glad you posted these for further discussion, Tim. Not to see how close we can come to breaking the rules, but to expand our vision, see the world a little differently. Despite my pushing the boundaries with my photo #3 (a bush), I do kind of want to see land or water bodies ('cause there's land under the water) included. Otherwise, it seems like we are into a wider-encompassing "nature."

Here is the one I posted to RichardTaylor's topic of intimate landscapes. For me the story is the contrast of autumn-ripe apples against snow-covered ground (a collision of seasons); it's not simply a photo of "apples" Thanks again!

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

An engaging set, Tim, regardless of label! Funky effect in that last one.

photophile Loc: Lakewood, Ohio, USA

I like the small brook scene and the gnarly branches most.

Bob Locher Loc: Southwest Oregon

I like the idea that the concept of "Intimate Landscapes" covers your pictures. We would be sadly diminished if pictures like yours were not allowed here. Excellent work!

Bob Locher

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Good set. I especially like #2.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

IMO, chasing definitions shouldn't be what this section is all about. Where "landscapes" are concerned, most of us are perfectly happy to include telephoto landscapes, intimate landscapes and the more focused abstracts that we've seen.

Where the abstracts are concerned, some of them were highly focused, but the point is they were all landscape-sourced, so why shouldn't they be in the Landscape section?

Where some of the OP's shots are concerned, some of them are also highly focused. I would say they could be described as "studies" (of textures, colours, shapes etc), and since they are landscape-sourced, why shouldn't they also be in the Landscape section?

To summarise, if landscape is the main subject, or in the case of abstracts or focused studies, if they are landscape-oriented or landscape-sourced, we should be able to accommodate them in this section.

Charles P Loc: Southern Central NY State

I've always thought that an intimate landscape was a photo that was extracted from a grand vista type landscape, in order to zoom in and show more of the fine details that might go almost unnoticed in the original shot. But I could be wrong. At any rate, these are very nice images. Well done!

Dr.Nikon Loc: Honolulu Hawaii

YOSEMITE H2O ... An unending source ...

D810 24-70 2.8 HAND HELD ON A ROCK

(Download)

DITTO AS ABOVE

(Download)