fergmark wrote:
Im with rgrenaderphoto here. Linda asked his reasoning. I will give you mine. I think it's very straightforward. How can a photo be called a landscape photo if it doesn't have any sense of place. I think everyone would agree that by definition, a landscape photo is a place.
Actually, I think "landscape" is more than a place.
While I grew up using Mirriam Webster, Wikipedia certainly has made it's mark on
our 21st century, and I like what they had to say about landscapes: "Many landscape
photographs show little or no human activity and are created in the pursuit of a pure,
unsullied depiction of nature devoid of human influence, instead featuring subjects such
as strongly defined landforms, weather, and ambient light. As with most forms of art,
the definition of a landscape photograph is broad, and may include urban settings,
industrial areas, and nature photography. Notable landscape photographers include
Ansel Adams, Galen Rowell, Edward Weston, Ben Heine, Mark Gray and Fred Judge."
And I could argue (although that was never my intent for this post) that these images
do an excellent job of portraying an "unsullied depiction of nature" and display
"strongly defined landforms."
I'm not here to sway you one way or another; I just hope that everyone of us here
is willing to expand our knowledge and our views.
Tim