JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

When I shoot landscapes, I prefer no people in them, or human-made objects. I have Photoshopped out people or objects like park benches. That is my taste, and I don't consider whether the photo might win a prize to help me decide. I'm not sure Costco is the leading authority on characteristics of prize winning photos. I assume they are talking about their contest, and maybe they just use judges that like photos with people in them.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

John, I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but as warm and fuzzy as the subject of people could be, it is not without controversy.
I was expecting controversy, not because it was meant to be so but because I've seen a lot of pics here and have read a lot of comments that indicate that some will feel strongly both ways.
The Costco thing is not to make them authoritative, but just to make a point! The author was NOT citing their own opinion but bringing in independent studies that bore that out. I'm pretty sure, for judges, they bring in some of the best Pros on this planet...., Costco does after all have a pretty deep pocket.
And indeed, one of the groups I used to belong to, NPN(Nature Photographers Network) has become one of the preeminent Nature Websites, and has since split Nature into two categories, "Nature" and "Man and Nature", because of the controversiallity(is that even a word?) of the two being mixed in as one.
It's not about winning prizes but what makes a strong image. If including people did not often strengthen an image they would win less often than they do.
I'm not saying put people in your images but to bring awareness that excluding them does not necessarily strengthen our images but may might in some way even weaken them.
This is about awareness to be able to make the right choices when we have a choice.
There is no right or wrong here but there MAY be a CHOICE!!!
John, thanks for your point of view!
SS

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

I think you have to appreciate 'what' people bring to a picture. I almost never take family shots seriously. I use the P & S and hand it around for others to use. However, in landscapes people add scale and interest. A jogger can take the place of a stile or gate in creating a foreground or balancing a picture on an open fell or moorland. People seen walking their dog in a woodland add a 'sort of quietude and relaxation' whereas: without people, woodland can be portrayed as 'secret' 'threatening, 'mysterious'. How big is that cliff...well look closely at the tiny dots climbing it.
A graffiti wall with a young person in it is not as threatening an image as when no-one is present and Mardi-Gras needs the 'innocence' of a child to stop it being a sexist spectacle for old men carrying drinks.
There is no point in adding people just to increase the odds in winning a competition. However, people relate to images with people differently than images without people. They can 'add' a story, 'like their appearance' or even relate to what the person 'was experiencing'. This is not about ' photographic skill' but the need for people to 'put in context' an image. Would I want to be there? Is it right for me to go there or do that? Would I fit in? Initiating the right response adds value to an image.

Is it right, for a competition to be so open to personal bias, is not the issue - its understanding how to bias an image by adding the right person.

have fun

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

Yes, providing that they add something and subtract nothing.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Yes - photography is about recording what we see. There are those who will ask do we see Aura. Annie L was on some sort of trip IMHO.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

hahersh, this isn't about the actual percentages. This is more to ask WHY you may include or not include people in your shots.
For me personally, some of the photos that stick in my mind over time do have people in them.
I think we being social animals are hard wired to identify with people.
And there is a LOT to learn by looking at prize-winning photography. Prize winning photography for the most part has a greater impact on me than do non-prize winning images. It's usually considered the best of the best.
But as I said, this is not about winning prizes but about giving our compositions more and stronger impacts. That is the take-away here.
Thanks for commenting!
SS

Streets Loc: Euless, TX.

Definitely not, and that includes portraits.

Ricinus Loc: Leduc Alberta

Your pictures made me re-think including people in the scene. Thank you for that..

Mike

repleo Loc: Boston

Another great topic SharpShooter. Thanks.
The people in your Eiffel shot don't add anything to the shot. They just create confusion in the foreground. The people in the Versailles shot add scale but little else. Scale is important for that shot, but they would have been more effective if they filled more of the foreground and led the viewer across the courtyard. I think the placement of the people in the Windsor shot is excellent. The triangle of ducks, swans and people create a strong triangle and lead the eye into the picture and on to the bridge.
I used to try to eliminate people from my shots, but I have come to realize that they can be an important element of the composition if used effectively. Uploading a couple of with / without shots (the 'withs' have been posted here before). In the (cellphone) shots at the sculpture, the figure adds direction and depth and 'dots the eye' of the composition. Everything points towards him and he pulls you towards the space beyond and even behind the walls.
In the sunset shots, the fisherman adds interest to what was a disappointingly feeble sunset. (Please excuse the clumsy PP work.) Still not a great shot, but definitely an improvement on the 'without' shot.
PS I used to include my wife in a lot of my shots. She could never understand why I wanted to take a picture of her back or have walking away from the camera. Then she copped on that I was using her to block intrusive manhole covers, trash cans etc.
Keep up the good work SS. This is what the forum should be about.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Bill_de Loc: US

It really depends on the photo. I think in your first photo the people are a distraction. They have no connection to the subject.
In the second I feel kind of neutral. They would be an asset if somebody was looking toward the birds, the water, something.
The third picture is much stronger because of the inclusion of the people. They add life, and although there are not a lot, it made me wonder what it looks like when there are crowds.

Great topic, nice examples.

--

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

I'm posting another shot in which the person makes it a completely different shot.
Without the person(I have it both ways), it's just an interesting architectural detail, almost an abstract.
With the person I feel it takes on a whole new life, suddenly we can identify with the composition.
What do you think?
SS

SFMOMA

(Download)

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

The person has become the subject - in an interestingly different setting.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

repleo fantastic #1 photo. Crop it tight and you have framed the "Walking Man"
SS has indeed opened a great topic, thanks again.

With the man walking into the future, we are identifying with the photo; without just cold stone.

jack30000

My thoughts, too. Kind of relates to the earlier thread about subject. In the first, the people are not the subject, so they distract. In the second, I agree it could work either way, while in the third they add and do not distract. I've been taking one of the Great Courses on photography on DVD, which said everything in a photograph should be there for a reason, should be there because you want it there, not because you were too lazy to find another angle or wait for a better time. I also tend to try to get rid of people if they are not the subject of the photo, but now I'll go back through some of mine and see if this was the right thing to do.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

To my eye, people give a perspective and scale.