blackest Loc: Ireland

I like these it addresses the issue which is in my mind when I take public pictures privacy. The woman taking the selfie isn't "mary" and the canoest isn't "bob" in a canoe even seeing themselves in the photo they wouldn't know for sure. what is the word for this an 'everyman' perhaps.

If you have ever seen the zombie film 28 days later and the protagonist has come out of a coma finds himself in a locked ward, goes out into the streets of London and finds himself on the bridge next to parliament square, everywhere deserted. To get that location deserted they shot in summer around 5 or 6am. It looks unnaturally quiet.

I know that area as a mass of people, rather strangely the office workers in lock step crossing the bridge like extra's in a Pink Floyd video. Part of the character of the place is the people. I guess if you can look at a photo and wonder how long ago the apocalypse happened it needed some people. i'm reminded of a photo i took as a 10/11 year old on a weeks school trip to paris (the hot summer of 1976). If there is one thing i remember of that year it was the heat and the ladybirds. There was a woman by an icecream stand wearing a stripped top talking to two of 'les flic's' outside sacre coeur, I had never seen french policemen before. Amazing building but the people in that context made for a much more memorable photograph. Nice shot little me :) just found my old camera i didn't remember its name, but it was an ilford sprite 35mm (no flash) Google recognised my description:).

rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

You must be a mind reader! I get together with a group of photographers every month, and we share our images from the recent competition. This time I had no "accepted" prints to show. I was really pleased with what I'd submitted, but the judges didn't agree with my estimation. As my photos moved around the table, I received lots of compliments and positive feedback, so I thought I'd just fallen upon some weak judging. As I was leaving I stopped to say "goodbye" to the group leader--Ray was a photographer for DuPont and is something of a legend around the Philadelphia/Wilmington area--and he said, "Your images were beautiful, but you need to include people. They provide scale." So since then I've been mulling over this question. This discussion has pushed me in the "Must include people" direction. It won't be easy. I've been shooting for almost 50 years, have won a ton of contests, have sold lots of images, and am still making money from my photography; but many of my photos lack "soul." I knew there was something missing, but I hadn't figured out what it was. I think I know now. I'm posting one such image. Feel free to comment.

SS, thanks for bringing this up for discussion.

(Download)

rossk Loc: Melbourne, Australia

Eiffel Tower shot is a winner. Original, vibrant and the people help make it.

Bob Boner

I photograph mostly wildlife and landscapes. There are generally no people around close to the wildlife. I realize that including people in landscape images give a sense of the size of the landscape, but I don't feel that it does anything for the beauty of the landscape.

father christmas Loc: Goodlettsville, Tennessee

I find this a very interesting topic. You have made me think about having people in my pictures. I like the first picture but as another said it is not a picture where you are capturing a landmark but you are capturing a moment in time of this couple. The second picture doesn't need those people. They are standing there eating ice cream having nothing to the composition, if they had been there feeding the flock of birds it might have been different. The third is all right because most of the time when you take a wide angle photo of famous buildings there is no time during the day where the square is empty. Good discussion topic, thank you.

d2b2 Loc: Catonsville, Maryland, USA

I made an exception in France, for this photo.

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

Perhaps there is some flawed logic in this. If 90% of the pictures had people in it, stands to reason that 85% of the winners would have people in it.

G_Manos Loc: Bala Cynwyd, PA

Just a rewind here - the statement doesn't say 90% of the pictures (that were submitted) had people in them, only that, of the winners. 85% had people in them.

DU WANT 1 2 Loc: West Virginia

I (rank amateur that I am) agree that the lighthouse and selfie, and canoe paddler are much better than the simple image. The un-peopled shots I can get in the gift shop on postcards. Yours pull my eye to wonder, "how did the selfie come out?" and "how far does this guy have to paddle to get out? ". If he had been in a power boat, no good. If she was an amorphous blob sitting on the ground, no again. Just my two cents worth. Great discussion.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

10MPlayer Loc: California

Good points made. I usually try to get a shot without people and I've always wondered if that was such a great strategy. Now at least Costco verifies that I was onto something. One of my personal favorites is a shot I took in the early 80s. It was opening day for the Sacramento Railroad Museum, which is world famous I hear. I was there along with about a hundred thousand others. I wanted a shot of a particular steam engine and I waited for what must have been an hour to get a clear shot. Then as I was framing the picture an older man and his grandson, both dressed in matching railroad engineer hats, stepped into the frame. I got the shot and I have a copy of it on my wall to this day. Technically it's not that great. White sky and blown highlights in the gravel on the ground. But the man and his grandson are priceless. I often wonder if the man is still alive and what became of the little boy who would be 40 by now.

(I have a better image somewhere with the man on the left and the post cropped out and some of the people on the right cropped too.)

(Download)

10MPlayer Loc: California

Beautiful shot. I'd have made an exception too!

10MPlayer Loc: California

I took a hundred shots of this scene in Idaho as the sun was setting over a river. As I was looking through the shots I noticed a female jogger with her braids flying behind her and her dog running along beside her. She's tiny in the shot but I think she made a rather commonplace sunset scene more interesting.

(Download)

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

I think I understood that. I'm just saying in effect that if most pictures that are submitted have people, then of course slightly less than most of the winning pictures will have people. Its like a race where 90% of the runners wear green. Not a coincidence then if the winner happens to be wearing green.

cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania

[quote=SharpShooter]In the Eiffel Tower shot I've included two people for a little side story and only a small piece of the tower but it is still unmistakably the Eiffel Tower.

In the Winsdor shot, At one time I would have moved just slightly to my left and taken the people out but here I've purposely included them to add a homey feel to the pic.

In the Palace shot I could have waited till closing and stood there till I was the last person out but instead chose to include the mass of people to give scale to the size of the palace and the constant flow of humanity EVERYDAY!

What would you have done and why? Post some examples and explain why you did what YOU did!
Post away!!!
Thanks
SS[/quote


I usually exclude people from my nature shots, (I tend to think of myself as a "purist") but the pictures in this post have me re-thinking that, i'm starting to agree with those who say that people add scale and-or a focal point.... Excellent post that got me thinking