People In Landscape Photographs: Nearly every landscape photo I've taken that I consider a "keeper" contains one or more people in it. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it's...

Just Fred Loc: Darwin's Waiting Room

Nearly every landscape photo I've taken that I consider a "keeper" contains one or more people in it. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it's unavoidable. When it's unavoidable, I try to make the best of it.

Here are two examples. The first is looking down into a slot canyon at Bryce Canyon NP. The people walking the switchbacks and getting smaller and smaller as they descend, help one realize the depth of the canyon. Without the people, visual foreshortening would deceive one's eyes into not getting the proper perspective.

The second is a window arch in Arches NP. There are always people scrambling about, so it's nearly impossible to get a photo without someone, especially when you're going for the light. I was fortunate in this case that one of the people happened to "make a statement" and I caught it with the snap.

Again, you should see them in download mode for the full affect.

(Download)

Fred Harwood Loc: Sheffield, Mass.

Nice shots. I agree that landscapes often need something familiar to scale them. Could be person or two or three, or a car, or an animal. Elsewhere here I have posted a landscape shot of the double arch with a person in a highlight spot. With that person standing, the height of the arches can be realized.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

Perfect use of people to scale the image!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Outstanding examples. #1 is surreal. I wouldn't have had a clue about scale without the people. MinnieV hosted a topic about "little people" in landscapes a few years ago. Yours, Fred Harwood's and what I remember from that topic make me want to add little people rather than avoid including them. Great discussion!

Just Fred Loc: Darwin's Waiting Room

Linda From Maine wrote:

Outstanding examples. #1 is surreal. I wouldn't have had a clue about scale without the people. MinnieV hosted a topic about "little people" in landscapes a few years ago. Yours, Fred Harwood's and what I remember from that topic make me want to add little people rather than avoid including them. Great discussion!

Thank you, Linda. I also note that not a single person in the canyon photograph can be identified. Every one of them has his or her face obscured naturally!

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Very nice examples.
I don't mind people in my photographs, even other photographers.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Just Fred wrote:

Nearly every landscape photo I've taken that I con... (show quote)

In #1, I feel the people are distracting, and easily removable. In #2, the lone individual against the sky makes the image.

Just Fred Loc: Darwin's Waiting Room

rgrenaderphoto wrote:

In #1, I feel the people are distracting, and easily removable. In #2, the lone individual against the sky makes the image.

Thank you. The people in #1 are not the subject. But if you download the image and click on the magnifying glass, you'll see there are people all the way down at the bottom of the canyon. At an altitude of 8,000 feet, that's more than an hour's trek back to the top. I don't think you get the sense of that without the people.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Just Fred wrote:

Thank you. The people in #1 are not the subject. But if you download the image and click on the magnifying glass, you'll see there are people all the way down at the bottom of the canyon. At an altitude of 8,000 feet, that's more than an hour's trek back to the top. I don't think you get the sense of that without the people.

Yup, need the people for this one in order to appreciate the size!