jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

I was always pretty sure I knew what a landscape photo was and wasn’t. After viewing in this section since its inception, I’m beginning to believe that anything is a landscape if one calls it so.

Any thoughts? Waiting to be crucified.

jwm1944 Loc: Maryland

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The original discussion proposing the section showed the definition is / would be flexible ...

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

A text book definition of "landscape" and what is considered acceptable in a landscape section of a forum are in fact two different parameters with different controlling factors.
Life is much more fun when we accept that others have opinions that differ from ours and that we are often wrong.
On the other hand, we can choose to dance with the lady or we can change partners..

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

In Rolk's topic here, both blackest and R.G. talk in more detail about the scope of the section.

Specific to "intimate" landscapes, see these articles:
https://www.outdoorphotographer.com/on-location/featured-stories/the-forgotten-intimate-landscape/
https://improvephotography.com/51468/top-10-tips-for-photographing-intimate-landscapes/

How can we grow if we stay stuck in what we "always knew"? What is the harm in exploration?

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Interesting reading. Apparently my new definition is correct: just about anything is a landscape if one calls it that. If it’s not a bird or a portrait or an abstract or photojournalism, it can be a landscape. I had no idea; I am now enlightened--no sarcasm intended.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

A good point. We shouldn't use textbook definitions to determine what is acceptable in our section. Calling it the "Landscape" section merely suggests that anything landscape-related would be acceptable. If you have shots that are specifically and primarily of birds, flowers, wildlife, insects, pets, grandchildren etc, they are catered for elsewhere.

Everybody will have their own ideas about what constitutes a landscape photo. If we excluded anything that was not common to everybody's definition, we would be left with a very limited field of operation, leaving us very little room to manoeuvre. And there wouldn't be any virtue in such a tight, restrictive definition. There is virtue in keeping the definition as open as possible within sensible limits. IMO those limits have already been agreed on and described in the Introduction thread.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

"bird or a portrait or an abstract or photojournalism" covers so much ground that it sort of negates the "just about anything is a landscape" statement.

CSand Loc: Fayetteville, Georgia

Love your last statement Linda. Never know what new world will open when we try "different".