the importance of a well defined subject in landscapes
Mar 24, 2023 20:57:31 #
PoppieJ
Loc: North Georgia
I have been making landscape pictures for some time now and have also been studying landscape photos made by others. The question is how important is a well defined subject and also is the subject or the story most important for the success of the picture? Sometimes I see landscapes with a well defined subject and other times I see landscapes that only have a story, or maybe I just don't understand subject. I have seen photographers who have said take your picture into photoshop and choose select subject to determine if the photo is good or not. I offer the below photo not for good or bad but just an illustration of a picture that I think tells a story but photoshop says that there is no subject. I know that some will say there is no place to look and some will look and see the story and say that the landscape itself is the subject. Anyway I wanted to offer this up for discussion, not good or bad but a photo with no well defined subject, and see what others thoughts are on this.
Mar 24, 2023 21:12:22 #
Mar 24, 2023 21:15:15 #
SWFeral
Loc: SWNM
Not that I'm any expert but I shoot primarily landscapes and scenes from nature, and quite often I do not take a photo for its subject, but for the way shapes and lines strike me. I suppose that is why a lot of my photos of "real" scenes end up looking a bit abstract. I think a strong, appealing composition is needed to draw the viewer into the photo and guide the eye around the scene. Obviously is there is a definite subject you don't want it to be lost in an otherwise overly busy image. I like your snowy scene but I suppose the lower center is a bit vague and rather empty.
Mar 24, 2023 21:20:37 #
Mar 24, 2023 21:31:19 #
Some shoot for the overall attractiveness of the <whole> view, arranging a few of the scene components for best look. No "story", no "main subject" (other than the view). But many time there may be a subject.
(Thus line three in my signature...)
(Thus line three in my signature...)
Mar 24, 2023 21:34:02 #
PoppieJ
Loc: North Georgia
Longshadow wrote:
Some shoot for the overall attractiveness of the <whole> view, arranging a few of the scene components for best look. No "story", no "main subject" (other than the view). But many time there may be a subject.
(Thus line three in my signature...)
(Thus line three in my signature...)
good point to keep in mind "shoot for yourself" if it pleases you great and if it pleases someone else that is just icing on the cake
Mar 24, 2023 21:55:45 #
PoppieJ wrote:
good point to keep in mind "shoot for yourself" if it pleases you great and if it pleases someone else that is just icing on the cake
That is what I go by.
Mar 24, 2023 22:13:38 #
PoppieJ wrote:
I have been making landscape pictures for some tim... (show quote)
I had never tried the Photoshop "Select Subject" command. When I played around with it I came to the conclusion that it isn't a good indication that a photo has or doesn't have a subject, or how good of a photo it is. One photo I tried had an obvious subject of a tree, but the Select Subject only selected the trunk. Others seemed very arbitrary in what was selected, or when nothing was selected.
Mar 24, 2023 22:46:29 #
Mar 24, 2023 23:17:48 #
Bowpet
Loc: Loveland, CO
To me the subject is a path through the woods, beginning with the lower center space and continuing around the rock and off to the upper left, through the forest.
Mar 24, 2023 23:23:57 #
In a well reasoned essay, Erin Babnik, a highly-regarded professional known for her workshops and other educational programs, including the Out of Chicago on-line and in-person series some of which I've attended, discusses this very issue.
Her conclusion is that the term "subject" is misleading at least as applied to landscapes, and that for this genre Meaning emerges out of the organizing principle that governs an image as a whole, not merely from any single feature within it.
https://www.photocascadia.com/does-a-landscape-photograph-need-a-subject/
Her conclusion is that the term "subject" is misleading at least as applied to landscapes, and that for this genre Meaning emerges out of the organizing principle that governs an image as a whole, not merely from any single feature within it.
https://www.photocascadia.com/does-a-landscape-photograph-need-a-subject/
Mar 25, 2023 00:23:21 #
lukevaliant wrote:
too bright
Agreed, but any critique is off topic.
The scene does nothing for me, but I can see that it presents the idea of landscape with no particular subject. I dont think every image needs a distinct subject. Personal examples attached.
Mar 25, 2023 03:11:08 #
Mar 25, 2023 03:20:01 #
User ID wrote:
Agreed, but any critique is off topic.
The scene does nothing for me, but I can see that it presents the idea of landscape with no particular subject. I dont think every image needs a distinct subject. Personal examples attached.
The scene does nothing for me, but I can see that it presents the idea of landscape with no particular subject. I dont think every image needs a distinct subject. Personal examples attached.
1, you divert the topic toward you.
2, you destroy the original image with your so-called 'edit'
3, you are wrong in all counts, to each their own.
Mar 25, 2023 05:55:56 #
For me, the "Subject" can be some object (animal, structure, snow, light. etc.) or an abstract (story, weather, color or graphic patterns). If one looks at the image and feels it, success.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.