Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Well said.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

" The question is how important is a well defined subject" You, PoppieJ, asked and so User ID critique is on subject. [This post is better directed to the Critique section in that it asks a critique question.}

There must be a point of focus story and the flavor must be distinct as in the original photo with punch given to the colors. Extraneous both left and right should be cropped to narrow the focus to the one green on the left competing with the yellow on the right. Rule: That which does not add, detracts.

Accidental Close Up: The original photo downloaded and then + gave a serendipitous close crop in which the "snow vs vegetation" was the story. With no modification except close crop there is now a story, "The Yellow Prevails":

In this crop we have a stone path ascending and the yellow vegetation confining it on the left and right, thus we have what poppie asked, an "important ... well defined subject." The number of elements in the photo have been reduced avoiding visual confusion.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Subjects are just one category of factors that can draw and hold our interest when looking at images. Sometimes the attention-grabbing factors are abstract, for example specific objects that engage our interest because they tell a story (either current or historical) or because they are at the centre of any action that's being depicted. Sometimes the attention-grabbing factors are simply visual interest or visual drama. That applies to images in general (not just photographs), but where landscape photos, paintings and drawings are concerned, the attention-grabbing factors are more limited and specific.

It's fair to say that where landscapes are concerned it's very often the case that the "subject" is the whole scene and the viewer is left to appreciate the attractiveness of the scene and to explore the scene at their leisure. But that's just one possibility. Another equally valid possibility is that there may be specific subjects within the scene that are the intended focus of the viewers' attention. Typically those subjects would be described as "features" within the landscape. Whatever the case may be, techniques can be used to draw and hold the viewers' attention or to direct it towards specific areas or objects. In very general terms those techniques, when properly implemented, can make the difference between a mediocre shot and a good photograph.

Carefully considered composition provides the opportunity to employ various techniques for manipulating the viewers' attention and some of those techniques have nothing to do with subjects. Natural framing, clear channels and leading lines are the obvious examples of that (but it doesn't stop there).

Keen landscape photographers should familiarise themselves with those techniques because they free the photographer from any dependency on having to have a specific or a compelling subject, and the strength of the images isn't dependent on how compelling the main subjects are. It's very possible to have highly engaging landscape photos that don't have any kind of subject (compelling or otherwise) - but what they will all have in common is good composition. In other words the right kind of composition can make a landscape photo compelling, even in the absence of a compelling subject.

Where landscape photos are concerned, the most effective composition techniques are those which draw the viewers' attention into the scene. That's especially true of foregrounds because they provide the entry point into the scene.

Taking the posted image as an example, if the photographer had been able to move to the right he would have been able to choose a line of sight that led up the creek, in which case the creek would have acted as a natural eye-channeler. That may seem like a trivial thing but that one simple measure would have lifted the shot up a level.

To my eye the small tree on the side of the creek near the centre could be made to act as a focus for the viewers' attention but there's nothing to lead the eye to it and the only other alternative is to use post processing techniques to make that tree more eye-catching. Sometimes in those circumstances you're looking for the photo within the photo, which usually means that some cropping is called for.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

To me there is nothing to either draw or lead the eye. My experience has shown me that because a photo is 2D, with no depth information, often scenes that look interestingto our stereoscopic vision lose their appeal when presented flat. This is one of those images for me. I believe that this is what Weston meant by previsualization - The ability to see in the mind's eye how the image will look without 3D depth information. I think developing that skill is perhaps the most important step a photographer can take.

Ava'sPapa Loc: Cheshire, Ct.

I think your photo is outstanding and if it's not already, it should be hanging on your wall. The muted colors and the "lack" of sharpness all lend to the wonderful "impressionistic" feel of this photo (which looks like a painting by the way). My eye is drawn to the yellow foliage and then down the path to the left. Why does there have to be a "well-defined subject"? I don't think there does. I'll be using this for my desktop for a while if you don't mind. Kudos PoppieJ. Ray

mvetrano2 Loc: Commack, NY

Your photo really does nothing for me and, if it were in my selection of shots for the day, it would have gone in the trash. Subjects are sometime not important to the overall photo, but there still must be a feeling, or aura, that the photo gives off to make it interesting to the viewer. For me, this photo does not!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Exactly.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

The link provided by MDI Mainer is a great read. Many of the comments posted in this thread thoughtfully address the question posed in the OP. Excellent discussion!

Regarding the posted photo as an example of the topic being discussed, for me a little cropping (especially at the bottom, referring to SWFeral's observation) and some darkening of the edges would help "organize" the photo and better help me navigate through it. However, I also understand the appeal of its impressionistic feel as posted.

Poppie, I'm curious about your comment, "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 just can't imagine a real photographer accepting Photoshop's opinion of "good"

PoppieJ Loc: North Georgia

this is a well spoken and well though out article. Thanks for the link I have bookmarked it for later study

PoppieJ Loc: North Georgia

i watch a number of different photographers on youtube and while "good" might not have been the correct choice of words for me to use there are several who have said that using photoshop's select subject feature is a good way to determine if you have a solid/strong subject in the photo. Usually they always have a well defined subject and move on from there. We don't hear what they think about a photo without that subject so we can only conclude that maybe not so good.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Thanks!

CliffMcKenzie Loc: Lake Athens Texas

Great read...thank you for sharing

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I always figured the landscape was the subject. If it's an unusual tree or a waterfall, that's different, and it should be obvious.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States