Do landscapes need a subject?

Promac · 10-05-2010 1:50pm #1

I've recently been doing some reading, as an attempt to improve my photography (purely amateur, for my own benefit) and I keep coming across the idea of always having a subject in mind for every shot and not taking a picture unless you have it clearly in your mind what the subject of the shot will be. I haven't seen anyone say whether this should be just for portraits or abstracts or if it also applies to landscapes. I'm wondering if the entire scene could be the subject for cases where you're standing in front of a scene that you want to capture because you think it's worth capturing.

So, the question really is do you need to have a clear subject in mind when taking a landscape shot or is the entire scene the subject?

To illustrate, here are some examples from my trip to NZ last year:

You could say the bridge or the river is the subject but I wouldn't - I wanted the surrounding forest and cliffs just as much.

Same with this one - the rocks could be the subject but it was the whole scene I was interested in.

I liked the layers in this one (sky to mountains to river to foreground). No subject at all other than the whole thing.

Also, feel free to suggest improvements - I'm colour blind so I'm not good with levels and I'm only just getting into photography in the last 6 months.

pixbyjohn · 10-05-2010 1:57pm

"I liked the layers in this one (sky to mountains to river to foreground). No subject at all other than the whole thing."

I love your second photo especially the foreground.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 10-05-2010 1:58pm

I would say the bridge is the subject of the first, and everything else is the context of the bridge. The rocks in the second are foreground interest, and the third more or less follows the rule of thirds.

I don't think landscapes need a 'subject' as such, I really like your third one there (the other two are good too of course), you just need to be careful that you keep a little interest in all parts of the photo, mostly. Of course rules are there to be broken, if that's what you want to do too.

Not that I'm an expert or anything, I like the 3 of those anyway...

Xiney · 10-05-2010 2:05pm

The three photos are really nice, imo. The top one the colours look a bit crazy but they may well have been that bright in real life in NZ... so used to dull colours in Ireland :P The third one has a bit of lens flare.

As for landscape photos having a subject... I don't know if a subject persay is important but I think a focal point, somewhere your eye is drawn to, is generally a good thing.

Promac · 10-05-2010 2:16pm

I'm not the world's expert with colours but I don't remember saturating them in PP or on the camera (more than the default landscape settings on the 450D). I left the lens flare on purpose - don't know why, I just kinda liked it.

So, what general guidelines would you guys use when shooting basic landscapes – i.e. not a scene with some obvious subject that just happens to be part of a larger scene or in front of a nice backdrop.

You have the rule of thirds obviously but are there other, similar rules, beyond a general “feel” for the composition?

sheesh · 10-05-2010 2:18pm

not really a subject of the photograph but I have been told by a pro that it is a good idea to have something close to the camera like your rocks in the second image to give a sense of scale also those rocks would add interest to the foreground of the image.

so its not the subject of the photo but it is in focus and it is in the foreground

I don't know how many potentially good landscapes I have managed to ruin by completely ignoring the foreground that contained rubbish barbedwire fence and once, a car, which I failed to notice as I was taking the picture it was in the bottom third of the picture and blocked a major portion of my shot.

Promac · 10-05-2010 2:18pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I would say the bridge is the subject of the first, and everything else is the context of the bridge.

Why the bridge and not the river? Just out of curiosity and not disagreeing with you.

Promac · 10-05-2010 2:19pm

sheesh wrote: »

not really a subject of the photograph but I have been told by a pro that it is a good idea to have something close to the camera like your rocks in the second image to give a sense of scale also those rocks would add interest to the foreground of the image.

so its not the subject of the photo but it is in focus and it is in the foreground

I don't know how many potentially good landscapes I have managed to ruin by completely ignoring the foreground that contained rubbish barbedwire fence and once, a car, which I failed to notice as I was taking the picture it was in the bottom third of the picture and blocked a major portion of my shot.

I know the feeling. I filled 2 8GB memory cards and have very little to show for it.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 10-05-2010 2:19pm

Promac wrote: »

Why the bridge and not the river? Just out of curiosity and not disagreeing with you.

I guess the framing drew my eye into the river, which drew my eye further to the bridge.

rowanh · 10-05-2010 3:36pm

I dont think they need a subject as such, they (generally) do need a point of interest or multiple points to be interesting to people. There are several guidelines like the rule of thirds mentioned and the needs for a foreground, middle and back ground etc.

dave66 · 10-05-2010 3:48pm

I like them all, but the second would be my favourite of the 3, very nice sharpness throughout. At the risk of being clichéd, there is a Ansel Adams feel to the second one, I know it's colour etc, but the moment I saw it I thought of this:

Promac · 10-05-2010 4:08pm

Nice shot Dave, cheers. I haven't heard of Ansel Adams but I'll do some research when I get home.

charybdis · 10-05-2010 4:14pm

Promac wrote: »

Also, feel free to suggest improvements - I'm colour blind so I'm not good with levels and I'm only just getting into photography in the last 6 months.

If you're partially or fully colour blind, why don't you work in black & white? Not that there's anything wrong with the colours in these pictures, but there's a lot to be said for not working in colour for the purposes of giving all your attention to capturing form and luminance without worrying about chrominance.

You can't really avoid shooting in colour if you're using a DSLR (due to the bayer pattern), but you can still convert your images to black & white and get an understanding of colours by making changes to specific colour channels and viewing the resultant image.

Promac wrote: »

Nice shot Dave, cheers. I haven't heard of Ansel Adams but I'll do some research when I get home.

Ansel Adams is pretty much the patron saint of black & white landscape photography. You'd do very well to study his work, an excellent (and cheap) starting point would be 400 Photographs.

Promac · 10-05-2010 4:47pm

Excellent - I'll check it out. I've been meaning to play with B&W as well.

I love colour photography, I just can't trust my idea of correct colour balance. I've only got the bog-standard red/green colour defficiency but I did some colour film photography a long time ago and gave it up after people commented on the odd hues of my colour developing.

pullandbang · 10-05-2010 4:52pm

Check out Neil McShane here www.blackandwhite.ie

He's a really good landscape tog who works only in B&W.

And, yes, I think landscapes should have a subject - even if it is the landscape itself.

Promac · 10-05-2010 4:58pm

pullandbang wrote: »

Check out Neil McShane here www.blackandwhite.ie

He's a really good landscape tog who works only in B&W.

And, yes, I think landscapes should have a subject - even if it is the landscape itself.

Very nice stuff there - I love getting that jealous rush from looking at a good photographers stuff. Makes you want to get out there.

I'll have do some black and white stuff and get you lot to have a look.

Do landscapes need a subject?

Comments