"99.99% of all landscape photography being shared online is utter shit" 😂I think we need more of these videos John! A pre waring would be nice though, I half spat a mouthful of coffee over my laptop the rest of it got sucked back up my nose as damage limitation kicked in. I really like that beach shot @3:52 the people defiantly add to the scene!
That's Blackpool beach - shot on my Fuji XF10 one handed with a 4 year old sat on my shoulders...you can see from this how much effort I put in to my landscapes :-)
how relatable 🙂 The problem is, that the 0.01% of really good landscape photography is so damn good, that it is intimidating, and our own stuff inevitably has to look like sh't in comparison. For example, Kilian Schoenberger is one of the 0.01% guys. Do an internet search, and you know what I mean. Those 0.01% guys (who follow their passion full-time professionally for a living) set the bar so high, that this is beyond reach for us normal mortals. To be any near to the top, you need to be so good in - finding great but still secret locations (which are gorgeous but not worn out due to being too ubiquitous) - planning trips (season, time of the day, sun locations) - forecasting all the photography aspects of the weather (will the sunset yield a glowing sky?) - mastering composition in the field - mastering composition in postprocessing (cropping, dodge & burn) - mastering color grading - mastering all the advanced workflow stuff (e.g. focus stacking) that all of the above is intimidating as a whole. You know you would require a year or so being a 7days/10hours full time landscape photographer. But we are hobbyists (with regards to landscape photography), don't have that time, and consequently not that level of refined experience. So we know, we will be stuck in the 99.99% 'cr@p' section of landscape photography 😉 Which is probably, why many switch to other subject areas like people & portrait photography. Unfortunately, even there, the demand has been drying out. A few years ago, many girls were running e.g. fashion blogs, or liked modelling in general. All of that seemed to have dried up as well, actually before the current COVID epoch. Street photography is also choked esp. in Europe due to ever-strengthened individuals' rights (photographers need their consent, which destroys the former charming candidness of street photography). So, we are running out of subject areas which are interesting, which yield pride-worthy results w/o an absurdly high effort barrier, and which are not yet overshadowed by a 0.01% elite? 🙈
I find landscape photography to be very varied, much like the portrait genre. I too am not a fan of certain styles or types of landscape work, large vistas etc I find cram too much into one image that I feel is a jumble of multiple things that divide attention vs giving the things that deserve the attention the solo emphasis they deserve. I prefer the works like Simon Baxter where it feels more like a narrowed down specific genre, for example woodland and singling out a tree or a few trees where extreme care is easily observed to composition and light, nothing is left to chance and it's clearly apparent. Post processing is also erring on the side of being gentle, these works I think are truly incredible pieces but its not something I think is popular or gains wide audience. I guess I see it no different to other genres, there's trash portrait and wildlife shots as well.
@@JohnJBloomfield I'm not sure 'emotional response' is quite the association I make with landscape, it's not images of starving kids in Africa or something. The best I think we can hope for is a landscape image that makes us appreciate the natural beauty that surrounds us, to motivate ourselves to go out and see similar things with our own eyes etc. I agree, a lot is lost in translation from experiencing the wilderness first hand and looking at a photo. I mean when I go out and do some landscape myself it's not every outing that I am stimulated that emotionally from the endeavor, other times it can be quite apparent.
I agree on "over the top post processing". I agree, that making images is art and art is not limited to exposure of the scene only, but there was always post production - Ansel Adams did it too. But sometimes I wonder why we still call it "photography" - BTW today it is "World Photography Day" - photography literally means painting with light. I defend that photography should mainly be the process of capturing the light bounced from the scene into some sort of medium - digital included. My high school colegue have mastered the wet colodian process, and made interesting video how much effort creating photograph used to take in the past (ruclips.net/video/EP7t0NDyTTE/видео.html). I think digital photography brought Devaluation of the process. Than smart phones pushed that Devaluation further. We just snap images all the time. There is bunch of "AI" programs now that try to do everything instead of us and finally filters before upload. On weddings I have hard time to stel the show of 1st images posted, because new-weds post their own snaps before I can review image on the back of camera. Let alone Pentax does not offer much help to quickly post images somewhere. I need to have laptop, swap cards, assistant need to quickly find and edit image and sent it to bride ... when she is posting directly to her timeline from her phone, seconds after taking that snap ... ... back to landscape: I agree that final image is representation of photographers idea and view. But often images are painted with light, that may or may not look nice, but that is not as it was. I defend that photography must remain painting with light that was there, with gently emphasise on some parts in the post, but not making whole scene out of editors idea. That it is painting or image or picture, but not photographs. I might be "oldfashioned" or completely wrong on that. But I like your video.
Hey Mihael - you're comment was just notified to me not sure what's going on there! Good to hear from you though - haven't seen you around the web so much since I left all the Pentax communities....maybe you'll join the Traitors group one day and come over to the dark side :-)
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
"99.99% of all landscape photography being shared online is utter shit" 😂I think we need more of these videos John! A pre waring would be nice though, I half spat a mouthful of coffee over my laptop the rest of it got sucked back up my nose as damage limitation kicked in. I really like that beach shot @3:52 the people defiantly add to the scene!
That's Blackpool beach - shot on my Fuji XF10 one handed with a 4 year old sat on my shoulders...you can see from this how much effort I put in to my landscapes :-)
@@JohnJBloomfield Climbing up mountains & flying all over the world to get Landscape images is overrated, Blackpool is where it's at!
@@LeeIveson only been that once for half a day during summer of 2020...I wasn't impressed to be honest
how relatable 🙂
The problem is, that the 0.01% of really good landscape photography is so damn good, that it is intimidating, and our own stuff inevitably has to look like sh't in comparison.
For example, Kilian Schoenberger is one of the 0.01% guys. Do an internet search, and you know what I mean. Those 0.01% guys (who follow their passion full-time professionally for a living) set the bar so high, that this is beyond reach for us normal mortals.
To be any near to the top, you need to be so good in
- finding great but still secret locations (which are gorgeous but not worn out due to being too ubiquitous)
- planning trips (season, time of the day, sun locations)
- forecasting all the photography aspects of the weather (will the sunset yield a glowing sky?)
- mastering composition in the field
- mastering composition in postprocessing (cropping, dodge & burn)
- mastering color grading
- mastering all the advanced workflow stuff (e.g. focus stacking)
that all of the above is intimidating as a whole. You know you would require a year or so being a 7days/10hours full time landscape photographer. But we are hobbyists (with regards to landscape photography), don't have that time, and consequently not that level of refined experience.
So we know, we will be stuck in the 99.99% 'cr@p' section of landscape photography 😉
Which is probably, why many switch to other subject areas like people & portrait photography.
Unfortunately, even there, the demand has been drying out. A few years ago, many girls were running e.g. fashion blogs, or liked modelling in general. All of that seemed to have dried up as well, actually before the current COVID epoch.
Street photography is also choked esp. in Europe due to ever-strengthened individuals' rights (photographers need their consent, which destroys the former charming candidness of street photography).
So, we are running out of subject areas which are interesting, which yield pride-worthy results w/o an absurdly high effort barrier, and which are not yet overshadowed by a 0.01% elite? 🙈
I find landscape photography to be very varied, much like the portrait genre. I too am not a fan of certain styles or types of landscape work, large vistas etc I find cram too much into one image that I feel is a jumble of multiple things that divide attention vs giving the things that deserve the attention the solo emphasis they deserve. I prefer the works like Simon Baxter where it feels more like a narrowed down specific genre, for example woodland and singling out a tree or a few trees where extreme care is easily observed to composition and light, nothing is left to chance and it's clearly apparent. Post processing is also erring on the side of being gentle, these works I think are truly incredible pieces but its not something I think is popular or gains wide audience.
I guess I see it no different to other genres, there's trash portrait and wildlife shots as well.
As I said in the video I don't actually hate it just very little of it triggers any kind of emotional response from me
@@JohnJBloomfield I'm not sure 'emotional response' is quite the association I make with landscape, it's not images of starving kids in Africa or something.
The best I think we can hope for is a landscape image that makes us appreciate the natural beauty that surrounds us, to motivate ourselves to go out and see similar things with our own eyes etc. I agree, a lot is lost in translation from experiencing the wilderness first hand and looking at a photo. I mean when I go out and do some landscape myself it's not every outing that I am stimulated that emotionally from the endeavor, other times it can be quite apparent.
I agree on "over the top post processing". I agree, that making images is art and art is not limited to exposure of the scene only, but there was always post production - Ansel Adams did it too. But sometimes I wonder why we still call it "photography" - BTW today it is "World Photography Day" - photography literally means painting with light. I defend that photography should mainly be the process of capturing the light bounced from the scene into some sort of medium - digital included. My high school colegue have mastered the wet colodian process, and made interesting video how much effort creating photograph used to take in the past (ruclips.net/video/EP7t0NDyTTE/видео.html). I think digital photography brought Devaluation of the process. Than smart phones pushed that Devaluation further. We just snap images all the time. There is bunch of "AI" programs now that try to do everything instead of us and finally filters before upload. On weddings I have hard time to stel the show of 1st images posted, because new-weds post their own snaps before I can review image on the back of camera. Let alone Pentax does not offer much help to quickly post images somewhere. I need to have laptop, swap cards, assistant need to quickly find and edit image and sent it to bride ... when she is posting directly to her timeline from her phone, seconds after taking that snap ...
... back to landscape: I agree that final image is representation of photographers idea and view. But often images are painted with light, that may or may not look nice, but that is not as it was. I defend that photography must remain painting with light that was there, with gently emphasise on some parts in the post, but not making whole scene out of editors idea. That it is painting or image or picture, but not photographs. I might be "oldfashioned" or completely wrong on that. But I like your video.
Hey Mihael - you're comment was just notified to me not sure what's going on there!
Good to hear from you though - haven't seen you around the web so much since I left all the Pentax communities....maybe you'll join the Traitors group one day and come over to the dark side :-)
@@JohnJBloomfield "traitors " you say? I just asked for acceptation. :)