Hey landscapers,

 

I am not complaining or trying to start a revolution. I am enjoying being part of the 1x community and it has been helpful in improving my photography. I have 80 shots in my portfolio so far and not one has been published and I am starting to take some satirical pleasure in that. Most of my shots did not deserve it but... I have seen amazing landscapes here and have been inspired by the works of others and it will lead me to try new things. I am grateful of the suggestions I have received.

 

But I do love to discuss so my question for you is, how would you describe the style of landscape photos that are published?

 

My initial thoughts are "austere", "ethereal", "translucence" and maybe Iceland. What say you.

I'd say: composition, light, subject.

In short: light, mood, magic

I used to do landscape photography in past years. While there is of course a lot of styles and processing techniques that can be applied I think the biggest factor is still - "be at the right place at the right time". Its all a game of numbers. There is no point in making the trouble of hiking to a top photogenic location if the time is not right - and vice versa. And sometimes the best landscape is right in your backyard. A couple of ideas I try to share below -

 

* Composition - start with leading lines flowing into the frame and linking interesting elements to create depth and a path for the eye to follow and explore. Study a bunch of published landscape images and identify the lines (some lines are easier to identify than others). This is a basic "style" that will mostly work once you train your eye to see the lines.

 

* Light - photograph "only" during the golden hour to start with (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_hour_(photography)). Making strong landscape image with harsh high contrast sun is not easy (impossible maybe?) Fog is very good to get interesting light effects -soft muted colors, bursts of light rays etc. Do not become a fair-weather photographer - overcast/rain/snow/lightning/dark clouds/high winds etc can all lead to amazing light (possibly in between long stretches of bad light). At least during marginal weather you don't get harsh sun. If the visibility distance is low train your attention away from grand vistas and try to find more localized landscapes. Some of the best landscapes I've experienced while hiking were breaks between very marginal weather conditions. Invest in good rain gear and be ready to head out when the time is right.

 

* Weather/maps - become an expert on weather information. During the summer this year we had wildfires in Alaska/Siberia/Canada. As unfortunate as those events were they also lead to some extraordinary sunrise/sunsets during those times even thousands of miles away. Always browse a good weather site at least once a week and plan ahead. Keep watch for high/low tides if you live near a coast (good for tide pools/sea stacks etc). Moon phases/cloud cover are important if you want to do astrophotography. Get the TPE app and plan ahead for where the sunrise/sunset is going to fall. Study maps carefully before a trip and research the location e.g. whether good for morning or evening etc and plan your itinerary well.

 

* Community - Become active in an online forum in your area where people discuss landscape photography and hiking. Follow the discussion closely during seasonal events like aurora borealis, spring flowers, fall leaf season, first snow, wildlife migration etc. Fall leaf season is usually over within a week or two in the mountains so its usually better to error on the side of being slightly early (the first big storm will strip all the leaves). If there are a ton of reports of peak colors you know its likely already too late. Timing is key.

 

Hmm .. that turned out longer than I expected. Hopefully not too random :)

Anna, I agree with you. I think though there is a lot of possible variation in composition, light, and subject. I think translucence relates to light, austere to composition, and ethereal to subject.

 

Carsten, I am struggling to understand what "mood" means in landscape photography. I guess what I try for is awe now that I think of it. By magic I think that may relate to post photo processing?

 

Khris, you did cover a lot of terrain so thanks. I agree with everything you said although for mountain and canyon photography, which is most of what I do, the importance of the golden hour(s) is overstated. I realize that most photographers live near a coast or a flat land where the horizon is big. But in canyons and mountains the daytime sun is critical to get the light on certain features. And I kind of smirk when I see a landscaper who has taken a shot during the golden hour that has direct light on the top of the mountain and everything in between is lowly lit. I absolutely agree with you on the importance of stormy weather for creating most of the best daytime shots. My most popular shot posted here was a break in the clouds: https://1x.com/photo/999829/all:user:574925

 

In Colorado, though we have an abundance of deep blue skies and occasionally that does work. Here are a couple of examples. The first was a mostly blue sky day with some wonderful cotton ball clouds: https://1x.com/photo/1031340/all:user:574925. My other example is a canyon shot with completely blue sky:

https://1x.com/photo/1004009/all:user:574925.

 

Anyway Khris, I think you covered most of everything although again, within those parameters the curators do favor some kinds shot over others and that was what I was hoping we could identify.

 

And as always, may peace and blessings be on all photographers and curators.

 

Rob

 

Hi Rob,

 

Allow me to join you answer what question, but before long continued, I apologize if only my opinion is less sound.

 

I've tried looking at your gallery containing more or less there are 85 photographs. I think the photos that you make quite good, especially for my eyes were not used to seeing the sights as you make, you should know I live in tropical region that has a very different picture to the one you describe.

 

From about 85 photos that you have made, make me feel once you are so eager to make some different image, maybe you are a little curious and asked ....... "what is my fault, I've made the pictures that I think is nice , but also given the opportunity to be published at page esteemed 1x "..... is my opinion that would not be true Rob.

But ...... if it really is just a curiosity that arise in yourself, in my opinion, it should be ignored, because it feels less useful. In my opinion, in the difficult art of touch ..... we think we're good, but not necessarily for others of the same opinion. So we should just enjoy what we can do, we focus and we increase our expertise, and we should be happy first.

 

Already many of the companions of the above opinion, and their opinion is very good and worth noting.

True to their word "right time" really need to be considered, said the one Ansel Adam alone may repeatedly come to a place just to get a good photo paper. So did about "light" is very important and hold a role in making the landscape photos. Regarding the "composition" I think the style of a person can be very different in compose what he saw, we could both look at the same subject, but we will not necessarily equal in composition, the conclusion could be the composition of its ..... very private although basically / same principle. And so we need to consider also is that we should be able to master our tools (camera), not the other way ...... tool that controls us.

 

Rob ..... the little that I can tell to no, hopefully this can be any good either, I'm happy to share a few with you.

 

Greetings from me Johanes Januar

Johanes, thank you for your long and thoughtful response, just like the others. Networking with other photographers has been incredibly important for discovering how my style is perceived and appreciated. So I am pleased and proud of my work so far and I am getting better at it I think. So I am not complaining about not getting published nor am I trying to change my style in order to get published. My only goal for getting published is to try to get better and better at producing great shots of the beautiful landscapes where I live.

 

My question really was what commonalities do the published landscape shots share if any? For example lately it seems shots looking down onto flat or undulating terrain with low angle sunlight and fog through the trees is a preferred motif. I think there are places which get some preferences too. That is really what my question was about.

 

And there is another "market" for my work that really counts, and that is the consumers of fine art landscape photography. I do keep up with the galleries here and elsewhere in the west and I do know in general my style and photos are similar to them.

 

And Johanes, thank you so much for taking the time to look through my portfolio! I will do the same with yours.

 

Cheers,

 

Rob Corkran

 

Hi Rob ......

 

I guess I want to say goodnight to you in advance of the country where I live, which is still located in the morning.

 

I am very happy to hear you say ..... "I do not complain about the results of my photo, I am happy, I am proud of what I have done and will also retain the style that has been owned" your attitude is greatly appreciated and I Just believe you can sustain this ..... of course you will have / give birth to the characters themselves where these characters are very coveted every worker art.

 

Rob, my country is very much not like you are, the way to learn about my photography much "see" the great works of the masters who came from your country such as Ansel Adams, John Sexton, Breet Weston, Alan Ross also Charles Cramer and more Again, I "tried" to learn from them, because they are so great I admit my eyes, I tried to make the photo work by adjusting the land of my existing image and the result of that I tried to show in 1x ...... please you see it, but the results are also possible as you feel. But all that I realized it could be indeed ....... I have not reached the standard of what is at 1x.

 

Rob, once again I am very pleased to meet with you, I hope this introduction can continue in the future, and ...... I hope, I still can see your other photographs in this 1x.

 

My warmest greetings to you.

Johanes Januar

 

"How would you describe the style of landscape photos that are published?"

Perhaps the real question is: Why the published works are published? Or: What the curators like? Or: What makes a good photographic work?

I think the landscape curators of the site are open to all styles, although there are always some preferences. I would not say I like all the published works, but they are generally of high quality.

What is the definition of high quality then? There are no standard and specific criteria. But I believe the following:

A well composed and properly lit picture may be good, but may not be good enough. To make the picture stand out (i.e., worthy to be published - relatively speaking), we need to ask:

- Is the picture look familiar? Or, does this picture offer something fresh or special or better to the audience? The more we see other people's works, the higher standard we will have. Therefore the judgment is relative. When some people enjoy certain works, others may feel bored or see rooms of improvement.

- Does the picture have a soul? Can we read a poem from it? This means we need something more than just being beautiful. People mentioned mood above. Mood is important because it reflects the feeling of the photographer at the moment, or his discovery of life in the landscape. It is often more touching than a routine capture of shapes and shades.

The published works are relatively better in these aspects. This is what I would say common among them.

Johanes and Zan;

 

This discussion has helped me more than I thought it would.

 

Johanes, a gift of a print of "Moon Over Half Dome" and later a purchase of a poster of "Winter Sunrise" have been the two most influential Adam's shot for my work. And I dream of having a platform welded to my Jeep SUV so I can get on top to take pictures like Adams. But what you said about going back to the same spots over and over again is something I have been starting to realize I need to do myself and so that is a big help. Thank you.

 

Zan, I discounted the importance of mood when people you and others have mentioned it. I have felt "awe" and "biophilia" when I see a great landscape and have good/great lighting. I do know at times I have succumbed to a capture of shapes and shade. But your description and the others will be something I will reread time and time again. Thanks.

 

I do feel a bit frustrated I admit by the need to come up with something new and fresh for the editors and I see some repeating preferences. I do come up with great locations that are new here, I just need to take better shots of them.

 

Finally thanks to everyone who commented. I did not mean for this discussion to be so much help to me but it is and I really appreciate this.

 

Cheers to everyone,

 

Rob Corkran

Since Ansel Adams has been mentioned quite a few times I'd encourage you to look at a brief introduction to Frank Gohlke at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiV0DVjr_e8. He is well regarded as a landscape photographers and his work is featured in some of the top museums but is very very different from Adam's style. Where Ansel's work seems easily understandable and has the immediate wow factor Gohlke's work is very subtle and almost ordinary looking requiring a lot more patience to unravel and appreciate.

 

The style of 1x landscapes I think would be closer to the style of Ansel than a Gohlke. In fact I'm not sure if a Gohlke would even get published here. So going back to the original question - I don't know how to describe the style of 1x landscape photography but in the context of the broader world of photography outside of 1x I think I can sometimes tell when a photograph is clearly "not" 1x style ... if that makes any sense.

Hey Khris,

 

I watched the Frank Gohlke video and went through your portfolio. I have to admit when I go through my Adam's books I am a bit saddened because I believe that many of his landscapes would not do well here or elsewhere. The quality of the finished photo is so good and there are so many of us out there the bar has been raised very high. I wish Adams, Weston, and Gohlke had these tools. However Adam's non-landscapes.... nature, abstract, portrait, architecture hold up better against modern photography.

 

I was very impressed with several of your shots and those inspire me too. I use my own eye to frame the shots I take but Adams and Weston landscapes have always been my landscape inspiration. And they are relevant to the market for landscape photography in the American west so it that vein I am on the right track.

 

Let's keep in touch,

 

Rob

Hi Rob,

 

I really enjoy the longish focal length perspective in many of your photos. This brings to mind some comments I saw on another site to the effect that 35mm is too long for landscape. Which I translated to: "super-wide landscape is very popular and I'm swimming against the current to do otherwise." Likewise for long-exposure water and dramatic (over-processed, in my mind) skies.

 

Not that any of the above disqualifies any photo to me. But I've noticed that certain kinds of landscape photos (with the qualities mentioned above) account for 90% of popular photos on another site (to remain unnamed) and a good fraction of landscape photos here. Still, I find that the published photos here show a great deal more diversity in method and emotion. So it gives me something worthwhile to strive for.

 

I kind of wish there was a mechanism here for publishing or getting critique on a "set" in addition to single photos. I don't know. Maybe not all photos need to be knockouts. One can appreciate an album even if there are no single hits on it.

 

 

It's possible, you can read it in this topic: https://1x.com/forum/571/2641/1446814586

 

I think you can also try this in critique, mentioning in the title and description that the image is part of a series.

 

Hey Charlie,

 

Ditto! I was trying to be diplomatic but I agree in general there is a bias towards wide-angle, long exposure shots were a few rocks in the immediate foreground are crisp and clear and the mountains in the back are not well defined. I agree that is more prevalent elsewhere although I think I have seen patterns and places that are vaguely preferred here. But knowing I am not the only one swimming against the tide is reassuring, so my friend, thank you.

 

Rob