--- Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >As for a "landscape" picture, I wouldn't get too
> hung up on the
> >definition. Go shoot a muddy barnyard or fence line
> in some pasture,
> >whatever. It'll be just as much appreciated. There
> aren't any image
> >snobs around here.
> >
> >Tris
> >
>
> I would very mildly disagree in that the landscape
> is the last layer
> for everything. For it to be a landscape it has to
> be the subject,
> not the background. Anything in the landscape
> becomes a picture of
> the thing. A fence or a barn in the landscape is a
> picture of a
> fence or a barn unless it is so small as to be
> inconsequential, or
> just an accent in the picture. But we can decide to
> be as loose as we
> want in our submissions as a group. And who says
> that a landscape
> has to be "nice and scenic"? Isn't that like not
> taking pictures of
> people because they do not look like professional
> models who seem to
> represent the usual notions of physical beauty?
> --
> Winsor Crosby
> Long Beach, California
These different points of view as to what
constitutes a "landscape" are intresting. I had a
calandar in 1985 entitled "James Harriot's Yorkshire".
The photographs were mostly what I would term
landscapes although all contained evidence of human
habitation, stone fences, barns, roads and the like.
Many were vistas with distant hillsides in view. They
were photographs of high detail that invited the
viewer to look into and explore the scene and the
fences, buildings etc contributed to the near/far
perspective. Quite interesting. John Robison
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
http://movies.yahoo.com/
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|