I don't think you'll ever find a universally accepted definition of what is
a landscape. My personal accounting of the term is quite broad. To me, there
is no difference between a seascape and landscape...except for the obvious
geography. A cityscape is a form of landscape photo in the sense that cities
have been a part of the landscape ever since man first started erecting
dwellings. In my opinion, a landscape doesn't cease to become a landscape
simply because the subject changes from a mountain to a sea shore to the NYC
skyline. A shot is no longer a landscape when the perspective stops being
rather "all encompassing" and becomes much more focused and specific in
terms of its subject.
With that said, I'm starting to wonder if the shots I took today for this
TOPE really stand up to my definition......oh well, at the least we got hit
with a couple of blasts of winter yesterday that covered up all the
brown.......
Bruce
Bruce Hamm
Ottawa, Canada
bhamm@xxxxxxxx
I agree that one may not find a universally accepted definition. On
the other hand the definition can become so broad as to become
meaningless. Seems to me that the subject of a picture sort of
announces itself. Just ask yourself what the subject is. If it is
cityscape or seascape or a potted plant, it does not seem to me that
it is a landscape. Where there are combinations, regardless of
perspective, I think it goes back to subject. Is the subject "people
in a landscape" or "a landscape with people in it"? Seems to me that
there is a difference.
Of course there are going to be photos that do not fit neatly into
the usual classifications. They may be the best ones.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
?
< 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 >
|