I have a 2 part question… Is it still landscape photography if an animal is present, and are landscape photographs with animals less likely to be purchased by collectors of fine art nature photography?
I like to use the cheesy term “animalscape,” but I never seen that as an official category anywhere (unless you’re talking about “Animals in Their Environment” contest categories). Generally, I’d still consider it wildlife photography before landscape photography if it’s a wider environmental shot with wildlife in it.
Regarding the second part of your question: while I don’t have much evidence, I always tend to think that landscape photography sells better than wildlife photography because it has a broader appeal. And by that, I mean wildlife images often have to match a buyer’s specific animal preference to sell, whereas an image highlighting beautiful scenery will resonate with more people (even if it doesn’t touch them all on a deeper level than the moose/tiger/otter lover who’s found a photo of their favorite animal).
Thank you for replying to my questions! That makes total sense. The ‘wider appeal’ thing. Just because I want a photo with an animal in it doesn’t mean the general population does. And most people looking at a photo or considering buying one don’t really probably care about the thrill that the photographer had of being close to wildlife. That’s the photographer’s story not their’s. Sorry for being so wordy, but what you said finally clicked with me. I’ve had debates about this with my husband for a while and he’ll be glad that I finally ‘get it’! I would love to hear any other views and feedback from anyone who sees this!
Thanks again, Max…