I’ve been reflecting on the trends in landscape photography over the past few years, and while these are simply my personal observations, I thought I’d share them. You may very well have a different perspective, but here are my thoughts:
At first, we were told that wide-angle lenses were a must-have, and so it seemed like everyone rushed to buy a 16-35mm lens, often using the wide end for almost every shot. Then, as if that wasn’t enough, 16mm started to feel restrictive, and people upgraded to the 14mm for an even wider view. Shooting landscapes with these ultra-wide lenses often requires having a foreground element close to the camera to make it appear larger and more prominent in the frame. Unfortunately, this led to some people just placing anything into the foreground without much thought about whether it complemented the rest of the scene. Unfortunately this led to some people plopping whatever they could find into the foreground just for the sake of having a foreground that they didn’t even consider if that whatever complemented the rest of the image. Moreover, this technique made the background elements—often the very subjects that inspired the photographer in the first place—appear relatively small and diminished.
Eventually, photographers began to feel that everyone’s landscape images were starting to look the same. In response, the trend shifted toward using telephoto lenses—particularly the 100-400mm zoom—to isolate specific elements within the landscape rather than capturing the entire scene. It’s somewhat ironic that, in the pursuit of originality, many turned to using the same tools as everyone else. There are even some that now try to shoot so tight that they avoid having to include the sky in their images.
There’s also been a noticeable shift away from shooting the grand landscapes in favor of more intimate, detailed scenes. I can’t help but wonder: Is this shift because the grand landscapes no longer excite photographers, or is it simply because it’s what everyone else is doing?
Tom, as a landscaper only myself I never personally follow trends or ideas. Especially these days as the world seems to be tipping off it’s axis more and more. Have you ever noticed how many people “back” into parking spots these days? Not to pigeonhole but my first thought is they must be Gen Z. At my age I’m lucky if I can get the vehicle in-between the parking lines going forward…
It’s a good discussion and to your point on the subject I still think it depends upon the POV on the given scene. I find many rock formations I photograph would look dwarfed in a grand landscape, but I still have to use a wide angle in very close as the setup space is way too narrow to get back and use a longer lens. But then again at times I’ll use a longer lens and take two or three images to make a much larger panoramic scene.
In the end , I just run with what I brung mentality. I’ll be the dude left behind trying to figure out how to back into a parking space without making contact with the other vehicles…
Personally I’m drawn to more intimate scenes because it is increasingly difficult to make an original image of a grand landscape, very few of them are not overexposed exposed well beyond the saturation point and the disservice of the place. There are intimate landscapes in most cases very near our dooryards that reflect much more our deeply personal visions of the world and there are no other tripod marks in sight…
I pretty much agree with that. It’s pretty hard being authentic and shoot grand landscapes. Anything you come up with feels like something you’ve seen before. And that takes it away for me. But even intimates are now being repetitive. How many fog pictures of trees have you seen? It seems like any mist picture will be rewarded these days.
I also agree that the big foreground subject leading to background that David Muench popularized is becoming formulaic now.
And yet any type of image can be unique and original. There are many grand landscapes that still have something to say that’s different.
Regarding lens choices, when a photographic opportunity arises and the window is small I use the lens I have on.
Hmm, I wonder if this has anything to do with location and the fact that most photographer I know are from the United States. Maybe with there being more people there, more things have been shot to death so to speak. While there are a few locations here in Canada that are super popular one can still find unique and shoot unique grand landscapes if they put in a little effort.
My greatest passion is the grand landscape and it’s what gives me the most joy and satisfaction in photography. I also shoot some intimate scenes when the opportunity presents itself and although I’m generally happy with the intimate images I shoot they don’t give me nearly the same amount of joy when I view them later on.
What I’m gravitating to more and more are what I like to call medium landscapes. These are similar to grand landscapes but not as expansive. I’m also finding that I’m using my “normal” focal length lenses more and more. The same ones that some experts on YouTube claim too boring for landscape photography. Maybe that’s true, maybe my images are boring but I like them and they give me joy.
“What I’m gravitating to more and more are what I like to call medium landscapes.”
I think of these as “standoff-ish” landscapes, between the grand and the macro-ish. It’s where I tend to hang out too, the 24mm-135mm range is covers them nicely… There are very few actual experts on youtube…
Maybe a good approach would be to assess the scene in front of you, searching for compositions that appeal to you, and then move and/or use the appropriate focal length to capture that composition. Whether it’s grand, intimate, close-up, medium or whatever. No need to give it a name or to constrain composition choices to a particular range of focal lengths.
Ronald, you have made the point I was trying to make much clearer in your comment here. Thank you for making the concise verbiage match my not so clear POV…
You’re absolutely right, Ronald! In my opinion, that’s the best approach to photography—capturing what resonates with you in a way that feels true to your style. It truly fascinates me though how so many people prefer following others’ formulas/approaches. After all, trends only become trends because so many people start doing the same thing.
I never gave trends much thought. I have always photographed what ever it was that inspired me. If it was something small that required a close up or macro lens then I would do that, if what was before me occupied more than my own eyes could see without having to turn my head then no lens was going to capture it but I would try with my widest lens and attempt to capture that feeling. I really take photography for what the word means - writing with light. I pen with photos what my eyes see and my skill with a camera can transcribe. Trends come and go and following the next new trend would drive me crazy.
People photograph for different reasons, and that will influence what kind of photos they take. I am purely an amateur and photograph nature because I love beauty and nature seems to do it best. So I am drawn to beautiful light and beautiful subjects. I personally find grand landscapes overwhelmingly beautiful so I gravitate to those . As an amateur I obviously have no interest in selling what is popular and I also have little interest in “being original”. I guess I am an old fashioned luddite: if it is beautiful I love it.
I think I’m an outlier in that I don’t care too much about originality. I just photograph what intrigues me, and don’t worry about if it is unique or has been done a thousand times. In the end, my photographs are treasured mementos and memories that I love to enjoy; if others find them enjoyable, that’s a bonus. With that said, I’m always open to new ideas and experiences, and love to see what others find worthy.
It’s not originality it’s authenticity. And authenticity is honesty. When people say it’s an honest picture they mean one that the person expressed himself. That’s the problem with cliche images. They express someone elses feelings which you saw and liked. It seems like a small difference but if you stay with photography long enough you understand it. Your not creating a hurdle for yourself for the sake of making a hurdle. You do it so that when you look at it you don’t feel like you’ve done the same thing yet again.
Creativity - ‘the ability to produce or use original and unusual ideas’ - Cambridge Dictionary
I just completed a workshop with Guy Tal where the very first lecture was on creativity. He defined it as new, useful, and unexpected. He advised his students to try to make images having these qualities. Doesn’t mean everyone has to. But I bought into this a long time ago.
Oh yes, and divergent thinking. That also relates to this subject.
I meant honesty, sincerity. Something creative that comes from within you. That’s the ideal. Of course you can say everything comes from you. You made it so of course it’s yours. You could also say that nothing is just you. Everyone stands on the shoulders of previous artists. But we’re talking something different here. An exploration of one’s world. I think that’s what art is about actually. The photographers exploration and later the viewers exploration of the photograph. Its an experience. The problem with cliche images is that there is no discovery in making them and in looking at them. Unoriginality equates to boredom.
I can only speak for me, but when I strive to photograph grand landscapes, I personally don’t feel dishonest or insincere. Others may find them boring, and I’m perfectly fine with that, but I do find discovery in photographing them. For me, I photograph for authenticity using the definition I posted; I want to be true to my personality, spirit, and character.
Even so, I love to be open to exploration and am fascinated by what others find in their exploration. Much like when I listen to exceptional jazz music, I can enjoy it even though I know there is a whole level of depth that I am unable to comprehend the way that others do.
There is a new field of brain science now called neuroaesthetics (I think that’s spelled right). They show that when people are involved in creative work a region of the brain is highly active. Creative being how the dictionary defines it. I’m not saying grand landscapes don’t involve some creativity. Creativity is an interesting thing. It happens unplanned. Shooting grand landscapes is usually a planned endeavor.
I totally agree with this. As I’ve noted, I have no problem heading to grand scenery and photographing it, but I also really enjoy just letting my eye and thoughts wander on the way there and back. Some of my favorite images have been stuff that just caught my eye as I trundled along. (For example this and this, taken while wandering back roads around the grand landscape of Mt. Hood with @Steve_Kennedy.)
Oh, my. These are wonderful. I should go to the flora section more often, or at all.
Btw, the ingredient in creativity called ‘unexpected’ is really interesting. Chuck Kimmerle does that just about as well as anyone I know. The unexpected is like a curveball. It makes you wonder. I think all this started in art after Realism was over but is really prominent in the 20th century. I find looking at art very useful in improving one’s photography.
Maybe that’s true, maybe my images are boring but I like them and they give me joy.