Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Jon Devo, Sep 8, 2017.
Take part in this week's poll.
“Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn’t photogenic.” – Edward Weston
That poll page takes ages to load. Another that misses the spot.
I like walking. While walking I'll take photographs. I can't imagine deliberately walking to place X to take "a picture" but I"ll walk several miles enjoying and recording the landscape. While driving I might stop if the view is good but again I wouldn't drive somewhere to take a specific shot but I will likely photograph wherever it is I happen to go, whether for a walk or to visit a place.
Why 'trek', which implies something arduous? My 90 minute circular walks on the local moors are not particular arduous.
Do my pictures of bridges count as 'landscape'?
Over the years I must have trekked a few thousand kilometres, mostly in the swedish part of Lappland, but also the UK and France. Whether any 'great landscape shots' resulted was often down to chance since I generally had no, or only a vague, idea of what I was going to find until I got there and found it - and even on return visits there was no guarantee that the weather would oblige by turning a previously mundane shot into a great one!
In any case, what I've learned over the years is that setting out deliberately with a specific landscape shot in mind will be a waste of time, money and effort! Chance rules,OK!?
Or to put things another way, none of the options in the poll fits!
I have in the past walked for several hours, but not with a specific photographic object in mind. The majority of us take photographs in the course of doing other things, if a great image results that is a bonus. I suspect the question is phrased that way because a professional landscape photographer may well walk for some hours to get the perfect shot, an amateur may well walk for hours and still get the shot but the object will be the walk not the photograph.
What Geoff said ^^^
Do you have any evidence to support that assertion?
I am the opposite - my excursions and adventures tend to be made with specific photographs in mind.
But I do not know whether "the majority of us" are like you or like me or something completely different.
I have a friend who is a very good photographer but whose motto is "a sunrise before 8:30am is not worth taking".
I can sympathise with that point of view. On Wednesday this week I got up at 3:30am and made a 120-mile round trip to Whitby with the sole purpose of photographing sunrise on the piers. About halfway over the Yorkshire Moors the rain came on!!!!
The poll seems to confuse trek, walk and hike. No reason why a trek cannot be made on horseback, camel, snowmobile or 4WD vehicle.
Or Star Ship!
I trek because I want to walk. I take a camera so that I can take a photograph when the opportunity arrises. I do not trek in order to take photographs.
I rather doubt great landscapes can be equated to distance walked.
photographers who specialise in the wilderness by definition trek long distances.
For most landscapes, there are usually roads with in walking distance.
At my age I leave the trekking to others.
unless you go prepared to camp out, the chances of finding a new view and with the right light, is probably as remote as the location.
There is no reason to suppose that you will find a great shot. just because you trek all day.
It would seem to me Gret shots come to light, when the location is well known to the photographer and is completed by the light and conditions. not the distance.
I didn't go that far, but well out of my usual stamping grounds last week. The scenery was magnificent but I didn't take any photos because the light was awful. I'm sure there are tripod holes all along the route I followed so there wasn't any point taking the same shots as everyone else when the light wasn't playing. On the other hand, if there is good light, there are great shots to be had right on my doorstep. Distance isn't the important thing I'd have thought.
Well, I've been quite happy with some of the shots I've taken in the Himalayas.... And in California and the American mid-west... And on the banks of the Ganges... And in the Pyrenees... And within a 20 minute walk of my house, at various houses.
Unlike some others, I DO go to places with the intention of taking pictures. Like my late friend Colin Glanfield, I'm not sure I'd bother to travel if I couldn't take a camera.
But I doubt I've set out more than a dozen times in the last 50 years with a particular picture in mind. Maybe not even half a dozen times.
Would love to see your 'Ganges' shots Roger if they're available anywhere?
Only in a couple of books: most appeared in Shutterbug magazine in the USA, 25+ years ago, when magazines had far bigger circulations (and budgets) than today. Several are medium format so I can't easily scan 'em even if I find 'em. If I get around to it I'll try to look a few out.
Those who find that there are nice landscapes outside the front door will stroll the few metres necessary to find a vantage point. Those of us who want wilderness will happily hike for kilometres through the landscape. Whether, in both cases, there are specific shots in mind or not depends upon how well we know the area concerned in terms of topography, lighting and so on and how much the weather influences us.
Separate names with a comma.