Quite often when landscape images are posted on UKNP there will be comments/replies that begin with "I'm not a landscapes man, but..." or words to that effect.
It only seems to happen when landscapes images are posted, and it's always struck me as a bit odd. As photographers, aren't we able to comment on the quality of the photograph, regardless of the subject matter?
I take mostly landscapes, with a bit of wildlife here and there. I rarely (if ever) take portraits (for example), but I can still recognise a good portrait photograph when I see one.
It could be argued that the majority of people posting to UKNP photograph birds mostly. I rarely take photos of birds, but I can appreciate the quality of the bird images that are posted here, in the same way that I can recognise those bird images that perhaps aren't quite as good.
Surely bird photographers (for example) can look at a landscape photograph and judge it's quality? Do you really have to be an expert on the subject matter in order to comment on the quality of a photo, or make suggestions as to how it could be improved? The fundamental basics of photography are pretty much the same regardless of whether it's a bird, a toadstool, a portrait, a cityscape, and insect, etc. etc. Do you really need to be a 'landscapes man' to suggest improvements to composition, exposure, etc. to a landscape photo? I don't think so, personally.
This is in no way meant to be a dig at anyone (far from it!), it's just something I've found a little curious, and I wondered if anybody had any views on it? It's not restricted to UKNP - I've seen similar unneccessary (IMO) 'disclaimers' in comments on other sites.
Anyway, keep up the good work folks - regardless of what you're shooting!
Michael S
Posted by Tim Munsey on December 1, 2006 at 11:27 AM
I'm not a grumbling man, but I can tell a good grumble when its posted, so full marks Michael .
Joking apart, I'd like to see more landscape pics as I do have a go myself but have discovered its a very rare moment that you stumble upon a scene that has all the ingredients needed for a good landscape pic. I don't think you need to be an expert to tell if a pictures right if you have the eye you just listen to your inner self and you know (blimey I'm starting to write real arty farty blx).
Cheers
Tim
Posted by Dave Courtenay on December 1, 2006 at 11:53 AM
Guilty-I know i have said that before-I guess its just that we all have our own discipline of photography be it landscape/wildlife/glamour etc and maybe as we are not experts in other disciplines we find it difficult to give good crititique and only say what pleases the eye as opposed to i think so and so filter would have helped here- i will write 100 times not to say it again and stand in the corner so will miss Jonny kingdom
Posted by Danny Green on December 1, 2006 at 12:36 PM
Hello Michael
This is a good point and also I think it will turn into a good thread I don't shoot landscapes unless it is right in front of me and screaming to be photographed. Over the years I have taken some nice images but it has always been while walking to photograph some mammal, bird or insect. To photograph these well you do need some knowledge and it is a hard enough job so I tend to photograph what I know. Landscape photography is also difficult but if I am honest I don't have the patience to just sit there waiting for the right light to happen. If I see a nice image I will comment but if it doesn't work I can't comment because I am not sure how to explain to improve it. I find that the forum is biased to more bird photography but that is a general rule across the whole package in this country. It will be interesting to read what others think.
Actually, I'm not so bothered by the lack of landscape shots - in fact, as I take mostly landscapes, one of the things I like about UKNP is being able to see the fantastic shots you other guys post of subjects I don't dabble with much!!
I'm not really bothered by people saying "I'm not a landscapes man, but..." either - like I say, I just found it a bit strange! Dave makes a good point about not being able to comment on use of filters and such like (the 'creative' part of landscape photography) - I guess that's true if you never shoot landscapes and have no idea what filters should be used and when.
I think UKNP is definitely more about birds than any other subject - but that's not a bad thing, especially considering the high standard of bird photography on here! Most of the bird images are a pleasure to view. Also, we do have other folk posting other subject matter - a few people post landscapes every now and then, and then there's writepic's underwater shots, and the mammal shots posted by various people (in fact the mammal shots are usually my favourite - the recent 'Arctic Fox running' being a classic example!).
It's just something I've found curious - how (some) nature photographers feel unqualified to comment on a photograph that isn't in their field, as it were.
Don't be shy - speak out!
Michael S
Posted by Paul Williams on December 2, 2006 at 6:44 AM
I fall into the ‘I know what I like when I see it’ category so far as any type of photo goes. Even though some of you may recall that I’ve built a feeding station and hide for bird photography this winter I’m not actually a bird man myself . I just want to put in the effort to hopefully get some good bird photos, another string in the bow so as to speak. I like to shoot and enjoy the challenge of all types of natural world photography. My hang up, so far as commenting on images goes, is feeling confident/qualified enough to actually comment at all, though I like to think I’m getting better at it.
Posted by Paul Everett on December 2, 2006 at 7:05 AM
I am glad you brought this up as I have often thought the same thing. People should give feedback whether they feel "qualified" (?) or not, its part of what makes this forum a success. Also it might encourage more postings of landscape images, which I personally would welcome.
Paul
Posted by David Kjaer on December 2, 2006 at 12:16 PM
I see nothing wrong with the words "I'm not a landscape man but..." or "IMO" as at least they have taken the time to comment on an image which so many do not, especially those that post looking for critique themselves and yet don't spare the time to return the favour.
I can also understand why people often use these phrases and I have done so in the past. I think it is because there are a few people who make comments which sometimes include a snipe at the comment that someone else has made about the image instead of sticking to what they like or dislike or how to improve that particular photo. So to sum up "IMO" I feel we should respect other peoples critique, no matter how much we may disagree, which is what I think you are saying, and I am sure more forum users would feel inclined to make comments.
Discussion
7 repliesIt only seems to happen when landscapes images are posted, and it's always struck me as a bit odd. As photographers, aren't we able to comment on the quality of the photograph, regardless of the subject matter?
I take mostly landscapes, with a bit of wildlife here and there. I rarely (if ever) take portraits (for example), but I can still recognise a good portrait photograph when I see one.
It could be argued that the majority of people posting to UKNP photograph birds mostly. I rarely take photos of birds, but I can appreciate the quality of the bird images that are posted here, in the same way that I can recognise those bird images that perhaps aren't quite as good.
Surely bird photographers (for example) can look at a landscape photograph and judge it's quality? Do you really have to be an expert on the subject matter in order to comment on the quality of a photo, or make suggestions as to how it could be improved? The fundamental basics of photography are pretty much the same regardless of whether it's a bird, a toadstool, a portrait, a cityscape, and insect, etc. etc. Do you really need to be a 'landscapes man' to suggest improvements to composition, exposure, etc. to a landscape photo? I don't think so, personally.
This is in no way meant to be a dig at anyone (far from it!), it's just something I've found a little curious, and I wondered if anybody had any views on it? It's not restricted to UKNP - I've seen similar unneccessary (IMO) 'disclaimers' in comments on other sites.
Anyway, keep up the good work folks - regardless of what you're shooting!
Michael S
Joking apart, I'd like to see more landscape pics as I do have a go myself but have discovered its a very rare moment that you stumble upon a scene that has all the ingredients needed for a good landscape pic. I don't think you need to be an expert to tell if a pictures right if you have the eye you just listen to your inner self and you know (blimey I'm starting to write real arty farty blx).
Cheers
Tim
This is a good point and also I think it will turn into a good thread
Danny
Actually, I'm not so bothered by the lack of landscape shots - in fact, as I take mostly landscapes, one of the things I like about UKNP is being able to see the fantastic shots you other guys post of subjects I don't dabble with much!!
I'm not really bothered by people saying "I'm not a landscapes man, but..." either - like I say, I just found it a bit strange! Dave makes a good point about not being able to comment on use of filters and such like (the 'creative' part of landscape photography) - I guess that's true if you never shoot landscapes and have no idea what filters should be used and when.
I think UKNP is definitely more about birds than any other subject - but that's not a bad thing, especially considering the high standard of bird photography on here! Most of the bird images are a pleasure to view. Also, we do have other folk posting other subject matter - a few people post landscapes every now and then, and then there's writepic's underwater shots, and the mammal shots posted by various people (in fact the mammal shots are usually my favourite - the recent 'Arctic Fox running' being a classic example!).
It's just something I've found curious - how (some) nature photographers feel unqualified to comment on a photograph that isn't in their field, as it were.
Don't be shy - speak out!
Michael S
Paul
I can also understand why people often use these phrases and I have done so in the past. I think it is because there are a few people who make comments which sometimes include a snipe at the comment that someone else has made about the image instead of sticking to what they like or dislike or how to improve that particular photo. So to sum up "IMO"
David