Is a compelling subject required?

[Krusty79]

Michael and I were having a discussion about images in the Critique section. We frequently see images similar to mine above, where there is a nice scene with some nice colors, trees, etc., but the image lacks that one compelling subject. We usually ding the OP for not having a compelling subject. So, my question to the jury is - does every great landscape shot HAVE TO have that one primary subject? Can the overall scene acts as that subject? I think the above image is decent, but not great - is that because it lacks that one compelling element? Are these type of images always destined for the Okay or Pretty Good pile and never the Great or WOW ones?

Adding this part - I'm not referring to the abstract types of shots where you want to emphasize a pattern or texture.

[RecurrentNerve]

I think if a landscape shot doesn't have one stand-out subject, it needs to be an absolutely stunning landscape in itself; in other words, the whole shot is the subject. Likewise the subject could be a truly outstanding element throughout the whole image; really outstanding colour that glows out of the shot, or a fantastic sky. If the subject is a specific object I don't think it needs to be amazing itself, but it needs to be clear that it is the subject, providing an anchor in the scene.

If there is no subject per se and the landscape itself isn't outstanding, I think it pays to try and compose so the shot is somewhat abstract (a low angle, a natural frame, something like that), or to PP it in an interesting way.

I think the shot above, for example, would benefit from a B&W conversion as you have some good high-contrast areas - the bleached trunk, the steam, and the lighter ground in the distance, coupled with a dramatic sky.

[navcom]

I guess it depends on the definition of "subject". Don't confuse the term subject with object. While it is true that usually a subject is an object, the main subject can also be many objects or even no objects at all.

Recurrentnerve is correct in that an entire landscape itself can be the "subject" so-to-speak, but it has to be something very compelling....and that is the kicker...compelling. If an image is compelling, that is, it draws the viewer in, leads them around the image, and keeps their attention, it's a good composition. It doesn't matter if it has a main object that is easily definable.

This is why it is hard to get a compelling image from just a sun and/or pretty sky. It's like taking a photo of a well-painted mid-size car. We've all seen it a thousand times and without some context to put that car in, it's just another picture of a pretty car,

Is there anything wrong with taking a photo of a pretty sky or just the sun? Absolutely not! I have tons of them. But I personally know when and where they were taken...I know the context...and therefore I personally appreciate them. But I doubt anyone else will because they weren't there...and I took them knowing that. And I don't usually offer them for sale for that reason. But many are still precious to me. It's like those 2000 photos Aunt Sarah took on her Alaska cruise. Boring! But to her they are precious because she was there and she knows the context.

As artistic photographers, we have the task of presenting a 3-D scene, along with it's smells, tastes, peripheral panorama, depth, humidity, heat, cold, etc....all on a 2-D piece of paper. In order to do this, we have to use some "trickery"...that is, we need to compose the image using artistic elements in order to rise above just a simple snap shot. It's what separates the documentation shot from art.

Hope that helps!

[jdepould]

All good images have a primary point of visual interest. It's usually a compelling subject.

Gorgeous light could be another POI though.

[RichardTaylor]

I agree. The landscape itself, in the right lighting or atmosphere can be enough.
However if you do have foreground interest or reflections or great natural framing etc it certainly helps a lot.

[Krusty79]

Thanks to everyone for your feedback. Sounds like the general opinion is that it is usually helpful to have that one identifiable subject unless the overall scene is so outstanding, it can act as its own subject.

I haven't tried any B&W conversions yet, but will keep that in mind if I have a scene with some nice contrast.

[RecurrentNerve]

I haven't tried any B&W conversions yet, but will keep that in mind if I have a scene with some nice contrast.

You already do, the image you posted in the OP would work well I think. I recommend the 'Calculations' technique, i did a tutorial on it a while back, here.

[Krusty79]

Thanks, RecurrentNerve, I looked at your tutorial and it does look very interesting. I need to get comfortable using layers, gradients, etc. Unfortunately, I do not have a recent version of PS. Actually, I think the last version I have is 5! So, I tried this in GIMP, but found out it does not have the Calculations function.

I guess I'll have to try converting a different way. Thanks for the suggestion, though. Hopefully, someone who reads this and who has PS can use your idea.

[Michael_2010]

This is an interesting topic. Sometimes I just like the interaction of the lighting and the colors.



I've been a little under the weather since Saturday night, but that has given me a chance to look at a whole bunch of landscape shots on Flickr. It looks like pretty much anything goes and it really comes down to personal preference. I've seen some very simple photos that are absolutely beautiful. I've seen others that are almost text book examples that are very boring. And, I've seen others that make me wonder why the heck anyone would want to upload something like that. lol

[RecurrentNerve]

I guess I'll have to try converting a different way. Thanks for the suggestion, though. Hopefully, someone who reads this and who has PS can use your idea.

Well, you could try my other tutorial here, which definitely works in GIMP and makes light use of layers etc, just enough to ease you in.

Michael_2010, your shot is a classic example of colour (and the distortion) 'becoming' the subject.