That might be an easier question to ask then it is to answer; ask ten photographers, get ten responses.
For me, a normal landscape photo is one where there are minimal edits; perhaps a white balance adjustment, a pinch of sharpening, a point of view which isn't extreme; nothing like changing out the sky, exposure stacking, heavy dodging/burning, or large edits removing structures, or other techniques. This dose not mean "normal" can not be fantastic, it very much can be; natural lighting and framing will always be important, subjects can still pop and there will always be leading lines to work with.
Everything is on a scale... a pendulum... perhaps "Normal" swings a little more to the side of "straight from camera" and from "a view most would take that picture from" perspective.
Just my thoughts of course... and with that I go back to my opening sentence. :)
Interesting question, Vlad! I have no answer, because I don't think in these terms.
To my mind a TYPICAL landscape photo, as often seen in this Group, could be called a scenic photo, showing part of the natural world "as it is" (or appears to be), with an attempt to get everything sharp, and natural-enough looking colours and tones that the scene seems to be literally represented. In reality, that frequently reflects a lot of processing. I'd guess I spend 3-4 hours processing and refining images before I'm ready to print them at A2 size, but usually I want people to look at the image and see nature's beauty and perhaps drama, rather than think I created it like a painter.
But "typical" implies a type or category, which can easily become formulaic. Highly stylised or frankly fantastic images of the landscape can often be more interesting, or at least attention-grabbing. Are they "abnormal"? Does it matter?
I suspect from your portfolio introduction that you are a searcher and restless spirit, and so probably you'd be less likely than many to fall into a rut.
Personally I generally prefer the typical landscape, and lasting appeal to me will come from subtlety and refinement, rather than, say, very striking, saturated colours. But that's my taste, not how I think it should all be.
Your two images here, especially the second, are of that typical kind.
1
0
Deleted Account[Edited]
Ah... normal. What the guys said... and, beyond. Normal is as varied as the eye of a photographer. However, in trying to deduce your curiosity here are questions for you. Does normal mean all natural elements, no manmade features in the shot? Would normal be a certain type of scene... all mountains, no detail vegetation?
Then there's the technical aspects of editing in photography. Level horizons (or not), a balanced image adhering to "the rule of thirds." How you perceive the colors at the time of the exposure.
The painters of the Classics, like Renoir, sometimes included ruins of ancient buildings in their "landscape" paintings. I'm a student of this school of thought... and like to seek out old buildings for some shots.
The experimenting with different styles of shooting is a large part of the fun for me. It all adds up to a great day to be out with a camera.
That might be an easier question to ask then it is to answer; ask ten photographers, get ten responses.
For me, a normal landscape photo is one where there are minimal edits; perhaps a white balance adjustment, a pinch of sharpening, a point of view which isn't extreme; nothing like changing out the sky, exposure stacking, heavy dodging/burning, or large edits removing structures, or other techniques. This dose not mean "normal" can not be fantastic, it very much can be; natural lighting and framing will always be important, subjects can still pop and there will always be leading lines to work with.
Everything is on a scale... a pendulum... perhaps "Normal" swings a little more to the side of "straight from camera" and from "a view most would take that picture from" perspective.
Just my thoughts of course... and with that I go back to my opening sentence. :)
Interesting question, Vlad! I have no answer, because I don't think in these terms.
To my mind a TYPICAL landscape photo, as often seen in this Group, could be called a scenic photo, showing part of the natural world "as it is" (or appears to be), with an attempt to get everything sharp, and natural-enough looking colours and tones that the scene seems to be literally represented. In reality, that frequently reflects a lot of processing. I'd guess I spend 3-4 hours processing and refining images before I'm ready to print them at A2 size, but usually I want people to look at the image and see nature's beauty and perhaps drama, rather than think I created it like a painter.
But "typical" implies a type or category, which can easily become formulaic. Highly stylised or frankly fantastic images of the landscape can often be more interesting, or at least attention-grabbing. Are they "abnormal"? Does it matter?
I suspect from your portfolio introduction that you are a searcher and restless spirit, and so probably you'd be less likely than many to fall into a rut.
Personally I generally prefer the typical landscape, and lasting appeal to me will come from subtlety and refinement, rather than, say, very striking, saturated colours. But that's my taste, not how I think it should all be.
Your two images here, especially the second, are of that typical kind.
Ah... normal. What the guys said... and, beyond. Normal is as varied as the eye of a photographer. However, in trying to deduce your curiosity here are questions for you. Does normal mean all natural elements, no manmade features in the shot? Would normal be a certain type of scene... all mountains, no detail vegetation?
Then there's the technical aspects of editing in photography. Level horizons (or not), a balanced image adhering to "the rule of thirds." How you perceive the colors at the time of the exposure.
The painters of the Classics, like Renoir, sometimes included ruins of ancient buildings in their "landscape" paintings. I'm a student of this school of thought... and like to seek out old buildings for some shots.
The experimenting with different styles of shooting is a large part of the fun for me. It all adds up to a great day to be out with a camera.
Keep shooting. :)
I issue death warrants for non-level horizons. (Apart from that, I'm easy-going. Really.)
LOLOLOL I had to walk away from dorking around with the above shot or I'd have said, off with my own head. That old chimney!!!