As social media platforms shift more and more toward video content and become fragmented, is interest in landscape photography declining? Using tools such as Google Trends analysis, one can see what people are searching for on the Internet and on YouTube. Is interest really declining?
In this video, Mads Peter Iversen takes a close look at Google Trends and the search-related traffic around landscape photography, wildlife photography, and street photography to see what search volume has been over a long period of time. Based on website searches, there does appear to be a slow decline in landscape photography-related searches.
Iversen also reviews the YouTube search traffic analytics for the same genres of photography, where the trends are slightly different. He ponders why these trends may be the way they are. Are people losing interest in landscape photography? Do people have less free time to pursue hobbies and leisure activities? Or is people’s attention on platforms simply shifting?
As a landscape photographer who also creates content on YouTube, I found the analysis Iversen did interesting. Without looking at the trends, I would not have suspected such shifts in interest, but the trends do seem telling.
What do you think? Is interest in landscape photography declining? Or are people simply searching for landscape photography content differently, skewing the results?
Thanks for this article + video link, Jeffrey. In the absence of primary research to layer atop the Google third-party data, MPI's hypotheses are a great conversation starter.
Landscape photography is what originally ignited my passion for photography, yet I am in the segment who has been doing less of it. And although I don't love or appreciate my immediate environments any less, the same light or conditions which caught my eyes years ago, no longer have the same effect.
A couple other factors have only piled on.
- Age & its limitations have only made it easier (maybe convenient) to breakthrough into other genres than it is to force myself to wake up early, stay out late, or drive 4-6 hours in a day to catch the type of landscape images that bring me personal satisfaction.
- I enjoy interacting with people a lot more than I thought I'd be comfortable doing so I get really excited about shooting human subjects nowadays.
The externalities like social media to which MPI alludes hasn't affected me, however, everyone's different and I can see how trends (micro / long-term) can do so.
I agree - more of a conversation starter than anything!
My path is somewhat similar, though I came back to landscape photography. i.e. got started with landscape photography, drifted to street and buildings, then to people (portraits, headshots, events), and then eventually back to landscape!
I hear you on those early mornings! They do take their toll!
Thanks for the comment!
I think we're seeing a decline in the online acknowledgement of landscape photography because a lot of the attention is given to scanley clad women with barely any clothing and I'm just gonna call it as I see it that type of photography has just exploded online and it will get attention. The majority of it is middle-aged men looking at women with no clothes on and that will get hundreds if not thousands of likes and comments. You can take an amazing photo of an amazing moment and it will probably get 12 likes and one comment but the key to it is not to see that as you're acknowledgement. I got into landscape photography again to cope with my day job which is extremely difficult. It also depends on what you are trying to achieve with your landscape photography for me. It's just about being in nature and experiencing amazing moments. My dad passed away last year and in the last three months I got to spend a lot of time with him and he just talked about memories and moments that he had created and he wasn't a photographer. If you think about our life it is actually just a bunch of moments that are connected together with time. So my advice to people is just keep creating those memories and moments go out and shoot. If you're finding it difficult to get out just take one camera one lens ditch the tripod and all the other gear that you take with you and take a small camera. I shoot professionally with some bigger cameras but I do have a little camera that sometimes that's all I take and it's a 35 mm fixed lens that I have on that body and I can see what I can create with it for me. landscape photography is about the exploration of nature. It's not about how many likes we get online. I also think that what people are putting on their walls in their houses isn't landscapes any more. The art that people put now is very let's say different often abstract if you want to go down the abstract path. That's okay too. You can do some intentional camera movement stuff. You can do a whole bunch of stuff with abstract and landscapes but at the end of the day do it for you. Don't worry about anyone else. This is a beautiful moment that I captured the other night and it took me an hour and a half hike to get there but it was so worth it even though my calf muscles were very sore. The next day I look at this image and just think, wow, how beautiful is that?. I also dabble in other different forms of photography portraits weddings but my heart and soul is in landscapes. I find a lot of that other photography is quite constructed. You getting people to stand in a certain spot with controlled light. The great thing about landscape photography is you don't have control over much at all.
You share many of my views! For me landscape photography is as much about the process - getting outside, having experiences, living a little, and even the general overall unpredictability is all part of the fun. It is why I always come back to landscape photography!
I think the image you posted illustrates what can be a problem with landscape photography. I totally get your backstory to the image. There you were in this amazing location. Everything was perfect, you felt that rush of being there after the hike in. It’s an incredible life affirming experience without doubt. You then take the image full of it all. Every time you look at the image those special feelings for you may well return. I and others who look at your image only see the image and feel none of your experience. That can be the problem with such personal images, what you felt at the time is not contained in the pixels of the image. Call it lost in translation. All that is in your own mind which for you is wonderful and motivation to keep on doing it. It’s a very personal form of photography. Doing landscapes for oneself is a great thing to do especially if you have the physicality to get out there and hike to locations that are special to you. The challenge in Landscape photography is to take mages that transcend the personal emotional experience that convey a different story that others can experience. That is not easy. I’m not saying one has to remove emotion entirely from the process but it’s not a major factor in determining the merits of an image once moved to the public domain. If you are happy with your images then that’s wonderful but don’t expect the same reactions from others.
I do understand what you mean in this instance that particular photo and location is hiked by many people so I'm hoping that people will get to experience it and I live in a small place and many people commented after seeing a few of the images from that sheet they said I need to do that hike again so if anything we are also inspiring people just to go and look at something and that's cool. I very much agree with your last line. The best thing you can do is like your own photography. If you like it then that's good enough and that will vary from person to person.
Interesting video and article.
Based on my own experience in being a member of a photographic society where we have internal competitions and host national and international exhibitions, the number of landscapes entered in all these areas has declined markedly over the past ten years. The question is why? While all forms of photography are difficult, landscape photography has some extra challenges that may well put photographers off. It’s not easy to produce a compelling, interesting, and original landscape. It’s a demanding genre. Creativity and originality are difficult to achieve as the control that the photographer can bring to bear on a scene is minimal to zero. The photographer is at the mercy of the conditions. Many photographers may well be put off by the amount of post-processing required to elevate images as we have become so used to seeing spectacular online examples. The bar in landscape photography as a result is a very high one. The physical demands and commitment required for reaching suitable locations are a huge barrier. I know a professional photographer who spent five years visiting the same remote location at the same time of year before he was able to capture the shot he was after. Each trip demanded a long hike and an overnight camp. How many people are prepared to do that for the one image? That same photographer produced a fantastic, very successful photography/travel documentary for the BBC but failed to secure a publisher for a spin-off book despite the amazing quality of his images. It may well be that the public interest in landscape photography has declined. These days, most landscape photographers I know make their living from running workshops and organising trips to far-flung locations. Could it be the combination of a lack of public interest in the genre combined with the difficulties of producing high-quality landscape images may well be the main factors for its decline?
Lots of good points. I agree, landscape photography is quite challenging for many of the reasons you describe. Trying to make images more than just a pretty picture is quite difficult, and without doing so ones pictures are just a few in a sea of many, many landscape photos.
Landscape photography doesn't have to be demanding, and you can produce high-quality photos with little difficulty. It all depends on whether you're shooting for you, or trying to fit in and seek validation and likes from your peers. Just because some people spend time hiking to chase perfect conditions in dramatic mountainous landscapes, doesn't mean you need to. Why do what's already been done to death? Forget chasing the chocolate box cliched images. Change your mindset and stop looking at what others have done.
First, I really like Mads Peter and follow his YouTube channel. His travels have inspired me to pursue some similar trips. I also follow Jeffrey's channel and appreciate his view that we should enjoy the process. Popularity or interest in landscape photography implies there is an audience that we are trying to please. I try to remember the most important audience for me is me. It's difficult for me to detach my emotions and memories from any of my images so my objectivity is nonexistent. I posted a photo of rock art from Canyonlands Horseshoe Canyon that I really loved. Comments came back "needs work". Ouch... I remember the long dusty drive to the trail head then the hike through one of the prettiest canyons I've been in to get to the pictographs. Getting to the place was so memorable, it felt like an accomplishment. My images from there mean something very different to me than any other viewer. In Landscape photography the place and the conditions matter and having been there as a witness is the final piece to cement the viewer's interest. It's easier to remember than to imagine, at least for me... When I share my landscape photos with friends and family, there is very little reaction. When I look at them, I'm transported back to the moment. That motivates me to want to go out again and see new places and things and as long as I can, I will.
Hi Jon! I've always enjoyed Mads videos as well! Some of his editing videos were the first tutorials I used to get up to speed with editing landscape photos!
And you know I agree, enjoying the process is so important. The camera is a key to get outdoors and enjoy and experience nature, if you are doing that, I think one is doing landscape photography the right way.
Totally agree with your point about self-fulfillment and transportation, Jon Reed. Although I don't run through obstacles like I used to for a good sunrise, the "I'm doing this first & foremost for me," mentality is what keeps me connected to this amazing genre. Case & point, I just drove 7+ hours for a same-day out & back to shoot the new moon at Joshua Tree National Park 4 days ago. Despite good tunes, that drive was still brutal, the shots were meh at best, but still glad I did it.
One possible reason for the decline may be this ......
So many landscape images that we see on the internet today do not look real. I mean they look like the result of heavy editing on the computer, and not like the real-life scene that the photographers actually saw when they were out there taking the photos.
For example we need look no further than the Photo of the Day and Editor's Picks selections here on Fstoppers. Many of them appear surrealistic, like something out of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Or they are manipulated to look more like paintings that real-life scenes. Or they have the dark areas made even darker to give a "dramatic" mood that was not there in the scene in real life. Yes of course I know that even Ansel Adams did this a lot, but that doesn't make it right or ethical. At least his photos still looked like they could be real, whereas these newfangled computer-manipulated landscapes look like paintings and CGI movie scenes and don't even try to look like real life. Yuck they are so hideous.
Our eyes have gotten so used to seeing these highly manipulated images, to the point where a "real" landscape photo doesn't catch our eye and suck us in the way it used to. I think that "real photographers" subconsciously realize that the photos they create with their cameras can never compete with the fantasy world pics that they continually see posted online, so they either lose interest in photographing landscapes or they stop posting online.
I personally wish that there would be extra heavy gatekeeping, to show that the photographic community utterly rejects any photos that have a surrealistic look to them that was created with editing software. To send a message that the only acceptable photos are those that look real and authentic to what the scene looks like to the human eye. But instead of rejecting the fantasy-world, highly manipulated, fake looking images, we have embraced them and select them as our Photos of the Day and as our Editor's Picks. Hence, the gap between authentic photography and computer-generated imagery widens, and the real everyday photographers feel like they are falling even further behind.
Who would do the "extra heavy gatekeeping"?
I don't believe it's about authentic looking photos vs over-processed fantasy images, it's about being clear what is a documentary photo vs a fine art photo.
Photography as art can be whatever the artist wants it to be.
It sounds like you're suggesting someone needs to be policed about how much they can process or manipulate their photos.
There's a lot of good discussion these days about what's "fake" vs. what's "real". Many, myself included, think realism is the place of photojournalism where altering the image alters the story. A photo for the sake of beauty is the domain of the individual photographer and "season to taste" is just fine. It reflects the style of the photographer and is a form of free speech. Some photo contests require a copy of the RAW file as part of the entry, maybe that's where "extra heavy gatekeeping" fits. After all, who wants to name the AI being as the winner?