I believe the comment I made was something along the lines of: if we only shoot landscapes in 'dramatic' lighting it can give the impression that it's always like that in this country. Ironically, Carl Baggott and I were standing atop Croft Hill here in the middle of the country this morning surveying the vista - or rather, not surveying the vista as yet another grey, murky day followed a run of similar days. We often comment that anyone trying to make money out of photography would be much better off going abroad!
So, does waiting for suitable lighting make for a good landscape or does 'showing it as it really is' fill the bill?
If you're after a shot for a calendar then it's probably got to be dramatic lighting, or at least fluffy clouds in a deep blue sky.
I rather like those little 'vignettes' taken from the overall scene - the 5-bar gate slightly open leading into the corner of a field surrounded by an old hedge and such like. (this is probably because all the overall views around here are spoilt by lines of power cables and pylons, so you have to look for something closer or more limiting in view).
Some of the more 'famous' views have been done too much as far as being reproduced in magazines, etc., are concerned - I'll be quite happy if I never see another shot of Durdle Dor or Buachaille Etive Mor, however attractive they may be!
|