Good and Bad Landscape Photography

Scenery, character and light

A few times already I have left for a landscape photo-taking trip full of hope and expectations, I have taken a few of what should have been nice pictures, only to be disappointed back at home looking at the result of the effort. It happened again last Sunday after an otherwise nice and pleasant trip to the Blue Ridge Parkway, and I am starting to ask myself, why?

It's obvious that great pictures, by nature and definition, happen only a few rare times. Most of the time we get average pictures. We all know this. Still, we all have felt the disappointment of a failed photo trip, and knowing that we couldn't really have expected anything different is not consolation enough.

None of this is going to change, but I have been trying to at least understand what makes a good landscape photograph, why sometimes it happens and sometimes not, and what, if anything, can be done to make it happen.
The conclusion is somewhat reassuring because it suggests both that for the most part the disappointing results are not my fault but that I can do something about them.

I believe that there are five basic elements to a good lanscape picture. Three of them, the most important, are not in control of the photographer, even though they are in control of the traveler. The other two are partially in control of the photographer, but they are far less important.

The first and most important element is the scenery itself. It may sound obvious, but the fact is that most places just don't cut it anymore. We are too used to seeing the most beautiful places on earth every day on TV, in books and magazine, on the web. The beauty of most places has simply been diluted and devalued. So when the scenery itself is lacking, the chances of getting good landscape photography are significantly reduced. The photographer can't do anything about this, but the traveler can find the right place.

The second element is the character of the scenery. The same place can be boring in the middle of summer but it can become interesting after a light snowfall in winter, or because of the colors of the flowers or foliage in spring or fall. Fog can also add interest to an otherwise plain scenery, as can a storm or the presence of animals. Many things can salvage a poor scenery, but the good ones don't happen often. The photografer has no control over this, but the traveler can sometimes prepare and be in the place at the right time.

The third important element is the light. This is very similar to the previous point; the same place can be boring at noon but become interesting and even dramatic at dawn or dusk. Light passing through a break in thick clouds or shining on a limited part of the subject can give life to an otherwise dull scene. Again, most of the time light won't cooperate. Only the patience and intuition of the traveler will allow the photographer to catch the right light.

The other two elements I mentioned for good landscape photography are squarely in the photographer's domain: composition and exposure.
Considering the preponderance of the scenery in landscape photography, composition does not offer much latitude: it's not hard to figure out a good composition for a natural beauty, and it's hard to do it wrong. Little to be said here.
As fas as the exposure is concerned, it's probably the only photographer's skill that matters, and it does so only when the light is challenging. Otherwise, there isn't much to say here either.

When all of the above elements are right (the scenery, its character and the light) we have great landscapes. Some examples of this can be found in Ansel Adam's work, and in many others.

When only the scenery is right, but its character and the light are plain, we have the typical postcard. Nice to look at, but hardly inspiring.

If the state of the scenery and/or the light are right, we can have good, even great photographs, but rarely will they be good or great landscape photographs.

The conclusion of all this is that good landscape photographs are taken by good travelers; that is, by photographers that go to the right place, at the right time, and are able to catch the right light through luck or patience. There is very little that they can do, technically, to make a plain landscape look good or a great landscape look bad.
The lesson is that we have to be good and smart travelers before we can be good landscape photographers. That's what I'm going to work on in the future.