I thought that I would use today’s photograph (posted lower on the home page if that is where you are reading this) to again illustrate an observation or two about certain types of photographs. The photograph is a of a landscape scene in California’s Central Valley, photographed during in the evening during the winter migratory bird season. Its primary feature is a group of trees silhouetted against an evening sky, with the sky and the silhouette reflected in the water of a pond. The tree is centered, for several reasons perhaps, but largely to create a sense of stillness and balance.
But there is a small element in the scene that, I think, makes a huge difference – two small owls perched high in the branches along the right side of the trees. To see what I mean, take a look at the photograph, and then place a finger so that it just covers the owls without hiding much else in the frame. Think about how the absence of the owls transforms the scene… and then uncover the owls and think about how this very tiny bit of black changes the effect of the photograph. (I could also say something about how the fact that there are two tiny owls is also significant. And on Valentine’s Day, no less… ;-)
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not arguing that landscape images should necessarily include people or other creatures in this way. Sometimes that is appropriate and at other times it would not be, and most of my photographs do not include them. However, I continue to be amazed by how significantly a very small figure of an animal or a human can completely alter the way we respond to the scene.
G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer whose subjects include the Pacific coast, redwood forests, central California oak/grasslands, the Sierra Nevada, California deserts, urban landscapes, night photography, and more.
Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | 500px.com | LinkedIn | Email
Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.
Agreed. Here’s my experience:
It’s impossible to take a good landscape picture on a broad day light while hiking on a fast pace, unless… you include a hiker or two. In other words, when hiking with friends, you take documentary shots (as opposed to landscape shots).
I came across that concept in Michael Freeman’s The Photographer’s eye, where the author talks about the point/object of interest transforms the image dramatically just by its sheer presence or absence.
However, in your image, the silhouette cast by the owls are rather tiny when viewed on the regular screen. Unless the image is maximized, the import of the owls may not be felt on the screen.
Thanks for sharing the reference to Freeman’s book. I think that the specific point I was trying to make – though perhaps not clearly enough – is a bit different than the important “point of interest” one. In this case it is several specific things about a type of point of interest in landscape images. The first aspect is that the “small thing” is a non-landscape element – it is a different thing than what comprises the rest of the scene. With this in mind it is not the same as, say, having the branch of a tree or the peak of a mountain as the primary point of interest. Here is is a figure – perhaps human or animal – within a scene that is mostly composed of non-human things. Second, my observation was that when the “point” is a human or animated thing like an animal it can take on a significance relative to the rest of the scene that is larger than its actual size might seem to warrant. Third, and perhaps only implied, is that while the landscape image itself could work without the non-landscape element, it can take on a different meaning with this addition.
You are sure right, though, that the owls are very difficult to see in this on-screen jpg! In a print they are more obvious.
Dan