Including humans in landscape shots: good?

When I took these 2 shots,

http://tinypic.com/fpb23l.jpg
http://tinypic.com/fpb4n9.jpg

I was annoyed at the presence of people. But
to my surprise, their presence seems to help.
I wonder why. Is it because human figures provide
a measure of scale? Or is it the 'contrast' between
natural elements and people?

I don't care for the people in either shot, but more disturbing, it bothers
me that your horizon runs "downhill" to the left. If you're shooting with a
dslr, you might want to try shooting with gridlines on to help you keep
things "level"...unless your intent was otherwise. Just to get a feel for
what might be constructive info for you, what made you shoot these photos
(i.e., what exactly made the scene interesting to you, what are you trying
to show, and how did you want it to appear?).

George

"223rem" wrote in message
newsBxef.548796$_o.179674@attbi_s71...
When I took these 2 shots,

http://tinypic.com/fpb23l.jpg
http://tinypic.com/fpb4n9.jpg

I was annoyed at the presence of people. But
to my surprise, their presence seems to help.
I wonder why. Is it because human figures provide
a measure of scale? Or is it the 'contrast' between
natural elements and people?

george wrote:
I don't care for the people in either shot, but more disturbing, it bothers
me that your horizon runs "downhill" to the left. If you're shooting with a
dslr, you might want to try shooting with gridlines on to help you keep
things "level"...unless your intent was otherwise.

You are right. I was shooting with a Canon PowerShot s70, not a DSLR.

Just to get a feel for
what might be constructive info for you, what made you shoot these photos
(i.e., what exactly made the scene interesting to you, what are you trying
to show, and how did you want it to appear?).

Not much. I was trying to compare the quality of photos taken with my Nikon FM10
(with the kit lens) and the Canon PowerShot. I found that the PowerShot pics were
less sharp than the Nikon ones.

223rem wrote:
When I took these 2 shots,

http://tinypic.com/fpb23l.jpg
http://tinypic.com/fpb4n9.jpg

I was annoyed at the presence of people. But
to my surprise, their presence seems to help.
I wonder why. Is it because human figures provide
a measure of scale? Or is it the 'contrast' between
natural elements and people?

I alway like people in a landscape photo, but then lots of people think
I'm a bit weird.

Scott

george wrote:
I don't care for the people in either shot, but more disturbing, it
bothers me that your horizon runs "downhill" to the left. If you're
shooting with a dslr, you might want to try shooting with gridlines
on to help you keep things "level"...unless your intent was
otherwise. Just to get a feel for what might be constructive info
for you, what made you shoot these photos (i.e., what exactly made
the scene interesting to you, what are you trying to show, and how
did you want it to appear?).
George

"223rem" wrote in message
newsBxef.548796$_o.179674@attbi_s71...
When I took these 2 shots,

http://tinypic.com/fpb23l.jpg
http://tinypic.com/fpb4n9.jpg

I was annoyed at the presence of people. But
to my surprise, their presence seems to help.
I wonder why. Is it because human figures provide
a measure of scale? Or is it the 'contrast' between
natural elements and people?

The horizon is tilted to the left because there are such bulky visual
elements on that side. This time tomorrow the horizon may be near
vertical.

--
Frank ess

I alway like people in a landscape photo, but then lots of people think
I'm a bit weird.

I find that landscapes, devoid of people, tend to be very dull and a poor
representation of the real thing. I always try to include (known) people in
the foreground to give scale and add a bit of family interest.

So I agree with the first part of your statement. As to your alleged
wierdness, I couldn't possibly comment.

Keith

223rem wrote:
When I took these 2 shots,

http://tinypic.com/fpb23l.jpg
http://tinypic.com/fpb4n9.jpg

I was annoyed at the presence of people. But
to my surprise, their presence seems to help.
I wonder why. Is it because human figures provide
a measure of scale? Or is it the 'contrast' between
natural elements and people?

I usually try to avoid having people in my landscape shots, even though
they can provide scale and perspective. I don't feel they are a real
problem as long as they aren't close enough to be identifiable. Of
course, vacation pictures often have the vacationers in the picture to
'prove they were there'. In the case of the first example, I feel the
boat and fishing people add to the serenity of the scene.


--
Ron Hunter

"george" wrote in message
...
I don't care for the people in either shot, but more disturbing, it
bothers
me that your horizon runs "downhill" to the left. If you're shooting with
a
dslr, you might want to try shooting with gridlines on to help you keep
things "level"...unless your intent was otherwise. Just to get a feel for
what might be constructive info for you, what made you shoot these photos
(i.e., what exactly made the scene interesting to you, what are you trying
to show, and how did you want it to appear?).

George

"223rem" wrote in message
newsBxef.548796$_o.179674@attbi_s71...
When I took these 2 shots,

http://tinypic.com/fpb23l.jpg
http://tinypic.com/fpb4n9.jpg

I was annoyed at the presence of people. But
to my surprise, their presence seems to help.
I wonder why. Is it because human figures provide
a measure of scale? Or is it the 'contrast' between
natural elements and people?


Hi George!
You're right.
I downloaded the photo and staightened it out.
See: http://www.celestart.com/images/publiques/pic.jpg
I included the uncropped photo as well as the cropped one.
What struck me was that the "original" was almost twice as wide as it was
high (32,41cm x 17,22cm). Was it a pano?
Anyway, to answer the original question, I suppose it all depends on the
objective in taking the photo. While in Greece, we took pictures of the
Meteores (steep mountains). The objective was to show the dramatic effect
produced by monasteries perched on top of very steep walls. Including people
(tourists) took away from tis scene of serenity.
Marcel

Celcius wrote:

I downloaded the photo and staightened it out.
See: http://www.celestart.com/images/publiques/pic.jpg
I included the uncropped photo as well as the cropped one.

An improvement. Thanks

What struck me was that the "original" was almost twice as wide as it was
high (32,41cm x 17,22cm). Was it a pano?

No, it was cropped.

Frank ess wrote:
|| george wrote:
||| I don't care for the people in either shot, but more
||| disturbing, it bothers me that your horizon runs "downhill"
||| to the left. If you're shooting with a dslr, you might want
||| to try shooting with gridlines on to help you keep things
||| "level"...unless your intent was otherwise. Just to get a
||| feel for what might be constructive info for you, what made
||| you shoot these photos (i.e., what exactly made the scene
||| interesting to you, what are you trying to show, and how did
||| you want it to appear?).
||| George
|||
||| "223rem" wrote in message
||| newsBxef.548796$_o.179674@attbi_s71...
|||| When I took these 2 shots,
||||
|||| http://tinypic.com/fpb23l.jpg
|||| http://tinypic.com/fpb4n9.jpg
||||
|||| I was annoyed at the presence of people. But
|||| to my surprise, their presence seems to help.
|||| I wonder why. Is it because human figures provide
|||| a measure of scale? Or is it the 'contrast' between
|||| natural elements and people?
||
|| The horizon is tilted to the left because there are such
|| bulky visual elements on that side. This time tomorrow the
|| horizon may be near vertical.
||
|| --
|| Frank ess

Does that mean the water will run to one side? :-)

--
"Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency
on my part" - Unknown