Being part of a critique circle has made me realise that photographers approach landscapes in fundamentally different ways, shaped by how they see. With that in mind, this article introduces a simple framework to help photographers break out of their habitual ways of picturing the landscape and discover fresh perspectives.
I’ve been a member of an RPS landscape critique circle for over six years. Each month, I share one of my images with the other nine members of the circle for critique, and in return, I give my comments on their images. Over that time, I’ve submitted over 75 landscape images for critique and reviewed over 700.
Over time, I’ve started to see patterns in how different photographers approach landscape photography. These differences go beyond style or technique; they reflect deeper ways of seeing.
The two dimensions of landscape photography
Alongside the image, each photographer provides a few sentences to give context. As well as the ‘how’ (exposure, filters, lens choice etc), photographers explain the ‘why’: why did they make the image? Why this particular composition? Why did they process it like that?
The photographs and their descriptions have helped me identify two key dimensions that shape how people see the landscape.
One is the photographer’s intent, the way the photographer wants their image to be interpreted. A literal intent presents the landscape as it is, prioritising accuracy and direct representation. In contrast, a metaphorical intent adds layers of meaning, designing the image to evoke emotions or convey ideas that go beyond the scene itself.
The second dimension is the way the photographer thinks or feels about the landscape. The ‘Thinking’ mindset is analytical. For some photographers, this might mean prioritising technical issues, such as image sharpness or applying compositional rules. In others, it might mean exploring conceptual or narrative aspects of the landscape. The ‘Feeling’ mindset is intuitive: it prioritises emotion, atmosphere, and the personal experience of being in nature.
The four modes of seeing
Plotted on a 2 x 2 diagram, these two dimensions create four categories. We can think of these categories as modes of seeing.
I’ve mapped out these dimensions in the diagram below.
The four modes are:
- Picturesque: The Familiar View (Thinking-Literal quadrant).
- Eyewitness: The Spirit of the Landscape (Feeling-Literal quadrant).
- Expressionist: The Poetry of Form (Feeling-Metaphorical quadrant).
- Investigative: The Story in the Land (Thinking-Metaphorical quadrant).
First I’ll describe the four modes of seeing that emerge from this model. Then I’ll show how it can help improve the way we photograph the landscape.
Picturesque: The Familiar View
Photographers that favour this mode of seeing aim to create an impactful and technically proficient depiction of the landscape. They are drawn to classic compositions and iconic locations. Their approach to composition is methodical, adhering to well-established visual principles. Their images are visually appealing and communicate the scene directly and clearly with minimal need for interpretation. They may use post-processing to increase impact (from cloning out distractions to moving, altering or replacing elements of the landscape) but the final image still appears to be a literal representation of the scene.
Picturesque: Examples
'Llandwyn Island'. When I took this picture of the lighthouse on Llandwyn Island in Anglesey I was deliberately trying to recreate the composition of another photographer that I admired. This is a strong composition but the sky was clear at the time, so I blended in a sky from another image taken on a different day.
'Out to sea'. This image was taken in Vareid, Lofoten with a 28mm focal length. This caused the distant mountains to lose the impact I felt when I was in the landscape. In post-processing, I stretched the mountains vertically by about 20% to recreate my memory of being there.
Eyewitness: The Spirit of the Landscape
Photographers that favour this mode of seeing use photography as a way to slow down and appreciate the world. For them, the act of seeing and noticing is just as important as the final image. The landscape is presented in a way that emphasises its beauty. They value authenticity over perfection so nothing is moved, altered or replaced in post-processing (other than sensor spots). Images differ from the picturesque by conveying an emotional connection to the landscape. When showing familiar or iconic landscapes, images transcend the commonplace through unique perspectives, unusual light, or dramatic weather. Examples include: Ansel Adams, Joe Cornish and Marc Adamus.
Eyewitness: Examples
'Hamnoy, first light'. This is an iconic view, taken in the Lofoten Islands. But I would argue that the light, weather conditions, and photographic treatment give this image a distinctive quality that sets it apart from similar compositions.
'Brocton Coppice'. This Autumn image has undergone dodging and burning in post processing but there has been no alteration to the landscape. For example, there is a broken birch log on the far right of the frame that attracts the eye in the RAW image. It would have been easy to clone out but instead I chose to darken it down to maintain authenticity.
Expressionist: The Poetry of Form
Photographers who favour this mode of seeing aim to create visually challenging, emotionally charged images. They value mood over objectivity: their images evoke feelings or ideas without the need for explanation. Images might show an overlooked detail in the landscape but photographed in such a way as to appear abstract and interpretive. Or images may be deliberately manipulated in post-processing or by using in-camera techniques like multiple exposure or intentional camera movement (ICM) to create a mood or feeling. The expressionist approach embraces abstraction and subjectivity, rejecting a purely literal representation of the landscape in favour of a more mood-driven response. (This mode of seeing shares many of the features of what are commonly called ‘intimate landscapes’, but I’ve used the word ‘expressionist’ to allow the inclusion of wider views, not just small details in the landscape.) Examples include Bruce Percy, Michael Kenna and Valda Bailey.
Expressionist: Examples
'Three tufts'. This qualifies as an ‘expressionist’ image because without any obvious cues to scale there is a curiosity gap: it leaves things unsaid and creates a puzzle for the viewer to solve. The image can also be interpreted metaphorically: it might be three tufts of grass but it could also stand in for a dysfunctional family.
'Canal boat reflections'. With its focus on colour-as-subject, I was pleased with the painterly, Mark Rothko feel of this image. Although a ‘straight’ photograph, it causes the viewer to question what they are looking at.
Investigative: The Story in the Land
Photographers who favour this mode of seeing use photography as a tool of inquiry to express a political, socio-economic or artistic point of view. What an image says takes precedence over the way the image looks. The view as presented may appear mundane but beneath the surface lies a conceptual exploration of topics like land ownership, the curated nature of the landscape, and the relationship between art and photography. When viewed in isolation, an investigative image may not fully express its meaning; it may need to be seen in a collection, supported by an artist’s statement. Examples include the 19th century images of Stoke-on-Trent taken by William Blake, the coal bunker typologies of Bernd & Hilla Becher and the way Fay Godwin challenges the myth of the countryside paradise.
Investigative: Examples
'#ThatWanakaTree'. I took this image in New Zealand at Lake Wanaka. It shows a tourist photographing the eponymous tree. Signs at the location encourage photographers to use this hashtag for social media. When you see moody photographs of this tree on instagram, you don’t appreciate there’s a circus happening on the shoreline.
'View of Lake Como'. I photographed this scene at Lake Como. I was trying to find an elevated view of the lake, but was stymied at every turn by locked gates, tall fences and private property signs.
Practical implications of this framework
At one level, this framework is a way to categorise how we see. But we can also use it to step outside familiar ways of looking at the landscape.
First, it encourages us to see beyond the picturesque. There is value in studying classic compositions and well-known locations, but simply replicating what already exists can be a creative dead end. Moreover, picturesque images aim for immediate visual impact; but some landscape images reveal themselves more gradually, drawing in the viewer over time. By deliberately exploring other modes of seeing, we can create images that show a personal interpretation of the landscape.
Second, the framework prompts us to think about the story or message behind our images. This shift can encourage us to look for meaning rather than just look for attractive views. ‘Meaning’ might be: provoking thought (investigative); capturing personal emotional responses (expressionist); or connecting with the landscape (eyewitness). This might lead us to create photographs that are less literal and/or less conventionally beautiful but more consequential at an emotional or intellectual level.
Third, it legitimises abstraction, blur, and other techniques that move the image away from literal representations of the landscape. This can encourage us to explore unconventional styles, creating images that evoke emotion or require interpretation rather than simply being descriptive.
A field guide
Here’s a set of prompts based on this framework, designed to encourage fresh ways of seeing. These prompts will help bias a picture more towards the eyewitness mode of seeing:
- What if you spend time exploring the landscape before taking photographs?
- What if you wait for a change in the light or the weather to influence the mood of the landscape?
- What if you limited your post processing to dodging and burning only?
These prompts will help bias a picture more towards the expressionist mode of seeing:
- What if you look for shapes, textures or patterns that usually go unnoticed?
- What if you use abstraction, blur or framing to encourage the viewer to bring their own interpretation to the image?
- What if you create a photograph consistent with the emotional and visual connection you feel?
These prompts will help bias a picture more towards the investigative mode of seeing:
- What if you create an image to make a statement or ask a question about the landscape?
- What if you focus less on the way the image looks and focus more on what the image says?
- Rather than a single image, what if you aim to create a collection that challenges social, economic, or environmental power dynamics?
In conclusion
I’ll admit to some trepidation publishing this article, as creating a model to account for every possible kind of landscape photograph may be a fool’s errand. I’m sure other photographers have seen images that may not fit the framework I’ve described. So, if anything I discuss here doesn’t match your experience, let me know. You can contact me at landscapecircle@rps.org.
If you enjoy thinking about and discussing photographs in this way, you should join an RPS Landscape Critique, Processing or Print Circle. You can find more information here.
David Travis ARPS
You can see more of David’s work at davidtravisphotography.com.
Acknowledgments
The ideas in this article arose from reviewing the images of members in my critique circle, past and present, and reading their critiques of my images: Kathryn Alkins, Rona Bhattacharya, Clare Collins, Ashley Franklin, Jeremy Fraser-Mitchell, Paul Graber, Tony Green, Steve Hartley, Doug Hopkins, Stephen Hullock, Trevor Judd, Roy Morris, Guy Robertson, Mark Sims, John Stewart, Dimitrios Theodorakis and William Watson.