Photo Consumption, Conformity, and Copying in Landscape Photography

I will start out this post with an important note.  This is not a rant due to sour grapes or feeling left out of the clique of popular kids.  When I was posting regularly on 500px, my images often made it to the front page and even filled the top slot on the site on a few occasions.  I am also not intending to criticize or offend any individual photographers who are active on 500px but am instead commenting on the negative culture that the site promotes and feeds. I am somewhat hesitant to post something filled with a lot of negativity but decided to go ahead since I think a dialogue on this topic is important. 

Landscape photographers have been engaging in a lot of dialogue about the 500px photo-sharing site lately and for good reason (many of the discussions have been on private Facebook pages about individual photographers and photographs, but here is a link to a recent post on the topic and one from Ron from a few years ago).  500px is having a strong influence on the landscape photography community and in the views of some, including me, this is not a positive development.  I am weighing in and discussing some of the arguments that others have made on this topic because I find 500px's influence to be damaging to the direction of landscape photography overall and harmful for individual photographers who feel the strong pull to conform because of the site’s dominance.  And even though I use 500px as the example, the points also serve to illustrate much larger trends in photography overall. 

As a fellow photographer reminded me in an email dialogue on this topic, the 500px culture isn’t going to change.  So why bother even talking about this?  Because photography and the sharing of photography should be a positive, constructive, and enriching experience.  I have heard from enough new photographers to know that the culture of the 500px website can be highly demoralizing and a single website should not have the power to stop budding photographers before they even get started or discourage talented photographers who cannot get traction on the site. 

Read More

Best of 2014

This is my third year in a row doing one of these "best of year" posts (see also: 2012 and 2013).

The collection is a mishmash hodgepodge of photographs that have nothing in common except that they fall within the arbitrary confines of a calendar developed over 400 years ago. The photographs really don't look all that good as a collection, and I have become less of a fan of these "greatest hits" arrangements and prefer to present photographs that compliment each other or tell some larger collective story.

Read More

Best of 2013

Here it is almost February and I am finally getting around to posting my version of the ubiquitous "Best of 2013" post. I hope I don't lose what little Internet credibility I have by being so late. Before we get started with the images, it is important to know that these aren't my best photos of 2013. Yes, the title of this post is a lie.

I haven't edited a high enough percentage of photos from 2013 to have any idea what my best actually are, and I never will. So then, these must be the best photos I've processed in 2013, right? Nope! Many of my favorites aren't included here.

I decided to try something different: narrowing my selection to only abstracts and plants. There are no clouds or skies in any of these photos. Nothing that ties any photo to a specific region or location. None were taken with a wide angle lens (the widest focal length was 44mm, the rest were taken with a 70-200mm zoom, and a 100mm macro lens). There is not a single foreground in the group.

In the future I may post a Part II or even a Part III that includes other types of photos (such as intimates and grand scenic landscapes).

The photos are listed chronologically in order of capture. Click on an image to open the series in a lightbox.