Photography News

Why Are There No People In Your Photos?

July 24, 2013 by Bob Simpson

I saw the question posed in a recent edition of a well-known photography magazine1, “…Why are there rarely any people in landscape pictures?…”. I guess it’s a reasonable question to ask – humans are, after all, a natural element of the landscape, we are one of the most widespread species on earth, and our actions over the centuries have done more to alter, manipulate and define the nature of present day landscapes than any other single species in history. Isn’t it a little dishonest, or at least selective in an anti-anthropomorphic way, to go to such efforts to exclude humans and their influence from our images?

While my initial reaction (and I suspect that of many other dedicated landscape photographers) was to scoff at the question, it did get me thinking about my own motives and purpose for doing what I love to do – and why I often go out of my way to ‘frame-out’ all signs of human existence.

In my case, landscape photography evolved out of a fundamental interest in nature and awe of the natural world. Some of my earliest memories are of camping trips and picnics to scenic places – I well remember the excitement of exploring a new area of bushland, of climbing up to a high lookout, or of discovering weird rock formations during these family adventures. That excitement has never left me.

At the same time, I was always fascinated by animals and the way they interacted with each other and with other elements of the world – something I later came to recognise as the science of ecology. This interest led me to study natural sciences at university, and then work as a Fisheries biologist, ecologist and manager for more than twenty years.

The photography part of the equation also began in my pre-teen years – I loved the process of taking photographs and quickly evolved into a denizen of the darkroom, hovering over trays of chemicals under a red light as images magically appeared before my eyes. My passion for photography waxed and waned over the years, right up until a few years ago when in a bolt of insight, I foresaw a natural merging of my love for the outdoors and for photography. Who knows why I hadn’t seen it earlier, or why I did see it at that moment – all I can say is the time was right and it was suddenly an obvious way forward for me.

The point of that rather self-indulgent analysis of my past is that, rather than choosing to concentrate on landscape photography from a variety of other possible choices, landscape photography was a natural progression based on everything that had come before. Or to put it somewhat glibly, landscape photography chose me. I’m not trying to infer any divine purpose to my photography, just that the process leading to what I do now was a very organic one. And I suspect many of these thoughts will resonate with other photographers who work predominantly or exclusively in the field of landscapes.

So my response to the original question is “…Why would I include people in my images?…”. Plenty of other photographers concentrate on photographing people at weddings, events, or in portraiture, and good luck to them. People photography is an obsession and the bread and butter for many photographers, but it is as far removed from my interests as it would be to become an accountant or an astronaut. Like many of my landscape-obsessed compatriots, I am a student of the natural world who uses photography as a medium to express what I see and feel. And, not at all paradoxically in my mind, my vision of the world is much clearer when people are removed from the equation.

why_are_there_no_people

Wild landscapes can stir deep emotions in all of us and give us some perspective as to our place in the world. (New England National Park)

Landscape photography provides an opportunity to view the world as it has been for most of its long history, before the very recent and often superficial alterations made to it by one precocious but ultimately insignificant naked ape.

That’s about as clearly as I can express my thoughts on the issue – I’m sure it won’t make a lot of sense to some people, but with any luck it will stimulate some healthy self-analysis and thought among others. A little reflection of this sort can be a valuable thing in focussing our efforts and understanding our own creativity.

1 Outdoor Photography, issue 164 (April 2013)

has been a photographer for nearly 40 years, and specialises in landscape photography. Whilst not out shooting, Bob can be found writing for various blogs, websites and newsletters.

7 Responses to “Why Are There No People In Your Photos?”

  1. Cheryl says:

    No need for people in your photos. Gods beautiful earth and your fantastic and awe-inspiring photos of it are fine w/o people in it. :)

  2. Pansy says:

    Once you put a person in a photograph, it becomes about the person not the landscape or whatever the background is. It’s almost impossible to have people as the background.
    Btw the above photo is stunning in every way. If a person were in it, even a tiny boat on the water, it would be about what are they doing there or what are they looking at or how are they reacting to the surroundings. It would take the attention away from the actual landscape and all the elements in it. The landscape can stand on it’s own and would be diminished by the distraction of people.
    Tourist photos, for example in front of the Eiffel Tower etc are actually about the person, hey look at me in Paris, otherwise they would only take the attraction. There is a place for both as they are all about memories.

    • Bob Simpson says:

      Thanks for your thoughts Pansy….you make many good points. I guess it’s natural for people to take such a human-centric view of the world and see ourselves as the most important element in it. A tiny cabin set in a vast landscape immediately grabs our attention and makes us ask “who built it, did they live in it for long, what would it be like if I lived in it?”. While that can be a distraction from the landscape itself, it also personalises the scene so we can easily imagine being there…..like seeing a photo of smiling faces in front of the Eiffel Tower. Perhaps a scene without any obvious human influence becomes more challenging to relate to for many people but I think it can fire the imagination just as much, if not more. It shows a world that is getting along just fine in the absence of any human interference and it’s worth reminding people of that fact.

  3. Mais51 says:

    Not all landscape needs to be devoid of people or people activities, I guess that depend on the photographers cultural background as well. To me a river or bays landscape for instance would not be completed without sailboats or some water activities – for instance I can’t imagine Sydney Harbour without its colourful sailboats !

  4. norseofoz says:

    I love shooting my landscapes and like yourself it is the whole journey for me, the drive to somewhere remote, bushwalking and finding a beautiful place to shoot. If I am in a place where people cannot be avoided like a carshow or Melbourne city I use different ways to have them in the picture if it cannot be avoided. Usually through a reflection – a car hub cap reflecting people walking around or a shop window. Using longer settings so they are blurred or even black and white. In using some of these ideas the people are merged into the scenery or not the focus of the shot. I find it works for me anyway.

  5. Lucy says:

    I actually think a person in the frame can actually assist perspective (particularly if they are a small part of the whole larger landscape). I don’t always wonder about the person, I just wish I was there too so I could see, smell, hear and ‘be in’ the landscape myself, with my own senses – if anything, I’m a little envious of them!

Leave a Reply

Want us to do the hard work?

You can book a pre-vetted photographer instantly with the Snappr service