# Landscapes need people by Pascal Riben



## pascalriben (Sep 1, 2010)

Hello,

I'm new here, and it's my first post.

The gallery "Landscapes need people" feature both urban and city landscapes:













Link to the gallery :
Landscapes need people

On the gallery, image size is adjusted (maximum width 800 px) to size browser : please, use F11 key to run your browser (IE, Firefox...) in full screen or/and click on an enlarged picture to Dim the lights. You can navigate with Dim the lights enabled using arrow key or mouse.
There is also a Slideshow link on the gallery.

Thank you for viewing !

Sincerely,


----------



## Polyphony (Sep 1, 2010)

I disagree that landscapes need people. But I like the images.


----------



## pascalriben (Sep 1, 2010)

Polyphony said:


> I disagree that landscapes need people. But I like the images.



Thank you for the look to my pictures and for your feedback.

And don't worry : I have many landscapes without people !


----------



## pascalriben (Sep 4, 2010)

It seems people are lazy to vote... :blushing:


----------



## oldmacman (Sep 5, 2010)

pascalriben said:


> It seems people are lazy to vote... :blushing:



Maybe, like me, people thought they would be voting on whether landscapes need people and don't really want to vote on the quality of your gallery.


----------



## pascalriben (Sep 7, 2010)

oldmacman said:


> pascalriben said:
> 
> 
> > It seems people are lazy to vote... :blushing:
> ...



Why don't you want to vote on the quality on the gallery ?


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 7, 2010)

I, for one, don't even have the time to go there and look at it in order to decide whether I like it or not.

And no, landscapes as such don't need people, cityscapes, however, look more "alive" with people, and less like there had been a recent nuclear bomb attack which left all the buildings standing but the people are all "gone"...


----------



## Arch (Sep 7, 2010)

In the OP's defence, 'Landscapes need people' is just the *title of this set*, he is not trying to make an overall statement.
I like your images, im sure you will improve further in time. :thumbup:


----------



## oldmacman (Sep 7, 2010)

pascalriben said:


> Why don't you want to vote on the quality on the gallery ?



It's not a personal thing and sometimes things sound more harsh in a forum (or email) than real life. To clarify the thought process, it went something like this:
- scrolling through new post threads to find something interesting
- oh, a poll: "landscapes need people" *click*
- oh, I see. The poll is for a gallery that is found by linking to another site.
- not what I thought *clicks on New Posts button*
- *read message*, "You must wait 30 seconds between searches. Please wait 29 more seconds"

On a separate note (and again, this is not as harsh as it might come across), if you want to improve your work, a poll won't tell you what you need to do better. For that matter, it won't tell you what you have done well either.


----------



## Helen B (Sep 7, 2010)

I like your work quite a lot. Your work has a coherence that suggests that you have direction and your own clear vision. I am, therefore, puzzled about why you have posted this poll. Are you trying to find out about the members of the forum to see if this is the place for you?

Good luck,
Helen


----------



## pascalriben (Sep 8, 2010)

Helen B said:


> I am, therefore, puzzled about why you have posted this poll. Are you trying to find out about the members of the forum to see if this is the place for you?



Hi Helen,

Thank you for your post and your feedback. And yes, you're right : I know nothing about this forum and I'm curious to learn it.


----------



## Polyphony (Sep 8, 2010)

Arch said:


> In the OP's defence, 'Landscapes need people' is just the *title of this set*, he is not trying to make an overall statement.
> I like your images, im sure you will improve further in time. :thumbup:




"Landscapes need people" is the title of his set. In the set itself, all the landscapes have people. Am I wrong in assuming that his opinion on landscape photography is that "landscapes need people"?


----------



## Arch (Sep 8, 2010)

Polyphony said:


> "Landscapes need people" is the title of his set. In the set itself, all the landscapes have people. Am I wrong in assuming that his opinion on landscape photography is that "landscapes need people"?



Well yes, i thought it was obvious no?

If you go to see an art exhibition, and it is titled, would you assume that the artist will continue doing the same work after the exhibition is closed?
Its simply a theme, not a blanket statement.


----------



## Polyphony (Sep 8, 2010)

Arch said:


> Polyphony said:
> 
> 
> > "Landscapes need people" is the title of his set. In the set itself, all the landscapes have people. Am I wrong in assuming that his opinion on landscape photography is that "landscapes need people"?
> ...



He is expressing an opinion in terms of a set of photographs. If he didn't believe that landscape photography needed people, why would he create a whole set based off that idea?


----------



## kundalini (Sep 8, 2010)

Polyphony said:


> He is expressing an opinion in terms of *a set of photographs*. If he didn't believe that landscape photography needed people, why would he create a whole set based off that *idea*?


What's so hard to understand. Why be so pedantic?


EDIT:
OP, I like the two you have posted in the thread.


----------



## Polyphony (Sep 8, 2010)

kundalini said:


> What's so hard to understand.



Likewise.

I'm expressing my opinion on his *set of photographs *that I don't think landscapes need people. That should be an indication of my view on the whole set: I'd like them better if they didn't have people. 

What's so hard to understand?


----------



## Arch (Sep 8, 2010)

He even said he *does do* landscapes without people, if you can't understand that the concept then fine, but there's no need to try and continue an arguement.


----------



## Polyphony (Sep 8, 2010)

Arch said:


> He even said he *does do* landscapes without people, if you can't understand that the concept then fine, but there's no need to try and continue an arguement.





Polyphony said:


> I'm expressing my opinion on his *set of photographs*



...not on his entire life's worth of images. You're right, this is a pointless argument.


----------



## pascalriben (Sep 8, 2010)

Thank you everybody for viewing and commenting my gallery.

I confirm : its simply a theme, not a blanket statement.


----------



## skieur (Sep 9, 2010)

Arch said:


> He even said he *does do* landscapes without people, if you can't understand that the concept then fine, but there's no need to try and continue an arguement.


 
More to what should be the point, many of the photos in the set, do not show that landscapes need people. The person is in some cases barely noticeable and does not contribute anything to the overall composition. In an other shot, a couple of people may contribute but another two or three or just visual distractions.

Perhaps landscapes need colour is a point that is proved by this set?

skieur


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 9, 2010)

I like your work and voted to see more from you. Unfortunately, I don't think I will. There are few artsy members here and the few that show up from time to time don't last very long.

While you are still here, may I ask if you work with film or digital? A lot of your images (including in the other series) made me think of what amazing prints you could get with some nice, real photo paper.

By the way, I especially enjoyed "The Walls."


----------



## pascalriben (Sep 9, 2010)

Hello Skieur,

Thank you for your post.



skieur said:


> The person is in some cases barely noticeable and does not contribute anything to the overall composition.
> skieur



Be sure that, even barely noticeable, each person(s) is essential for the overall composition.



skieur said:


> Perhaps landscapes need colour is a point that is proved by this set?



Euh... I hope for your you're joking !


----------



## pascalriben (Sep 9, 2010)

Hello Cloudwalker,

Thank you for your post and your feedback. And thank you for viewing my galleries.



c.cloudwalker said:


> While you are still here, may I ask if you work with film or digital? A lot of your images (including in the other series) made me think of what amazing prints you could get with some nice, real photo paper.
> 
> By the way, I especially enjoyed "The Walls."



Usually digital, but some pictures use film. For example, in "The Walls" :

Pascal Riben - Photographs | The Walls
Pascal Riben - Photographs | The Walls

I used film until 2004, then I bought my first DSLR.


----------



## skieur (Sep 9, 2010)

pascalriben said:


> Hello Skieur,
> 
> Thank you for your post.
> 
> ...


 
Nope, I see black and white as it is used currently, as solely a means of avoiding some of the complexity of using colour. It does NOT add to the impact of an image.

skieur


----------



## pascalriben (Sep 9, 2010)

skieur said:


> ...a means of avoiding some of the complexity of using colour.



I don't know what I can do to help you.
Maybe one day you'll understand B&W and you'll love it.


----------

