>>2997070Well the entire scene in (
>>2997047) is on a slope (I remember because I used a bubble level to keep the camera horizontal there). My comment was just a technical way of explaining why I think that you're spending too much time looking through the viewfinder instead of looking at the scene itself and trying to figure out ways of directly grasping/showing what interests you there. (You might try shooting with your camera on a tripod and using a cable release.) Framing landscape in the conventional way means making the scene legible in terms of a specific ordering intelligibility based on the idea of a single, synoptic viewpoint. It's not so cut and dry an issue as either having a horizon or not. The fact is that in the pictures I quoted the horizon occupies a place of particular prominence in the image, and it is mostly empty (clearly visible); the horizon in photographs always delineates a visual axis around which all the lines converge, but here it does so quite forcefully. The (main) issue is that this is a sort of framing or presentation that sets up a space to be filled by a discrete subject. Landscape photographs have traditionally approached this via techniques like using a tiny little picturesque human figure or elevating a feature of the landscape to that status. In the case of your pictures the subject can be said to be those really interesting colours and patterns carpeting the ground. But that means calling on what is, properly speaking, the ground--to figuratively occupy a space that it is otherwise already constituting.. it doesn't work. either the scenes are empty and devoid of conventional interest, or they are being hampered by your insistence on making them look like paintings. It's like you don' even have a cake, but you're already trying to eat it, too. To recapitulate: the most interesting/worthwhile thing in the scenes are the natural features I described. However your framing and composition direct the viewer's attention elsewhere.
