I had just given a presentation during a workshop when a participant, noting that most of my images were of the “intimate landscape” variety, wondered if that was a prerequisite for making creative images. An intriguing question, I thought, and one I have seen raised before. A reverse way of asking the same question is, can creative photos be made of the grand landscape? It’s a question that I have pondered myself for some time.
For many years I was a wide-angle landscape photographer. The scenes I photographed mostly leaned toward the grand landscape end of the spectrum. It was rare that I shot anything with over a 70mm lens. It was so rare that I traded my professional Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 lens for the much cheaper (and greater range) 70-300mm. Why own such an expensive lens if I have never used it? However, once I began to make more creative and personally expressive images that trend changed. I found myself reaching almost exclusively for my telephoto and normal lenses. The scenes I photographed shrank dramatically in scale. It has reached the point where I no longer carry a wide-angle lens in my bag.
It was not a conscious decision to photograph scenes that were smaller in scale. Rather, It was an outgrowth of my desire to be more creative and authentic in my photography and a predilection for nature’s details. The change to photographing scenes that were smaller in scale happened naturally. Having recognized this shift, I began to wonder if creativity in landscape photography is a function of scale. What would a creative photo of a grand landscape captured with a wide-angle lens look like? Was it possible? (And no, simply converting it to black-and-white doesn't automatically make it creative. I’m not going to let myself off the hook that easily).
Photography is often regarded as a problem-solving exercise. It’s a chaotic world, our job is to distill all those disparate elements into a coherent and effective photograph. If we accept the fact that composition is the most powerful creative tool at our disposal, what are the ramifications for creativity when photographing grand scenes with a wide-angle lens? A picture is just as much about what isn't included in the frame as what is. The challenge is that wide-angle lenses include if not everything then most everything. This all-inclusive nature results in a photo that tends to be more literal and descriptive. The scene is recorded as is because it’s such a large field of view. Nothing is being isolated. Consequently, they end up being photos of something instead of about something. They are obvious. Intimate landscapes, on the other hand, lend themselves to interpretation and abstraction. There is a greater latitude for personal expression. Whereas grand scenes captured with a wide-angle lens answer the question, “What did it look like?”, intimate scenes propose questions. There is a sense of mystery. Reality can be more easily tossed aside.
Despite these challenges, if the limits of creativity reside solely in the mind of the photographer, as I believe they do, then it must be possible to make creative photos of the wide-angle grand landscape. It’s also important to remember that creativity is a matter of degree, not an either/or proposition. Perhaps my struggle is a failure of imagination on my part. It’s a question I will continue to ponder.
Thank you for subscribing to my blog. If you know of others who may enjoy it as well please consider sharing it with them.

Nicely said! I was pleased to hear you say that,"... it must be possible to make creative photos of the wide- angle grand landscape" since many of your photos are of a quite imtimate nature. I feel that if we are "open" to all scenes that we've chosen to encounter, one will find what appeals to us within, whether it is an intimate portion of it or a wide angle landscape. Perhaps that is also one of the many good reasons to go back to the same areas to photograph over and over.
Thanks for sharing your blog, Chris. Have a good day and see you this summer!