Landscape or not?

Does the following image qualify as landscape photography even though it isn't an expansive vista?

IMAGE LINK: http://www.shawnkrausp​hoto.com …P#1477234855_qp​Lhf5b-A-LB

These sorts of photos are tough to categorize, but 'landscape' seems the best fit. I don't think landscape photos need to be expansive vistas.

Here are a couple definitions I found from other photographers:

I've always considered the suffix -scape in my definition. If there is a sense of an expanse in the shot it is a landscape. If I am getting a more intimate photo of the setting or more specific to an aspect of the setting, (flora, fauna, closeup of rocks, etc) it is more of a nature shot.

Maybe the difference lies in how much a single object fills the frame. Shooting one tree is nature photography. Shooting an entire forest is landscape photography.

I would call this a 'nature' shot, not landscape, for the same reasons as these other photographers stated.

I hope that helps.

Yeah, 'nature' occurred to me too, but the big photo club associations have mostly defined that category as anything that tells a story or communicates something educational about nature. So images like this one that have a more pictorial leaning don't fit so neatly into that category either.

Thanks for the help, I am now leaning towards nature as well.
I may have to recategorize some images in my galleries.

I like wikipedia's wording that landscape photography can be on the large and vast....down to the small and microscopic.

Ultimately you have to decide as it your filing system.

Why not like you post processing software such as Lightroom simply file it by date? Then you can put keywords in that let you find it and others by searches or smart collections.


http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Landscape_photo​graphy