It’s a good suggestion, but my impression has been that folks refer to these sort of more detailed natural images as “intimate landscapes”, as you note. I agree the term can seem a bit strange as it could suggest other sorts of imagery…
Well I am also reluctant to use the term "landscapes" here as there are no landscapes involved. Old-school, they were just called "close-ups" - do we really need a new genre bucket?
I hear what you’re saying — the term presents itself as a contradiction: “Landscape” traditionally connotes a vast natural scene, whereas as “intimate” seems to conflict with that. But personally it works for me, as it modifies the first term in a meaningful way: from “landscape” we understand this is a natural scene, and from “intimate” this is modified to further mean one that is small and personal.
A “close-up” could be anything, from my breakfast to the contents of my toolbox.
We can question the need for more terminology, but on the other hand this is the richness of language — eg, how many words does an Eskimo have for snow?
I’ve seen the term used by some of the photographers I follow — it doesn’t overly bother me.
Maybe I'm being too literal by expecting "landscape" to actually include landscape. I'm mostly used to it but should just get over my petty objection already :)
Nice essay and collection of images — I like this format, and the ability to enter a carousel of all the images from any given image embedded in the text. Is it possible to caption each image in the carousel (not that it’s much needed for a collection of similar subject matter)?
Oh, I see what you mean. When you look at the images embedded in the text, you can see the captions but when you click on one and are put into carousel mode, the captions are no longer visible. Yeah, that’s annoying.
Love this vignette of beach wanderings and explorations, including the unique intimates. How about just calling the genre Intimate Nature?
Ooh, I like that a lot. Thanks for the suggestion and for the compliment Paul!
It’s a good suggestion, but my impression has been that folks refer to these sort of more detailed natural images as “intimate landscapes”, as you note. I agree the term can seem a bit strange as it could suggest other sorts of imagery…
Well I am also reluctant to use the term "landscapes" here as there are no landscapes involved. Old-school, they were just called "close-ups" - do we really need a new genre bucket?
I hear what you’re saying — the term presents itself as a contradiction: “Landscape” traditionally connotes a vast natural scene, whereas as “intimate” seems to conflict with that. But personally it works for me, as it modifies the first term in a meaningful way: from “landscape” we understand this is a natural scene, and from “intimate” this is modified to further mean one that is small and personal.
A “close-up” could be anything, from my breakfast to the contents of my toolbox.
We can question the need for more terminology, but on the other hand this is the richness of language — eg, how many words does an Eskimo have for snow?
I’ve seen the term used by some of the photographers I follow — it doesn’t overly bother me.
Maybe I'm being too literal by expecting "landscape" to actually include landscape. I'm mostly used to it but should just get over my petty objection already :)
Nice essay and collection of images — I like this format, and the ability to enter a carousel of all the images from any given image embedded in the text. Is it possible to caption each image in the carousel (not that it’s much needed for a collection of similar subject matter)?
Thanks! I did add a caption to each image in the carousel (just the image titles in this case). Those don't show up for you?
Not in the iPhone SubStack app at least 😢
Oh, I see what you mean. When you look at the images embedded in the text, you can see the captions but when you click on one and are put into carousel mode, the captions are no longer visible. Yeah, that’s annoying.