data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6010b/6010b48f367e3ff6dea9f51f1bfb45ee357d7b4a" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9df90/9df90828d1b65eff78d2095b8870a0110d7ebac1" alt=""
Currently, I am pondering the relationship between natural landscapes and human influenced landscapes. When photographing in a city park, like the Arboretum, it is hard to escape the influence and impact of man. Paths, benches and exotic plants are all part of the norm.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c5412/c54126d165884f8d74a495d5b0d960379633f713" alt=""
My question to you is whether or not city landscapes are stronger for their man-made elements; or, do you prefer a landscape where the concentration is on the plant and geologic elements? In these images, the presence of man and man-made gives a sense of scale that might otherwise be difficult for us to determine.
What do you think?