Crowds? What are those?
Going to a 1st tier tourist location and not expecting crowds today is like going to a stadium concert and not expecting to see other concert goers.
When people get their noses out of joint and stand on their soap boxes decrying the manipulation of photos digitally as altering reality, isn't it a manipulation today of trying to create a fantasy of a location showing it as it isn't by trying to photograph it without people?
Is the sunset on Santorini at Oia without crowds of people in the picture a good picture or just a picture of a sunset that could be anywhere?
Is the perfect picture the Charles bridge at noon swarming with people or the Charles Bridge at noon empty? Swarming with people is reality, empty is a manipulation of reality.
Great point! I agree with you in this…
I am against manipulation in areas like bird photography (the perfect background!)…
my question was actually how to deal with crowds in photography but being a low computer skills person, manipulation just didn’t even cross my mind.
I shoot in "documentary" style myself, because shooting a place in the different way it can be as it is, is what attracts me to travel photography where I can try out all sort of new things. Being "real" is important to me, as it is after all my own experience that I am recording, though that reality is also curated and selective, as in you choose what you want to show. You include what you like and exclude what you do not like, just like what you do in framing.
On the other hand, I will like to say a word for those who do things differently from us. Their intention and their vision that they like to show others goes into surreality which does not need to be real, and whether we call that travel photography or by another name is another story. This can vary from removing people, staging a scene, all the way to adding an unicorn on machu pichu. The aim is different be it to evoke certain desires or emotions which are imaginery.
That will of course not sit well when the viewers are expecting to see things that are real. For example if I am just another tourist going to a place expecting to see a building which is crimson red in a picture that I saw, but only to see it being blue in real life, or worse the building do not even exist. I will be disappointed, isn't it?
It is just that we all have different expectations, imaging the same place but with different purpose, essentially speaking different languages. There is a certain aesthetic sense that leads to people doing it in a more surreal manner but appears heavily processed (not everyone's cup of tea) and hence "unreal" to some of us but which seems pretty common in award winning shots in competitions. I even saw one where a photographer had Putin's face on his work, obviously not real, but perfectly serve the purpose of satire.
The key is to understand where each of us comes from, and to draw a line so that everyone can get to do what we enjoy in our own circle in our own way and our works shared with those who share the same purpose and love in that particular genre.
That said, having to do computer manipulation is just too much work for me. The easier way is to get it right in camera as whenever possible. There are many ways it can be done which are already stated by many others here, which all depends on where you are, what you shoot and what options are available. Choosing to incorporate them into the image can at times be desirable though challenging, and if you do not like the idea of waking up at odd hours, perhaps looking for a cafe with a balcony at an elevated ground can be a way to chill and get a different vantage point.
In fact the very reason I wake up early is not to avoid crowds, but because the light is good. When in the crowds, the subject matter may have to be adjusted.
--
I may not always agree with different opinions, but criticisms, advices or suggestions on my photos are always welcomed.
