Is there such a category as “travel photography” It makes no sense

Updated on September 26, 2017 in Photography
8 on September 10, 2017

I frequently hear the term “travel photography” discussed as if it deserves to be a category on it’s own, such as “landscape photography” or “street photography” etc.  But what is travel photography?  If it’s simply photography while travelling, then that could mean anything.  One person’s home could be another person’s travel destination.  One person’s exotic location could be mundane everyday life for a local inhabitant.

For example, I could go to Paris with my camera and call this “travel photography”, whereas someone who lives in Paris could take an identical set of photographs and they would only be able to call it “photography”.  How far do you have to travel for it to be called “travel photography”?  If I travel 2 miles to my local shops and take pictures, is that “travel photography”?  If I go to the beach in Spain and take macro shots of my nose hair, is that “travel photography”?.

In my view, the term “travel photography” only has meaning to the person who took the photographs and should not be considered as a type of photography.  I’m interested to hear other peoples opinions on this, especially Eric’s. 

 
  • Liked by
Reply
0 on September 11, 2017

I can’t make sens of it either. While I travel, I then can do some street, landscape, night photography… 

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on September 12, 2017

In my view, the term “travel photography” only has meaning to the person who took the photographs and should not be considered as a type of photographyFrom KenVee

 
I agree with the first thing you say that only you can define traveling. So it is a personal term. For every single person traveling is different. 
For some, it is going to their neighbor town. For others, it means you need to go to Paris or the Ivory coast. 
As soon as it is “traveling” to you, travel photography will be the umbrella term for all the kinds of photography you do during this time. 
It can be street, food, landscape, portraits, whatever floats your boat. So it is a term that combines all types of photography while traveling. 
 
 
I do not agree with your last part of the quoted sentence.
if you ask yourself the question: What is street photography? 
You stumble upon a similar problem. This as well can be multiple types of photography and is hard to define. Again every person has a different view on what street photography is. 
But we all seem to accept this term, but cannot accept the term travel photography. Which to me seems funny.
Even the masters of photography have problems to really define street photography.
Bruce Gilden quote is a nice one to describe it but not define it. It goes: 

“If you can smell the street by looking at the photo, it’s a street photograph”

Something similar could be said about travel photography. 

So if you can accept that street photography is a type of photography, you should be able to accept the term travel photography as well.  At least in my humble opinion 🙂 

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
1 on September 15, 2017

I agree with Steef_Jordans, it’s hard to put such a complex and nuanced idea such as street photography into words, it can be fun to try but ultimately I don’t think any amount of discussion can lead to a true understanding of the term. The only way to understand street photography and to understand how two people with such incredibly different styles like Andre Kertesz and Bruce Gilden can be put into the same category is to study the history of it. You understand photographs by looking at them, not by defining them. If you can put the feeling into words what would be the point of looking at photos? 

With regards to travel photography I feel as though there’s a certain look/feeling that you’re trying to give to the viewer, the feeling of experiencing something foreign, something new and exotic. Of course these photographs aren’t going to appear exotic to the locals that inhabit the place that you travel to. I’ve traveled to the other side of the continent and in no way would I ever call myself a travel photographer, I’m a street photographer working in a different location. My photographs aren’t trying to convey an exotic feel, they’re trying to show the beauty in the everyday, just like all of my other street photographs. If I was going to the Brazilian rain forest I think my photographs could only fall into the category of travel because I wouldn’t be able to help but feel a sense of wonder at how different that place is from the place that I’m from.

on September 19, 2017

Well said @Jeremybrake!!!

Show more replies
  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on September 20, 2017

The popular definitions should not be even considered in your photography, free yourself of useless and unnecessary terminology that someone invented. 
Instead, it should be Ken Vee photo style, or steef jordans photographic style or Jeremy Brake photo style, YOU make your own style, don’t copy anybody elses style make your own. 

Look up at other photographers so you know what NOT TO DO.

Don’t try to stand out from the crowd; avoid crowds altogether.

 

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on September 25, 2017

For me travel photography are pictures that can be sold to travel agencies.

In that definition I can make travel photographs of the city I live in, and I do. And because I do live there I can go there on the best moments. That’s why the local photographers always have the best travel photographs.

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on September 26, 2017

I have never had a problem with the term “Travel Photography”.  I always took it to mean the sort of photos that give viewers an idea of what they might find if they went to the same place.  

Of course it does not fully define what the photographer chooses to photograph, but that is true of any Genre of photography.  Take Sport photography: cricket? cycling, surfing? the Olympics? boxing, tiddlywinks, motor racing?  Or Wildlife? Photographing an insect and photographing a blue whale takes very different skills and knowledge. As for “Travel photography” so long as images suggest the flavour of the place (rather than being of a subject that could be anywhere)  they qualify as “Travel photography”.  And you do not need to travel very far.  They could be of your home town.  What is familiar in our everyday life can be unusual and exotic to others.

Also I don’t see the value of getting hung up on the search for precise definitions of these terms.  Words and phrases are hard to define in isolation.  But in the context of how they are used we rarely have any trouble communicating.

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on September 26, 2017

In my oppinion there´s no sense even to discuss the term and its meaning …. I always found a weardy term… It cannot be taken as kind or genre of photography…simply because as many of you already said it comprises all kinds or genres of photography that really have meanings…

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel