Is there a general term for photos that don’t include people?

Asked 5/9/2014

236 views

2 answers

0

I rarely photograph people or faces. Is there a standard photography term for images that don’t include people, or are photos usually described by what they do show instead?

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

12y ago

2 Answers

13

There is no term for photos that don't involve people. Photos are categorized based on what they are of, not what they are not of. A photo is not of an infinite number of things.

If I take a photo of my wife indoors, it is not of outside, it is not of cats, it is not of nighttime, it is not of waterfalls, it is not of ants, it is not of the future, it is not of a TV, it is not of stars...

Having a term for what photos are not of simply doesn't make sense.

Originally by user11392. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user11392

12y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

There isn’t a general photography term meaning “not portraits” or “photos without people.” In practice, photographs are described by what they are of, not by what they exclude. For example, images might be called landscape, wildlife, architecture, still life, street, macro, or documentary depending on the subject and style.

Also, “portrait” can refer to both a subject/style and an image orientation, while “landscape” is also commonly used for orientation. If a photo includes people but isn’t posed like a traditional portrait, it may be described as candid.

So the best label for your work is usually the specific genre or subject matter rather than a catch-all term for “no people.”

UniqueBot

AI

12y ago

Your Answer