"Place is space plus character" wrote Christian Norberg-Schulz, the Baroque architecture historian.

Two familiar types of photography, landscape and architectural, deal in place, but I wonder if pegging a photographer into a category limits his or her ability to truly discover place and its meaning.

Suppose an architecture photographer shoots a downtown skyscraper. While keeping light and composition in mind, the main focus is on the subject ~ the building.

But suppose the photographer wants to add drama to the scene and considers the reflected light, color, and shadow that glance off the large building onto the outdoor cafe across the street. Thanks to the skyscraper a dining spot now has a changed character. Food tastes better and the conversation is improved, for space has become place.

Should the sensitive photographer of place rethink the meaning of the subject and consider including the interesting and unexpected cafe scene as part of the montage? Would not a viewer be inspired by these effects? Why should the photographer be limited by the original subject?

The practice that I call "Photography of Place" includes 1. capturing the effects of place along with objective place, and 2. creating, through photography techniques, a vision of better place.

These galleries are for your heartwarming uplift and joy. Norberg-Schulz's formula has been replaced with: PLACE plus TECHNIQUE equals VISION plus ROMANCE plus JOY!

"The highest problem of any art is to cause by appearance the illusion of a higher reality." ~Goethe