I’ve often been asked whether I live in a ghost town or how I’ve managed to take photographs without people in them. I assume the implication is that I Photoshop them out. I’ve also seen amateur photographers annoyed with some klutz spoiling what would otherwise be a pristine natural landscape / architectural shot, which has always surprised me; people add importance, or at least scale, to images.

In point of fact, I live in a small village and often shoot scenes when most people are working (or asleep). But I have lived in the centre of very large cities and, in looking back at my favourite images, I’ve started to worry about about misanthropy. When I’m struck by something, I confess it’s usually a composition without people or one in which people are an addition, not the main feature. As I dislike editing things out of my images, I usually wait until a clear shot presents itself.

So…

How do you feel about strangers in your shots?

I usually wish upon them a slow and painful death. As soon as they're out of the way of course.

I too, wait until a clear shot presents itself.
I watched a programme on Photography this evening...the instructor actually mentioned people giving scale to images.
I love catching the stance of people ... you remember your shot of the couple which included an ageing lady with blonde permed hair...You (Stéfan) saw one thing, myself and another something completely different... so I guess people add interest, curiousity and intrigue...not so bad!

Slow and painful death? Too easy. I make a show of waiting patiently, very patiently (as long as they realise that I am waiting patiently, oh so patiently). Works every time...

When people are the main subject, however, I love it and I can be very patient until the right moment (as I see it). But, as Marilyn rightly points out, my right moment may be understood in a completely different way.

I really do think you need the human touch to bring a landscape into an understandable frame of reference (sorry, that sounds pompous), so I disagree with scale... schmale. I remember shooting Epidavros, a hugely impressive amphitheatre in southern Greece. Without the tiny human figure I would never have been able to convey the monumental scale of that extraordinary structure, even though at the time I was annoyed that people kept ruining my shot. It taught me a lot.

I am anti people all the way.
Okay, not really but normally I will also wait patiently. . . while smiling. . . and tapping my foot. . . waiting for them to get the hell out of my shot. I have noticed it helps to have a person or even a dog in the frame when shooting things like Haystack Rock. Hmmm.

Horses for courses really. Sometimes the people make the shot, sometimes they ruin it. If I'm taking a picture of a building or such like, I generally try to wait until the scene is pretty empty, but not always. I am aware that sometimes a totally empty scene can look a little too "Village of the Damned".

There is a Chinese news channel called CCTV that I sometimes come across when channel hopping. There is one thing that is quite astonishing about their images; there is almost never anyone in them. They could have done reports about the crowds at the Beijing Olympics and still managed a totally isolated scene. And do you know what? It looks totally bizarre. Whenever I see it I want to scream at the screen, "show us some people, show us that they're still alive"! Sometimes we need to see some people to give an image the human touch. Sometimes, but not always.

I love shots of people living "real life" and not posing while they are doing so. However, if I am shooting a landscape or other type shot I shoo them away (yes, literally.) I have a very violent story about a really mean biker gal and I after she stepped in the way of a perfect shot at a public parade. Obviously I won or I would not be quite so proud of the story. I make photo books and the townspeople know this, so folks around here either steer completely clear of me or stand in the frame on purpose. The only exception to the either 1. taking a picture of you, please ignore me mentality and 2. you're in my frame, I do not want you there mentality is 3. people for perspective ie; to show the true size of the mural/rock/whatever.

oh, by the way (Jarvo)~ Horses for courses~ I know I'm showing my ignorance here but what in the heck does that mean?

I think it depends on what you're going for. A random stranger in a picture of a beautiful sunset over a hill can completely destroy your photos. A random stranger with a thoughtful expression standing outside a little shop you're photographing can make it. I tend to either take candid photos of people or photos while hiking - sometimes I like strangers sometimes I don't.

ROTF @ Rachel. Would have paid good money to see that. I agree about the horses thingy (even though I don't understand it). Rachel does her portrait series and they're great people shots. So it definitely depends on what you're going for. Now I think you've prompted me to try to incorporate more people into my photos. . . . maybe.

Noun

horses for courses

1. (idiomatic) A person suited for one job may not be suited for another job, regardless of their expertise in the former job.
2. (idiomatic) The practice of choosing the best person for a particular job.

Different things for different situations. I think it comes from horse racing where you might want a horse with a different qualities to run a particular course (a sprinter, one that can go long distances, one that's good over jumps etc.)

@ Felecia, Rachel and Jon: as in, "you can't make a horse without breaking foals", "don't judge a horse by its course" and "don't look a gift omelette in the mouth otherwise you'll end up with horse all over your face"?

What a wonderful resource PB is... I learn something every day.

A person, against backlight or silhouette is often pleasant. But a "ghost appeared from nowhere" usually spoils the charm of a plan or framework that we wanted the most appropriate ... especially if you do not realize it before seeing the pictures on the PC screen ... Delete !...

I can't stand people in my pictures
This is purely sour grapes; I'm useless at convivial or candid photography - people are so asymmetrical - now if they were nice and square and I coiuld line them up in the frame ...
I have only successfully taken relaxed images of my own children, of whom I sincerely hope I don't have any posed shots - with foreign parents I was regularly propped against a wall with the sun in my eyes and my school hat on, so a picture could be sent to foreign parts, hence a total allergy to posed shots.
I always have to fight a wicked desire to walk into frame as others pose for holiday memories - the frisson is not as good as in the days of film photography, one can easily take multiple shots until all the nuisance people have gone, so there is less likelihood of getting the prints back from the chemists to discover a total stranger sharing the view.
There is another issue: about privacy and rights etc
in colleges students' work can be disqualifies if there are people in images from whom no permission has been granted for display - this includes passing strangers - that practice makes one very wary of including the uninvited.
Working with anyone, but particularly children, I have become totally paranoid about permissions in case some protocol is broken, so I take weird shots of hands working or headless people at table level; That way if records of events end up on social networking sites there can't be trouble. I think all this paranoia about misuse of images is garbage but it's beyond my contol.

ps I think I may have taken some pictures of horses

sorry, hogging the reply space
"peopleless" images in photography can, of course, be powerfully about human presence; I would say this was true of a lot of your street scenes, Stefan.