Nope, unfortunately, it is hard to find something that can be made into a photograph here. Manitoba is really flat with some trees here and there. There are lakes, but you need a car to get to them. There are also places that are less flat, but they are far away, and you also would need a car.
I guess I know the feeling: my hometown is, pretty much, the same. The other feeling doesn't escape me, though: while you say "It's flat" like it's a disadvantage for a photographer, the we're commenting under pictures a flat field. I presume it doesn't matter how flat it is: what matters is who has got the camera.
Oh, by the way, as an amateur photographer, I should ask: how did you make a photograph of these proportions? Was it even a camera setting, or was it a Photoshop working? The format is excellent, and sometimes it's just what I need, but I can't get it right many times.
Hmm, I may have cropped the picture. It's an old one, so I can no longer remember. Yeah, I actually think that having just flat fields with some ugly power lines, wires, and buildings, as far as the eye can see, is pretty much a disadvantage for a photographer. It's very limiting, and hard to find a place worth photographing.
Crop I can do. But here's another question on the subject: do you see right when taking a shot how much to chop away, or do you figure it out while editing?
True: having just plain fields is nothing to shine about, and different landscapes you can make your fantasy run wild with all kind of shapes and colors. Still, with some effort, you can make even a flat field of corn look fantastic.