Photo.net definition of "Nature"

Hi guys. I'm a total innocent when it comes to nature photography:

I'm looking for guidance on the photo.net terms of what

constitutes "nature".<br><br> Does a <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3081817">snap of a

semi-wild ape</a> in a protected forest reserve fall within the

guidelines? Is this the correct interpretation of the <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photo/nature/imagerules.html">image

rules</a>?.

It's an interesting question. When I was a regular at the Minnesota Nature Photography Club they defined a nature photo as one that you cannot see 'the hand of man' in the image. A rope certainly would be included in that definition. But then, what about a forest clearing and secondary forest growth that is the result the axe? A lawn with a fox passing through? Even a a seedling coming up through a blackened forest floor the product of a human-caused brush fire. If one really digs into it a lot of images either explictly or subtilly have an impact of man in the image.

 

I personally don't feel captivated animals constitute a natural image. To me the image is secondary in many ways-I like the thought that I have captured in the camera a moment of a natural event. That is why I personally don't think of images taken at game farms are true nature photography images even though there are no obvious 'hand of man' in the image. That is not to say I don't find them beautiful. A lynx chewing down a snowshoehare would be an almost impossible image to get in the wild, but can be setup beautifully in a game farm-I just feel it's not natural. To me, this is a personal taste issue and I'm sure many would totally disagree with me.

Ian, It's a judgement call. I would consider your orang rehab photo as close enough to be considered 'nature' since it documents an important attempted transition of the orangs back to nature. Looks like a rewarding experience in a beautiful place. Don't worry too much about web technicalities or snap judgement comments ("hate to see zoo pictures in "nature""). Cheers, Greg

The cited "rules" apply only to the now defunct image critique page which was on greenspun.com. The current gallery on photo.net doesn't have any rules for nature spelled out.

 

Most photography competitions define nature as non-domesticated animals and plants, plus landscapes which don't show "the hand of man", which is typically interpreted as "no roads, no buildings, no cars, no people".

 

So an animal in a zoo typically counts as nature, but a dog or cat doesn't. Similarly wild flowers are nature, but cultivated flowers in a vase are not. The line is somewhat grey at times.

As mentioned there is a fair amount of gray area in the definition.

For the purpose of questions or critiques around here, I don't

think most people will object if "man" is included in a nature

scene. i.e. a hiker standing by a giant redwood. Some people

like having the sense of scale that comes from it. Some other

photo sites have a separate category for "Man and Nature" (or

"man vs. nature" for that matter...)

 

The debate over using captive animals is another story, and

you'll find plenty of heated discussion from both sides. From the

standpoint of photo agencies or contests, you are usually

*required* to state if the animal was shot in "captive" or

"controlled" conditions, which your orangutan image would fall

under. I think zoo and game farm images do count as Nature,

since the main subject is (in a way) part of the natural world. I'm

just really NOT a fan of those images, most of them are really

boring. You get no sense of the real environment, and often the

animals just don't have the same magic as their wild cousins.

 

"Nick" Nichols has some interesting views on it <a

href="http://michaelnicknichols.com/article/" >in these

articles</a>, and he certainly is one to know. Cheers...

I don't think it's critical unless there are some specific contest or publication rules where a "captive" animal could or would be passed off as a wild animal. Wild animals tend not to be too observant of any considerations of the "hand of man" and find fence lines, light standards, lawns and the like, to be perfectly acceptable places to hang out. Certainly in many areas, people and animals cross over into each other's territories, and the presence of man-made objects is coincidental and does nothing to make the shot any more or less easy. The doves that have been nesting in a tree in my yard for several years are wild (and the gopher snakes we had in the yard easily exceeded my wife's "nature" tolerance).

 

Even our "wild" critters can have the hand of man in view. The condor we saw/photographed on a cliff at the Grand Canyon was obviously tagged. The golden eagle we saw at the San Diego Wild Animal Park wasn't one of the pair that usually lives near there - again, clear from the obvious number tag. Looked like nature to me.