Monday in Nature, Jan 22, 2018

I think one downside of this type of thread is that non nature can dominate the image. Then it's not really nature at all. But, I agree with Matthew. Most folks have images that are good, but are disqualified from MiN because of human features. Deborah's excellent image is a perfect example of what would be welcome and desirable in an alternative thread. David Stephens buck leaping fences come to mind immediately.

I have always appreciated the constraints of MiN with one image of pure nature. I'd like for Shun to weigh in on an alternative thread for the Nature Forum. I think there's room for both, but it's not my call. It would also be beneficial for one person to take ownership for awhile and make sure the thread gets established.

I like Tony's suggestion of humans benefiting nature, but that is only part of what happens out there. Frequently that contact zone becomes a disaster area for nature. The property adjacent to us was logged a few years ago. They did it in mid summer and impacted nesting throughout the area. The now open areas have been taken over by non native multiflora rose at the expense of native vegetation. I think both ends of the spectrum deserve attention.

First of all, we are more or less using the definition for nature photography from the Photographic Society of America such that I prefer to keep this particular thread as it is. On photo.net there are many other weekly threads for non-nature images. For example, the Landscape Forum has a weekly image thread that clearly includes images of buildings, bridges, etc. Wednesday Landscapes, 17 January 2018

However, perhaps we can have a separate weekly wildlife thread that is not specified as nature. I have plenty of images showing wildlife living along human-made objects. E.g. this is a recent image I posted to Facebook: https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26904286_10213960622582200_1170498340077623292_n.jpg?oh=2cf44e011058cc87733f1883afdc2665&oe=5B233FCA

I like the interaction between the two (male and female) bald eagles, but they happened to be on a power tower so that it definitely doesn't meet the criteria for nature photography.

First of all, we are more or less using the definition for nature photography from the Photographic Society of America such that I prefer to keep this particular thread as it is. On photo.net there are many other weekly threads for non-nature images. For example, the Landscape Forum has a weekly image thread that clearly includes images of buildings, bridges, etc. Wednesday Landscapes, 17 January 2018

 

However, perhaps we can have a separate weekly wildlife thread that is not specified as nature. I have plenty of images showing wildlife living along human-made objects. E.g. this is a recent image I posted to Facebook: https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26904286_10213960622582200_1170498340077623292_n.jpg?oh=2cf44e011058cc87733f1883afdc2665&oe=5B233FCA

 

I like the interaction between the two (male and female) bald eagles, but they happened to be on a power tower so that it definitely doesn't meet the criteria for nature photography.

Like the ospreys, we have oven birds and barn swallows that are intimately associated with humans, just to use bird species as examples. It would be extremely rare to find an oven bird nest (very interesting) that isn't on a man-made structure. If I get a great macro shot of a bat hanging on a brick wall it would violate the guidelines (which I did a few weeks ago). Same with insects on other man-made surfaces. How about fungi growing on the trump of a tree that someone felled? I think that we should respect the word guideline and not interpret it as a rule. If someone is offended that a photo goes beyond the guideline, they can express their opinion. If that is not acceptable, someone needs to be the absolute gatekeeper and that would not be an enviable position.

If that is not acceptable, someone needs to be the absolute gatekeeper and that would not be an enviable position.

A few of us have been the gate keepers here on MiN. It is precisely why the standard has been maintained. The PSA rules that MiN is based on aren't arbitrary, and it's really not up for discussion. MiN is MiN. It's easy to keep human made features out of nature photography. No one should be offended by anything in this forum.

My earlier post suggested a thread in the Nature forum that would permit the images containing human structures. I never suggested that MiN should be altered in any way. Shun, it looks like you agree in principle to an alternative thread. I'm going to take this discussion out of MiN and start a separate discussion. Please, anyone interested, join in the other thread.