Alternative weekly thread in Nature forum

In these alternative weekly threads, contributors are encouraged to interpret "nature photography" as they see fit. The thread is open to a variety of creative ways to see, to photograph, and to interpret nature

Fred, thanks for your comments. The rest sounds good, but I would be a bit careful about this part. As Bob Atkins (who started this forum two decades ago) once told me, humans are part of nature also, but clothing is human made. Therefore, to some, "nature photography" means clothing optional photography.

 

However, I am sure that is not what a lot of us have in mind. :)

to some, "nature photography" means clothing optional photography

LOL. Hadn't thought of that.

 

I'm sure we could come up with wording that would be suitable, or even a disclaimer saying something like, "Nudes, which is how some people define "nature photography" are restricted to the "Nudes" section of PN and, for the purposes of these nature threads, cannot be included here."

Therefore, to some, "nature photography" means clothing optional photography.

Funny! Good catch!

I like Dawson’s proposal. If tweaks are needed, they should be minor. I would not support Fred’s ideas, as I think they risk totally changing the overall subject content that people have come to desire in this forum. I may (or may not) support conservation, various “interpretations” of nature, activism of various types. But none of those are what brings me to this forum or what I want it to trend toward.

Rod, just to be clear. I'm NOT suggesting any changes to the forum itself. I'm suggesting an approach to a specific weekly thread that's been proposed. You may still disagree with my approach, which I'm fine with, but just wanted to make sure that the specific scope of my suggestion is understood.

 

I'm also not suggesting anyone's individual work trend toward anything. That others may have alternative approaches to a nature thread needn't in any way undermine or threaten the integrity of anyone else's work.

 

I understand some degrees and contexts for exclusivity and likemindedness when working in a particular genre and at the same time understand the benefits of a diversity of approaches and visions to a given subject or genre.

 

Obviously, it will be up to the group and moderator to decide what degree of regulation there is to be and just what rules are to be imposed. I would advocate the least amount of regulation and the fewest rules for this particular thread.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Norma Desmond

This is, of course, true and I thank you for stating it plainly.

 

____________________________________________________________________

 

 

I'd be against adopting Dawson's guidelines. If you open the door to humanity in this new weekly thread, open it. Don't just allow for a teensy weensy crack. If someone wants to post a figure of a human being looming large in a natural environment, that should be encouraged as a way to approach nature photography. If I have a photo of a person helping to clean oil-damaged birds on a beach and the bird takes up much less space than the person, there's no reason why that photo shouldn't be allowed in this less restricted thread. You've already got one thread with a severe human restriction. Either unrestrict this one or forget about it, because by adding yet more restrictions to this new thread you're merely paying lip service to something and not embracing alternative visions of nature photography.

 

"If you open the door to humanity in this new weekly thread, open it."

I strongly disagree. This is a nature forum and the focus needs to be nature, not humans.

For those who may not have noticed, Shun opened a thread were were can post photos that do not fit MiN guidelines. Thanx Shun.

Nature Forum's Other Weekly Image Thread, January 26, 2018

I wouldn't get too hung up on what is or is not ok for the new weekly threads. I know that since we allow beyond PSA guidelines, it is going to be even harder to define. I would say just try that for a few weeks and see how it goes. If there are images a lot of us feel that they shouldn't belong, such as scantily clad people, I would image that members will point that out. However, please don't get into debate about politics and environmental issues, not that they aren't important, but they are often heated and will spoil the fun and friendly environment we try to cultivate here.

 

And the never-before-posted image guideline is merely a suggestion. I sure will not search the posting history for each participant and, for example, tell Laura that she has posted the same image two years ago in June. Sometimes I can hardly remember what I have posted a week or two ago without checking the threads.

Fred,

I think I do understand what you are and aren't suggesting. I certainly didn't figure you were trying to change photographic styles of individuals. I also think your suggestions may have no major negative impact on the forum. But weird things happen sometimes, totally unforeseen. I just know that for ME, I like this forum because of the posted nature images (narrowly defined) and the advice given for locations, equipment, techniques, etc. related specifically to doing nature photography. I'm hoping it will continue primarily in that direction. Perhaps wide latitude for this new thread could work fine. Like you say, neither you or I will make the decision. :-)

Wow,

 

This thread has given me a shock of Déjà vu. Just like the crabby old days on P.net. ("GET OFF MY LAWN")

 

I, myself, am an authoritarian when I'm giving the orders and a libertarian when I am being given orders. I note that I am not alone in this tendency.

 

There is, in any case, a fine line between the "Leader Principle" and "Democratic Centralism". o_O

 

If this seems off-topic to you, then I'm happy for your innocence.

Wow,

 

This thread has given me a shock of Déjà vu. Just like the crabby old days on P.net. ("GET OFF MY LAWN")

 

I, myself, am an authoritarian when I'm giving the orders and a libertarian when I am being given orders. I note that I am not alone in this tendency.

 

There is, in any case, a fine line between the "Leader Principle" and "Democratic Centralism". o_O

 

If this seems off-topic to you, then I'm happy for your innocence.

Thanx JDMvW. Your advice on how to make this thread successful would be appreciated.

[ATTACH=full]1229869[/ATTACH]

Great example!

The alternative thread is going well. It's been fun seeing the contributions.

 

Can someone give me an idea of the group's rule of thumb for the difference between landscape and nature? Are all landscapes considered nature? Does there have to be a non-human animal present to qualify as a nature photo for the purposes of this forum or a focus on particular vegetation? Certainly, all nature photos would not be landscape photos. But what, if anything (aside from a human element), would disqualify a landscape photo from being considered a nature photo?

The alternative thread is going well. It's been fun seeing the contributions.

 

Can someone give me an idea of the group's rule of thumb for the difference between landscape and nature? Are all landscapes considered nature? Does there have to be a non-human animal present to qualify as a nature photo for the purposes of this forum or a focus on particular vegetation? Certainly, all nature photos would not be landscape photos. But what, if anything (aside from a human element), would disqualify a landscape photo from being considered a nature photo?

 

I have seen landscapes in MiN before, and grumbling about a vehicle path in one being a 'hand of man' element.

Can someone give me an idea of the group's rule of thumb for the difference between landscape and nature? Are all landscapes considered nature? Does there have to be a non-human animal present to qualify as a nature photo for the purposes of this forum or a focus on particular vegetation? Certainly, all nature photos would not be landscape photos. But what, if anything (aside from a human element), would disqualify a landscape photo from being considered a nature photo?

Fred, we always defer to Photographic Society of America's (PSA) definition of nature photography: Definition of Nature | Photographic Society of America

 

The key is that there shouldn't be any human-made objects in the image. Within the context of this forum, landscape photography is just one type of nature photography, as long as there is no human-made objects inside, such as bridges, lighthouses (or any house), roads, boats .... If one wants to be picky, there shouldn't be any jet trails in the sky .... But at least I sometimes have difficulty telling clouds and jet trails apart after it has disperse a bit.

 

Nowhere in the definition specifies that there must be some animal or vegetation to be qualified as nature photography. You can take a picture of a clear blue sky, and that all-blue image would meet the guideline for nature photography, although not an interesting image. Or there could be some very interesting cloud formation under great light.

 

In my mind, the proposed alternative thread should still meet most of PSA's definition for nature photography, but it may show some small signs of human activities such as a bird standing on barbwire, a bridge in the background ... so that some otherwise excellent images displaying the beauty of nature don't get disqualified for trivial reasons. Domesticated animals such as dogs, cats, horses, cows are still off limits, and there shouldn't be any buildings, ships .... prominently on display in the image. This new thread is not meant to open the floodgate so that anything goes. We have many image threads on photo.net for those other topics.

 

As I mentioned earlier, it is actually more difficult to define the guidelines for the new thread. It is going to be highly subjective. If it evolves such that we have to keep flagging posts as non-compliant and debating on why some images are acceptable or not, it won't be fun any more and we might as well just go back to having only the original Monday in Nature thread where the stricter guidelines makes it easier to distinguish whether an image is nature or not.

Edited January 29, 2018 by ShunCheung

Thanks, Shun. Just wanted to make sure. I get the human element stuff. Believe me, it's been made quite clear! And I had read the PSA guidelines which, oddly enough, are mostly about what a nature shot cannot be but not what a nature shot actually is, which is why I was having trouble distinguishing it from a landscape shot. But you've confirmed what I suspected, which is that a landscape photo is simply a subset of nature photos, and that's basically what I wanted to know. Thanks again.

disqualified for trivial reasons

That's an interesting way to put it and it seems I agree, but such is life under the hammer of the PSA. :)

but such is life under the hammer of the PSA. :)

Nobody is forced to participate in Monday in Nature or this forum. If you don't like the PSA's guidelines, find a different thread or forum whose guidelines you agree to. From my point of view, I would rather use their guidelines than coming up with my own. It is obvious that coming up with the looser guidelines for the new image thread is not simple.

Shun, the smiley face was supposed to let you know that I was saying that in a lighthearted and tongue-in-cheek manner. I do not feel “forced” into participating here. I do not feel welcome either. If one can’t even voice an opinion on or make a joke about rules without being basically told to go away, then one knows exactly what he’s dealing with. And it isn’t pretty. It’s consistent, though. Purge nature of what you find distracting in order to keep it pure and purge the forum of alternative voices in order to keep it pure as well. Mission accomplished. Bye.

Domesticated animals such as dogs, cats, horses, cows are still off limits, and there shouldn't be any buildings, ships .... prominently on display in the image

Got to say I don't agree with this. There could be great shots of wildlife with buildings etc as prominent parts of the image. While I also tend to agree about domesticated animals, I would not make it a rule, unless the thread became a cat and dog heaven.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Robin Smith

While I also tend to agree about domesticated animals, I would not make it a rule, unless the thread became a cat and dog heaven.

Domesticated animals are not nature. It should be pretty obvious that we shouldn't allow them in the Nature Forum. The issue is that if one person is allowed to post them, it will be difficult to argue why that is ok but someone else is not. I already know that we are not always consistent with our rules, but we definitely don't to make them really inconsistent.

Are trees planted by Man natural?

After an almost daily presence here for over 15 years I decided to take a few months off, but after reading these last four pages it feels like I never left.

At first read I thought a new thread to accommodate those who have been complaining about the strict guidelines for MIN should be a fresh and welcome addition to this forum. I understand getting out into the field is not always possible for some and not even a welcome choice for others so the new suggested thread would accommodate that segment of the membership here and also those who balk at 'rules' in general to display their otherwise interesting nature shots. Why some of you have to make that a difficult concept, I don't know.

I strive for my nature shots to fall within the acceptable MIN guidelines as part of the enjoyment I experience taking the actual shot. Sometimes I have to crop out an element or frame for it not to be visible. Other times the bird feeder can't be ignored! Or the window frame I shot through. Or the fence post the owl chose to rest upon. For these I would now have a weekly thread to post in. Fabulous! It's still the Nature forum so the initial guidelines must still exist. But, now you can post your best shots from the zoo and Marineland. What is so difficult to understand about that?

My vote would be for one image per member per week, the same as MIN, because I'm most interested in seeing someone's best effort, and words to be completely optional because I enjoy learning as much as I can regarding the photographer's technique, equipment used, and any other information they are willing to share about the image.

Would, 'Interacting With Nature' be a sufficient title?

 

Domesticated animals are not nature. It should be pretty obvious that we shouldn't allow them in the Nature Forum. The issue is that if one person is allowed to post them, it will be difficult to argue why that is ok but someone else is not. I already know that we are not always consistent with our rules, but we definitely don't to make them really inconsistent.

How about feral dogs (as we have possibly seen already)? Or the wild horses of Sable Island? Or pythons in the FLA everglades? I want to see nature photos and won't get hung up on a few debatable interpretations. How deeply could one be offended by them? That is why the the guideline I suggested states " ‘Likes’, ‘Replies’ and comments from other PNet members will help to guide you for your future posts."

"Again, as far as I am concerned, the purpose for this thread is to promote nature photography and have some fun. It is not my objective, and I am sure it is not Bob Atkins' either, to tightly police every entry. As long as we use common sense, anything reasonable is fine. If we can see some out-of-focus house in the background, it is not going to be an issue. However, I hope people won't post an image of their dog on a leash waking in the park ..."

 

A quote from Shun Cheung in October 2013 on the Monday in Nature POTW thread (one of the first I posted to).

 

So; what has changed?