What IS it about nature photography?

My feelings about Chris' question have migrated to the very

specific and the very general.

 

<p>

 

The general first: most people are not innovators. Whether it's

physics, photography or football, most people simply follow the

herd. They are happy doing so, and will fight tooth and nail to

avoid the responsibility of being first, best, or different. That's

human nature and there's not a lot a point getting bunched up

about it.

 

<p>

 

The specific: my own nature photography is highly conventional,

but I look upon it as reflecting my interest in nature, not my

interest in photography. When I go into the wilderness I am a

hiker who photographs, not a photographer who hikes, and I

show my images to other hikers, not to other photographers.

 

<p>

 

As for art, I think it is important to keep in mind that what

photographers call 'art photography' is very different from what

artists call 'art photography'. The gap between the two is one of

the reasons why fine art nature photography can get away with

its relative lack of originality in subject matter, as well as an

accepted style of presentation which admits only a miniscule

emotional range.

 

<p>

 

It is true that some nordic photographers are consciously and

deliberately trying to move away from this, as a reaction against

NANPA-rules fantasies about untouched nature and how we

should react to it. Hans Strand, Jan-Peter Lahall and Jan Tove

are three who are fairly widely published, and close enough to

the mainstream that they can't be dismissed as naked

emporers. Personally though, I think the filmmakers have the

edge these days when it comes to innovative approaches to

nature, but that's a long way from LF.

oi Johnathan, ja sei muito bem essa aspieto do Brasil-- foi la mais de

diez veces (mais nunca aprendi como escrever portugues-- disculpa...).

 

<p>

 

abracos,

 

<p>

 

~chris jordan (Seattle)

Boa tarde Chris, como vai isso? Queria a fala Portequese muito

melhor! Fico em Brasil uma semana para Carnaval. Meu escrever esta

pior!

 

<p>

 

Yes Chris I speak laughing Brazilian and the Brazilians laugh,

incidently I found out the hard way the first time I went, they call

it Brazilian.

Brasil, e muito lindo! Chris, O que eacha do pais/das pessoas?

Adeus mi amigo.

Walter,

 

<p>

 

Thanks for the response. No I do not know for sure, what went through

AA's mind when shooting. The juggeling of commercial and pure

artistic is difficult and the cross overs common place. Seperating

the two is sometimes impossible. I personally take a strict view of

the two; commercial work is when I shoot with someone else in mind,

what will others think. Pure artistic expression is when I shoot to

please myself, regardless of what others think.

Hi Folks,

I am tone deaf and can�t speak Brazilian, but I want

to put my two penneth anyway.

 

<p>

 

In my opinion Chris is partially correct in what he says � although

every image is unique there is much of a muchness about many

photographs including, but not restricted to landscapes. Check out

the stock image catalogues and you will see that many wildlife and

portrait shots are repeated ad nauseum. Indeed it must be

increasingly difficult for anyone to break into stock photography

unless they supply images that portray modern fashions � state of the

art sports goods or clothing, etc. When one photo library has 15,000

images of wolves on its books why do they need any more? Why are

photographers still disturbing fragile species in the hope of photo

sales when others already have the same images?

 

<p>

 

For us amateurs it boils down to why you take the photograph? Some

photographers are like birdwatchers � they follow in the footsteps of

their heroes and tick off the images for themselves. Others, like Q

T and Jim Galli enjoy the experience of actually being out there

overcoming the challenges of converting the image viewed onto

emulsion. Photographs are memories and in that respect it does not

matter whether the subject is hackneyed � it is a personal possession.

 

<p>

 

Personally I try to make my images as original as possible by

seeking out new viewpoints. I regularly visit Staithes, Nth Yorkshire

(the place where Captain James Cook RN first worked) a tiny village

haunted by pro� photographers all year round. Despite the host of

images taken within this restricted environment and regularly

published in the photo press I have several which I believe may be

unique. I have another image of a water mill that was taken within a

few yards of the well worn spot where every other visiting

photographer stands that gives a vastly different perspective of the

scene.

 

<p>

 

As for �Art�. Well, I never pretend to understand it. The promoters

of the Kobal portrait awards and those who claim that an unmade bed,

dead sheep or empty room is a �statement� may be right. Then again

they may just be creating controversy for publicity purposes.

 

<p>

 

Well, that�s it except to say thank you to all the contributors who

have enlightened my sparse knowledge of LF photography and did n�t

make too much fuss when I finally settled on the half way house

option of a 2x3 monorail!

 

<p>

 

Clive

I feel that if you keep just keep shooting until you discover your

visual passions, work at it with a sense of personal integrity (e.g.

compose images in a way that serves the piece, versus blatantly

copying someone else), and just keep plodding along, eventually

you'll have art that you'll be proud of. A unique identity will

emerge on its own. No worries! I bet there will always be *someone*

who will enjoy your stuff!

 

<p>

 

Best,

 

<p>

 

Chris

Que gostoso ver alguma coisa escrita em brasileiro neste forum. Adorei, e

aproveitem !!

Grasshopper he say "Art is more than decoration and recreation "

The issue here is not the the mountain or the lake. It's just that your personal wonderment of it is expressed in the same form as everyone else and therefore loses it's freshness to certain critical others. That's all fine. There will always be that complacency. Might as well make some money off it. It's takes a slightly different mind to see things as if they are being seen for the first time, and others sets of critical eyes to pick that up. These critical eyes know that the same beauty can be found in someone's old shoe as much as it can in a lovely garden. So what if you feel good about your autumn landscape? They'll stay in your living rooms or will be registered into some bland stock photo catalogue. They certainly will never enter the world of art, where they don't belong. Don't even try feebly positioning your argument that way. I suspect, by reading most oif the posts on this web site, that most of you have no idea what I'm talking about. Happy snapping!