Emotional response to nature photography

Many amateurs like me start out their photographic hobby by

photographing nature --witness the number of film rolls people spend

on their vacations. But when it comes to eliciting an emotional

response from the viewer, nature photography is perhaps at the

bottom. No amount of great landscapes can arouse the same intensity

of emotions as a photo essay by Eugene Smith. Is it that we connect

to a human subject more easily or is it that we are simply busy

making "pretty" pictures?

I think you are starting from an incorrect premise and have made way too many generalizations about human beings. For example, you whole hypothesis is invalid concerning me and one of my teenage children. My other teenager agrees with you. My wife falls somewhere in between.

 

Does that answer your question? No, because you've made too many assumptions about photography and human nature. This comes darn close to being another "What is art?" type of discussion.

 

Have you ever seen an exhibit of Emmet Gowin? He doesn't really appeal to me from an artistic standpoint but I can appreciate the obvious and strong message of his work which, in some cases, is as good as anything out there now.

 

Maybe you should expand your horizons a little more?

<center>

<img src="/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1507264&size=md">

</center>

<p>

A lot depends on your choice of subject.

You seem to be making the assumption that Nature photography is about "<i>making pretty pictures</i>".<p>The aim of the photograph above was to portray the inevitability of the evolutionary process.<p>Emotional enough for you?<p><a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">www.keithlaban.co.uk</a><div></div>

I defy anyone to view Bob�s photograph and not experience a profound emotional response.

You mean the photograph Bob posted or <a href=http://www.photo.net/shared/portrait.tcl?user_id=14630>Bob's photograph</a>?

I agree that it depends on what you take photos of (and how!) as to whether or not they have any emotional impact. For me, a good photo either tells a story or evokes an emotion. Below is my photo, "Red Snow." Evoke any emotion in you?

 

Kent in SD

What was that, Kent, an outtake from the movie Fargo? :)

Just a few of comments:

 

Most people I know did not start out in photography by photographing nature. Most I know started out by takings shots of people they knew (family, friends, etc) sometimes at scenic locations, but most times not.

 

In regards to emotional response, yes - most people do connect more easily to a human subject. Just place a human being in a landscape shot and the viewer�s eyes will almost always be drawn to the human first, regardless how small the human is to everything else in the photograph.

 

But... that doesn't mean landscapes cannot arouse a high intensity of emotions. Some of my favorite photographs are landscapes shot by Ansel Adams and Galen Rowell. Many of their photographs elicit a high emotional response from me and others. So I have to strongly disagree with your assertion that nature photography is at the bottom in regards to emotional response by the viewer. It may be for you, but certainly not for other people. I know many other types of photography (i.e. still life) that elicits a far less emotional response from me compared to nature photography.

To clarify : I am a landscape photographer myself, and I love good nature pictures. There are people like Adams, Rowell, Brandenburg and Lanting who can get a viewer's attention, but I am disappointed by most people's response to nature photography.

 

I am a university student and last year there was a university photo contest which was judged by popular vote among students. IMO, the best ones were one architecture and a couple of nature pictures (not mine). But ultimately the top three turned out to be pictures of children and old people without much aesthetic or technical merit in them. Maybe I have no eye for people photographs, but maybe an ordinary person prefers a bad portrait to a good landscape.

 

Hobbes :"The great thing about drawing a tiger is that it automatically makes your picture fine art."

Bob, just saw your image of the gorilla and I can just sau one word about it: WOW! So I figure this image just hits the button right on when it comes to transferring emotion to the viewer.

You cannot get an emotional response on a subject in which the viewer cannot identify emotionally. I believe it was Galen Rowell who wrote an article on this which appeared in "Outdoor Photographer" five years or so ago. Admittedly, landscapes are tougher than animals but

there are plenty of subjects that do it. In keeping with Bob's subject, I'm going to try and include a photo that when it is shown as a slide, you can hear the group respond to it. If you can't feel the emotion in your subject as you make the photo, perhaps you are not taking photos of the proper subject for you.

DistantCousins.jpeg

<i>No amount of great landscapes can arouse the same intensity of emotions as a photo essay by Eugene Smith.</i>

<br><br>

I find this to be an arrogant and presumptous statement. Different people are moved by different things. This can result from personal experiences, cultural or religious conditioning etc.<br>

I find good landscape photography very inspiring. When accompanied by honest and powerful narrative, it can move me to tears.<br>

People photography on the other hand is mostly boring to me. Much of it is cliche aimed at very obvious soft spots (love, death, children). Having been a soldier myself, Smith's images arouse a mild sense of pitty and anger in me, and in some cases even contempt for those who celebrate war and its horrors.<br>

To me most human endevours (and least of all stupid and senseless mutual slaughter) pale in comparison to the scale and awe of creation evident in majestic scenery.<br>

So - that's me, and your statement does not hold true in my case. I'm sure any number of people will offer any number of other opinions. My point is that until you let go of your pre-conceived perceptions and acknowledge the diversity of emotions, opinions and what inspires them, I don't think you'll truly understand either nature or people.<br>

<br>

Guy<br>

<a href="http://scenicwild.com">Scenic Wild</a>

With respect Chiranjeeb, I find your statement rather wet. Even blanket wet, in the way the broad brushstroke indicates the author's monocular viewpoint, and wholesale presumption.

 

I am however moved in agreement by Guy's comments, which I find much affinity with, and similarly, do not care for the work of Eugene Smith either.

 

Perhaps you might ask yourself why you feel disconnected from the creation of which Guy speaks - yet others do not. The human subject has a context; you merely abstract yours from the likes of Eugene Smith. To fail to appreciate what goes beyond your experience, might perhaps be worked on by trying to find out why others appreciate the photography of the created world (and its vanishing beauty), rather than the evolving political culture which creates the human mess which you so highly vaunt.

 

Kind regards,

Erick

 

Many thanks, I've often wondered what Bob looks like :)

I think most people here miss the point of the original post.

Certainly we here in the nature forum may not find images of

landscapes as being at the bottom, but we're a small niche, even

amongst photographers. The average non-photograper Joe unquestionably

pays more attentin to images with human interest .. ever tried

submitting images for publishing? Without a doubt, editors want images

with people in them. I agree we connect to a human subject more

easily, but I also agree that most nature photographers are simply

busy making 'prtty pictures' than actually attempting to illicit

emotion.

 

Bob's comment "it all depends on your choice of subject" actually

confirms this statement rather than opposing it.

 

My 2 cents

 

Cheers

 

Carl

 

=============================================================

It depends.

 

Many people find street candid, dramatic photojornalism and other portraits of this kind as opportunist and unfair. Some don't see beauty in it.

 

In my case, I don't make much street, but my friends really get amazed with my landscape shots with surreal skies.

 

So, nature is indeed very impressive when well captured.

I get quite an emotional response to nature... last week-end I stayed up and saw a spectacular meteor, drove up to the high country the next day, climbed a dome at 10,000 feet, experienced rain, hail, and an intense lighting stike close by! The views were breathtaking and spritually uplifting. When I see nature images it reminds me of these experiences and the emotions stir again. You made the mistake of confusing "landscape" with nature in general... obviously, animals can make very ineteresting subjects, and close-up can blow you away, like a black widow spider eating it's mate (yuck!) That has to evoke some feelings. Have you ever run your fingers through a flowery meadow while lying on your back and watching the clouds cross a deep blue sky? If you looked at a picture of some bear cubs, would you just think how cute they are? Not me... it strikes fear in me because of an experience with a protective mother bear. If nature photogrpahy leaves you feeling flat, then I suggest you need to experince nature more often.

If astrophotgraphy is considered nature, then what about the Hubble space telescope images of "The Eye of God"? It's like it's looking at us... everyone reacts differently to this image, but I doubt many have no reaction at all. Then there's the image with thousands of galaxies, and don't forget the Appolo image of the earth rising as seen from the Moon! Deep sea images show an almost "alien world" with creatures stranger and more mysterious than the sci-fi shows. Flower images can be very sensuous, like a beautiful woman. The geometry and optical effects of crystals is fascinating. Fog, sunsets, the power of crashing waves... so many different emotions.

i think Chiranjeeb is referring to landscapes more, in particular. but regardless, many have missed the point of his original post and it's a far cry from arrogance as someone has claimed above.

 

the answer to your question

 

a) is highly subjective, as is the response from the individual looking at a nature shot. you've posed this question in a nature photography forum and what do you expect to hear? try this same question, say, in the Leica forum and see what you get. and you perhaps know pretty much what your answers will be.

 

b) depends on what the subject is and how it is handled technically, and creatively. although, that applies to any form of photography in general. and much of it depends on how much of the shot is original both in terms of the subject and the way it's handled. regardless of how beautiful a scene is, if it's a cliche and has been done to death, it's hard to expect any reaction. from sweeping landscapes to the amateur varieties, unless there's something original, almost at all times MY own response is: blah..

 

another dimension to your question, is about which of these photos stand the test of Time, the answer to which again i presume is subjective. after that instinctual visceral response, how long can one hold on to it based on whether it's a shot of a sweeping landscape or a cuddly cub or a b&w shot of, say, a village woman shot in her modest settings. how soon does each of them reach the point of boring? these are all very subjective and really depend on personal tastes. but another way of looking at your question is, though this is contentious, what does the majority favor?

 

i know nothing about Nature photography, but personally speaking, it takes an extremely perfect shot for me to get moved. but i'd say i easily connect more to a shot about real human beings living real lives. it's very important for any of these shots to have a "soul" in them and/or they should reflect the soul of the photographer too. i, for one, find this soul much more prevalent in shots with humans (when done well) than in Nature shots.