Jump to content

Evidence of humans in Nature shots.


paul_wilson2

Recommended Posts

I was reading through the image critique area of the Nature section of photo.net, and I notice somebody said(I paraphrase) "This violates the 'hand of man' rule". Is it considered wrong to show evidence of people in nature shots?

 

<p>

 

Obviously, any shot with a sky scraper in it is not a nature shot but what about a stone wall in a field? Is there a line? If I entered a contest for nature shots would it be disqualified? I'm just wondering about people's philosophies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just philosophy, it's the <a href="

http://www.tiac.net/users/bcsbob/psa/te02000.htm"> PSA </a>(Photographic Society of America) rules. No "hand of man" in

the images with a couple of exceptions. They basically deal with

nature which has adapted to man, so barn owls nesting in a barn

are OK. A Volkswagon in the bottom left hand corner of a landscape

isn't OK. I'm not sure about barn owls nesting in a Volkswagon!

Pictures typically get disqualified for people, roads, fences etc.

in the frame (often that the photographer did not notice). The

"hand of man" need not be an object either - cultivated flowers

are not nature, neither are dogs and cats. I don't have a copy

of the rules, I'm just going on what gets by at the photo club

I sometimes attend.

 

<p>

 

If it's your contest, you can make the rules. Most photo clubs tend

to follow the PSA rules, and most local, regional and national

competitions go by the PSA rules too. Under PSA rules I'm sure your

stone wall would be disqualified from the nature section of any

competition.

 

I'm quite happy with "the hand of man" in some of my images which

I personally regard as nature. But you have to be aware that they

won't make it in a PSA competition, nor will a number of magazines

(like Nature Photographer) publish them. If you want to play in their

game, you have to follow their rules. If you want to create images

that make <em>you</em> happy, you create your own game and make up

your own rules!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just a personal opinion and an attempt at being

philosophical. I am glad you posted such a question as

it got me thinking.

 

<p>

 

I first ask the question : Aren't man an integral part of nature?

Without the man behind the camera, would there be any pictures?

 

<p>

 

A beautiful scene captured in all its beauty and splendour

but that very picture was made possible by the wonders of

technology - the camera, lens and films, each of which is a

product of sophistication. In that sense, technology has made a

direct contribution and it by itself was a creation of man.

 

<p>

 

Every photograph is created by the 'hand of man' in one way

or other.

 

<p>

 

Think of a picture taken of a particular person capturing a

great shot, showing the entire scene. He or she, too, was part

of that scene. The picture was composed with a lens, and depending on which

lens you use, there is always a certain degree of optical distortion. Hence

the photograph may not truly represent what is real in the context

of what was seen with the human eyes (of course different animals

see differently and this is getting complicated so se stop at the

human sight).

 

<p>

 

Then you take into consideration filters, types of films

and shutter speed manipulations. In other words, what was captured in a

photograph may not represent the reality of the absolute image. In this

sense the final image is a manipulation of photography. True the camera

does not lie but the processes of photography has be manipulated

by the hand of man in order to produce a photograph.

 

<p>

 

I think the most accepted rationale is like when you are making a movie,

you don't show the directors, make-up artists, etc in the final edited film.

As nature photographers, we like to show to the world that perhaps

we were the only ones there when the shot was made. And very often

it's true, we were the only ones in a faraway place capturing those

shots and wanting to share with those who haven't seen what

we saw and photographed. In a way, it's a romantic idea.

 

<p>

 

 

So if I were to follow the above argument, in what context does

does the 'hand of man' rule applies?

 

<p>

 

If it's specified that man should not appear in the photograph then

it's straight forward and simple - that is the rule of the competition

made by certain people. I suppose the word 'rule' simply means a

'man-made rule'. If we disagree that doesn't mean we are wrong and

those who support such a rule are any more right.

 

<p>

 

But if someone were to say that showing people in a nature photograph

depicts the 'hand of man' interference, then I think this needs a little

more thought before it can be accepted as fact. I believe it's not

a 'crime' to show people in a nature shot provided there is a basis for it.

I can well understand that people in a nature can be rather distracting.

 

<p>

 

However, we must not forget that people,afterall, is a part of mother earth. You and I,

we are people, aren't we?

 

<p>

 

Having said that, I personally wouldn't want any humans in my nature photographs

unless it's absolutely necessary like using people as a scale to show how big

a mammoth tree, a gigantic whale or a Rafflesia flower (world's largest flower)is.

of course, if I can use a familiar animal, all the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two recent slides that were controversial in the nature category in local PSA rule competitionswere a field of poppies and a nautilus shell. The field of poppies was thought to be a field of tulips by one judge. Had it been tulips, it would have been thrown out as cultivated flowers. The other judges agreed that it was poppies, and they were able to convince the questioning judge, so the slide was allowed to compete. The chambered nautilus had been cut in half so that the chambers were visible. The fact that the judges knew that it had been cut by hand of man resulted in this slide's being disqualified. If it had had jagged edges so that it looked like it had broken naturally, it would probably have been allowed to compete.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who gives a scoopers poop about PSA and a bunch of arbitrary 'rules' for what you shoot? It is your image, shot your way, to convey what you see. Not the world the way a bunch of self righeous 'all seeing & all knowing' judges want it.

The surest way to kill your creative nature is to worry & fret about what someone else thinks of "evidence of humans in nature". Shoot the Yellowstone Plateu and the Buffalo-they are not the native wood bison but Plains animals brought in by man. The Elk? In over 8,000 primitive sites-1 elk bone, so another "hand of man". You won't get away from it, but you CAN get away from the fools who Judge your work with a set of ironclad 'rules' which only serve to confirm to themselves how good everything is on a measurable scale.

Do your images speak to your spirit? Do they communicate feeling to the viewer? Do they convey the enthusiasm you felt at the quality of light as it turned your world magic and prompted you to try & capture it on film>

See any 'rules' in these questions? NO

Satisfy yourself. Then look carefully at the 'rulebound' and notice very, very few of their 'fine images' stand the test of time outside the photo club judge mentality.

Weston, Adams, Winogrand, Eugene Smith, Dorothea Langue, John Sexton, Bruce Barnbaum, Diane Arbus, and the list goes on and on. Rules? Limiting yourself to what 'the hand of man' means?

Good work survives beyond the vision of the artist and will be around long after the judges are occupants of their own 6ft plot of personal farmland.

Shoot what you want, the way you want and let nature speak to you as you feel. If the work is quality it will last. If processed & printed with good technique it will last. If it is communicates it will last and be worth more than all the 'best of show' stuff that capitalizes on the current fad and is generally little more than an attempt to impress someone who has a temporary importance because of their position.

Good Luck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to Dan:

 

<p>

 

Nobody is saying that the PSA rules are any sort of guideline for

the creative photographer. What they are is the set of rules you

<em>will</em> have to follow <em>if</em> you want to enter any

of the PSA affiliated competitions <em>in the nature photography

catagory</em> (there are of course other catagories). Personally I don't care to enter competitions so I shoot what I want. If

I want to enter my local club competition just to support the

club, I've plenty of images that do fit the PSA criteria so I

just pick one of them. However, the competitions are still quite popular, and you had better know the rules ahead of time if that's

the way you want to go.

 

<p>

 

It is, of course, quite possible to create wonderful, artistic,

creative images of nature and still stay within the PSA rules, so

you can't blame the rules if your work isn't outstanding!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly, one cannot document the horrors that man wreaks on the environment without including 'hand of man' in the image. In a photojournalistic sense, these images are necessary. We've all seen John Shaw's image of that weathered barn against a backdrop of the Grand Tetons too...a 'nice' hand of man, if you will.

 

<p>

 

All this is a matter of personal objectives and criteria. I concentrate on no hand-of-man, but that doesn't mean I won't take one if it's worthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

It is now clear to me that our area photography contest does not follow the PSA rules. I'm not sure what our rules are. Best of Show one year was a Colorado landscape in the fall and in the bottom left corner was a old firetruck. For the last 3 years, 1st place in waterscape has had a boat in it. ( One year the entire 16X20 frame contained no more than 5 square inches of water the rest was boats.) But what can you say when they put a photograph of a 1928 Rolls Royce in the still life division except, " can we say "auto-m-o-b-i-l-e?" I would prefer the PSA rules. At least you know what the game plan is.

 

<p>

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...