Man made objects in nature photography

<p>Seen in the "Monday in Nature" thread, of the Nature Forum:<br>

"nature photography should not include hand of man elements. Please refrain from images with obvious buildings or large man made structures like roads, fences, walls. Try to minimize man made features and keep the focus on nature"<br>

So Man is not part of Nature? what is the fundamental difference between an electrical power pole, and say a termite mound? For me, there is none, they are both "natural".</p>

<p>"Nature" can indeed mean many things, but the field of photography called "nature photography" refers to only this definition (from the Oxford English Dictionary):</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>11.<br /> <br /> a. The phenomena of the physical world collectively; esp. plants, animals, and other features and products of the earth itself, as opposed to humans and human creations.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What's the problem? If man and all he does is as natural as the rest of the planet, then it's natural for men to set the guidelines of their websites, so excluding certain elements from the nature category on PN is as natural as the telephone pole in your nature photo. Excluding these elements wins because the owners get to run the show . . . naturally. ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It would be great if camera's grew on trees!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not on a tree but on the ground: <a href=" link</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>So Man is not part of Nature?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Something one could certainly argue...</p>

<p>But the nature photography forum asks to minimize the appearance of man-made objects - which certainly are NOT part of nature.</p>

 

<p>When we introduced those Monday in Nature guidelines, we already had a thread to discuss and debate such issues: http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00cgtY</p>

<p>In particular, we loosely follow Photographic Society of America's (PSA) definition of nature photography, although we are generally not as strict as PSA is about it: http://www.psa-photo.org/index.php?nature-nature-definition</p>

<p>Otherwise, photo.net has plenty of other weekly image threads and image forums for members to post their non-nature images.</p>

<p>Exclusion of elements showing the obvious "hand of man" is a long-accepted rule for nature photography. The application ranges from strict, to allowing a small section of fence, for example, where the primary subject is a plant, animal or insect. Some competitions and exhibitions have other restrictions, like no digital imagery. I suspect the latter are about as self-limiting as the Shakers' embrace of celibacy (there are only 4 adherents left out of thousands in the 19th century).</p>

<p>Most competitions have similar rules, which vary depending on the theme. If you wish to participate, follow the rules. </p>

<p>ok, I was a bit provocative, and I understand the topic in photography: "everything except Man". Myself I tend to shoot "natural" landscapes. Still, I don't see any rational for this kind of explicit ostracism. What would you say of an art exhibition inside a termite mound with a sign saying: "no termitian topics, just pure "nature""?<br>

"That man is part of nature biologically doesn't make manmade things like technology natural." Why? An electrical power pole is made of "natural" raw materials, put together by natural (i.e. non supernatural) processes, implemented by homo sapiens made of "natural" C,N,O, etc.<br>

In other words, we may be exceptionnal, that does not make us non-natural. Thus a photo of a car factory is a photo of "nature".</p>

<p>I know a lot of humans who couldn't destructively flood a farmer's field by damming up a stream <em>nearly</em> as well as a pair of beavers could. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Still, I don't see any rational for this kind of explicit ostracism.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If telephone poles are as natural as anthills, then non-rational is as natural as rational. Why are you ostracizing the non-rational? </p>

<p>[[still, I don't see any rational for this kind of explicit ostracism.]]</p>

<p>The issue was settled ages ago. If you don't like the rules, then don't participate. </p>

<p>This one has been discussed at some length in the Nature forum and you are of course quite right. But the arbitrary rule is arbitrarily imposed to achieve a concentration of a narrow range of photographic subjects. There isn't a matter of principle at stake here. Just rules to achieve a certain aim.</p>

<p>Rob, Colin, I am not contesting the rules of the forum, just trying to have fun by raising a broader point from an innocent detail (the Nature Forum): why the anti-human mentality of our time?<br>

Fred, yes irrationality is definetly natural, provided there is humans at the source. "Why are you ostracizing the non-rational?" Good question, I have to think about..</p>

<p>Right up there with a long. stupid discussion a while back about a photo of a storefront being a "portrait" because it was a portrait of a storefront.</p>

<p>Well, man of course is part of nature, as are all man-made objects in the same way as a nest built by a bird etc. The idea that man-made objects are not part of nature comes from a religious background where man put itself in a higher position than other things in the natural world and claims that this comes from a higher authority.</p>

<p>The journal Nature lists categories of topics for the journal</p>

<p>http://www.nature.com/subjects</p>

<p align="LEFT">Okay, I'm going to jump in here because I was a seasonal Wilderness Ranger with the US Forest Service for four years, and I can't resist.</p>

<p align="LEFT"> </p>

<p align="LEFT">First, if you accept telephone poles as part of nature, then you have to accept nuclear weapons as well. The difference is only in scale and complexity. Consider the implications.</p>

<p align="LEFT"> </p>

<p align="LEFT">Next, this quote from a letter by Wallace Stegner, author and wilderness advocate, prior to the adoption of the Wilderness Act of 1964:</p>

<blockquote>

<p align="LEFT"> </p>

<p align="LEFT">We simply need that wild country available to us, even if we never do more than drive to its edge and look in.</p>

<p align="LEFT">For it can be a means of reassuring ourselves of our sanity as creatures, a part of the geography of hope.</p>

<p align="LEFT"> </p>

</blockquote>

<p align="LEFT"> </p>

<p align="LEFT">Last, this shot of my "office". Do you really think telephone poles are a part of nature here?</p>

<p align="LEFT"> </p>

<p align="LEFT"><em> </em></p>

<p align="LEFT"><em>Creek roars, wind sings, trees whisper</em></p>

<p align="LEFT"><em>Rocks think their long thoughts<br /></em></p>

<p align="LEFT"><em>And officer silence<br /></em></p><div></div>

<p>Nature photography is and always has been rather special. If your photo is not suitable for the Nature forum, there are other forums, including this one, in which to publish.</p>

<p>In some, it's appropriate to abide by less stringent rules. For example, photos in the Rangefinder forum should not be taken with an EVF camera, although the converse is probably allowed. In the Nikon forum, please avoid any inference that a non-Nikon camera gives superior results. References to other lenses are usually allowed, as long as they don't conflict with the established orthodoxy. For example, say nothing bad about the Nikkor 50/1.8 (even though the 50/1.4 is is superior in every way except cost). People occasionally post images in the Nikon forum, though generally of hardware, unless by invitation.</p>

<p>Mr Kahn...</p>

<p>"Last, this shot of my "office". Do you really think telephone poles are a part of nature here?" </p>

<p>Just as much as the US Forest Service office is part of nature there. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Please refrain from images with obvious buildings or large man made structures like roads, fences, walls. Try to minimize man made features and keep the focus on nature</em>"<br>

<br />So Man is not part of Nature?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So you're happy with a shot of downtown Manhatten at rush hour as a nature image? <br>

<br>

If we include all works of man, what photographiy subject would you<strong> NOT</strong> classify as nature?<br>

</p>

<p>"The idea that man-made objects are not part of nature comes from a religious background where man put itself in a higher position" . Ilkka, actually in a *lower* position, see for example William's post below.<br /> "Do you really think telephone poles are a part of nature here". William, I dont see any poles on your photo. However, assuming that there were a few, I would probably be annoyed. Not because I would see precursors of atomic bombs, but because I am formatted by the quasi-universal ~bucolic culture. However, I would not mind an old windmill. Of course not a modern wind turbine, at least not yet, maybe in 2-3 centuries.<br>

"what photographiy subject would you<strong> NOT</strong> classify as nature" Bob, none, this is my point</p><div></div>

<p>Mr. Atkins....</p>

<p>First, let me thank you for your many contributions to Photonet.</p>

<p>Back on subject, perhaps being old and feeble-minded, I could see Manhattan, even at rush hour, as being part of a nature photo. Take, for instance, some of those cute little pictures that show a traffic officer stopping traffic for a line of ducks to cross the street safely. Having it downtown Manhattan at rush hour, rather than having it in a small rural less-crowded road would actually add, in my mind, to its appeal.</p>

<p>Like they said in the hippie era, "Different strokes for different folks."</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>P.S. Maybe I should do a Get Smart "Sorry about that, Chief." over using the word "hippie." How un-PC.</p>

<p><em>"what photographiy subject would you<strong> NOT</strong> classify as nature" <strong>Bob, none, this is my point</strong></em></p>

<p>So this is a perfectly acceptable image for a Nature photography website or contest?</p>

<center><img src="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/Gallery/imsnyc2012/slides/IMG_0196-dpp.JPG" alt="" width="400"" /></center>

<p>If so, then there's nothing to discuss.</p>

 

<p>Great portrait Bob!</p>

<p>"So this is a perfectly acceptable image for a Nature photography website or contest?" No, I would say that this photo is not suitable for a "human-free" photo website/ contest.<br>

Good night everybody (I am at GMT+1), thank you for your comments</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just as much as the US Forest Service office is part of nature there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no Forest Service office there.</p>