Naturalist or photographer?

<p>What do you see yourself as, if you see yourself as one more so than the other? Are you are naturalist first and a photographer second or vice versa?</p>

<p>Neither, by education I'm a microbiologist and animal physiologist, never took a course in wildlife biology and not much in terms of ecology or botany beyond the required basics.</p>

<p>I consider myself a hiker/climber/paddler and a conservationist. I enjoy being outside, I like knowing what I am looking at and appreciate the natural history, but I'm there more as an escape than as an educated observer.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Honestly, some days the answer has to be "neither"... after tramping deep into the woods on a backpacking trip, in the pouring rain, proud of myself for bringing in my waterproof camera, I got these marvelous shots of wildflowers that only are in bloom briefly for a portion of the year. To recreate the shots, I would have to wait another year, brave the muck, the blackflies and mosquitoes, and the weather as well as the hike into the interior.<br>

Unfortunately, since I wasn't all that familiar with my camera (easy to use, point and shoot digital ELPH with purpose-built waterproof case), I came home with about 75% of my shots looking like this.</p><div></div>

<p>How about "artist?"</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>A photographer first, a photographer second, and so it goes on.</p>

<p>Just like Justin, I'm a professional microbiologist (He's Pentax too, must be a trend) teaching a variety of Biology courses. However I approached nature photography as a life-long naturalist. I liked hiking, camping, canoeing, along the way discovering nature in all its wonders.Growing up in Alberta certainly helped me develop my appreciation of nature.If you could see my personal library you'd see I have scores of natural history books, writings, field manuals, etc. I really enjoy knowing about the niche that wild orchid enjoys, the ephemeral discovery of a rare fungi, a whelk plowing through the sand to escape an incoming tide, or a private moment watching a snake pursue its amphibian dinner. The camera came along as an afterthought and I have to say most of my images from my first 20 years of natural history were pretty poor. But at the time they suited me just fine.<br>

I always also enjoyed natural art and as I got better technically with the camera and began to get serious critical feedback on my images I began to appreciate more and more the artistic side of photography as well as how it was telling a story of natural history. So some of my images are artistic, some still straight forward Natural history, some both. (And yes, many of them are neither)<br>

Although I've taught Nature Photography at a College I still don't consider myself a 'photographer'. If I could paint better (and I cold paint in 1/250th of a second) I think I'd go down that path. I have sold a couple of prints, entered a contest here and there, but generally my images are used personally or for my Biodiversity class. In other words I'm not going to starve if I never release another shutter.</p>

 

<p>Tom, are you sure you meant to use the term "naturalist" rather than somebody interested in nature? According to Wikipedia "<strong>Naturalism</strong> is a philosophical position that all <a title="Phenomena" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomena" title="Phenomena" >phenomena</a> can be explained in terms of natural causes and <a title="Natural law" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law" title="Natural law">laws</a> ." I also trained in microbiology and worked for a brief time in an infectious diseases lab with a major pharma firm, before moving on to the business world. I love the great outdoors, hiking and observing the minutiae of nature, and love capturing it in interesting ways on film or digital media for my personal off-season enjoyment. I consider myself relatively unsophisticated in both nature and photography...but boy a great macro shot is better than a hot coffee any morning!</p>

<p>I'm a nature photographer and conservationist, both first and foremost, it's my job and my life. I know a lot about all the places I've worked, so I'm a naturalist too, but I'm not a scientist, and any scientist studying any of the places I've worked knows a lot more about them than I do.</p>

<p >I would say I am an avid outdoorsman first. I don’t consider myself a naturalist as I think a naturalist is knowledgeable in all fields, whether it is plant, birds, flowers, etc. When spring bird migration occurs, I would not dream of getting bogged down in camera equipment. On the other hand, there are times when I drug tripod and camera around, and because it slowed me down, I saw more. So I think it can go both ways.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >That being said, I think the best naturalists are ones that are self-taught. Why… because they have the desire to learn it on your own. If you depend on someone else to teach you, you don’t have a strong desire to lean. The best example I can think of is Art Wolfe, a naturalist at a young age. Eventually he recorded images. He learned first to be a naturalist. I am not sure if he had formal education for photography. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >So when I hear the question “how do I become a wildlife or nature photographer” my first thoughts are…first become a naturalist.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I strongly feel that a person who is a naturalist or an avid outdoors person FIRST, will notice much, much more, then even a very accomplished photographer with little or no outdoors experience. That is not always the case and certainly is not meant as a put down. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >For me, the outdoors experience is more important. For others, the photo is most important. When I do go for a mountain walk, I never come home thinking it was a waste of time. However, I know if I took that same walk with the idea of having to bring home great pictures, I would return home disappointed. Likely, I would have seen less also.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >You certainly don’t have to be a naturalist to take excellent nature photographs, but there is no doubt in my mind, that someone who spends a great deal of times observing nature (other than humans) uses his senses much better than someone who does not. That often translates into better photography as well.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p>

<p >For myself, each reinforces and complements the other so I can't say I'm more one than the other.</p>

<p ><br /></p>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=1506870">Kerry Grim</a> wrote: "<i>So when I hear the question “how do I become a wildlife or nature photographer” my first thoughts are…first become a naturalist."</i></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Excellent advice.</p>

</p>

<p>My PhD is in Wildlife Science. But the day that the bird watchers were complaining because they couldn't see or identify strongly back-lit shorebirds while I was sitting there thinking the light and composition were perfect for a photograph, I knew my interest had shifted to photography. However, the two are a wonderful combination. Having said that, my first priority is to be outdoors amid nature. Having a camera in hand only enhances that experience.</p>

<p>Amateur naturalist who has a passion for the hobby of photography, and is a wannabe artist. Also a middle-aged woman who should be in better shape, and finds herself occasionally meandering the woodlands and rock hills for an hour getting tired and bug-bit and rained upon, not finding good subject matter, and thinking "what the hell did I come out here for?" But most times running out the door like a little kid, camera in hand, heading out to see what little treasures can be found.</p>

<p>Naturalist first for sure... been that way since I was a young child. Photography is a very cool hobby but doesn't come close to the mindset of a nature lover. I will explore the wild places, camera or no camera.</p>

<p><strong>Naturalist</strong> - One versed in natural science; a student of natural history, esp. of the natural history of plants and animals.</p>

<p>You do not need a degree or even a collage education to be a naturalist. If you are willing to find out what species of flower you photograped that day, you are a naturalist. That being said I am definatly a naturalist first. I have been a naturalist from age 9 to now age 40. It all started with snakes and has moved to the other reptiles, amphibians, mammals, birds, fish, wildflowers, trees and even geology. At the moment it is mushrooms and fungus.</p>

<p>A couple years ago I started photography to catalog and ID species of plants and animals. And how could I forget habitats and ecosystems? I could give up photography, never will I give up my nature walks. I sometimes wonder where I would be at this point in my life without the great outdoors.</p>

 

<p>Photographer. My significant other is the naturalist. It helps to have someone understand why you're standing around looking and taking pictures of trees.</p>

<p>Yes. And my education is definitiely a collage.</p>

<p>No formal education in either Nature or Photography (I'm a mathematician), and even though I begun in nature photography a year ago, I'm enjoying both at best.<br>

You can't avoid to learn about nature (and love it) while you're learning to shot it. </p>

<p>I'm new to Photo.Net and to this forum, so if this response is to long and you don't include it, I'd certainly understand.</p>

 

<p >At age 7 I started to paint “…all the birds-like Audubon…” but then found that to do it like Audubon I’d have to kill them, then paint ‘em…. Oh well, I kept on as a watching sort of “birder” and interests expanded into herps and other wildlife. At age 8 I found in the attic an old 8x10 wood-framed-oil/tar-cloth-bellows view camera with an old f/64 to f/8 French lens. A neighbor who worked at Conde Nast supplied me with out-of-date enlarging paper, so I honed my photography chops for several years making paper negatives and contact prints. My subjects, of course, were snakes, frogs, turtles, butterflies, moths, and scenes in the woodland and wetland that separated my neighborhood from a golf course where I was soon to caddy. My dad helped me make some 4x5 cardboard inserts for the 8x10 film holders so I could make more efficient use of the precious enlarging paper! My first job at age 12 (as a caddy) provided the where-with-all to occasionally purchase real film – Kodak Plus-X sheet film– and more D-76 and Fixer. By then I was the natural inheritor of any camera that any family members tired of (including a folding Kodak 1A which took 120 film). Been avidly into photography ever since. I went off to college with my Dad’s old Kodak Pony 828, and in ’62 bought my first 35mm SLR – in fact THE first 35mm SLR – A used pre-war Exakta . College took me thru biology/zoology, and degrees in veterinary medicine and veterinary pathology. In ’97 I retired from a career studying and diagnosing diseases of wildlife – both in the field and laboratory - and incidentally teaching the practical aspects of clinical and medical specimen photography to a few generations of pathology residents and graduate students. In ’97 I retired from academia and in ‘99 I finally retired my by-then extensive collection of Exacta cameras and lenses, packed up the darkroom, and went digital.</p>

<p >To be out and about in nature without a camera would still be as unnatural as handling, cleaning, and otherwise maintaining my photography equipment without imagining or planning on images of the natural world yet to be captured in novel and imaginative ways.</p>

<p >So you tell me … Naturalist? Photographer? I’m honestly not at all sure where I’d draw the line… and, come to think of it, don’t recall ever having felt the need to do so, the two realms having been so intimately a part of each other and of me for so long, as, I’m glad to report, they still are. And I’d wager that a goodly proportion of the folks – regardless of their specific histories, training, and education - who have read this thru to the end feel pretty much the same way that I do.</p>

<p >Dave Graham, in East River, SD</p>

 

<p>They kind of go hand in hand for me. I saw myself as more of a photographer with an interest in nature some years ago. Now I see myself as a conservationist who uses photography as my tool. My original degree was in photojournalism. I have no formal biology training, but I seek to learn more about the natural world that I photograph because it is important to me and I want to impress it's importance on others through my work. Only by having an intimate knowlege of my subject matter can I make my photos truly come to life and engage my audience. Once I got to a certain point on this life path, the two things became completely intertwined. I am happy with this. </p>