'Hand of Man' and Nature Photography

[stemked]

I thought back to when I was in Minnesota and part of an

excellent and very active Nature Photography club. Very

professional they ran photography salons that judged images and they

gave pretty detailed feedback on most images. I recall when I first

started out that a fellow had a slide of a deer. It wasn't a

particularly good image, but it was thrown out because it contained

an obvious 'hand of man' in the image (it was in a pasture clearing

with a fence in the background). Many of my images after that I had

to reconsider their relavence as nature photos, such as a beautiful

Tiger salamander crossing a lawn with obvious cut grass, a fantastic

shoulder head shot of a rehabilitate Golden Eagle, and a few other

shots over the years. Not that I consider them less beautiful, but

they certainly were less natural. I suspect that most judging

salons even in the US aren't as tight with their rules as these guys

were, but I do wonder if nature in a context that is very obviously

in a situation where the hand of man is very evident still qualifies

as nature photography from the purist meaning of the art. In part

I ask this because when I do give feedback here at photonet, I'm not

certain I should be including comments relavent to this topic.

 

I realize we almost all have some lovely images like this,

Owl/Meadowlark/other bird sitting on a fence post. That seems ok

(to me), but what then of a bird at a feeder or maybe even some

other very unnatural setting like on a porch? Or what about non-

native organisms? Then what about gardens, are they 'natural

settings'? I guess I'm just trying to find out where one draws the

line, or is it just so undefined that 'anything goes'?

 

I don't want to step on any toes, I'm just wondering.

[greg s]

I tend to differeniate in terms of direct vs indirect. A bird on a feed is an example of direct (purposely drawn to a specific location) and a fence post would be indirect (bird happended to land on the post as a perch). Obviously there are a lot of grey areas, due to the 'hand of man' being so pervasive. I try not to be too overly preoccupied with it... a bird in a garden is fine by me. :)

 

It would be nice if the zoo photos showing up in the Nature Photography critique forum were in a Zoo Photography critique forum instead. That's an easy call. -Greg-

[bhneely]

I agree with Greg. If the hand of man is incidental, that's one thing. But if the animal is deliberately drawn to the location, through a salt lick or feeding site, or if the animal is being held, even if in a beautiful cage (National Zoo in Washington, DC, Northwest Trek in Eatonville, WA) it's not so much a nature picture.

 

The topic itself opens questions into where in the continuum nature completely ends and man completely begins. A New Yorker catching a cab on 42nd is as natural as bears catching salmon on the Copper River. Rats running along an alley are as natural as antelope running across the savannah. Contextually, because we couldn't exist without nature, everything we create, if it flows right, is natural.

[portobello belle]

We're all God's creatures, meant to share the same space.

 

Nature is nature. It's our fault if we choose to make hideous structures, cage our wild brothers and sisters and scar our wondrous lands.

 

We did it, we should have no problems shooting it. You have a problem? Make prettier stuff.

[john_macpherson]

"Then what about gardens, are they 'natural settings'? I guess I'm just trying to find out where one draws the line, or is it just so undefined that 'anything goes'?"

 

If you are illustrating an article on urban wildlife, then those 'unnatural' objects become VERY important in defining the habitat/location of the species. This could earn you money OR it could convince someone of the value of 'wildlife gardening' and that it encourages wildlife so they change their attitude. OR do both, of course, or neither.

 

You draw the line wherever you want, so long as you dont adversely affect the subject in any way.

[luminous world]

Perhaps the better exercise would be to examine why you feel compelled to classify your work at all. Unless you're actively looking to submit your work for review or acceptance for publication, which would then require you to use their specific guidelines, why worry about it? To borrow a phrase, follow your muse. If a subject or picture draws you, then go with it.

 

If you feel that your comments on photonet might be compromised then include a caveat and mention your reservations. In general the people here on photonbet aren't too judgemental as long as you're forthright about your motivation.

[joseph_smith3]

The "hand of man" issue in nature photography is interpreterd differently by photo clubs and organizations, like PSA, Photographic Society of America, and others. Whether a particular image will qualify will depend on the rules and standards of that organization. Some nature photo competitions allow the hand of man if it is natural to the the environment of the animal. For example, birds on fence posts and wires that exist on ranches are OK because the animal image is taken in its natural environment. Others do not accept such images. You just have to know the rules of each organization. Aside from that, decide for yourself what is acceptable to you. That is what counts. Some like zoo shots others do not. Some who reject zoo shots accept shots taken on captive game ranches and animal rehab facilities. Joe Smith

[phyrpowr]

My opinion is that if the animal is free, i.e., not intentionally enclosed, this "hand of man" stuff is a load of it. In my little portfolio on this .net is a condor shot in the Grand Canyon: you can't see them but it has ID numbers with little radio transmitters on the wings. But don't tell me a California Condor in the Grand canyon isn't a wild animal. Ditto a deer that comes onto a golf course, a Golden Eagle on a light pole or even a hummingbird at a feeder.

 

Sure I'd prefer purely "natural" settings, but to me it's the freedom or not of the animal

[justinblack]

Nature photography is photography of nature, in all of its forms. You can choose to

portray wild nature in a wild setting, or the influence of humanity on ecosystems. It all has

a place, and the message should define the way nature is portrayed. Frans Lanting has a

wonderful series of photographs from South Africa that illustrate incredible ecological

diveristy in field of coastal wildflowers and then juxtapose that against a guy mowing his

single-species lawn in a subdivision a few feet away. It makes a powerful editorial point

about human encroachment on wild nature, and I don't think anyone would argue that

either image is invalid. In fact, both images together are far more important than either

image alone.

[steve_swinehart]

Is anal retentive hyphenated?

 

So there you are. You've back packed your way into the wilderness for two days. You've climbed the mountain to 13,000 feet and found a herd of mountain goats.

 

You frame the shot with a bit of sky in the background - and there it is - a jet trail. Can't take that photo. Nope hand of man - what a crock...

[lee_fox1]

In todays world, it is hard to find a subject (even in a seemingly remote "natural" location) that has not been, in some way, directly affected or influenced by "the hand of man". It is the attempt to "hide" or reduce the effect (of man) in an image that complicates matters...nature as a whole (whether we like it or not ) does, in fact, include us "humans" ..I guess what I am (trying) to say is, We are as much a part of nature as any other creature present on this planet.. the only difference is that we have the luxury of choosing our "natural environment" to suit our needs, inner city..small town..remote mountain cabin..etc... OUR environment is endless, as is OUR impact on those surroundings.

 

It is understandable why some clubs and/or contests would be a little more stringent on rules regarding "a mans hand" in the images that are to be submitted. I think that a true wilderness shot (or at least one that gives the impression of being such) lets the viewer forget, for perhaps a moment, that we have invaded virtually every eco-system on the globe.

Like any other photographer, I find that when shooting in nature, I am constantly faced with items not so "natural" to the scene or subject ( dirt roads, buildings, trash..etc) I might even refrain from capturing the image altogether ..so I guess I am somewhat guilty of the "Mother Nature or nothing" attitude towards certain subjects

 

Oh yes, and then there are those darn fenceposts..........

[alex_lofquist]

If you have photgraphed a Grizzly Bear feeding on a carcass, that ought to be OK. Now if the carcass was that of a person...?