why photograph nature?

[paul_de_ley]

<p>Love for nature and its denizens is definitely part of the answer for me too. But elaborating a bit further on Tom and Michael's comments above, having taken the shots yourself adds very significant value over and above looking at stunning nature photos on the web, in galleries or in coffee table books.</p>

<p>For me there are definite health- and mind-related reasons to spend as much time outdoors as possible. I do that a lot of the time with a camera pressed to my eye in order to have a record and proof of encounters with fascinating animals, or beautiful flowers, gorgeous landscapes etc. Part of the reason why I want such a record is that my memory (not the SD or CF kind but the one inside my own noggin) is getting flakier and flakier, with the result that nature and wildlife photos serve me as souvenirs in the literal sense, allowing me to recall particular encounters that I otherwise probably wouldn't be able to.</p>

<p>With animals especially, on occasion it gets to the point that those encounters relate to one or a few particular individuals that are noticeably more approachable, compared to all the others that are around of the same species. Or similarly, figuring out the best times of day in the best season with the best skies etc that turn an otherwise mediocre landscape into a beautiful one. In that sense the picture doesn't just record a happy memory of a lucky encounter, but it can become even like a fond memory of an individual "person" or character I've gotten to know - whether the subject be a living creature or a landscape.</p>

<p>In addition to that, there often is also the addictive fun and game of trying to figure out how to catch an elusive animal species at close range. Usually that involves multiple visits to the same site and presumably the same individuals, looking at the settings and times of day that seem to maximize opportunities for closer approach, or for waiting and letting them do the approaching, best lighting angles, weather conditions that discourage their enthusiasm for flying off, having them get used to your presence (or not!), trying to outwit their wariness rather than frightening them off, etc etc. That can become a very enjoyable game and puzzle in its own right, with a definite kick of personal achievement to it if it results in finally nailing the shot you had in mind all along - or getting one that's even better than the best you dared hope for.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>As a hobby, the planning and practice required to take pleasing images is certainly part of the equation as to "why" for me. However, as much as I enjoy attempting to take great images myself, viewing the images of others is just as rewarding for me. I thoroughly enjoy viewing the images of my Contacts on Flickr. They see species that I don't see in my area, but may encourage me to travel to try to capture those for myself. I marvel at the results of some pro photographers that spend weeks or months in extreme conditions at very hard to get to places, to bring images to me that I'm very unlikely to experience in person. The "why" for that pro, besides trying to make a living, was to share a unique and rarely captured experience with the rest of the world.</p>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<p>Why Photograph Nature? A Photographer’s Tale.<br>

A few years ago in late fall, I embarked on a photographic journey to southern Utah. Coming from the Rocky Mountains of Montana, I had never seen a bristlecone pine, and therefore it was also time to visit Great Basin National Park.</p>

<p>From the Great Basin National Park website:<br>

“Many of Great Basin National Park's bristlecone pines were growing at the time the Egyptians were building the pyramids. Not only are the trees themselves old, but the needles alone can be 25-40 yrs old!”</p>

<p>The trip to Great Basin National Park was about nature, but it was also about history, and about standing next to trees that may be the oldest known living things on earth. The Wheeler Peak Grove occupies a harsh environment near 10,000 feet in elevation. I didn’t realize that I would be the only visitor that day in the snowy high alpine environment. Due to a recent snow storm, the road to Wheeler Peak Campground was closed. I therefore began hiking from the lower campground, adding 2100 vertical feet to my hike.</p>

<p>Why did I pack a Pentax 67 and two lenses, with associated filters, a large tripod, throw in my Nikon FM and two lenses for good luck, along with a headlamp, food and water, and clothes to survive the night out if necessary, in order to photograph nature at 10,000 feet, and hike out in the dark while watching behind me for mountain lions? Well I like a good adventure, but this was about bristlecone pines, and all that they represent to me, and to us. Bringing home the photographs wasn’t just a souvenir – it was more about lingering longer in their environment, contemplating their existence, waiting for the evening light, which came at about 3:00pm, and doing the best I could to represent the significance of these magnificent trees. A good sized enlargement of the Wheeler Peak Grove allows me to take the journey again for the rest of my life, and to share the experience with other people.</p>

<p> </p>

[dave_wilson1]

I photograph nature subjects in very challenged environments. Most of my nature shots are done in environments that are

very stressed by either years of neglect, pollution, or in a phase of recovery. I do not run around to find the most beautiful

places, I go to often ugly and challenged places and try to find beauty. It's a very different concept, but I enjoy

documenting it.

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>There are some great responses in this thread; especially Stephen's last post resonates with me. I've had multiple people asking whether I actually saw anything on holiday, after coming back with loads of holiday photos, or whether I only looked through my viewfinder. I always found the question a bit weird: how can I take a photo of something I did not see? Like photography blocks seeing and experiencing things? To me, it's quite the reverse, it has 'deepened' my seeing, made me more alert to things big and small, and to me, it adds to the experience.<br /> Except with nature landscapes.... so very often, I just do not manage to 'catch' the awe I sense, especially in large mountain landscapes. The photo always seems a watered down version.... for sure I still need to sharpen my skills there, but even in famous Ansel Adams photos, I frequently get mainly the idea "oh, how awesome that place will be"- the photo does not transmit the grandeur (or experiencing that), but "only" hints at it.<br /> But as Stephen rightly notes, this isn't the same for everyone and we all experience it different in the end. Be it in whether you like having a camera with you in nature, be it in what you're trying to transmit. Maybe I am more moved in nature by the fact that it breaks away from everyday hectics, the tranquility (and I love nature for that) rather than awe, thought of divinity or similar experiences.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Sometimes it's nice just to put the camera down, or leave it in the hotel room, and relax about taking it all the sights. Just be with your family and enjoy the scenery and "awe" without feeling obligated to "capture" it or them other then in your mind.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Wouter, for landscapes, are you paying your dues by being there before sunrise and after sunset? Sometimes the most spectacular light and sky occurs at these times. Also, for the hours after sunrise and before sunset, the light is constantly changing and the clouds are moving so that you can "work" the light. Do you go out in bad weather over and over, so that you're there for unusual clouds or the sun breaking through at the right time?</p>

<p>For example, the Grand Canyon is awe inspiring in almost any weather when viewed with the naked eye, but on a cloudless day, even the best composed and exposed panorama can seem dull and lifeless. If you add some clouds or weather, then it can become very interesting. In November 2011, I went to the GC with friends for three days. The first day was cloudless and it was hard to find much interest, even at sunrise and sunset. It snowed three-inches on the second night and the clouds stayed around the next morning and, suddenly, subjects were everywhere.</p>

<p><a title="Twisted cedar, snow and canyon by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6041/6321115100_e426e879ec_z.jpg" alt="Twisted cedar, snow and canyon" width="640" height="427" /></a></p>

<p>Was I "lucky"? Yes, I was, but I'd purposely gone in November and gave the stay enough time so that I'd wittness a variety of views. I was up before sunrise and stayed past sundown. Landscape and scenic photography is about being in the right places at the right time, working at composition and working at processing to get the most out of your images.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>David, yes I have - mainly after sunset as I'm not a morning person ;-) (and as said in my first post, last 2-3 years, I've done far less nature photography, so in that sense I'm not paying a lot of dues, so to speak). I have landscape photos of myself I actually quite like (<a href="/photo/14809268">here </a>or <a href="/photo/10462187">here</a>), but not of the large sweeping landscapes (mountain views, large lakes etc.) - always more restricted areas, so to speak.</p>

<p>Your photo makes a great example of what I tried to say. It is an excellent landscape photo, and it shows me how beautiful and diverse nature can be. It makes me imagine just how big and inspiring the Grand Canyon must be (never been there, I'm in Europe) - but somehow, the photo is not able to bring this feeling of overwhelmed awe, that feeling I can have when being in such a place myself. The photo hints at it, makes me think "I would be awed there", but the photo itself doesn't.<br>

That does not mean the photo is bad (quite the opposite), but it is just how I respond to such photos. The photo isn't the place itself, watching it isn't the same as being there, and the emotional response of a photographer is not automatically the emotional response of a viewer.<br>

In a discussion as to why one takes photos, to me, such differences matter. Capturing the grandeur of nature, working from the awe you get from it or the love you have for it, does not automatically mean photos will transmit that grandeur, awe or love. </p>

[dcstep]

<p>Wouter, I understand what you're saying. Have you tried working with multi-image panoramas? They're hard to display online, but mounted at something like 12" x 72" they can be quite impressive and give much of that feeling of scale and awe. Here's a combination of 6 hand-held shots taken with a 500mm lens and stitched together with Photoshop (it's easy). The compression of the 500mm gives you a detailed, somewhat compressed perspective, but the stitching together gives a wide perspective.</p>

<p><a title="Morning Mt. Evans Panorama by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8080/8308128243_ea6d8a4fd2_z.jpg" alt="Morning Mt. Evans Panorama" width="640" height="103" /></a><br>

By the way, that's the view from my balcony, looking at Mount Evans, Colorado.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Wouter I agree completely. It is one thing to be there and take the shot - everytime you look at you can recapture your original experience, but the rest of us are missing the personal experience. This is important to bear in mind when taking these photos.</p>

[scott_murphy5]

<p>Why photograph nature?<br>

Because <em>it's there</em> seems to be as good an answer as any. Nature is beautiful on so many levels and in so many different forms, a true embodiment of God's <em>artistry</em>.</p>

[starshooter]

<p>If you have to ask, don't.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>David, a large print or panaroma-stitching (yes, I have experience with it, though I use a different program for it) is not "solving" it. And what I am talking about - it is not a problem, it does not need to be solved. I was talking about differences in experience. There is totally nothing wrong with the photo not imposing the same experience as the "original", plus my experience (related to the moment in which the photo was made) does not automatically carry forward to you as a viewer. In the end, a photo is a photo. It may show nature, but it isn't nature. My only point was, as Robin correctly notes, is to bear that in mind.<br>

_____</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you have to ask, don't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I hope I read this all wrong: if you think about what you're doing, about what you're trying to achieve, you should not be doing it nor try to achieve it?<br>

Could you elaborate a bit?</p>

[lintrathen]

<p><strong>Scott</strong>......... for me, you've hit the nail on the head. I couldn't have said it better myself.<br>

Having read the original question...... I sat for a while thinking, and then came to write but decided my proposed diatribe would be better suited through Scott's few lines........<br>

For me, its all done and dusted ..........</p>

[tim_henshall]

<p>i like your stitch david! good job.<br>

the vast majority of the responses resonate with me. <br>

thank you all for providing such a broad cross section of opinions. From all over the world! <br>

So, let me up the ante;<br>

what is natural? is something made by ppl natural? what if its made of totally organic material? <br>

now we get the grey matter ticking...<br>

tim</p>

 

[John Crowe]

<p>It's easier than painting it.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Tim,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>what is natural? is something made by ppl natural? what if its made of totally organic material?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Frankly, it does not get my grey matter ticking much faster than usual ;-) I do see no advantages in seeking to label something explicitely as "natural" or not, especially not for ambiguous words (which "natural" is, think, for example, a natural pose....). Trying to lock down what is and what is not natural is not changing how I perceive a photo, not changing what a photo communicates to me, not changing the material from which the subject in the photo was made. It would just end up being a label. And labels are just useful ways for people to organise things, but creatively they can be stiffling and imposing limits. Their usefulness is limited.<br>

But you might want to try this question as a new thread instead, maybe in the Philosophy of Photography forum here - it might get more responses there.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I like to see and the capture the beauty and majesty of something humans could never create.</p>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<p>When photographing nature, I most often prefer no evidence of the hand of man. My photograph "Frozen Leaf", although primarily a nature shot, taken in Yellowstone National Park, does include the hand of man in the form of asphalt. I chose to bring out the blue of the ice as a setting, and the interaction of the leaf and the asphalt remained as the central element. I first questioned the photograph's merit, then decided that I like it, and that it fits as a photograph of nature for me.</p><div></div>

[dcstep]

<p>Beautiful shot Christopher.</p>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<p>Thank you David. We could come across a scene like this in many cold & snowy urban environments. I just happened to find it in Yellowstone National Park.</p>

[harold_gough]

<p>Colour, form, texture, detail and much more which the eye may be unable to take in fully during an live viewing in the environment and much of which the brain invents anyway.</p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>I shoot B&W, so that's my reason to shoot nature. It gives an unnatural look to something natural. I just like B&W too. When we were living in Hawaii I would often look around and say"why are we even bothering w/ painting and photography? It's all right outside the window here, and you can't just compete w/ it". Here in Florida it's similar.</p>