Big Cypress National Preserve 1: WEEKLY DISCUSSION #5

[Mark Z]

<p>Fred, your Wordsworth poems and your desire to "breathe in the air, experience the scent, feel the dampness", along with Alan's observations, point to how photography is capable of failing in the area where we might think it would be a superior medium. Photos faithfully reproduce fine detail, color, perspective, and spatial relationships. It's been said they don't lie and that they are worth a thousand words. One might think that these qualities make photography eminently suitable for taking the viewer to the place where it was made. And yet, there is typically a disconnect, a failure to do that. A better medium might be the written word. A wordsmith can convey the atmosphere, the scent, and the dampness better than most landscape photos.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Beside that, the Everglades <em>are</em> pretty boring. Trust me-I've been there. Take the clouds out of the picture and reflections in the water in the Everglades and you have little left. The awe and majesty are gone."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's why I find his photos of small details more compelling than the vast expanses. Ghost Orchid Twin and Big Cypress Gallery convey more to me than the large expanse views like the subject of this discussion.</p>

<p>My childhood memories of Okefenokee are of small glimpses and sensations: the reflection of an overhanging tree mirrored in the black water; the wake of a canoe slipping through the swamp; a gator's eyes, motionless and barely visible; a clot of sleeping alligators, tangled together, blocking the walkway between the river and the visitor's center; the musky odor of a coatimundi in the little petting zoo.</p>

<p>If you were to ask me to draw Okefenokee from a distance, I couldn't. I have no idea what it looks like.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I find the scene scents or humidity important only in how they inspire me to interpret the subject matter, not as a challenge to somehow capture them. If I can imbue the image with anything that is different from a straight shot, it is to study the subject matter sufficiently in order to come up with a non-evident lighting or angle of view or composition that may not be immediately apparent or seen from a casual look at the subject matter.</p>

<p>I can offer three suggestions in this regard, but there are various other ones as well depending upon the scene and what it means to you. The first is selective focus to emphasize certain parts of the subject. Wind can often be an asset and allow purposeful blur in some lighter elements of the scene while a tripod anchored camera renders other parts clearer. This is especially true when the blurred vegetation is close to sharply defined principal subjects.</p>

<p>Thirdly, the collaboration of partial cloud cover and spotty sun cover can also be effectively used to highlight or alternatively dampen down the light of selected parts of the scene. As we are often in search of some symbolic quality in the subject, these three simple approaches when used purposely to provide such quality are some that I find invaluable in seeking something a little deeper in the scene than is otherwise communicated by a uniformly lit and static subject. There use is sometimes nearly unconscious, when their application just feels right. We also shouldn't neglect post exposure alteration of parts of the image. There is a lot of potential to add one's spirit to an often considered quasi-unalterable landscape image.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Viewing a photograph is never like actually being there. No matter how well-crafted a landscape, cityscape, or event photo is, it is at best an abstraction built upon extremely limited information.</p>

<p>Sometimes the limitations are helpful, an asset. The cropped frame, the two-dimensional conversion, and the limitations of contrast and dynamic range can make a place look more interesting (and tidy) than it really is. Mundane details can be ignored, because we didn't have the opportunity to see them. Or we capture them in some frozen instant when they were aligned in an interesting formation.</p>

<p>But a camera can't capture smells and tastes and temperature and humidity and the sounds of birds or traffic and the wind blowing in your hair.</p>

<p>We can admire a fine photograph of Paris. We might desire to hang such a photo on our walls.</p>

<p>But it's a different experience entirely to walk down <em>Boulevard Saint-Germain</em> in the morning when the open markets are stocking their shelves with their specialty cheeses, fish, meats, fruits, vegetables, breads, and wines while passing fast-walking, stylishly dressed young women with slightly stressed facial expressions and baguettes under their arms, and then stopping somewhere for a <em>café</em> and a <em>crêpe</em> or a <em>patisserie</em> before enjoying a walking tour of the sights. That is a very different experience, indeed.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"But a camera can't capture smells and tastes and temperature and humidity and the sounds of birds or traffic and the wind blowing in your hair."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But a photograph can evoke those other sensations.</p>

<p>Perhaps our subconscious personal impressions of how successful or effective a photo is depends on whether it evokes either memories of sensations related to past experiences, or sensations related to imagined experiences influenced by books we've read, movies we've watched or music we've heard.</p>

<p>Some of Butcher's smaller scale detail photos evoke imagined experiences for me. I've never actually spent time in the Everglades. It's probably quite different from the more northern Okefenokee. But some of those smaller scale photos evoke something I can relate to.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Fred - Thanks for the poems; they really helped me to understand your position regarding the image. I'm still not sure I agree, but I can't enumerate the reason(s) at this point. </p>

[michaellinder]

<p><strong>Beside that, the Everglades <em>are</em> pretty boring. Trust me-I've been there. Take the clouds out of the picture and reflections in the water in the Everglades and you have little left.</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>Really, Alan? Which section of the Everglades did you visit? </p>

[AlanKlein]

From Homestead to Flamingo. But why question

my credentials? What I said was if you take out the

dramatic clouds from Butchers photos, a lot of them

become very boring. That's why so many of his

shots have big thunder clouds.

[michaellinder]

<p>Alan, I wasn't questioning your credentials at all. I was just wondering whether you might have seen a different section of the Everglades than the area I'm familiar with. That's the section of Big Cypress that's accessible from US41 across the line from Miami-Dade into Collier county. I've been there a few times, and among other things I've seen a huge variety of vegetation, including wild orchids. </p>

<p>It's one thing to say that Butcher's photographs are boring; I won't dispute that with you. It's quite another to say that the Everglades are boring.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Michael: I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I apologize if I wasn't clear. I love Butcher's work. I wish I can see the real photos not just on-line. I love the big clouds and tones. Also, the Everglades are very interesting. However, due to its flat topography and repetitive scenery in much of it (I haven't seen Big Cypress), it's very challenging to capture a varierty of pictures. There're no fall colors, snow, or mountains to spice it up. I live in New Jersey in farm country now after living in NYC all my life. NJ is nice, but there are no tall buildings or as many interesting street scenes. It's challenging to find good landscapes after autumn or when there's no snow. You get the picture. </p>

<p>PS: Please, New Jerseyites. Don't send me mean emails. I love it here. I'm retired and I'm enjoying the peacefulness. And Floridians, I love the Everglades too.</p>

[gulfbeach47]

<p>I came across another photographer with some impressive photos of the Everglades. His work is in color, so they show that there is plenty of color in the Everglades, although he has a few images that I would also like to see in B/W. http://www.paulmarcellini.com/<br /><br />The best thing that has come out of this thread for me is that I now want to go through my color images and change some to B/W after viewing Butcher's work.</p>

<p><strong>Off Topic</strong> from the OP's photo that we were discussing, but touching on the beauty of the Everglades and some info for those that may of never visited this park. <em>It should be on your bucket list if you like nature photography. </em><br /> I find the "River of Grass" absolutely stunning. I live in the very NW tip (Pensacola) of Florida. My dad was born in south Florida and I loved the stories that he and his brothers would tell me about growing up in south Florida back in the old days.<br /> My fondest memory was during my first trip around 1989. A buddy and I did a 2 week road trip around Florida. We were checking out the ''wildlife'' of Daytona Beach and making our way to Key West. After a few days of partying down the coast, I told my friend that we had to visit the Everglades National Park. I was an amateur photographer and of course loved nature. Fortunately our trip was during the winter, so less heat and mosquitoes. We entered at the main entrance located in Homestead. From the entrance there is a road that goes for almost 40 miles until it ends at the Flamingo Visitor Center. At Flamingo you will find campground facilities, houseboat/canoe/kayak/bicycle rentals, backcountry camping, boat tours, trails etc.. They say the road to Flamingo takes about an hour. If you have a camera that road can easily take a full day if your like me:) There are a half dozen or so stop off points on the way to Flamingo and they are all worth visiting. You will see plenty of wildlife and plant life. http://www.campingroadtrip.com/tips-and-articles/best-things-to-do-at-everglades-national-park</p>

<p>Sorry, I got off course from my fondest memory. Around a dozen miles from the park entrance, we came to the Pahayokee Overlook. There is a boardwalk and a raised observation deck. For some it may be boring. For us it was breathtaking. It was like looking out at the ocean, but it was an ocean of grass, as far as the eye could see. Immediately you notice there was no sounds. No cars, planes or any sound of mankind, except when other visitors arrived. It was so tranquil, that I wanted to stop by there again after dark when we were leaving the park. So we go back at night and start walking on the boardwalk. To our amazement the sky was full of fireflies. I mean thousands of fireflies. It was a hundred times better then any meteor shower that I have ever seen. The fireflies, along with a sky full of stars and a horned owl hooting, left us with a memory that I will cherish forever. Of course when I went back this last March, I had a better camera, better lens, tripod, wireless remote and hopes of capturing that moment again, but no fireflies :( </p>

<p>Oh...we had another memory on that trip that I hope to forget someday. After we went to Key West, we came back up to Homestead and headed for the west coast of Florida by way of Highway 41 (Tamiami Trail). We decided to rent a canoe in Everglades City for a 6 mile or so trip on one of the streams. It was noon and should of taken a couple of hours. Back then no markers were allowed on the park property, so all we had was a terrible map that the guy had gave us. It said to take every right turn that we came to. Many of the right turns ended up being dead ends. It was funny while the sun was high, but once dusk came we knew we were in trouble. Plus the mosquitoes and gators were letting us know that it was there home after dark. We had half a moon to light up the stream, but the the maze of mangroves overhead was starting to block the moonlight and at times we had to get out and drag the canoe because it was too shallow. No cell phone back then. It was getting a bit on the scary side and then we finally saw a dim light in the distance. We finally came upon a pier with night lights and some kids fishing. Their first question was, are y'all lost? :-) We ended up using their phone and calling the canoe rental guy. He wanted to charge extra for us being late. I told him to come pick us up at this house and can't repeat the words that I said to him about his crappy map and my thoughts on his request to pay extra.<br /> <br /><br /></p>

[michaellinder]

<p>I appreciate the clarification, Alan. And I am equally as grateful for the narrative about the 'Glades, John.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>John I really like Marcellini's work. Thanks for the link. After reviewing his work I realize I was wrong about the Everglades. Being able to spend the time and shooting around the magic hours makes a whole lot of difference. Getting deep into the wilderness, something I did very breifly, opens up an area to see" better. I did the Flamingo drive like you but it was during the day when the light was flat. I also seem to remember a lot of mosquitos in Flamingo. Like all good photography, it's about the light. I'm sure if I lived there or could spend some significant time traveling around, my original viewpoint about the Everglades would have been different as well. You get to see and feel things that visitors don't appreciate. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Can we see a difference between the over dramatic use of color (Photoshop heavy-handiness?) in Mr. Marcellini's work and that characteristic of Mr. Butcher's white clouds on a near black sky and punchy greytones? If there is, it seems to go slightly in Mr. Butcher's favor.</p>

<p>I am sure the Everglades are a very impressive natural area. Are there photographers and artists who show it in more subtle, less stereotyped, more symbolic and insightful manner that might shine new light on it? That might be surprising and interesting to see.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Marcellini's work isn't over processed as much as he shoots at a time of day when the lighting is most dramatic and intense. One could argue they're more natural than Butcher's heavy use of red filters to blacken the sky. I don't recall seeing them on my short trips there.</p>

<p>Here's another photographer I found - John Brady. His color and BW work seems to follow both Marcellini's and Butcher's <a href="http://www.timeandlight.com/">http://www.timeandlight.com/</a></p>

<p>Here's another. Kolbyer's work seems to include wildlife which may be the most interesting feature of the everglades. His colors are more "normal". <a href="http://www.kolberphotography.com/-/kolberphotography/gallery.asp?cat=103310&pID=1&row=15">http://www.kolberphotography.com/-/kolberphotography/gallery.asp?cat=103310&pID=1&row=15</a></p>

[michaellinder]

<p>I took a very quick peek at about 20 of Mr. Marcellini's images of the Everglades. Whether his approach is too heavy handed is a matter for another discussion. But, at first, thinking about details, or nuances, or images telling stories about the photographer's total array of experiences in shooting in that general location, I began to wonder whether the use of color is more effective. </p>

<p>It's now later in the day and I've thought about as much as my lack of sleep last night allows. Suffice it to say for now that the use of color isn't necessarily more effective, and that the use of black and white isn't either. These simply are two different genres or sets of techniques . . .</p>

<p>It seems that the majority of opinions on this thread have concluded that Mr. Butcher's image didn't work. It doesn't follow, though, that the rest of his work suffers from the same perceived deficiencies. That, too, is beyond the scope of this discussion.</p>

<p>I am grateful for the wonderful participation. And I must thank Fred G. for giving me a shot.</p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Cold and poorly framed are my thought on this photo.</p>