Ethics/Technique: 'Immersion' in Nature Photography

[Albins images]

I started out taking pictures of dung-beetles with my 1/2 x 35mm format camera when I was 14 or so. The lens of this "Canon-Demi" was 28mm and it worked flawlessly, except that one was unable to distinguish whether the picture showed dung or a beetle.

 

<p>

 

Over the years things improved rapidly, longer lenses, more communicative pictures. But a sense of unease remained with my photography, and much nature photography in general: it often lacks the feeling of being drawn into it, 'immersion'.

 

<p>

 

Many images remain flat looking sections of a much wider, much more complex surroundings. Picture after picture you see elements from nature photographed isolated and abstracted, perfect documentary material as a summary of species.

 

<p>

 

Many experienced nature photographers have a thorough knowledge of their subjects. They also know that few of these subjects can exist without its environment. But showing the subject AND its interaction with other species and its habitat is less often done.

 

<p>

 

I recently started looking for techniques to go catch on film this sense of immersion we all feel when we are outdoors. The plant/animal AND the surroundings. This is difficult.. It practically means back to the shorter lenses and getting very close to the subject. "Getting into it".

 

<p>

 

This approach often leads to a less spontaneous and more staged kind of photography (..more 'docudrama'). But just because the nature photographer 'knows' his/her subject, this should be possible without hurting the reality of what we want to show, or the welfare of the subject.

 

<p>

 

Or should it?

[ilkka_nissil_]

I would like to see more of this kind of pictures on the net. I admit that I'm not a nature person foremost, I just like to go out to the woods and take pictures. (I take pictures of other things too). The main thing for me in photography is recording the visually/emotionally interesting things that I see. I find it quite surprising that many nature photographers concentrate on portraits that show the species with a blurred and uncomplicated background. That's not the way the animal presents itself in nature! The woods are full of branches, and stuff.

 

<p>

 

I think getting a closeup portrait is definately more stressful, since often no lens is long enough for that sort of thing (which nonetheless is very popular.) I think with a 300 mm or 180 mm lens, these kind of realistic 'animal in nature' shots should be possible. I've seen some very nice 'landscape' shots with a bird or two almost hidden in a decisive spot. They were taken about with a 50 mm lens and remote shutter release.

 

<p>

 

Ilkka

[mark_ci]

I don't think the point of isolating a subject is to produce "documentary material." Quite the opposite: the point is usually for artistic effect. Artists usually strive for simplicity, and including too much of the environment can badly clutter things up. I do agree that, in those cases where the environment is attractive enough to be included, the result is often better still. (Example, Dan Smith's recently posted photo of the tarantula on the dry lakebed).

[anthonty_debase]

Albin, I think I know what you are talking about. Up in my corner of the country we are surrounded by thick forests covered with lots of green ferns, moss, and all sorts of plants. While this sensation is overwhelming to me, capturing and communicating it on film has evaded my abilities. I often find that use of a wide angle lens simply results in a jumble of objects, none of which has sufficient strength to be called the main subject. One technique I am playing with is to change my perspective by getting very close to the ground (a muddy technique in my area). Dan recommended that to me and I have tried it a few times. It seems to hold promise, but I can't say at this time that I have produced any meaningful images using it. In any case it's a fun self assignment.

[marc_fraioli]

Anthony,

 

<p>

 

I am very impressed with people who take successful scenics in thick forest. Whenever I have tried shooting in this situation, I end up with a random-looking mishmash of branches, sticks, and other ugly stuff. I positively swooned when I first saw <A HREF="http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/samantha/final-photos/cedars.jpg">Phil's cedars</A>. In fact, I have spent quite a bit of time staring at this particular photo, trying to understand what makes it work so well. Clearly the color is evocative, and is a large part of the image's success. The fallen log adds nice foreground interest. The trees themselves are dark enough that they fade into the background and don't distract. But even understanding that, I have yet to be able to create anything which is even close to it's equal. :)

[djuna_ivereigh]

Very intriguing and well-written question!

 

<p>

 

I must admit, I often feel that nature photography is a rather subtractive process. Out of the visual chaos, I constantly ask myself, What elements can I isolate to convey the sense of balance and harmony that I feel in this place?

 

<p>

 

Is this artificial? I don't know. I might console myself by arguing that my camera has a much lower "tolerance" for chaos than my eyes do. My eyes diligently, without fail, extract all telephone poles from the heads of my smiling family members. My camera does not. I have to make a conscious decision to do so before clicking the shutter.

 

<p>

 

But I know the sense of loss that one feels with "contrived" order in nature photography. Perhaps we are yearning to go the way of modern "classical" music (an oxymoron?). Perhaps we long for a little discordance, something to jolt us out of our complacency? How about breaking that rule of thirds? How about some motion blur? How about some ultra close-up wide angle shots with shallow depth-of-field?

 

<p>

 

At the Banff Mountain Film Festival, shown locally this weekend, I felt a pang of jealousy while admiring the zoom technique so artfully employed by cinematographers. What power in a tight shot of a man deep in concentration, which pulls back and expands to include the vast Australian outback, diminishing our thoughtful friend into a barely discernible speck! To me, this fully communicated the way that nature can thrust us deep into introspection, while at the same making time making us and all our grand thoughts feel small and inconsequential.

 

<p>

 

What is the photographic analogue of this scene? I've puzzled over this as an exercise. Perhaps an ultra-wide view, with just half of the man's pensive face occupying a sliver of the scene, the sweeping, open landscape engulfing the rest of our view. Just a guess...

 

<p>

 

And those beetles! My favorite bug shots are ones where I got down (or up) for a bug's eye view. I like looking up at a bug like it was some great African elephant, or shooting in 3/4 profile, like making a portrait of Aunt Emma's poodle. My favorite pictures are always those that show something that people wouldn't otherwise see. Most people look down on bugs, an instant before they squash them. Maybe these sorts of pictures will make them look back up at themselves next time.

[paul_wilson2]

This might come off as a joke, but I don't mean it as such.

 

<p>

 

You say that many pictures look flat and you want to convey the feeling of actually being in nature. Why not 3D? I've never seen a picture that gives as much a feeling of being there as a couple of transparencies from a 3D camera seen through an appropriate viewer.

[dan_smith]

If find the shots with a clean, out of focus background to really help key in on the subject. Also, very difficult to do in so many locations. The forest shots that show a lot and really work well are (for me) usually the product of a lot of work. A lot of walking and effort to find the natural arrangement that will work and to get there in the lighting that will help keep it looking like a coherent whole rather than a picture of forest tangles.

The hardest part for me is often isolating what I want to show from the jumble that is usually there. So, I use a longer than normal lens and isolate, using the narrow field of view to help keep the background clean. Using contrast between subject and background to help in the process. This also works in shooting plants or animals and their surroundings. But I have to be really careful to only include the surroundings that help tell the story. The subject in its environment, not a tiny speck in a jumble of branches or grass. Isolating a subject is difficult and often I can't do it so I just sit & watch. Then, something clicks mentally and I work with the lenses to get the mental image on film. I will sit & wait in a good location for the animals i know frequent the area to come into view. Then I sit & do mental gymnastics trying to 'will' them into the are that will work for my image. Usually doesn't work tho. I find that habitat shots work when not too cluttered. If I can get the habitat and animal or specific plant to work when the light helps model it as I want, I usually enjoy the results. I have often had everything almost perfect but the animal didn't move in the right direction to finish the image, or the breeze keeps blowing the plant in the wrong direction for the lighting interplay with the shadows in the background. It is not with any one lens that it works for me, but more a feel of the lighting and then choosing the lens that will allow the view to set the scene off. Working at eye level with subjects really works well but results in a lot of lying in the muck, weeds and stuff. I think the results are worth it tho.

[erick_lamontagne]

Although wildlife portraits are nice and quite a source of personnal satisfaction, I often find them boring and most of them look like they could've been taken at the zoo.

 

I finally bought a very wide lens recently to do something I had in mind for some time: wide angle close-ups. It's even better than what I expected. My first subjects were insects I caught in the act on a flower. The usual picture would be the two critters on a flower and a blurred background. Shooting with a wide angle + tube allowed me to show the whole patch of flowers, the forest behind and even some sky. I got so close that the background isn't distracting from the subject. From then, I tried a different approach (at least for me). I photograph using a lot of DOF and try to isolate the subject using only composition. No blurred background and using evenly lit subject and its surroundings. It is quite challenging but when good results are there, the sensation of immersion is even greater.

 

It seems to me that the idea of showing the environment around a subject has been applied a bit more to larger wildlife, probably because they are harder and sometimes dangerous to approach and the high cost of the lenses needed to get close without actually having to get physically closer. I'd still like to see more though. Anyone wants to get a grizzly bear wide-angle close-up? (Please don't do it!)

[Albins images]

<p>Let me revisit an old thread!</p>

<p>Looking for an example (on-line..) of what I was talking about, let me show you this image here:<br>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/111/279790727_fe2ffca90f.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Albin</p>