Man made objects in nature photography

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>actually in a *lower* position, see for example William's post below.</em></p>

<p>Well no. The founding book of Christianity and Judaism clearly states in the beginning that everything else (plants, animals etc.) were created to be subjects of man basically to be used and exploited. Other religions may have more harmonious principles but are minority religions in the USA and Europe. However the western world clearly follows the idea that humans are allowed to do whatever they want with whatever they find in nature. What the PSA style nature photography seems to call nature is nature without human influence as if such a thing existed. It's a denialist way of looking at it, trying to find nature without human devastation and closing one's eyes from the truth.</p>

<p><em>If we include all works of man, what photographiy subject would you<strong> NOT</strong> classify as nature?</em></p>

<p>Nature should be about the processes and phenomena of nature. Skyscrapers in Manhattan are a result of a natural process and it would qualify as an image of urbanization. Rush hour is also illustrative of human behavior, not too different from ants I guess. If you look at e.g. BBC Wildlife / NHM / Veolia Wildlife Photographer of the Year, it has often categories of urban wildlife and some which include the interaction of humans and other animals etc. e.g. the oil spill in the Gulf won the overall price a short while ago. Why this kind of a tight purist view of nature without human influence is presented at photo.net I guess it reflects some kind of guilt (that not all nature looks pure any more) and romanticism about nature (desire to go back). I think the rest of the world is more honest about nature and what it is and isn't any more and does not exclude human influence from nature photography. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I think, for example, if the primary subject is of a flock of geese in Manhattan that would be acceptable, but a picture of Manhattan on its own is not acceptable. However neither would be acceptable for our Nature forum, which, personally, I think is too rigid a rule: but I did not make the rules. It is also, of course, largely a fantasy that man has not had impact on virtually all of nature, so excluding him is just a matter of photo framing.</p>

<p>The rigidity of the existing rule allows for no challenges, which may be good for the thread, but it will exclude a lot of other potentially good, and, arguably, more interesting nature pics.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Since this isn't an off topic forum and neither is it a philospophy or religion forum, the question isn't whether man-made objects are part of nature but whether man-made objects are suitable subjects for NATURE PHOTOGRAPHY. By definition (see PSA rules and photo.net guidelines defining nature photography), they are not (though in a few select cases man made objects may be incidentally included in a nature image)</p>

[eric_brody]

No elightenment here... Just trolling and silly word play, a waste of bandwidth IMHO, and I do mean humble.

[frode]

<p>I don't think they are trying to give or refer to an authoritative general definition of the term "nature photography" (which I doubt even exist)<br /> The "General guidelines" (for that forum) that you have partly cited do state explicitly that the term "nature photography" is used "<em>In the strictest sense</em>". At least that mean that the term "nature photography" is not used in that text in a very broad sense. Therefore, an attempt to criticize the text while applying a broad sense of the term will most probably be more confusing than clarifying.<br /> Also, stating that it is to be understood "In the strictest sense" implies that the author(s) of that text admits that there also exist (at least might exist) a broader understandings of the term.<br /> ;-)<br /> Cheers,<br /> (and excuse my English. It's not my native language)</p>

[movingfinger]

<p>If you google "Nature" and look at the definitions of the word given in the Oxford English Dictionary, one of the many definitions provided is the following:</p>

<p>The <a title="Meaning of phenomena" href="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/phenomenon#phenomenon__3">phenomena</a> of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the <a title="Meaning of landscape" href="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/landscape#landscape__2">landscape</a>, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to <a title="Meaning of humans" href="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/human#human__8">humans</a> or human <a title="Meaning of creations" href="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/creation#creation__2">creations</a>: 'the breathtaking beauty of Nature'<br /><br>

Yes, there are other variations of meaning provided in the OED, but the above demonstrates that those who specify the rules for "Nature Photography" are well within one of the common english language meanings of 'Nature' when they require the minimization of man-made objects from the image. Case closed.<br /></p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

A common definition is 'that which exists on its own accord', with the often unspoken assumption that this also means without being made or influenced by humans.<br>It's not a watertight definition. Your garden isn't nature. The bird that visits the bird feeder in that garden is. So is the bird pulling earth worms out of the ground between your shrubs. A bird visiting the feeder is not. How about pulling worms from your shrubbery?<br>And there is not much that isn't what it is, the way it is, without having been shaped as such by whatever and whoever has had more than a fleeting contact with it. Landscapes, for instance, are just about all shaped by humans. But not just by humans, but also by the other animals that live there.<br><br>That is not the answer to the OP's question though. That answer is no more than a matter of faith, culture, or simple choice. Humans do exist on their own accord. Motor cycles exits as much on their own accord as the bower of a bower bird does. You decide: are humans and what they do nature or not.

[Robin Smith]

<p>Our next task is to define what "landscape photography" is...</p>