Serendipity in wildlife photography

[Moving On]

Stalin was a military ally out of necessity. As far as I know, FDR was more of a pal to Churchill than to Stalin. As for the rest, we aren't allowed to discuss politics on PN.

You brought it up.

Politics is introduced to this place all the time.

Everything from anti Trump screen shots photo shopped,to anti Second Amendment rallies, to pictures of manure posted as commentary on someone's political views.

That's fine by me as long as the rules apply within reason to everyone.

So lose the disingenuous holier than thou attitude.

Politics followed in each of the three posts following yours......

Edited May 10, 2018 by Moving On

[Supriyo]

David, I am not criticizing Adams for his lack of sensitivity towards Japanese Americans. What I have read tells me that he was quite aware of the situation with the Japanese ethnicity population and concerned about their treatment. Unfortunately, I don't see that concern and sensitivity reflected in his photos that well. And I am not the only one, there has been some criticism about his approach on the subject from other individuals, including descendants of the interned individuals [LINK]. I do understand photographers specialize in their respective genre, and its not fair to expect them to excel in photographing every genre. I am not using the example of the Japanese internment to denigrate Adams or his works. I am deeply interested in master photographers including Adams and I consider criticizing their works to go hand in hand with admiring them. Addressing their weaknesses (and personalities) alongside their merits is part of the process of accepting my own weaknesses and limitations. I would argue that makes me a better photographer and thinker.

[Supriyo]

You brought it up.

 

I referred to Stalin in the context of discussing Japanese internment and different photographers' approaches to it. That doesn't mean, I am ready to connect Stalin's murderous philosophy to FDR and new deal liberalism. Among other reasons, the moderators will close this thread in a heartbeat and David (who is already pissed with me for criticizing AA) will kick my a#$. :p Certainly counterproductive.

[Moving On]

Then you should drop it.

[Moving On]

And still they are not met.....

LET IT GO.

[Supriyo]

Already stated my intensions to the effect.

[Moving On]

And yet you continue.

LET IT GO.

[Supriyo]

[Norma Desmond]

Or . . . Let It Grow . . .

 

[Supriyo]

List of songs starting with "Let it .."

 

Let It Die

Let It All Go

Let it All Hang Out

Let It Be

Let it Die

Let it Fall

Let It Go

Let it Go

Let It go

Let it out

Let It Ride

Let It Rock

Let it Rock

 

Songs Beginning with L

[Norma Desmond]

And one of my all time favorites . . .

 

[DavidTriplett]

David (who is already pissed with me for criticizing AA) will kick my a#$.

Supriyo, no @$$ kicking from me. I'm a lover and a thinker, despite rumors to the contrary. Besides, I get along with you better than most, and we rarely butt heads for no better purpose than to hear the sound of our skulls cracking. Your (and Fred's) comments on AA's photography are well considered. His style absolutely is grounded in the serene, peaceful view of nature, executed with absolute technical mastery. Looking at his images reminds me of the view from the porch of a carefully situated lodge in a national park. His images of the internment camps clearly reflect this proclivity. His approach may also have been heavily influenced by both his understanding of the assignment as well as a personal preference towards the positive over the negative. I don't know that I would classify any of his work as truly documentary in nature, while Dorothea Lange was undoubtedly a (the?) master of the documentary genre. For me, much creativity in photography centers in seeing the potential for an image. Using this metric, and coming back to the OP, I believe that seeing creatively in the moment is one component of responding to serendipitous opportunities.

[Sandy Vongries]

A long time ago, I had a discussion with a much admired, now deceased high rank martial arts instructor bewailing Dojo politics. His response was that the only way to avoid politics was to find a remote cave and become a Hermit. In essence, a small Ranch in rural Montana, a bit the same, but a matter of choice. With the internet there is no escape. I'm amazed at the political interventions into apolitical photographic themes - Confess that the intelligent, well considered and stealthy / subtle ones can be amusing, but I think the answer is to ignore the rest. Edited May 11, 2018 by Sandy Vongries

[Norma Desmond]

A lot of photography is political/social/cultural. A lot of photography not intended to be so still is. Some is not. It makes sense that discussions even of apolitical photos might get involved in politics when tangents are taken or different examples are given that may involve a political bent. I think PN has been pretty good about allowing some politics into discussions when the politics have to do with photos being discussed and when the politics don't take over the discussion to the exclusion of photography. I think in this thread there was a pretty natural and benign progression into the political from the apolitical, though at some point it might be seen to have briefly and relatively benignly crossed a line. With that said, I've had no problem reading, thinking about, and handling everything that's been said without feeling as though I've needed to ignore anything. In any case, after that brief possible crossing of lines, I think the discussion got back to a good place.

[DavidTriplett]

"Seredipity (bon chance) favors the prepared mind." Louis Pasteur.

 

"Let me tell you the secret that has led me to my goal: My strength lies solely in my tenacity." Louis Pasteur

[Supriyo]

I already mentioned this in a past thread on the subject but when Adams arrived at the camp it was in a much better state than the time when Lange was there. A reason for why their photographs look different is because what was there for the camera to record was different (regardless if this was for propaganda or not). Also, a documentary isn't journalism and doesn't have to exclude and often very much involves the personal subjective perspective of the documentarian. Adams may have wanted to portray the internees (as stunted as the portraits may look) as something beyond the trope of being victims without agency (I agree with Szarkowski's analyses of Adams' camp photographs and motives).

 

Thats a good point. Adams may well have portrayed a different time in the camp. Also I feel, the internment residents don't have to look grumpy in the photos or be in worse condition to be identified as victims. The very fact that they were interned (even if in a gilded cage at the beginning) make them victims. People naturally try to make the best of any situation by smiling, or looking happy. They may also have been worried about government repercussions by expressing discontent in front of the camera.

 

Lange and Adams may have arrived at the camp at different times, but both of them took pictures of the internees when they were starting their journey to the camps. There, I find some of Lange's pictures more compelling than Adams.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Supriyo

[Norma Desmond]

Also, a documentary isn't journalism and doesn't have to exclude and often very much involves the personal subjective perspective of the documentarian.

Yes, this is a distinction between journalism and documentary. Viewers do well to be aware of the subjective perspective they're being shown. They might also be aware of the way the personal perspective is expressed in terms of style and other photographic qualities. And they do well to consider that not all subjective perspectives may be equally valid or defensible.

Adams may have wanted to portray the internees (as stunted as the portraits may look) as something beyond the trope of being victims without agency.

The three main photographers who documented Manzanar are Adams, Lange, and Miyatake (himself a resident of the camp). I don't know of any non-Adams photos that conform to a trope of showing the internees as victims without agency. What they show are victims whose freedom has been severely compromised (having businesses and homes taken away, which Lange portrays directly, and now living in encampments surrounded by barbed wire). But that lack of freedom does not show a lack of agency. Lange's people, in particular, through their gestures, activities, and expressions, are shown very much as human beings with agency. These camps and our government at the time victimized people. That's not a trope. It's a reality. That doesn't mean that's all they were, but not showing the victimization in a documentary about a place made to victimize people might well be someone's personal perspective but it falls far short of any kind of historical accuracy or truth.

[Norma Desmond]

This also raises the issue of judging historical figures or events by today's standards and expectations, rather than as products of their place and time in history. I believe it is a critical mistake to evaluate people and their behaviors without considering the time, place, and circumstances of the individual.

There's a danger here and I think it's wise to separate understanding from morality.

 

Slavery, in its time, was obviously more acceptable to more people. It's pretty much countenanced in the 3/5 clause of the U.S. Constitution. So, considering historical context is important in understanding, for example, why Thomas Jefferson could own and abuse slaves in his time and why a Thomas Jefferson counterpart in our times couldn't own and abuse slaves. But, the historical context which provides an understanding of why Thomas Jefferson owned and abused slaves doesn't make his owning of and abusing of slaves any better in a moral sense. We are perfectly entitled to, and should, judge it wrong. And it would be a terrible case of moral relativism to say owning slaves and abusing them wasn't as wrong then as it is now. They may not have thought of it as wrong. But we are perfectly entitled, and must, think they were wrong to think that way and to act that way.

 

One can understand the Japanese internment from a wartime perspective of misunderstanding and paranoia. We hadn't evolved at that point to where we, in some ways, are now (though just how much we've evolved when it comes to wars and prejudice is questionable). But that internment can be judged today harshly because it was wrong, no matter what they thought at the time. And portrayals of that internment can be understood in a variety of ways given the historical times and circumstances but ought to be judged by our own standards. It's not a mistake to evaluate Leni Riefenstahl, for example, harshly even though she was part of a culture that accepted such a view of humans and such treatment of those they considered to be of inferior race. Knowing her circumstances may give us insights into and understanding about why she did what she did but our evaluative judgment of her should be condemnation, regardless of context or circumstance at the time.

[Moving On]

The whole thing of injecting your own political view into a conversation about a photo to make some sort of thinly concealed political protest through some sort of pshycoanalsys of Ansel Adams is disingenuous, pretentious, and really quite absurd.

 

But cheap shots are to be the trademark of some I suppose. Simply marginalizes their comments in such cases.

At least I like a lot of their photos.

[Norma Desmond]

Which is also true for the ones looking at the photographs. In this case, I think your view of Adams photos of the camps is invalid.

True that differing responses to photos can be assessed differently. In this case, I think both our responses to Adams’s work are valid and can and have been reasonably justified. The subject, IMO, makes for a good discussion about photography . . . and its expression, communication, and documenting of both the political and the personal.

[DavidTriplett]

Coming back to the original topic of Serendipity... I had a very serendipitous experience last week. Michael Linder asked me about it, and I think the gist of my response to him is a valid post for this thread:

This was my first successful lightning effort. We live on the lower slopes of the Wasatch mountains north of Salt Lake City. There was a thunderstorm transiting from SW to NE over the Great Salt Lake. My wife and I were sitting on our back deck watching it when I realized "I'm a photographer! Duh!" I grabbed my camera, mounted my trusty 18-105 lens, put it on the tripod, activated the IR remote, and then tried unsuccessfully to time the exposures to catch lightning flashes. This quickly proved impossible. Next, I mounted my variable ND filter and set it to allow a 20 second exposure. This helped, but the sun was still fairly bright, so the relative brightness of the lightning versus the sky was less than I had hoped. Still, I was able to capture these two by leaving the shutter open almost continuously in 20 second exposures:

As the storm moved and the ambient light faded, I was able to remove the ND filter and push the exposure to 30 seconds. I also had to move to a new location to keep the area of activity in view (to a vacant lot just up the street). All of the exposures were made at 18mm/13, as I needed to allow for maximum DoF. The set of images from the new location were all captured using a nearly continuous stream of 30 second exposures, and re-pointing the camera every few minutes as the storm crossed the field of view. Also, all of these are substantial crops from larger images, as I needed to cover a large, unpredictable area of possible lightning strikes:

All told I made about 200 exposures. What you see here and in my other postings constitute almost all of the usable captures, the others being mostly empty of lightning strikes. The opportunity to make these images is mostly due to the serendipity of the storm's timing and path. It took me a while to figure out my side of the equation. Prior preparation, experience, and equipment selection made these images possible, beyond the simple serendipity of a passing storm. I'm with Louis (Pasteur).

[Moving On]

Distant thunder and clouds rolling in always make my shutter finger twitch.......

[Norma Desmond]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgZDqv0xC20

[DavidTriplett]

Serendipity is about NOT seeking certain types of events but rather the world fortuitously aligning to create beneficial events that were NOT being sought.

I want to endorse Fred's point here. He's absolutely right. In the Merriam-Webster article on serendipity there is a brief history of the word, going back to a letter from Horace Walpole to Horace Mann in the mid-1700's. In it Walpole references a "silly fairy tale" called The Three Princes of Serendip. Walpole explains that the three princes "...were always making discoveries, by accidents and sagacity, of things they were not in quest of…." I think my point has been a focus on the role of sagacity in taking advantage of serendipitous circumstances, particularly where we have argued the role of words, their histories, and their past, current, and possible future meanings. Fred's references to the research being done on the evolving use of serendipity is illustrative of the living, dynamic nature of language. I expect there are a vast number of words whose usage and meanings have and continue to evolve. I can easily identify several which have changed in less than half my lifetime, or that did not exist when I graduated from high school.

 

My wife (the nuclear physicist) frequently accuses me of being an uber planner. I plead guilty, as it is in both my personal and professional nature. She, on the other hand, loves to experience life, particularly vacations, as a series of spontaneous (serendipitous?) events. The resolution to this conflict might seem mutually exclusive, but it is to plan for spontaneity! (Yeah, right!?) However, we realize this by making sure we have the necessities covered (like RV site reservations), while leaving room in our plans and expectations to take advantage of serendipitous opportunities (such as an entire afternoon in a glass blowing hot shop on the Oregon coast). Just as for the three princes of Serendip, we, too, only make "discoveries" if we place ourselves in the position and have the sagacity (if we are able and prepared) to recognize and respond to the opportunities offered by serendipity. One poster (I lose track of who it was) mentioned that the image linked in the OP was a lucky capture of a circumstance that likely occurs frequently. Certainly true. There a tens of thousands of thunderstorms and lightning strikes around the the world every month. Still, serendipity brought one to my backyard at a time and under circumstances under which I was able to make photographs of it. (I had not made any plans or preparations whatsoever anticipating the thunderstorm. I only realized the opportunity in the moment, so serendipity at play.)

 

Going back to Fred's comment quoted above: I wonder at what point serendipity becomes something else, as we engage with and respond to opportunities presented, as we make discoveries by accident and sagacity? Did serendipity end when I began applying photographic knowledge in my attempts to capture images of lightning strikes? Did serendipity play a role in any of Dave Stephens' wildlife images in which he invested so much time and effort? In another thread Sandy talks about the serendipity of finding a box of family photos he did not know existed. Now he's trying to decide what best to do with them. What if he had not opened the unknown box, and it had gone further years undiscovered, and unappreciated? Instead, he had the sagacity to recognize his discovery and is applying further sagacity in developing the potential of the serendipitous moment. Here, then, is synchronicity, sagacity, serendipity, wisdom, knowledge, and a host of other attributes combining to create an opportunity that otherwise might never have existed. So, I guess my long-winded point is that serendipity appears only to exist to the degree we can recognize it. Serendipity is, perhaps, only truly meaningful if we do something with it, even if it is only to recognize it and add it to our knowledge and experience. Otherwise, like the bird singing but not heard, the event evades meaning, never becomes even so much as one of the princes' discoveries. I postulate that the line between serendipity and the effects of the serendipitous is broad and vague, and very hard to draw. I'm curious to see how this resonates with your opinions regarding the the relationship between serendipity and human engagement, or lack thereof?

[Norma Desmond]

David, I posted the link to "Imagination" because that's the key for the kind of photography that most suits me. Serendipitous events will often pique my imagination, so their portrayal in a photo can be important. But any of these things—serendipity, confluence, synchronicity, wisdom, luck, accident, etc.—are best accompanied by imagination in the making of a photo, IMO. It's what a photographer's imagination leads her to that's important to me, how the scene or events get framed through the lens, exposed for a particular kind of feeling, post processed expressively. Serendipity simply recorded is sometimes good enough, but often requires more from the photographer if I am looking for a creative edge, which I often am (though not necessarily in journalism or forensics). As a matter of fact, there could be some danger in a photographer's waiting for serendipity, putting oneself into a passive rather than active mode. Nothing wrong, and sometimes everything right, with actually making things happen, and making them happen the way you want. That would hold true to various degrees in nature photography vs. street photography, of course. But in most photography, I'd say a proactive vision is what often jumps off the page at me.

So, I guess my long-winded point is that serendipity appears only to exist to the degree we can recognize it. Serendipity is, perhaps, only truly meaningful if we do something with it,

You've probably said something similar here. Serendipity is often just the start.

Otherwise, like the bird singing but not heard, the event evades meaning, never becomes even so much as one of the princes' discoveries.

Yes, but this is true of almost everything, so it's not something special about serendipity. If I don't recognize someone's love for me, it's meaningless to me (though not to them). If I don't hear the sound of the tree falling, etc. . . . Awareness is a key to life, most aspects of it and most things that occur.

 

By the way, if I don't hear the sound of the tree, someone might later describe it to me who did hear it, at which point it can take on meaning for me without my ever having heard it.

 

Sometimes we can see serendipity and sometimes we can't. I've seen street shots, for example, where events seemed to randomly occur in a happy way. I've also seen street shots that look a lot more staged and planned that could be cleverly hiding something very serendipitous that only the photographer will know about. And we can be fooled, intentionally or not. The famous WWII Kiss photo likely had at least a bit less serendipity than most viewers at first supposed. What's interesting to me, though, is that the image, itself, still tells a story of serendipity even if the real events didn't unfold so serendipitously. In that sense, some photos act as theater or fiction. They're not necessarily true to the FACTS AS THEY OCCURRED, but they portray very real things nevertheless. There may never have existed a Romeo and Juliet who were star-crossed lovers, but that fiction conveys in such real and true ways two young lovers doomed by fate and all the ramifications of it.