Why not ? (Humans in nature pictures)

[vlf___1]

I read many times in the forum that nature photos should not include shot of humans, even if the woman or the man is in a wilderness area and thus not the main subject. I am wondering why should we not include a person in a nature shot if we want this shot to considered a picture of nature. Hey, am I not a product of mother earth? Why did we do or what are we doing to deserve this.<BR></BR> Actually, I do not shot a lot of nature stuff - what I personnaly consider as being nature stuff - with someone into the frame. But most of the time, it is a pure aesthetic or * art * decision. Some pictures of nature are wonderfull with a human (most of the time a "little" human) in it, just to give a sense of scale or to allow the viewer to think he is the guy in the picture, in front of the scene, at the top of the world.<BR></BR>

So..... why not ? (Humans in nature pictures)<BR></BR> Vincent.

[don_baccus]

I guess I don't get it. Certainly, many nature photos have people in them, particularly those sold for the magazine market. Pick up Outdoors, National Geographic, etc if you don't believe me.

 

<p>

 

However, when the subject is non-human, as is often the case in landsc ape or wildlife photography, why have the human there? The subject isn't the human, so inclusion of one simply detracts from the photograph. It's noise.

 

<p>

 

It has nothing to do with the fact that that pictorial element is human, but rather the time-honored art/engineering/damned-near-anything-usefull phrase "Keep it simple, stupid!" Why add an extraneous element?

 

<p>

 

The reason why human-nature photos do show up in many magazines, and sometimes elsewhere, is because the subject matter is the interaction of humans with nature, rather than nature itself. There's nothing wrong with this.

[frank_kolwicz]

Here's my take on "man in nature":

 

<p>

 

First and foremost, my point of view is that nature has its own values which we sorely neglect and which I would like more people to accept as standing on their own. Pure, undiluted beauty is one I can find and present. Besides, this is how the Earth will look again some day when we have done our worst and are gone.

 

<p>

 

Second, anytime a human or an artifact is present, it becomes the focal point of any image for us; the image becomes MAN and (nature).

 

<p>

 

Third, there are only some few humans who actually do exist as part of nature rather than against nature. These I would have no qualms about including. Western man and those we have unfortuantely influenced have no place in nature photogaphy because we have set ourselves against it and continue to regard it as mere property to be (litterally) disposed of as we wish. When someone says "we're part of nature, too" I think that person has failed to see that we ACT as if we really aren't and, in my book, we have forfeited the right to POSE as part of nature, at least in my images.

 

<p>

 

Fourth, every image of a human or an artifact acts like a mirror and we act like the perennial adolescent who has to preen and gloat and fuss over our images reflected in every store window. I don't want my photography to become just another mirror for the viewer to use in checking his or her appearance.

 

<p>

 

Fifth, as Thomas Moore says in "Care of the Soul" (paraphrased), the inability to relate to things outside of ourselves is symptom of a soulless existance. I add that the most important "other" thing to relate to is nature, written NATURE. You'll have to read "Care of the Soul" to find out how important it is to develop yours.

 

<p>

 

Thanks for the question, Flohic, I have been waiting for an opportunity to put that string of words together.

 

<p>

 

Frank

[bobatkins]

You have to draw a line somewhere, and, as far as <b>nature</em>

photography goes, that line is "no hand of man". While images with

the "hand of man" in them are fine, often superb, they are something

other than strictly nature.

 

<p>

 

If you don't draw the line, you get into just how much of the

image can be people and how much nature before it's not nature

anymore. So keep it simple. If an image has people (or man made

objects) in it, it's not nature.

 

<p>

 

If you want people in images, great. I've seem some superb shots

of natural scenes with people in them (Galen Rowell does this

pretty well!). Call them whatever you want to, even "nature" shots.

The only thing you can't do with them is enter them in the "nature"

section of PSA photo contests - and that's not much of a problem

for most people!

[kuryan_thomas]

I've always wanted to take a photograph of my hand and enter it in a nature photography contest, just to see what would happen.

[mark_ci]

</B>It's as Bob says. Once you allow humans in, where do you draw the line. If everything is part of nature, then <I>any</I> photograph is a nature photograph, in which case the entire term becomes meaningless. In defining nature as something apart from man, we're just being consistent with the way "civilized" man has been thinking and acting for thousands of years.

[russ_arcuri]

I know and understand the "hand of man" rule, but I disagree with it. I feel that if something is a result of natural processes (human reproduction being an example of a natural process; therefore humans themselves are a part of nature), it should be allowed in a "nature" photograph. If something is not the result of a natural process (i.e. Jeeps and chain-link fences don't spontaneously form in nature), then it shouldn't be allowed in a "nature" photograph. Of course, the implication here is that a human in a nature photo couldn't have any clothes on, unless of course the clothes themselves are the result of a natural process. (Adam and Eve's fig leaves?)

[charlie]

Maybe we need to start referring to photgraphs as manipulated or not manipulated (natural light no enhancement filters, no image editing). Too many "nature" photgraphs are manipulated by filters or by image software programs to the point that they do not represent "actual" natural conditions.

 

<p>

 

Also, man is part of the natural world, to a point.

 

<p>

 

The issue of light and color manipulation has been bothering me for some time. It seems that almost every "nature" image that one sees in magazines today has been manipulated in some way. Not that they are not striking photographs, but they do not represent a natural state of light and representation of the image seen naturally.

 

<p>

 

Is it just me, or do others ponder over this same problem. Where does "natural" light photography end and "artificial" begin? Does it start with a UV/Skylight filter or is it more?

[mark_ci]

Charlie,<P>That's a whole different thread.<P>Russ.<P>If man is part of nature just like other animals, then things he makes are part of nature as well. The Empire State Building would be just as valid a nature subject as an eagle's nest, wouldn't you say? Anything else would reintroduce the man/nature dichotomy you're struggling to avoid.

[russ_arcuri]

Mark -- Not at all! The Empire State Building is <i>not</i> a result of "natural" processes. A newborn baby <i>is</i>. I'm not defining it well, I know, but it's counter-intuitive to call a newborn gorilla or bear cub "natural" and not a newborn human. You're creating a dichotomy between humans and other animals where there is none.<p>

 

By your reckoning, would you consider a bird's nest "natural" if it obviously contained some kite string that the bird found? What if you could only detect the kite string by doing a 30x enlargement from a 4x5 negative?<p>

 

We have to distinguish between the artificial creations of man (fences, kite string, the Empire State Building) and human beings themselves. As I said in my first post, I understand the PSA "hand of man" rule, but I disagree with what it implies - that human beings themselves are somehow not "natural."

[vince_farnsworth1]

This is getting way too complicated. If the question is: "Is it okay for Man to be part of my nature photo?", the answer is yes. If the question is: "Can there be 'the hand of Man' in my nature photo entered in a specific type of contest or posted at a particular web site?", the answer is no. The rules are merely a reflection of one group's opinion, not everyone's opinion. Actually, I'm now sorry that I posted this answer because it required really weird punctuation.

[bobatkins]

Russ: What's the difference between a nature shot with a person

in it and an outdoor portrait. Is an outdoor portrait a nature

image? If not why not, and how do you distinguish between the two?

[eielrt_anders]

The concept of nature that excludes man, which no doubt is at the root of PSA prohibition of excluding humans or their works in 'Nature" photos contests, is essentially a Judeo/Christian artifact derived from independent creation of man from animals and the biblical command to populate and dominate the earth and every thing in it. Ergo, man and the works of man are not natural! From a scientific viewpoint which embraces the theory that man evolved from simpler animal precursors, man and every thing that he has contructed are"natural"! How does one separate the termite mound, the bird nest and the beaver dam from the highway, the house, and the Hoover Dam?

Even if one arbitrarily excludes man and his works from "nature" photography, how can we exclude the naturally exposed bones of the African austlalopithecines, or Asian homo erectus or European Cro-Magnon man who were eating and being eaten by their animal neighbors? How about the ancient stone spearhead that was lost thousands of years ago and is exposed in the bed of creek in your backyard or in the bones of a mastodon? As an archaeologist, a photographer, and a human being, I have problems with the concept of nature photography in which man is excluded. It perpetuates the wrong concept of reality, and has and will continue to encumber the ecology and nature preservation efforts that are so needed in the world. I suggest that we redefine nature photography to include man and his works, and to find a new name to describe photography that does not include man and his works.

[mark_ci]

No, Russ, you're creating a dichotomy too. What exactly is a "natural" process? The way you're using it, it seems to mean "anythiing not done by man." Why are the things men build "artificial", whereas the things animals build are "natural"? If you define nature to include man, then it must include his works as well.

[russ_arcuri]

Bob -- I do understand what you're getting at. I'm not saying outdoor nude portraits should be included in PSA competitions; such contests can allow or disallow any pictures they want to. I'm saying that I dislike the idea of excluding humans from the category "nature." If a bear sitting next to a tree is a "nature shot," then substituting a nude human for the bear doesn't change anything in my estimation. (Think about what the phrase 'au natural' really means. Shedding clothes [creations of man] apparently means once again becoming part of nature.)<p>

 

As to the question about the difference between a termite mound and the Hoover Dam, I'm making an arbitrary distinction between them. In my estimation, the Hoover Dam is artificial, and thus not part of "nature," whereas the termite mound (however unphotogenic it might be) is natural. Yes, I'm separating the <i>works</i> of humans (like Hoover Dam and clothing) from the humans themselves; it's an obvious aesthetic separation, however difficult it is form me to justify in words. If you don't like my reasoning, you are of course free to disagree. ;-)

[daniel_welch]

In answer to Bob's question: "What's the difference between a nature shot with a person in it and an outdoor portrait?" I would say: quite a lot. The distinction is between a person in a picture and a person "in front of" a picture.

 

<p>

 

There is a gorgeous waterfall on the south side of Mt. Rainier call Comet Falls. Very photogenic, but challenging to shoot due to its location. I have a picture of my wife standing in front of the bottom of it, posing; that is not a nature picture. But I have another picture, taken from a quarter mile away, which includes the entire waterfall, the surrounding cirque -- and two miniscule figures at the bottom, a father and son who were climbing up to the bottom of the falls. This, in my opinion, *is* a nature picture, since the people were actively involved in the scene. Indeed, they are crucial to the quality of the picture, since without them the enormous scale of the waterfall is hard to grasp. I thought it was a "just okay" shot until I saw the two (they aren't easy to see at first), and then the whole thing sort of leapt together; now its one of my favorites.

 

<p>

 

Another picture that I consider a "nature" photograph is my wife struggling up a steep, snowy bank on Mt. Baker, in northern Washington. The dramatic sweep of the mountainside is highlighted by her foot-trail, and the tiny figure half-walking, half-kneeling really brings out the size and drama of the situation. (She was perfectly safe, BTW, I wasn't risking her for the sake of the shot.)

 

<p>

 

I think the "hand of man" should not apply to man himself. Man-made artifacts -- buildings, signs, etc. -- take away the nature-ness of a photo. But a human figure, one that is involved in the scene and not posing in front of it, does not.

 

<p>

 

Conversely, I have a beautiful shot of a great horned owl sitting on a tree stump. Because I shot it in a park area (i.e. the owl was in a cage, although this is not evident in the picture) I have trouble thinking of it as a nature picture, even though there is nothing "unnatural" in it.

[russ_arcuri]

Mark, what exactly is "good" software? The way many people define it, it seems to mean "any software not created by Microsoft." The distinction might not be fair or justifiable, but it's obvious in the minds of those who believe it. Ask Janet Reno.<p>

 

I really do understand your argument, Mark. But as I stated in my last answer, I AM separating the works of humans from humans themselves. I doubt there will be any catastrophic repercussions for modern society because I'm making this arbitrary distinction. Why the heck should anyone care what I think anyway?

[mark_ci]

To me, a nude human would be even more against the idea of nature photography than a clothed one. Unless you're talking about a candid shot of a member of some primitive tribe (who would probably still have some minimal clothing on) this would be a very contrived situation.

[russ_arcuri]

Mark -- contrived, yes. Because humans don't generally go lolling around trees naked. But still, I don't think it's any less valid as a nature picture than the same shot with a bear in it.<p>

 

One last point:<p>

 

Assumption #1: Humans are a part of nature. (Evolutionary biology says so, doesn't it?)<br>

Assumption #2 (Mark Ciccarello's Postulate): "If you define nature to include man, then it must include his works as well."<br>

Observation: A Nikon F5 is one of man's works.<br>

Conclusion: A Nikon F5 is a part of nature.<p>

 

Since our conclusion is clearly nonsense, one of our assumptions must be false. Hint: it's not the first assumption.

[eielrt_anders]

Russ, your conclusion according to my definition is correct. As a practical proof, anywhere I've taken a picture out west at a photogenic spot, I can always include a "nature" photographer with a Nikon camera around his/her neck. They seem to be a part of the natural scene! Spoofs aside, I don't like to include man or his works in my "nature" photographs - not because we are not part of the natural world, but because I have an inherent dislike for what we do to the "natural" world. I think that we are romantics. We harken to the past and natural balance, to natural beauty. The agricultural, industrial and electronic revolutions have wreaked havoc with the "natural" world, and our only escape is to isolated spots, to our national parks, and to the last and few remaining wild places. One of my favorite photographs was taken by Mangleson of a grizzly bear walking across a brilliant panoramic fall tundra in front of a low mountain range. The scene would not be the same if the bear was replaced by even a primitive stone age hunter. We would probably like it better if the bear was still in the scene and walking away from the stone age hunter's corpse! We are part of the natural world, but we all like it better if we hadn't left the proverbial garden of Eden - a term that anthropologists use to refer to the world in which man was a hunter and gather who relied on what the natural world offered - for better of worse. I don't think we like ourselves very much.

[jeff_hallett]

Perhaps we should get another forum on photo-net and call it the

Philosophical photography forum for those who really give a @!!*#.

[mark_ci]

I don't have any problem with saying that if humans are part of nature, an F5 is too. In fact, I'd insist upon it.

[bobatkins]

This discussion makes it very clear why the PSA showed a great deal

of wisdom when they developed their "no hand of man" rule!

[russ_arcuri]

Jeff -- You know, if you don't like the discussion, <i>you don't have to read it</i> I (and others, I'm sure) think this is a perfectly valid subject for a nature forum.<p>

 

Mark - Well, here we'll simply have to agree to disagree. I'd bet there are very few people who would consider a camera of any sort a "natural" object, whether they consider humans a part of nature or not.

[stanley_mcmanus]

Humans in nature photos?? Sounds like a good excuse to take a big, manly, macho, 600mm f/4 lens to Hooters for some owl pictures.

Isn't that where all the bird photographers hang out after a hard day's shooting?