Show us the Original Nature Images...

[marshall]

From my post in the current Mesa Arch POW forum:

<P>

"It is very difficult to look at a photograph of a familiar, iconic

landscape, and not compare it to the other images that helped make the

place famous in the first place. I won't suggest that we should expect

to forget what else we've seen when viewing an image; it just doesn't

work that way, though it can help us appreciate the beauty of an

individual image. Then again, comments like "Very very weak. No vision

whatsoever" probably are more of a reaction to seeing a beautiful shot

of a familiar place chosen as POW than a true comment on the image or

the image-maker. At least one hopes so.

<P>

"It's a little unfortunate that this issue is firmly in mind for some

POW devotees thanks to the recent POW of Ceiling House. I don't think

the elves lack for a sense of originality. Sometimes people are going

to disagree with the POW choice, and that's the way it is. It

shouldn't need to be repeated that the POW isn't the "best" image.

Maybe, just for the helluvit, I'll start a thread in the Nature forum

for "original nature images" so people can offer up links to images

within the photo.net archives for what they feel are truly original

nature images."

<P>

Ok, so, in case anyone wants to play with this idea, here are the

rules:<br>

- We're looking for nature images that you consider to be "original,"

that is, they would rate high on originality and creativity in nature

photography.<br>

- The image has to be from the photo.net archives. It's no good to

post a link to Edward Weston's early b&w images. It is often said

that "there are better choices for POW" or "this has been done

before." Here's a chance to show it.<br>

- Please don't make this about "this image is better/more

creative/more original than THAT one." Just link to images you

consider to be creative. Say a few words about why it's a creative

image if you so choose.

<P>

Note: I'm not a moderator, and I hope not to have this thread create

more work for the moderators, so let's keep it civil, eh?

<P>

If no one's interested, don't worry: this thread will die just like

most, or we could probably get it deleted if folks think this will

just cause more trouble than it's worth.

<P>

I'm excited to see what people offer up. Thanks!

[gloria_hopkins]

Mmmm, I thought there would be more of a response. It was an excellent question. Here's one I like a lot:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1816828

 

I feel it's original in that the birds are flying away from the camera. Almost nobody shoots birds flying away from them; usually because of interest issues. I happen to love this kind of bird photo but the good ones are few and far between.

 

I would like a wider angle for this shot but I feel it is original, elegant, it tells a story and is visually very pleasing. It's the kind of shot that makes me want to know what the photographer was thinking at the time (I say that with sincerity and respect).

 

I'd really love to see more of what others think is "creative."

[stevef]

OK. To continue along with Gloria's bird theme, this image has the bird located NOT on a rule of thirds location, walking away from the camera, and facing out of the frame. I still like it anyway. To me, it looks like a bird with a lot of attitude.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/980033&size=lg

[guytal]

I'll offer this as my own humble attempt at originality:<br>

<br>

<a href="http://scenicwild.com/sw/gallery/image.jsp?gid=1&iid=c000248&stid=8">Moqui Marbles on Sandstone Swirls</a>

<br><br>

Mid-day light, and a subject that's not all that interesting to begin with. No rules of composition consulted or attempted. This just fell into place on the ground glass for me.

<br><br>

Guy

[gloria_hopkins]

That's a nice shot Guy. It's hard to tell how big the marbles are and I studied the image for a long time trying to figure it out. I like photos that pull a viewer into the image and you're very good at creating them. I love these kinds of shots and this is a great one. Btw, just visited your website. It looks awesome - very professional. Great job!

 

Steve I see what you mean about the bird having attitude. A little attitude now and then is a good thing ;) I like your composition - it is indeed unique and it works!

[erick_lamontagne]

It's not flying away, but <a href=http://www.borealphoto.com/oiseaux1/10.jpg>swiming away</a>. :-) Here the subject is really the highlights. The bird is really there to put something in perspective, like we do when putting a human in a landscape. The composition is not original though, the bird is well placed at a third and looking inside the frame.<p>

 

But originality itself doesn't make a great a great photograph. I think <a href=http://www.borealphoto.com/oiseaux4/13.jpg>this one</a> is original by any standard but I haven't quite gotten the concept right. It's pretty obvious why it's original, just look at the background! :-)<p>

 

Another "original" of mine is <a href=http://www.borealphoto.com/oiseaux4/12.jpg>this one</a>. Again here, the bird is not facing the camera. I said "again", so maybe it isn't so original... Also, the bird is dead center, but it wouldn't work if the bird was off-center.<p>

 

<a href=http://www.borealphoto.com/quebec3/02.jpg>Here's a shot</a> of a landscape icon, the "Rocher Percé" (pierced rock). It's original because this place is almost never shot in the winter, what makes the rock an icon (the hole) isn't visible. I'd say the photo is even nice because of the light, the graphic made by the bumps in the ice, and the rock "piercing" through the ice in the foreground. However, every time I look at it, the composition foreground/background is so obvious it kills it for me, and this type of composition is certainly not original.<p>

 

Lastly (ok, that one is more for show-off coz I really like it), <a href=http://www.borealphoto.com/oiseaux2/01.jpg>this one</a> would be original because I have never seen a half-decent shot of an osprey nest that is not taken from below the nest with a blue sky background. But there's nothing else original about it.

[marshall]

Hm. I also was expecting a little more response. That either says that people don't have ideas about what original and creative nature imagery is, they don't believe that there is any, or they lack time or interest in reading my long opening post.

<P>

I quite like the motion in Gloria's suggestion. It's a creative use of motion that nonetheless communicates the subject effectively. In fact, it shows us something we're not used to seeing in the subject.

<P>

I also like Guy's shot of the marbles. It takes a creative eye to see compositions like that. Actually, it's pattern/whole image compositions that I find particularly appealing because I'm working on developing my own eye for that kind of image (only semi-successfully).

<P>

The Rocher Perce (please pardon me for being too lazy to look up the accent aigu keystrokes) shot is, in some ways, a classic example of the challenge in considering creative outdoor photography to be <I>original</I>. The originality of the image isn't expressed unless you are familiar with the scene. What I see on first look is a successful, well-composed, nicely exposed, classically balanced wide angle shot of a standout scene in nice light. It takes a good eye to see this image this way, and it probably takes some creative thought to see that particular scene differently than those who have gone before, but that doesn't automatically translate in a viewer's mind into <I>originality</i>. Now, I'm not meaning to pick on Erick. It's just that this particular image seems to me a good example of the conundrum.

<p>

Ok, so if anyone else notices this thread, let's keep those thoughts coming. I'll do a little searching on my own as well...

[greg s]

I always like Tony's work in general, but did remember this particular photo for its 'originality', not to mention excellence in technique.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/151914

 

Gee, more birds... who woulda guessed! :)

[j._scott_schrader]

Marshall,

 

Thanks for putting the question on the table. I suspect that any of

the images posted in this thread so far would still be seen as

unoriginal by those that harp on something as nebulous as

"originality" in the POW discussion. My impression is that ... in

their minds if one person has done it before it is not original.

That means that 99.999999999999% of all of the photos taken

today are not original.

 

Anyway, I will enjoy following this thread. Here is my offering of a

nature photo that might be seen as "original". (Granted, I'm not

convinced that it works on any level, but I must say that I've never

seen an image like it before.) Curious if any of you have seen

similar shots.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/967352

 

Scott

[erick_lamontagne]

Don't worry Marshall, I don't feel picked on! That was my point. Originality comes under many forms, and originality alone, no matter in what form it comes, is not enough to make a good photograph. I think there's too much "I've never seen it that way" when people talk about originality (I did myself). I prefer to see an original photograph as being true to its author.

[walkinman]

Here's an image I shot this past spring, a double exposure of a

bald eagle. While there's nothing so unusual about one more

bald eagle headshot, I've never seen double exposures of birds

before.

 

http://www.alaskanalpinetreks.com/ForumImages/DoubledEagl

e2.jpg

 

Let me know what you think.

 

Cheers

 

Carl Donohue

[bradsimages]

I wonder if the originality of shooting birds is limited to us because of our terrestrial nature. I always love the shots from that guy who raised geese. Then flew around with them in his ultralite plane and photographed them in flight. With bird photography you are limited in you originality by the fact that maybe the bird doesn't feel like being original! Birds behave in a predictive manner that is the only reason we flightless apes can shoot them! Right? Well just an opinion. Just joined the photo.net today. If I am off beat then please go easy on me:)

[gloria_hopkins]

Carl, that's a beautiful shot. Brad, welcome to photo.net :) I'm not sure I understand your point. Birds can be both predictable and highly unpredictable. It's true that the ability to predict an animal's behaviour allows us to anticipate making the image. But often it's the sudden, unexpected moments that make the most compelling images. Sorry if I missed your point...

[marshall]

Hm. It seems that many of the offered images rely on a certain pictorialist sense to achieve originality. Now, I'm not denigrating the shots by saying that, though I know that some people associate negative connotations with pictorialism historically.

<P>

I am struck by the idea that "Originality" perhaps isn't the right term to measure the aspect of imagery that we're after here. Increasingly, I believe that the concept we're after is Creativity. I don't expect photo.net to change the rating category. To some extent, this is all semantics anyway, as I would fully expect that a couple folks hereabouts, who have been very harsh in their criticism of some nature images, would be equally willing to call those images uncreative as unoriginal.

<P>

I'll throw one example out. Cris Benton's kite-mounted images strike me as creative. They are creative partly because of the method used and the perspective it offers, but in my mind the result has to reflect the creativity, so the best of these are greater than the concept behind their execution. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/931131">His POW</a> is a good example. [Yes, there is an equal measure of originality, if you will, to his non-natural images captured with this technique.]

<P>

But I'm rambling again.

<P>

[Tangentially: no, I'm not planning to offer my nature photography up as particularly original. Though I may feel that I was creative in making some of the images, I will not claim to have achieved originality...]

[greg s]

Carl, The double of the eagle is nice... I would clone out the ghosting on the beak to make it all the better. Besides that, I like the look of the bird's head.

 

Generally, I am most interested in the aesthetics of wildlife/nature photography without applying too much emphasis on non-measureables such as originality or creativity. If they seem obviously present, fine. When people try to force the issue to make an image different from the rest (going abstract), the results can range tremendously. Occassionally a great image is produced.

 

I don't think I would attempt to point to another original photo as the need for aesthetics on my part is probably going to dilute the originality index held by another. :)

 

Cheers, Greg

[canoe guide]

i have been toying with the idea of starting a website for nature work. it's purpose

would be to ferret out new "visions" in nature work by inviting submisssions of

portfolios of 8 - 12 nature images that would be judged and, if accepted, displayed

for sale.

 

the emphasis would be on new "vision" as demonstrated in a coherent, related body

of work, not a collection of "single" images. anybody interested?

 

Gloria, i am interested on your concept, but would like to know more.