markus_arike Posted July 2, 2001 Share Posted July 2, 2001 <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="Microsoft Word 97"> <TITLE>What makes a given Nature image "conventional"</TITLE> <META NAME="Template" CONTENT="D:\PROGRAM FILES\MICROSOFT OFFICE\OFFICE\html.dot"> </HEAD> <BODY LINK="#0000ff" VLINK="#800080"> <P>What makes a given Nature image "conventional"? Do all good nature images need to "push the envelope" for them to be successful? I'm not so sure. I believe that the natural world can be so beautiful, so breathtaking, that often it is enough to simply record that beauty. Filtration, odd camera angles, blurs, infrared, etc. all have their place in photography. But to what extent are these devises <I>necessary</I> in one photographer's attempt to record the natural world? Too me, a good subject, good composition, and quality of light are three of the more important aspects that go into creating a striking image. And I am certainly no expert on these three elements, but I do like to photograph early in the AM or late in the day when the good light is upon us. What are some of the more important elements that make a quality image? </P> <P> My portfolio has been up for about a week and while there are several cliché images there, I feel that they are fairly well done cliches. I've been a bit puzzled by the consistently low scores of "2's" and "3's" that most of my photos have received. While I've gotten several nice emails from people at other Nature Photography websites giving me support, here at Photo.net, let's just say that words like "boring", and "conventional" are what I've frequently heard. Anyway, I'm not looking for any pats on the back or compliments. You can look at my images <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=128455">here</A> and <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=130770">here</A>. Macro shots <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=131070">here</A> and there are some new Black & White NYC street images that are not Nature related <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=131433">here</A>. I just wonder what people feel makes an image "unconventional" and "interesting"? The closest I've seen to something original and semi-avante garde is the work of an up and coming nature photographer named Mark Oatney. A lot of very interesting Macro works with shallow depth of field and infrared cows. But I was wondering how each of you attempts to be innovative and "push the limits of perception"? Or do you simply want to record the natural world the way you see it? And finally, how does this willingness to be fresh, exciting, and "unconventional" relate to Nature Photography?</P> </BODY> </HTML> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_monas1 Posted July 2, 2001 Share Posted July 2, 2001 Markus: I don't usually join in the rate-a-photo sessions, but your questions are similar to things I ask myself when I take pictures. I ask myself "what is the story behind this image?" I like your images of NYC, they are in focus and everything, but they don't excite me. I guess I look for people to add that dimension. I would have liked to see the taxi driver's face, or some other kind of action taking place at the places you photographed. Bottom line -- a photo should tell a story, make me appreciate what is gong on, make me smile --- be more than technically perfect. That's my $0.02 worth, hope it helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowan stark Posted July 2, 2001 Share Posted July 2, 2001 Markus, your pictures are fine. I think one of the challenges of nature photography, is dealing with the hand we're dealt. Unlike studio photographers, our models can't be pre-selected, we can't control the elements or in most cases, lighting. I've got a ton of duck portraits in my slide collection. They look a lot like your duck portraits. It's a combination of shooting in unique environments, knowing something about the biology of your subject, and dumb luck that probably set memorable shots apart from the mundane ones. I take a big hit on 'originality' ratings too, and although I'm not a big fan of the rating system, I think I'm a little more aware than I used to be. I'll now ask myself, "what can I do to make this duck more interesting?". If I can't answer it, I'll probably move on. A better photographer would find a way. I was at a large format workshop with Steve Simmons (editor of Camera Arts and View Camera) last fall in New Mexico. We were on our way to a location, and he pulled over to the side of the road and asked us if we knew where we were. There was some scrub, an old church, some non-descript trees and mountains in the background. Puzzled, we all looked at each other trying to figure out the point. The nearby roadsign read "Hernandez". We were standing in the spot that Ansel Adams made one of his most famous images! He made the shot in a hurry in failing light and didn't have time to make a meter reading. I guess that's the kind of thing that sets us apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art_haykin Posted July 2, 2001 Share Posted July 2, 2001 And it goes without saying that we are inundated with imagesof every imaginable kind, especially since television. There,talented, well financed pros, often working as teams, will spend days, even weeks to get some usable footage or stills, and "waste" a fortune in stock that never gets seen. So wetend to get a bit jaded and over sated. Small wonder. Andthey have the equipment, in addition to the know how. Theybuild elaborate blinds, and set up lures to attract animalsinto situations. They have Land Rovers, and equipment bearers,and $20,000 lenses and $3000 tripods, etc. And they have the time! It's nearly impossible for the grunts to compete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_macpherson Posted July 2, 2001 Share Posted July 2, 2001 Art/Markus - well, my partner and I decided to make a wildlife documentary film on 16mm. We had no experience of filmmaking, although I had 20 years of still photo experience. We hunted for and found a 20 year old well-used and beat-up Arriflex SR camera, searched for the cheapest dented and scuffed 300mm f2.8 Canon we could find, and got a decent fluid head tripod. <P>So far so good. A lot of pros have the same gear. We got ours as cheap as we could find. <P>We wanted to film otters, and they are elusive. We spent months first just watching, observing their behaviour, the times they were active, the places they frequented. Only then did we start trying to film them. We vowed that the animals would not be disturbed by our presence, as we had seen many otter documentaries where the animals were obviously aware of the camera, and we knew this must have affected their behaviour. We wanted to fim 'natural' behaviour. <P>We spent two years on the project, working part-time in our 'day jobs' and spending all our spare time filming, through 2 sub-zero winters (yes, sleeping in an old Land Rover!) and torrential summer rain (and some sunshine!). We were rewarded with footage of behaviour which experts have been amazed by. One of the most respected wildlife documentary production companies in the world described the work as "the best footage of wild otters we have ever seen". Now we pursue broadcast of it. <P>We pushed the envelope......of our limited filming abilities, our patience, our tolerance of cold and insects, and our finances.<P>Sometimes, to 'push the envelope' what you need is drive and ambition, and a desire to do a good job. Grunts CAN compete. The 'pros' dont always have a monopoly on vision, obsession or luck! <P><P><P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_ashton Posted July 2, 2001 Share Posted July 2, 2001 Now this is just my opionion, but pushing the envelope with Nature photography is best achieved using patience. To illustrate: A couple of years ago my wife and I saw a bobcat at Anahuac NWR. We shared this information with several "regulars" who were amazed at our "luck". The "(1) noisy grandchild, (2) I can drive this route as fast as I like, (3) I've been coming here for twenty years and. . . . (4) fill in the blanks" comments. There was little luck. We switch off the ignition, sit and wait. Sometimes something happens. Often. . . . nothing. C'est la vie mon cher. (Since you insisted on suggesting that Nature photography could be "avant garde"!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_lagrange3 Posted July 2, 2001 Share Posted July 2, 2001 Markus, I listened to a presentation once by Dewitt Jones. One of the things he said has really stuck with me (hopefully I remember it correctly). He was very focused on his audience. He asked himself whether or not the image was able to communicate the beauty of nature that he observed. Did it capture and communicate the moment he was experiencing? The two words "Hey, ... Look!" were his way of measuring what he was seeing. The meaning I took from this was, "hey look at what I saw. Can I take you there without the need for supporting narrative or description? Can I stop you for even a moment and share with you a beautiful moment of what I experienced?" What I got out of that was a challenge to myself to show people through my images, something they otherwise would have just passed by. To me, documentary of the conventional is OK. But, for me it is a disappointment to be conventional. Therefore I strive to capture a moment that somehow is decisive, impactful, and hopefully different. Does it cause someone to pause from their hurried lives to pause for even a moment .... and say "Hey, Look at that!" The hard part is deciding whether or not I have been successful. It is very subjective. Do I base it on the impact of my intended audience. Is it good enough that I am pleased? What if they don't give me the feedback that I expected? As for me, I like getting the feedback of my peers. It has helped me get better. The question I ultimately as myself is, does it meet the test of "hey ... look" at what I saw. Have I successfully taken the viewer where my minds eye lead me? Pretty subjective huh? Thanks Dewitt and thank Markus for the great question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger___3 Posted July 2, 2001 Share Posted July 2, 2001 My photographic skills are nothing to brag about, but will offer opinion. Markus, you say, "Too me, a good subject, good composition, and quality of light are three of the more important aspects that go into creating a striking image". I'd say that these elements are a good start for a good, but not striking image. The apspect I would offer as missing is drama, sentiment, emotion or what ever you might call it. Add one of these, and you turn a good image into a striking image. As for pushing the envelope, I do landscapes mostly and will hike 6 or more miles in a day at times, with a 30 pound pack. As I like the sunrise/and sunset magic light, I carry a headlamp and will often hike a few of these miles in the dark. I return to places with promise time and time again hoping to catch things just right. I hope one of these days my photos will reflect my efforts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
struan_gray Posted July 3, 2001 Share Posted July 3, 2001 Markus, who are you photographing for, and why? Your photographs are excellent, but didn't show me anything I hadn't seen (and photographed) myself many, many times before. That fact is completely irrelevant until you start asking me to rate your photos for originality, at which point it becomes central. You choose. I love nature photos, and can't get enough of them, but the common run of well-composed, well-exposed, well-focussed shots I love as a naturalist, not as a photographer. As a photographer I like images which capture a mood, a gesture or a truly unique experience. That's much, much harder to do. These people succeed quite often: www.klumphotography.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexandre_vaz Posted July 3, 2001 Share Posted July 3, 2001 I do not know of any definitive and objective criteria to determine what is art and what is not, or what is good or what is bad. In my opinion, originality is often overestimated. The simple pursuit for originality leads frequently to hollow and absurd artistic statements. Nature itself is full of beauty, but I consider the real challenge to capture and emphasize the subtle ingredients of that overall beautiness. When a I go out shooting, I try to let my mind as open as it can be and I try to translate the feelings I�m experiencing into photographic scenes. Obviously, sometimes I don�t experience any particular and intense feelings about what surrounds me, and I just look in a methodical way to interesting compositions or technical photographic experiences. In a simple way, I could classify each photography within one of the three following classes: 1- Pictures that are less interesting then the scene. 2- Pictures that illustrate the scene as it is. 3- Pictures that are even more interesting then the real scene. To make pictures of the second group technical skills are definitely necessary, but even a sophisticated robot would be able to shoot them. What makes an image real unique is the presence of the personality of the photographer, and that is exactly what I try to do when I�m shooting. Human minds are very diversified, but there are obvious aesthetic patterns, so it�s natural that different people may have somehow similar approaches to the subjects they are photographing, or painting or writing about. The quality of the work of any photographer can be measured in many different ways. The opinion from other photographers is certainly interesting to hear, but is not a definitive judgment. In spite of the diversity of the Photonet contributors, which I�m glad to be part of, there are in my opinion a "Photonet way of thinking". Many things could be said about the this way of thinking, I will just say that it�s easy not to feet into the commonly accepted Photonet quality patterns. Markus mentioned about originality Mark Oatney, witch I�m a big fan, I would like to add, that to me photographic originality is not about fancy effects or strange subjects. The real originality lies in the angle, the insight the emotion. The originality of the following are certainly a source of inspiration to me: Jim Brandenburg http://www.jimbrandenburg.com/home.html David Doubilet http://www.doubiletphoto.com/ David Leeson & Kim Ritzenthaler http://www.fieldandforest.com/gallery.html Eddie Soloway http://www.anaturaleye.com/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_anthes Posted July 3, 2001 Share Posted July 3, 2001 Markus, you say your photos have been judged "conventional" and "boring". I think those terms are hardly synonymous. Boring is bad. Conventional is not bad if the photos pass other tests. I found some of your photos boring (sorry) while some are conventional but quite good, IMHO. I'd be proud to have taken your duck photos and would be pleased to have them hanging on my walls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imaginator Posted July 6, 2001 Share Posted July 6, 2001 At the right place, at the right time: this could mean hours of effort, or gold ol' dumb luck. Nature can be very unpredictable! By "pushing the envelope" do you mean "going to extremes" in terms of effort and equipment? Sometimes this helps... other times you just stop to take your shoes off and suddenly notice a "special moment". The real skill is in recognizing the opportunity when you see it. I agree that many shots are simply "beautiful" and are sucessful even if the only thing they make you think is "I wish I were there..." or "I feel like I'm actually there...), but don't forget to look for the more unusual or thought provoking shots. This is where creativity comes into play. We're not just "recording" nature, we're "recording" feelings. Also, don't worry about ratings and numbers! In sixth grade (1971) I was labeled with an IQ number of 141... the truth is that I was just good at taking tests. Believe me, I've done plenty of "stupid" things in my life. Anyway, the rating system is about as useless as those old IQ tests were. Feelings are too personal and complex to put into numbers anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martin_ceperley Posted July 9, 2001 Share Posted July 9, 2001 The old nature vs fine art photography conundrum. I think alot of nature photographer's deny themselves, as well as their emotions in the process of showing 'nature's beauty'. What makes an artist is someone who brings themselves to their work and makes it personal. "Too me, a good subject, good composition, and quality of light are three of the more important aspects that go into creating a striking image". What do you mean good??? Good can mean a hell of alot of different things, and I think youve been reading a few too many textbooks. What's a good subject? You mean those flowers over there? What about the gravel path under your feet, with a wonderful texture. I'm sorry sir, but the best photographs I've seen have been of 'bad' subjects that showed me them in a different way. Once you label something as a good subject, then must everything else be ignored? And as for light, it is a little known fact that wonderfull photographs, even *gasp* nature photographs, have been made in harsh sunlight in the middle of the day. You just have to look at the light, and photograph it as it is, not how you wish it could be. If it's raining outside, you could complain about the rain or you could go outside and photograph. Stop thinking in terms of good and bad and think about feelings and thoughts and what your want the viewer to feel or think. And stop listening to groups of photographers, too, they tend to give bad advice. Just please yourself and everything else will follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now