Unlikely fishin' buddies

John, my definition of a bias is a prejudice or preconceived idea. It's not that I can't appreciate a photo for what it is. It's that I have a hard time when a photo says it's one thing but in reality it's something else. That's factual. I can appreciate the photo as that "something else," but I can't appreciate the photo as much when the photographer misrepresents it. And it's not that the photographer is intentionally misrepresenting it. Rather, we don't yet have the language to describe a new art form. As Jeremy Jackson said a week or two ago (to this effect), come up with the right language and the controversies disappear. If I have a bias here, it's that I consider the process of obtaining a photo to be an integral part of the photo itself, just as I consider the process of achieving a good score on an exam (e.g., honesty) to be an important part of the earned grade. Some don't care, and to them the value I place on process is a bias, just as I might consider their lack of caring about process to be a bias. But if you integrate the process into the photo, and you differentiate the photos from each other in a way that also includes the process, then I can truly appreciate every photo for what it is, because then what it "is" is factually correct. [iMO at the moment, because I want to keep an open mind on this question.]

Another good example (I think and I hope) is shooting competition. Some competitions allow laser scopes, while others allow only open iron sights. It's not just the grouping of shots on the target that concerns the judges; it's also the process the shooter used to obtain that grouping. I realize that the issue of photography is a lot more complex than this either-or example. As I've said before, the line between a photo that comes straight from the camera and one that relies primarily on the computer for its existence is a very long series of incremental steps, and placement of a line at some point along that continuum is pretty arbitrary. But it's also necessary because the two end points are so entirely different. I like both end points and can appreciate each for what it is, but that becomes harder to do when one end point is described as being the same as the other end point. Give me the language that provides a way to recognize their fundamental differences (just as a painting is different from a photograph), and the issue goes away.

Now I've got to go meet with a realtor to try to sell this house and move away, hopefully to become a homeless person living and traveling in a camper. I'm very, very weary, and while these conversations can be intellectually challenging, for me they are emotionally very draining. It stems from my past, and I'm probably just not cut out for it.

I am as guilty as any of causing these POW discussions to become a debate about photography vs art. I imagine that people might be getting frustrated. Even when the Elves pick a documentary image, we have still consistently managed to turn the POW discussion into a philosophical debate about the relationship and differences between photography and art.

I have a suggestion. Would it make more sense to conduct this discussion, now we are clear that we really do have something to debate about, in the "Philosophy of Photography" forum? Why don't I initiate a thread and call it something like "Photography vs Art" so we can have this debate in a context where it better belongs. Then at least, those of us that are now clearly interested in this issue can say what we want without fear of irrelevance or inappropriateness, and those of us that want to speak more directly to the POW image can do that here.

How about it folks?? JJ

People should go to www.chrisjordan.com and judge for themselves whether he is a visual artist or not. His interest is in visualising our impact on the natural world and I wouldn't call him a journalist. Nor does he refer to himself as one on his website so far as I can see.

I chose the midway series because they challenge people to think about what they mean by wildlife photography - are they still life? Possibly, but they are definitelyphotos of wildlife and the emphasis is on the life of the bird and not on the arrangement. They're not mutually exclusive categories. By erecting a barrier that says photos of dead animals aren't wildlife photos anymore a whole area of exploration is cut off.

People do this all the time - Stevan Arnold, who is a leading evolutionary biologist, wrote an article about the syndrome in Natural History...people complain that no-one does natural history anymore and he pointed out that in fact vast area of research that were originally called Natural History (eg behavioural science, population genetics, evolutionary biology, taxonomy) had been cleaved out and rejected as Natural History by "True Natural Historians". That relabelling should be challenged or we lose our freedom to explore.

Richard, I totally (I think) understand what you are saying here, however, I do think your issue isn't one of limiting the genre of Wildlife Photography but maybe expanding it? Wildlife Photography is generally understood to be a certain kind of imagery and it is generally associated with living animals and a certain amount of stealth to capture the subject in its natural habitat. Certainly, there are examples of Wildlife imagery that deal with death, but generally in the context of immediate animal behaviour. For instance, I don't think one would categorize those images of baby seals being clubbed to death by humans, or the aftermath, as wildlife imagery--maybe I am wrong here but I think we are getting into other areas than Wildlife photography. In any case, I am not opposed to your basic idea at all and think the exploration of these things is very important to conceptual and intellectual growth, but I also think it will get very confusing if we start overlaying new definitions on well defined terms (at least in forums like this--it might be different in a philosophical discussion where the idea is being discussed.)

Jeremy, I think it is a good idea, even if it has already been done there, as it is not a static issue. Hopefully, it won't get so esoteric, as things can become there, that it loses relevance.

Stephen, I guess I gave up a long time ago worrying about what others do or don't do--or what they call it. There is good and there is bad photography. There is sophisticated work and elementary, artistic and not so, etc etc. The reality is that all of these things, and all of these techniques currently lie within the bounds of what is generally considered photography--and maybe rightfully so. At least I don't think I have any right to tell someone that works with photographic imagery, regardless of what they do, that it isn't photography. I also wonder, as has been brought up here, if we aren't just talking about genres or classifications within photography. Misuse of these is plentiful and really doesn't matter in the end as much as whether the image is successful or not.

This image is very lovely!

By Toscana

Jeremy, moving this discussion to another area is a good idea. I feel guilty when discussion on a particular photo, especially a POW, gets sidetracked in part because of my thick skull regarding photography, art, manipulation, etc. I'm sure many who enjoy the POW and just the POW would appreciate the move as well.

Richard, I'm a wildlife biologist, and if I were taking photographs in the manner of Chris Jordan (which I have done), I certainly would not be considering myself a visual artist. I would be (and I was) a reporter and educator, reporting and educating other scientists about important research protocols affecting birds. The emphasis was on the protocols (field techniques), not on the birds; the birds were simply on the receiving end of poorly conceived field techniques. I think John A. summarized my views as well.

John, I'm not a historian but I suspect if we looked at the history of the term we would find that somewhere around the advent of faster films or more powerful flashes someone, as much as a marketing tool as anything, said "that's not wildlife photography, THIS is wildlife photography" and in one fell swoop a whole range of activities was excised. If so I am talking about reclaiming that territory, if not then yes, I've got it arse about.

But, yeah I've said more than enough and I'm happy to see it go elsewhere for a proper flogging by the intellectuals amongst us.

Cross posted with you Stephen - I'm also a biologist and I disagree so I guess it's all in the interpretation. I'm happy with mine and you with yours so life is good.

Edit - Either that or we are talking about different Chris Jordans? But yeah, let's move on.

N'uff said.....

Christopher,
A well deserving Photo of the Week!
It's all been said above many times, but it is very obvious that "patience" does pay off as it did here! I appreciate and know that one does not just stumble upon such a meeting and opportunity as this!
What else is there to say!
Congratulations,
Jim j.

Richard, I checked, and yes, we are talking about the same Chris Jordan. But I didn't realize this was the same person who made those incredible photos regarding "mass consumption" (I watched a television program on how he made these photos). Great work.

I have no question about Chris Jordan being a visual artist. His work titled "Midway" is part of his series on visual art, and I would therefore assume that Chris would consider "Midway" to be visual art. However, for me at least, that still doesn't move it to the category of "wildlife photography." But it is a matter of individual interpretation, and yes, let's just recognize that life is good.

Previously, I categorized "Midway" as photojournalism. Having seen it in the context of Christopher's website and not as an isolated series of photos, I think Christopher meant it to be visual art, not photojournalism, but it is certainly visual art with a very strong message behind it (i.e., it's not for aesthetic enjoyment). I don't want to get too anal about categorizing a photo (some other readers are probably choking right now), and I have a feeling that Christopher might not object to folks considering some of his work as photojournalistic. But I'll just take the photo for what it is (the choking increases), and that's a series of photo with a powerful message. ;>)

Gordon B., n'uff said as long as you agree with me on which is good and which is bad. Otherwise, I anticipate that n'uff hasn't yet been said, and the amicable discussions will continue.

Before this POW expires on Monday, I do want to thank the elves for selecting it, because it has led me to Christopher Dodds portfolio of wildlife photos that I think are exceptional.

Thanks, everyone!

I am neither a biologist nor a philosopher however what makes this image work for me is the knackered yet still alert expression which both the wolf and the bear seem to share.  It is as  if,  bellies full and energy spent,  they still cannot help gazing at all that food swimming by, not unlike a child staring at the window of a pastry shop.   Sure those decisive moment shots with stop action bears frozen in pursuit are dramatic and lovely, however this contemplative moment has a charm of its own.

A beautiful moment captured beautifully.  A fine addition to an inspiring portfolio.

Richard, could you explain what does it mean: "...porqupine photos and ways to transcend the subject whilst maintaining an honest portrait of the creature..."

Sure Kristina...what we were discussing is ways to create a photograph of a porcupine that indisputably shows a porcupine yet encourages viewers to think about more than just porcupines. It might be something as simple as an abstraction (colours, textures) or an emotion (joy, mystery, menace); or it might be something really broad like environmental impacts. Chris Jordan's Midway series is a good example of the latter - at an objective level they are simply very straight-forward photographs of dead albatross chicks, but what they encourage viewers to think about, particularly in the context of his other works, is the impact of human mass consumption on the natural world.

I stuck an example in my portfolio - didn't really want to post it in here since it isn't my thread and I'm not a wildlife photographer anyway. I had a series of photos of a grazing porcupine taken during a sea kayaking trip to Kenai Fjords NP in Alaska. Some were indisputably photographs of a grazing porcupine, whereas unrooting the animal from its surroundings resulted in a much less constrained image...these were the kinds of things we discussed.

You hv got the shot! Two great hunters usually competing each others and now peacefully waiting together their preys!! What a shot!!

Richard,
I understand better now. I think it really works this idea, from looking at your porcupine, the image does look less constrained. (I haven't yet seen Jordan's portfolio, cause I'm having some technical troubles of opening his page.)
But somehow I'm still confused about how to transcend an object, animal in this case.

Transcend is being used in the sense of "to pass beyond the limits of"...the goal in this sense is to photograph in a way that encourages your viewers to think or feel about more than the literal content of the photo. To move beyond representation and towards communication. A portrait might illustrate power or vulnerability, a photograph of a bunch of blurry goats might also illuminate those fleeting sensations we get when a half-seen animal passes by...that kind of thing. A fun exercise is instead of categorising your photographs by literal content try categorising them by emotional content - suddenly a gentle waterfall is in the same category as a park bench. The literal content has been transcended by the feeling of being restful. This is an exercise promoted by John Shaw that I think is very helpful.

I guess what I should have said and didn't is that the next step in the exercise is to go out and create new photographs that fit with the emotional (or whatever) categories you have identified. To continue the thought let's say you decide to photograph a shady spot under a tree to add to your waterfall and park bench images - now you are no longer photographing trees or shade, you are photographing the way you feel about that place. In other words you are trying to create photographs that represent a concept rather than a thing, and if you are lucky your photographs will convey to other people how you feel about those kinds of places.
It seemed to me that the ways you might approach wildlife in this manner are essentially limitless, but subsequent discussion has made me realise that by definition it would then no longer be considered "wildlife photography" sensu stricto.

I see now. I guess it's been always hard for me to communicate emotionally through my photos. I totally understand what you mean by creating that kind of concept, that it needs to go beyond literal. Well, I'll give a try and will exercise that.