galen_hunt1

Why do you prefer the the format(s) you use for nature photography? How and why did you end up using 35, medium, large, or other formats? I've used and enjoyed 35 and 6x7, but not gone larger (yet). I understand many of the advantages and disadvantages of each, yet think it would be very interesting to hear the individual stories behind the preferences. It's easy to get locked into using one system or another; maybe through sharing what we've learned and experienced we can broaden the outlook somewhat.... I don't want to start a war, but rather want to hear why you like/love the format/system you have chosen for the work at hand.

How do you think imaging (and digital capture) will ultimately affect nature photography? Are you excited about it, currently involved with it, or opposed to it--and why? Will there be a place left for the "purist"--the photographer who refuses to corrupt reality and endure the increased expense and complexity???

In his response, Jim mentioned that the huge old growth trees were blown up, away, down, and burned. This is only partially true, but is certainly exactly what the US Forest Service wants people to believe. The truth is that they allowed loggers to "salvage" most of the downed trees, and just left a few fair sized patches to attract the tourists. You wouldn't believe the amount of wood that went out of there over a period of just a couple years (and at no real profit to the USFS....). It's still an amazing sight to behold, but it's unfortunate that the majority of the trees were removed because they decompose and supply vital nutrients to the thick ash that covers everything. It was, in fact, plain dumb. But it made some folks mighty rich.

Brian, Ivan, Glen, and Jim have all mentioned how rewarding it is to have photos taken by themselves on their respective walls. I get great satisfaction from this as well. It does feel great to look at our own wilderness scene or wildlife shot; it's a constant reminder of that epiphanic event in our lives. But just why does it feel so good? I think it is because it compensates for how divorced we have become from our natural environment. If we lived, for example, in a butte-top Anasazi dwelling overlooking 100+ miles of Colorado Plateau landscape in every direction, I don't think we would have much need for photos on our walls... I look at my photos and remember--and become nearer to--certain sacred or special places, places where I would ideally like to be.

Here's another major reason: we hominids have survived for millenia due to our innate drive to control and possess nature. We cannot control this instinct, and if we try to, it will simply "pop out" somewhere else and probably in a well-disguized form (as is true of any basic human need...). Nature photography is such a form. We "take" photos, "capture" images or animals, "shoot" film, and bring home slides as "trophies". The jargon is a dead giveaway. Nature photography is a substitute for hunting, gathering, and altering our environment in a myriad of ways. We satisfy this need when we alter the color of the sky with filters, or finally get that photo of an elusive animal. And imaging makes this all easier than ever. The control is illusory, but very effective. This need to control used to be of survival benefit but now, due to our unrelinquishing need to propagate, threatens the survival of many living creatures on this oblate sphere, including ours. Photographers ARE a special group of people because many have grappled with this issue and consciously chosen a less harmful way in which to be fully alive and human. And when digital "film" makes regular film obsolete, photography will become even less harmful to our world (presently, film production releases the greatest single point source of pollution in the U.S.).

There is no doubt that nature photography can be seen as impractical or even irrational, as Bob points out. I think this very impracticality is one of its major attractions: everything we do in life is done to accomplish some useful purpose. We need another outlet for things that don't make any sense, for artistic endeavors. Ancient cultures (and present indigenous peoples) learned from day one

that art and creation were vital aspects of life, and they learned how to create in many ways. They learned how to see and be with beauty. Hence, their lives often were beautiful. We have created a world in which most of us separate these elements--or exclude the esthetic portion entirely. We don't have the skills to create--to paint, carve, or knap exquisite stone tools by hand. But, if we slow down a lot, some of us can still see beauty, and are attrated to it. Photography gives us the tools to harness this seen beauty when we no longer possess the skills to make it with our own two hands.

...1..2.2./Test 1