frederick_thurber

Too bad you didn't try Monhegan a couple of years ago; the

deer would walk right up to you.

If Swan is anything like Monhegan used to be (before the herd

was extirpated), you will not have any difficulty finding them.

In fact, you may trip over one.

The first thing I would do is get the Lyme Disease vacine; I had

Lyme and it is no fun.

Next bring some "bait" to the island such as apples. Then see what

happen; expect to see deer at dusk; if you can figure out their

haunts, you should be able to bait them. Put up your blind the next

night and wait. On Monhegan a blind was not needed; I was able to

feed the deer by hand and take snapshots with a cheesy instamatic

style camera. No need for telephotos, in this case, anyway,

but bring the big glass for the migrating warblers in August. Stalking them is a DIFFERENT story...

Try some of the mosquito netting outfits. There are integrated shirts and headnets available along with pants and

gloves. The problem is focusing through the netting; autofocus

helps.

On fallout of this tragedy will be that the bureaucrats

will try to seal off access to the canyons at any hint of rain.

This is a classic problem facing rockclimbers; wresting access

from the bureaucrats.

It is only fair to mention that the Fuji TruColor

Lab in AZ found my slides and sent them back last week.

Happy. Happy. Joy. Joy. I should also note that the

person who got my slides annotated one of them [my prized

Black-throated Green Warbler] as "the best". Eeesh.

I must say that Fuji was quite supportive during

this whole ordeal, even to me who pestered them almost every

week. For future reference, their number [which is NOT on

their mailers] is (800) 283-3686; ask for the "mailers"

department.

Of all the labs that I have brought Velvia to, Fuji is

as good or better than any of them at about 1/2 the cost.

However

they are slow, much slower than Kodachrome processing at

Qualux, but still worth the wait.

> 2. The claim that "nature photographs must be 'natural'" seems to me

>to based on the flawed notion that photographs objectively record

>"reality" (the implication being that digital images are somehow "fake"),

>when in fact this has never and will never be the case.

I am not saying it is right, but the public thinks there

is a big difference. To them anything done in the darkroom

or with filters is OK. Hey, how natural is Black and White

film? But still this is considered OK by the public.

Whether you like it or not, the public will always

consider digital manipulation of nature photos taboo. Just

ask Art Wolfe; I am sure he had some good rationalizations

also.

Another problem I have is that digital manipulation

is too tempting; first the "photographer" might enhance

the contrast, maybe that is OK, then the "photographer" might

add a catchlight to a birds's eye, maybe that is not so good,

then the photographer will be tempted to change the background,

well..., and then he/she starts adding Zebras...

<p>

Remember that analog photos can be doctored also; but

these photos don't do well as "nature" photos.

It is interesting to note all the rationalizations of the

photographers that would have us believe that digital

manipulation of nature photos is OK [i suspect that all

these people have already invested in the hardware / software].

We are free to rationalize all we want, but the general public

is not going to put up with it. They want nature photography to be natural, adn that menas no digital manipulation. Period. As

Sue Hubell says, "I am an analog person in a digital

world." And so is most of the public; the last thing they want

in a beautiful, natural scene are computer-generated ersatz images.

Photographers that disguise digitally altered images

as natural ones will be ruined when they are discovered. Even

photographers who admit digital alteration will get in trouble,

witness Art Wolfe.

What I cannot understand is how we got in such a mess.

If I was a pro taking unaltered, unstaged shots to make a

living, I would be furious with the New Nature Fakers.

> <P>I think a healthy dose of common sense and respect for nature is in order,

> especially when animals don't have a clear way of communicating back to the

> photographer. I'd rather err on the side of less intrusion rather than more;

> most of these animals are pretty defenseless against humans.

This seems reasonable to me.

A few years ago there was

an article about bird photography in Wild Bird extolling the

importance of not disturbing nest sites (I will try to dig up the article). With the article was a nice photo of a Magnolia

Warbler pair at their nest However, if you looked carefully

at the photo, it *looked like* one of the branches over the

nest had been cut or broken. It seems to me that a better

method would be to pin the branch back with a clothespin and

release the branch after the photo session.

Speaking of passerines, in the current issue of

_Birder's World_ there is a lovely shot of a Cedar Waxwing.

However, on close inspection the bird looks a little woozy;

it is not clasping its perch and its eye is not fully open.

What is going on? Fermented berries? Maybe the photographer

caught the bird at an odd momnent.

> <P>Your average Hollywood blockbuster probably has over $50 million budgeted for special effects, a large part of which is computer graphics. The reason to do this with computers is that they are more efficient (especially when dealing with millions of images) than traditional manual image manipulation.

Ah, but that is Sci-Fi. When the public views "Nature

Photography" they are expecting something "natural". That is

why Marty Stauffer is ruined and Art Wolfe, if not ruined,

may have a tough time.

> "wild setting" vs. "man made setting"

> "real" vs. "manipulated" or "fake"

>

> and so on. I have a hard time with people who try to convince me that there is much difference between the "natural world" and the "man made world". Is not man part of nature?

>

<p>

To me, there is a huge, huge difference between an

river otter in, say, Baxter State Park, ME, and one in a zoo

or a game farm. Which one would you rather see in a calendar?

There is even more difference between a zebra on an

African grassland and one that is digitally created.

When you buy an antique piece of furniture, how would you feel if

you found out afterwards that it was a reproduction? Who cares

how "artistic" the reproduction is? A reproduction is a FAKE,

especially if you bought it thinking it was real. I suppose that

one could admire the "artistry" of fakery, but would you rather,

say, have a real Picasso or a fake?

<p>

In my opinion, and other will differ, image manipulation such as

Art Wolfe's _Migrations_ and staged wildlife photography, such as

Marty Stauffer's wildlife films, has discredited and devalued ALL

nature photography in the public's eye. It may not be right, but

that is the way things work. The public is not discriminating

enough to look at the photo credits (if they are there) and say,

"Hmmm, that is Arthur Morris and he does real photography" or,

"Hmmm, that is Art Wolfe and he is an 'artist' so his work could

could have been altered."

<p>

Nope, the public now thinks all nature photography is fake. And

for good reason; these days almost all glossy canine or fox photos

are staged in addition to many mammal shots. There is even some

fakery in song bird photography (captive birds, etc.).

<p>

Instead of putting the time in, spending years in the field

stalking wild animals, many nature photographers have opted for

the quick profits and devalued the whole field. Thanks Art and

Marty.

<p>

It may be too late, but legit nature photographers should insist

on disclosure on the part of photographers. Art Wolfe is probably

ruined; I will never have respect for him again, and I doubt the

public will. I am sure that there are many in denial about this,

but the fact remains that he will never enjoy the success he did

before the public realized he was a nature faker.

<p>

It might still be possible for legit photographers to create a

niche for themselves. Would you rather buy a calendar of birds

photographed in the zoo or wild birds? Photos of wild animals in

natural settings that have not been manipulated should sell better

if they are marked as such. You might say it does not matter to

you if the photos have been altered or staged, but it sure does to

the public and NPR.

Fuji swapped my roll of Black-throated Green Warblers

with someone's shots of seals, whales, and paddling in

the Pacfic Northwest / Alaska area. If you are looking

for your seal slides, contact Fuji Trucolor; I sent them back.

If you have my warblers, please send them to Fuji or me.

BTW, I have had excellent luck with the TruColor lab up

until now. They do as good a job with Velvia as anyone locally,

but at 1/3 the price.