In fear of Fashion

I have always viewed Nature Photography as being similar to Portrait
Photography, in the sense that the "story" the picture tells is one that projects a sense of truth.

To my way of thinking, a good portrait reveals a certain truth about the subject's character. That is the main purpose and measure of success of a good portrait, people that know the subject well, will hopefully exclaim "that's it, that's the person I know, you've captured their spirit, their essence, exactly ". The measure of success is not how good you made the person look, how attractive they appear, at least that's not the measure of
a truly meaningful portrait.

Nature photography, in my opinion, should have similar aspirations.
However, I wonder if I am seeing a somewhat disturbing trend, a shift
towards what's fashionable. Fashion Photography can be innovative and
expressive but is that the norm? Take a look at what is the norm, look at any newsstand and what do you see, in most cases? Pretty faces, famous faces, faces that are so manipulated to look "perfect" via airbrushing etc, that they don't resemble reality anymore.

Is there any harm in this? Well, many people believe there is. For example,many young females feel a great pressure to conform to the false ideals that these fashion publications project. They think
these images are reality and perhaps the path to become fashionable.

What I find disturbing are some signs, at least in my own experience, of a subtle pressure to conform to what's fashionable, in the area of Nature Photography. In a similar way, perhaps, many people new to
this genre will see the path to "success" follows a similar, non realistic route.

Examples of what I mean are images that are overly saturated with colour,cloning out all "objectionable" details that "take away" from the main subject. Inserting objects into the scene. Idolization of certain iconic type scenes. To me, they are very similar to the
airbrushing and celebrity promotion that the fashion industry portrays.

I'm no innocent either. I start out adjusting colour etc. to match what I saw and then I often go quite a bit further, I guess to the point of matching what looks better, at least to many of my peers here at NPN. In doing so I know I will get many more approving comments and those types of images sell better too.

I draw the line at cloning and really don't see the point of adding objects to scenes that didn't appear there, in reality. But still, I feel the pressure and wonder if anyone else does too?

What about you people who haven't compromised your principles as I feel I have. Do you think you get your fair share of comments. Do you ever get frustrated because people just don't seem to get what you are trying to accomplish?

Maybe, I'm just imagining this is an issue to anyone else? Have you ever thought about this, as an issue? Thanks, Tim

PS - I don't mean to offend anyone, like I said, I'm as quilty as the next person.

Interesting post and thoughts, Timothy. I think you're onto something.

Conformance is a big part of life, and it's not just found in photography. It appears to me that there's a fair number of people at NPN (especially ESS) who tailor their images and post-processing to fit with the 'fashion'.

As for cloning IN objects, is that really done here? I don't see evidence of it. That's more in line with The Enquirer. I can't see how it'd be generally helpful unless one is cloning in a unicorn or a lightning bolt striking Delicate Arch or Half Dome....

Looking forward to reading the commentary.

Tim -

As someone new to photography, but an avid NPN user, I've thought about these things too. Does too much sharing of photos drive everyone toward identical results? And increase pressure to achieve them? I've wondered if I should be trying to be more creative so I'm not just copying what others do. I think maybe just taking lots of pictures, seeing what I like, and not getting them critiqued might be better sometimes. That way you might lean less toward what's fashionable and strike out on your own.

As far as image manipulation, I think that's a pretty subjective choice. In my case, I don't mind some minor cloning - a branch, a piece of trash in the grass, etc. As long as it doesn't change the intent of the image. I realize that others would go way farther, or not clone at all - and it's an ongoing, and probably fruitless debate.

As for other modifications, sometimes viewing great photos does make you want to push the envelope - maybe a lot of saturation, or shadow detail, or whatever. (If only that branch wasn't there...) I also feel this is OK, as long as it represents a reality - maybe not exactly what you saw, but perhaps what you perceived or felt. For example - a long exposure will never show what you really saw, since your eyes don't work that way. But it can show how you perceive a place. So I place some of the modification you mentioned in the same category. I guess this means I don't feel pressured to use them, since I think they are fine - just options.

There is a definite similarity to the "fashion" photographs you mention, however. I don't know where the line is between conveying a nature photo to someone, and cloning out skin blemishes on celebrities. I think either way, you're trying to make something "perfect" that wasn't "perfect" when you saw it - hence the pressure when you just know that someone will realize things aren't perfect. I think, though, that for "fashion" photogs, they're just trying to make something pretty - and ideally, with a nature photo, it's a little bit (at least) more about emotion.

And as far as my photos receiving comments, I'm grateful for getting any, no matter if I've posted something that has some modification, or none at all.

(Sorry to ramble, to anyone who's gotten this far...)

Timothy,

I don't think this is anything new. When learning any art or craft, the best way to learn is to imitate what we like. Once a solid foundation of skills are set, it may be possible to develop a personal style.

The vast majority in any artistic endeavor never progress beyond imitation and the few true artists blaze the trail for the next "fashion". I believe it's just the nature of the beast.

I am definitely in the imitation stage of development. Hopefully one day my basic skills can develop to the point of being secondary to the creative process. Only then will I know if I have anything original to say through my images.

Regards,
David

Tim...what you are seeing is pretty normal human nature. Conformity seems to be a pretty strong human instinct. Desire for praise/acceptance is pretty normal. Why does one post an image? Do you only post what you think is your 'best' images...or push the envelope and post something that you feel is less that perfect or different and look to see what the reaction is? How do you choose what image to comment on? Do you add the 10th or 15th or 20th comment saying how great an image is? It probably really is a fantastic image but does that person really need another great, fantastic, beautiful? Why not move on to the image that has 0 or 1 comments and give that person some honest feedback? When I look at any image, my own or any here or anywhere else.... if I like it, I try to understand what elements I like about the image so I can apply them to my work and also what I don' like about an image. To me the bottom line is if you have moved into the realm of creating images to please others and not your vision of what you would like to create you are pretty much lost. I am not saying that the two are mutually exclusive but they definetly are not always inclusive.
I think your post will encourage others to be non-conformist to the extent they can be. Human nature is what it is. Society wouldn't be where it is today if everyone was totally non-conformal. Chaos would rule.....but a little chaos once in awhile is a good thing.

Bill

Michael,
I'll give an example of what I mean by inserting objects, not by means of cloning, I meant by cloning out objects. But anyways ( and I hope this doesn't offend the person ) , awhile back this person bought a prop ( a natural object ), at a giftshop, took it out into the field and photographed it in a very nice natural setting. Now , to their credit, they didn't try to fool anyone, they were very upfront about it, but still I was a little bit shocked, and I said so. I was the only one here, to my recollection that even muttered any kind of objection. Everyone else thought it was just great. I just don't get it. Thanks, Tim

Tim - From my point of view, the reason that you were shocked is because of the intent you seem to have with your images. If the intent is to capture what you can see and find while walking around/hiking/camping/etc, then adding props certainly taints this capture process.

However, if the intent is to create an image that - while not "found" or "real" - still evokes what a place is like, or how beautiful it is, or creates a scene that makes people smile.

If the intent is to "find" the best photo possible, and someone "creates" a good photo, that certainly seems like cheating. But only if that's the intent in the first place. In a critique forum, this is usually upfront, in terms of props used. However, if you saw this at a shop, or in a brochure, and it's not stated it seems unfair.

Not sure where others fall with this, but I'd prefer things were found, rather than created or added.

I have said it many times - I don't photograph for photography's sake. I photograph as an extension of my love for the outdoors. Using props will not enhance my experience in any way and I personally have no interest in staging scenes beyond maybe moving some found leaves or branches around.

I have to say I feel your analogy is wrong though. Women suffering physical harm in order to conform to unreal expectations is a far cry from promoting a natural scene photographed in its prime.

I think many try to avoid conformism for the sake of not conforming rather than any real benefit. I find this sentiment rather pathetic - to be different for the sake of being different means one doesn't think enough of themselves to believe they can excel and stand out in other ways.

I am not going to eat stale food just because the rest of the world likes tasty dishes. I am not going to listen to horrific screeches just because most of the world enjoys soothing melodies, and I am not going to accept flawed images just because the world prefers visual beauty.

In other words - who cares what the world thinks. Whay makes YOU happy? Whether it falls in line with the norm or not hardly matters.

Guy

hey Guy

I think what Timothy's expressing is an interesting and valid point. To use your words, what makes YOU happy is largely informed by the preconceptions and perspectives you bring to the party, and those are a function of the kind photography we're so flooded with, the 'norm' as Timotthy describes it.

I'm also surprised you feel his anlogy with fashion photography is inappropriate. I'd say it's pretty insightful. For example, it (nature photography) definitely plays a deciding role in how the culture views habitat and conservation issues .. one of the main arguments I've seen expressed supporting the opening of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to drilling is that the place is not 'beautiful'. Photographers, including myself, have gone to lengths to change that misperception, but few have said 'well, the place is not beautiful (it is), but there are reasons to protect it'. Similarly, Jack Turner wrote a lot about nature photography and the detriment it can lead to, in the Abstract Wild .. I think much of what he wrote has substance, don't you?

Cheers

Carl

I think the whole premise of your argument is wrong, Timothy. Cloning, enhancing, manipulating, etc, etc, etc has nothing to do with mimicry. Digital enhancement is such a wide-open space that if you try to duplicate someone else's style you're basically doomed to failure. There are so many options for working an image that there's no way you'll figure out how someone does what they do. Working an image in PS or whatever software you choose is merely a way to add your own personal touch to the scene. To essentially make it something that no one else can mimic no matter how hard they try.

I think the bigger risk to conformity is shooting in JPEG mode with your digital camera and accepting what the camera decides is the proper look for your image. When that happens, and I've seen it here on NPN, all images do come out looking the same. In many ways, the perfection from digital capture is the worst thing that has happened to photography. Photographers are probably loosing their ability and desire to create personal expressions as a result. Digital images are becoming so conformist, IMO, that I long for a little manipulation to actually reveal some subject character. I really think you're shooting at the wrong target here. Far from of bemoaning that digital manipulation leads to conformity, I see it as digital photography's bet shot at avoiding it.

Carl, I think we're talking about two different things - one is a personal aspect (preferences, conformity, satisfaction, concept of beauty etc.), while the other is social or even global in nature (what is worth saving, what does good/bad on a larger scale etc.). It's true that one may lead to the other but I think that's an entirely different argument.

Turner makes a great case for how humans fail to preceive the real world. I certainly agree with him there. He makes no call for change though as far as I remember. I believe that like me he feels he is witness to the downfall of humanity and that these flawed perceptions and egotistical motives will ultimately be our demise. Photography may play a minor role in that but hardly sets the trend.

Guy

yo F Timothy

several thoughts:

1. re: fashion/trends - "At best styles and trends and fashions are but clothes for the raison d'etre of any art. At the worst, fashions, styles and trends function as traps for the unwary....though we follow trends or get on bandwagons we can always get off and head towards the eternal significance, Spirit." ~ Minor White, Equivalence: The Perennial Trend...

2. re: "...a subtle pressure to conform to what's fashionable...to the point of matching what looks better, at least to many of my peers here at NPN..." - NPN is a photography club or actually a club of clubs - ESS club, Macro club, Avian club, et al, each with its own set of dictates...as is the norm for clubs (a gathering/group of like-minded individuals - at least like-minded regarding a specific interest), a certain self-referential group-think takes hold...nothing new there...in my opinion, the best way to learn and grow is to step out of line and act up....

3. re: David C. wrote, "When learning any art or craft, the best way to learn is to imitate what we like. Once a solid foundation of skills are set, it may be possible to develop a personal style." - this might be the greatest and most wide-spread butt-backwards bad advice ever foisted on aspiring artists...consider this from the great American artist and educator Robert Henri - "Those who get their techique first, expecting sight (vision, personal style) to come to them later, get a technique of a very ready-made order....a great artist is both a great imaginer and great employer of practical science. First there must be the man, then the technique...the man who is forever acquiring technique with the idea that sometime he may have something to express, will never have the technique of the thing he wishes to express."

and, most importantly, "The techique learned without a purpose is a formula, which when used, knocks the life out of any idea to which it is applied."

put the damn camera on auto, go out and shoot your __s off, and find your passion...then learn/develop/invent the technique you need to express it....

4. re: sense of truth/reality - the absolute bedrock of the medium of photography is the camera's ability to render the object of its gaze with stark clarity and a sense of the real or true. it is the one formal characteristic of the medium that distinguishes it from all other visuals arts...at the dawn of photography, this ability/characteristic is what prevented most from considering it anything other than another form of "industry"...

early practioners, ignoring this bedrock "weakness" of the medium, proceeded to heap all manner of "artistic" pictorial effects on the photographic print in an effort to be recognized as art...painters, on the other hand, quick to recognize that photography held sway over the dominion-of-the-real, subsequently veered off into the exploration and creation of more impressionistic forms of their art...

it took the guts, genius and vision (some might say backward vision) of photographers the likes of Stieglitz, Steichen, Evans, and others to yank photography back to its "reality"-based roots...

today's velvists and saturation-slider-11-ists represent a return to the good old days of trying to make photography into "art" with the application of technique in the name of "artistic expression"...no particular problem there, to each his own after all...

but, IMO, this is the lazy way to expressing one's self in the medium of photography...slap on a filter, pump up the color, and voila - art!...again, IMO, the real challenge in the photographic medium is to create photographs of meaning and depth employing the medium's underlying connection to the "real"...

and,

re: "Do you ever get frustrated because people just don't seem to get what you are trying to accomplish?" - no, because i'm not trying to accomplish anything for other people...which is not to deny the joy and pleasure of connecting to another human being with your photography, but that's a reward/icing on the cake of doing it for me....

Hi Tim - It seems to me you're struggling with some creative issues in your personal style and questioning your own motives. That's not a bad thing, and probably a very necessary part of creative growth. However, I don't know that it's exactly fair to extend your questioning of your motives to the photographic world in general. Not everyone is at the same point in their creative journey, nor should they be. Strictly speaking for me, the fact that I manipulate images through Photoshop doesn't mean I'm compromising my principles at all. If I were adding things or people in the images and trying to pawn them off as real that would be one thing, but simple dodging, burning, levels, etc. to me are no different than salt, pepper, and lots of cajun seasoning when cooking. Will the image be exactly realistic? No, perhaps not, but I'm not necessarily trying to make a realistic image either. I do try to make an image that pleases me, just as you try to make one that pleases you, and I think that's all that anyone can ask of themselves. It's impossible to make an image that will please everybody, so it's much more important to please yourself. Personally, I see nothing wrong with a world full of pretty pictures, just for the sake of pretty pictures. People like Mark Hobson see photography in a completely different light than I, and that's fine. I admire Mark's work and I appreciate his skill, but at the same time, his work is usually not my cup of tea. That doesn't mean I'm right and he's wrong, or vice versa, just that we have different tastes and motivations. Sorry to be so longwinded, but to put and end on this, if you feel you're somehow compromising your principles then I would definitely stop and begin making images that make you happy. If people don't comment as much, so be it.

Take care, Bill

I see each potential shot as a different problem to solve. How one can apply a formula to that, I haven't a clue.

There's nothing wrong with being influenced by others or aspiring to be something. Maybe somedays it's fun to pretend to be Galen Rowell or Frans Lanting. Other days, it's fun to be myself. Photography is the one thing in my life that I'm not cynical about, and I hope to keep it that way.

Suggested reading:
Copy What You Like by Paul Graham
Taste for Makers by Paul Graham

I found both of these essays fascinating and thought provoking.

Cheers,

No need for fear my friend!

You don't need to worry about other people's photographs. Or their opinions. You are free to photograph what you want, how you want.

Far more important to figure out why you make photographs and what you want to say.

Hey Guy

Thanks for the note.

I don't think the 2 things are that far apart - maybe by one measurement they are, but they're probably both functions of the same ill. And the dysfunctions that flow from the fashion photography industry are, IMO, pretty much right in line with what happens with nature photography, which is, at least part of, what Timothy said above. Photography might not 'set the trend' but it, on the whole, contributes pretty markedly. Look around you at how many 'images' we're flooded with daily, of all kinds of things - that's a form of brainwashing, with immeasurable effects on how we come to view the world.

Turner's writing pointed to the problem. I think it's up to the artists to make a call for change, rather than reinforce the generic.

Cheers

Carl

While we're quoting great American artists and educators;

"We has met the enemy, and he is us!" Walt Kelly

To my mind, there is no truth or reality in ANY photograph. A photograph is a contrived presentation of something that was in front of a camera. It took me a while to come around to this way of thinking, but I find it liberating. There is no line to worry about. Photographs are not real, period. If the world looked like photographs it would be really small and really flat.

Pete D.

Excellent point, and point of view IMO Pete.

IMO -

re: the comment. "To my mind, there is no truth or reality in ANY photograph..." - what relief that must be to your mind...it certainly relieves it of any pesky notion of being discerning...no need to grapple with separating propaganda from truth...the real from the false...the sincere from the cynical...it's all the same...

re: the comment, "A photograph is a contrived presentation... - photography, unencumbered by the "artistic" contrivences of photographers, has, by nature of its mechanistic method of reproduction, a cool dispassionate gaze which makes it a unique medium for those inclined to seek to illustrate and illuminate the notion of truth/reality...

IMO, that is...

oh yeh, almost forgot

re: the comment, "If the world looked like photographs..." - the world indeed does not look like photographs...but, equally indeed, photographs can tell us what the world looks like - that is, represent it (people, places, things and events) in a "real" and "truthful" manner...emphasis on the word "can"...

IMO, that is...

I've always felt that there are at least two distinctly different audiences for photographs: Our fellow photographers and everyone else. We see and react to photographs differently than non-photographers. It's possible to please both, but is that mandatory for "success"? You can shoot for or ignore either as well as ignoring them both and shooting for yourself.

That's been an important insight for me because it's possible to shoot the same scene/subject differently for each of the three. But not all photos work for all audiences.

photographs can tell us what the world looks like - that is, represent it (people, places, things and events) in a "real" and "truthful" manner...

Communication is a two way street. "What is said" will be colored both by how it is said and how it is received. This, IMO, is an undisputeable truth.

Photography is much the same - saying that one photograph is "more truthful" than another is entirely a matter of perception.

The best way to enjoy photography is much as Pete has described - with an open mind and an understanding that how ever it is presented or perceived is subject to an infinite number of perceptual variables beyond our control.

Mark - not a criticism here, but just an observation. Why must we be SO serious about this - ie, separating the propaganda from the truth, the false from the real, the sincere from the cynical, etc. Jeez, we're not saving the world here, we're just photographing a scene. Isn't this supposed to be fun? Why must everything be analyzed to death? Honestly, if I had to approach photography (or life) that seriously I think I would just crawl back into bed and never get out again. Again, not a criticism, but I just can't get that deep into what is a wonderful hobby. Strictly speaking for me, of course...

But Bill,
Aren't you the least bit curious why scenes you photograph move you to make them in the first place? It isn't so much being deep as it is an understanding of what makes you tick.

Aren't you the least bit curious why scenes you photograph move you to make them in the first place?

But this is entirely governed by one's motives to pursue photography. While some may be seeking the "deeper meaning of life" in their work, another might simply enjoy making colorful photos that they want to hang on their walls - and both are equally valid reasons to pursue the hobby/profession.

I think we need to face the fact that people carry cameras around for as many different reasons as there are people with cameras.

Sure Jim, but there's big difference between being curious and picking something to death. I have sat for many hours enjoying the movement of ants and other small critters while fishing, etc. but I'm not going philosophize deeply about it. I know perfectly well what moves me - a deep love and appreciation for nature and the natural. In that regard one image is not really any different from another for me. As far as what makes me tick, the look of love in my 4 year granddaughter's eyes when she sees me in the afternoons!

Well I like to know why I move to the left, when everyone else is moving to the right.

everything you do matters...everything you do has consequences...there is no "free ride"...
which is NOT a prescription against the pleasure principle - everybody wants it and, in fact, needs it...but, we do live in a world is shaped by the fact that most do not bother separating truth from propaganda, the real from the false, the sincere from the cynical...

photography and the other arts matter...

Two men sitting at a table eating steak -

First man; "This steak is delicious. I wonder how old the steer was when it was slaughtered? I wonder what it was fed? I wonder if it suffered at the end? How do I feel about eating something that was alive last month?"

Second man; "Damn, this is an excellent steak! I need to come back to this restaurant more often."

Different strokes for different folks, and different thoughts as they consume their steak (or take their photos).

Hey Jim,

I think there were 3 men at the table, and the 3rd man looks up and says "Looks like it might rain this afternoon".

:)

Cheers

Carl

...but, we do live in a world is shaped by the fact that most do not bother separating truth from propaganda, the real from the false, the sincere from the cynical...

Is there life on other planets?

Do they really have a cure for cancer, but are with holding it because of the big bucks made treating it?

Is the world 5,000 years old, or 4.8 billion?

Can matter travel faster than light?

IMO, you can spend your life trying to separate "the real from the false" and end up no closer to the "truth." And when the Big Guy comes to punch your ticket, I suspect it won't matter anyway.

On that note, I agree with Bill - I'm going out to take some photos just for my own self gratification. Geez, what's the world coming to?

everything you do matters...everything you do has consequences...there is no "free ride"...
which is NOT a prescription against the pleasure principle - everybody wants it and, in fact, needs it...but, we do live in a world is shaped by the fact that most do not bother separating truth from propaganda, the real from the false, the sincere from the cynical...

photography and the other arts matter

Perhaps everyone just doesn't have to agonize over it quite so much. For the most part I feel I can separate truth from fiction, real from false, sincerity from the cynical very easily and quickly and them move on to the next item without having to dwell on it. I guess I'm not not much of a philosopher - I'd rather be out doing rather than out thinking (especially with my limited brain power ) As far as photography and the arts mattering - perhaps to us, but tell that to the poor child that's starving to death in Ethiopia while we're playing with our thousands of dollars worth of cameras. To me, that really puts the whole issue of the importance of what we do into the proper perspective. Photography is a rather silly decadent indulgence when compared to things that REALLY matter.

But this is entirely governed by one's motives to pursue photography.

It's true. There isn't much common ground between people pursuing photography as a hobby, as an adjunct to their other nature activities or as art. The motivations and considerations for each of these is very different.

The thing that sometimes surprises me is the apparent lack of awareness that there might be reasons to make photographs other than to entertain fellow club members or friends. That someone might WANT to agonize over some of these things.

Hey Timithy,

Very interesting thread, particularly the twists and turns it's taken along the way. Your points actually bring up something I've been grappling with lately in my photography and that I believe may be at the heart of a couple of other replies: that is, to me anyway, the tendency to present an idealized version of the world around us that ignores the bad and the ugly of human influence. (And since I'm a landscape phtographer I'm not venturing into the bad and the ugly of the rest of the animal kingdom.) In particular, in my hiking and backpacking around trying to find the unspoiled locations my heart craves in the over-populated east, I'm starting to see more and more signs of trash, delicate habitats that are being loved to death by too many foot prints, mountains decapitated by rampant development, and even the slow death of my beloved hemlocks due to infestation by a non-native insect. Now, I'm not saying all human influence is bad, I'm just saying I'm seeing more and more of the bad in the backcountry. And I'm not saying I'm immune. I'm out there, too, and I'm sure there are times I've caused unintentional harm.

What I'm getting at is this tendency we have as nature photographers, or at least that I have, to carefully compose all of this out of our scenes, to display unspoiled vistas and beautiful, healthy ecosystems. I've been starting to think by doing that I'm not doing the world I love justice, because it just perpetuates the myth that there are no or few consequences to our actions. And so, lately I've been thinking more about and trying to include subtle indicators of our impact on the environment in my photography: including that distant development in a landscape photograph of a seemingly remote, pristine, and gorgeous location, capturing the weeping of a partially defoliated hemlock in the morning light, showing the maze of trails through a delicate ecosystem. I think we can still show the beauty or special character of a place while also acknowledging that we, as humans, are here and our actions aren't without consequences.

Thanks for starting a great, thoughtful thread.

Lori

Lori, you offer a new perspective to this thread, one I happen to be thinking about after my last post. I have not fully forumlated what I want to say, but perhaps this simple statement comes close;

If all natue photographers took only photos of the ugly, how many other photographers would want to go out and do the same?

In other words, it's the beauty of nature that attracts us in the first place. If nature wasn't beautiful, far fewer people would be out photographing it.

IMO, both types of photos - the ugly and the beautiful (and everything in between) have a place and purpose. Together, they tell the whole story. I suspect this is the same conclusion that you have drawn.

Valid points from both Lori and Jim. There are plenty of photographers out there examining the junction of man and nature (man vs. nature?). It is every photographer's prerogative to do the kind of work that their heart tells them to do. BUT, I fear that the audience for this type of work will always remain small. Americans (at least) don't want to know what's wrong with their world. The garbage found on TV is a pretty clear indicator of this. Escapism is king, and it's why I suspect that calendar and postcard-style "nature" photography is far more successful than photography depicting what is wrong with our world.

Excellent and important points, Lori and Jim.

I shoot a wide range of photo types and in broad terms only shots without the human influences/effects are acceptable in the "art" or nature markets, while those with human influences are usually relegated to editorial (in the case of illustrating the impacts) or promotional, in which the activities of humans are the feature laid over the natural setting.

It's long been my habit to pick up trash while composing landscape shots and find shot angles that minimize or exclude other human impacts. Nothing to do with the trash but carry it out and dispose of it properly.

That's carried over into all my other outdoor activities, and sad to say I set a new record for myself here on "pristine" Kodiak Island. I set out for a salmon river a mile from my house for a day of fishing with family and friends, but was so upset by the mess left by anglers that preceded me that I started cleaning it up. Sad to say I filled the bed of my full sized pickup to the height of the cab with garbage bags! Went back two days later and filled five more bags from the places I had just cleaned.

I've had similar experiences while hunting here, and even backpacking in parks both inside and outside Alaska.

The end result is a deep cynicism about my fellow "lovers" of the outdoors. As much as I am dismayed by the feeling, I am beginning to hate the run of the mill outdoor enthusiast our society is producing these days.

I'm sure no one here is guilty of trashing our great land while complaining about development, but there's plenty of evidence in my trash bags that photographers are among the offenders.

Is it just my cynicism or are people using the outdoors with less and less concern about their own impacts?

Now THERE'S a subject for some serious photography!

I feel that you have made an accurate observation Michael, but (1) I don't think this is anything new, (2) I don't think it's just an American phenomenon, and (3) I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with this form of "escapism" After all, would you buy a calendar of landfills, starving children, and blood in the streets? Don't think I would. I think "escapism" has perhaps increased over the years due to the fact that the world is now bombarded 24 hours a day with everything that is wrong/bad/tragic through the "cover it to death" 24 hour/day in your face news coverage. A single tragic incident in some little corner of the world used to be news only to that small community, now it's nationwide or worldwide and analyzed by every know-nothing news team in existance. TV has largely become garbage, the news has become soap-opera'ish, and every doom and gloom group in the world wants to suck the last bit of hope out of people. It's no wonder at all why "escapism" is king. Personally I think that is not a bad thing. This type of escapism doesn't mean people aren't connected to reality, but just in need of some little speck of beauty and hope in an otherwise "tragedy/drama" oriented world. Just my humble opinion.

Hank -

I feel the same way. More and more of my favorite places to backpack are being overrun with litter, fire rings, people with no concept of "leave no trace." It frustrates me to no end. It used to be that one could unfortunately almost expect this situation in places that were readily accessible - road side locations, close to civilization, national parks, etc. Now, it seems like this mentality is moving into the backcountry and more pristine areas.

I always think to myself - "Why in the world did someone hike 8 miles in the backcoutry to litter?"

Sad...

I really don't understand what garbage has to do with this thread

Anyways, : Bill, I want to use you as an example of my purpose for posting this thread. It wasn't to cause anyone pain , just to pause and realize a bit, I think. I really hope you don't mind and think I'm trying to pick on you, or anything like that. I think you are a wonderful person and a damn fine photographer.

this image really is a good example of what I'm trying to say.

To me, again , referring back to my original post to start this thread, this image relates the character and a certain truth about nature and the nature of this scene. I love the blurred flowers because that is reality to me, when the sun goes down around a body of water like that, the wind picks up and that"truth" is related very beautifully in this scene. I can almost feel the coolness and strength of that breeze.

The part I don't understand is where some people describe the blurring as a negative, something unfortunate that takes away from the scene. I realize that everybody has different tastes but perhaps, just perhaps part of it comes from the fact that in most cases the concensus is , the image should be sharp. Instead , my point is the image should reveal a certain truth and charcater, like all great portraits do.

The second part of my post , refers to the subtle or not so subtle pressure to project that sense of perfection. For example, early on, you state;

“Thanks all for your comments. I agree that the blurred flowers present a problem, and will definitely try this again if the opportunity presents itself. The problem of course is that it's very rarely windless on the beach, especially on top of a dune!”

I just want to ask you an honest question, having read all the comments about your image and having some time to think about it, is that still your opinion above?

PS - I really hope you understand I'm not trying to single you out or anything, I just really felt that your image is a perfect example of what I'm trying to discuss. Thanks, Tim

I've given thought to the blurring of wind as well. When I first started shooting I wanted to get everything still and sharp, but now I find myself welcoming a bit of wind to convey a sense of movement. Afterall, Earth is a living planet. I'm sure if a tornado was happening or a dust storm no one would think that is an error, so why is a bit of flower motion a negative?

I think in most groups there is going to be pressure to comform, and in my experience npn is not an exception. At some point a lot of artists feel the need to explore and try new things, and it may be neccesary to grow something of a thick skin to be able to conduct that exploration. It might be neccesary to stick to your own vision in spite of the criticism.

Having said all of that, I'm not sure the example photo is a good example. The blur does not work for me in that circumstance. To be completely honest, the composition as a whole seems static and the elements dont' t seem harmonius to me, so that isn't helping for me. Specifically pertaining to the sharpness, I think in this type of photograph sharpness is important. I guess I would ask myself if the lack of the sharpness in this image helps convey something I am trying to convey, and how it fits with the rest of the elements in the picture. In this case everything else is sharp but the flowers, so my eye finds it a little troubling. My eye looks for something sharp to focus on, and if I try to look at the flowers I want to look away to see something sharp.

I have seen some really creative use of motion blur with flowers and grass. I really like selective focus, and a I take a lot of pictures handheld in fairly dim light when I am just out walking around at lunch or something. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it helps to have something sharp to anchor the picture, and sometimes it is jarring.

I was at a workshop this summer, and one of the participants said in her camera club, everything in a picture had to be in sharp focus. That to me would be constraining. At the same time, I think that the right things will still need to be in sharp focus for the picture to work.

Hi Tim - Sorry to take so long to reply, but I was late getting in tonight. No worries about singling me out - I certainly take no offense at all, and agree with your statement that my image is a good example of what you want to discuss.

Now, to your question. I just went back and re-read the comments. If I counted correctly, only 4 people (besides me) actually said the blurred flowers hurt the image. Some were neutral, and some actually thought the blur was nice. I guess that just proves you can't make everybody happy! You asked an honest question, and I'll give you an honest answer. Yes, those are still my thoughts and my opinion remains unchanged. I'm glad to know that most people aren't upset by the blurred flowers, but personally, I still wish they were sharp. As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, I try to make an image that pleases me first and foremost. To me, this image has lots of great elements, but IMO the blurred flowers distract from what I wanted to show. Had they not been the main subject it wouldn't have been a big deal to me, but since they were, by far, the largest element of attention, I wanted it to be sharp.

Believe me, I understand where you're coming from, and I understand your concern when it comes to people altering subjects in order to make them as they're not, but don't we all do this in some form or fashion. I guess the $64,000 question is where do you draw the line on what's acceptable alteration and what's not? For me, the answer to that is up to each individual photographer. Again, for me only, I will continue to make simple "adjustments" - burning, dodging, levels, cloning dust bunnies, cropping, etc. in order to enhance my images in a way that pleases me. I will not import items, change colors, or outright "create" something that wasn't there to begin with however. That's where the line is drawn FOR ME. Where it is for you or others can only be determined by you or others.

I hope this at least clarifies my position, and I also hope this answers your question. For me, the bottom line is that I make images that please me. If they please others, so much the better, but if they don't that's ok too. The image you cited is a great example of this in reverse - most people seem to not care about the blurred flowers, but for me, they're still a problem. Now you might understand why I gave my mother so many gray hairs!

Also, take a look at the image I posted this morning - Wind Streaked Water. This is an example of where I actually wanted the wind movement, and the movement (or the effect of the movement) is actually the main subject.

BTW, this has been a great thread, and I hope somewhere in all the responses you find the answer you're looking for.

Take care my friend!
Bill

Ok, Bill, I stand corrected. Thanks. To be honest I can understand that you want the main elements of image to be sharp, I guess to me, I just don't understand why. But anyways, it's your image, you have the final word and I was making an incorrect assumption. Thanks, for being so gracious about it. Tim

I regret using the words 'truth' and 'reality' in my original reply. Let me rephrase:

To my mind, no photograph is a complete or accurate representation of the reality that was in front of the camera. Believing that lets me look at photographs as what they are.

Photograph are artifacts created by choices - where you point the camera, where you focus, focal length, aperture, film (sensor), development conditions (conversion algorithims), printing paper, etc., etc. In a simplistic argument, I say photographs are small and two dimensional to show that they obviously don't accurately or completly represent what was there, ever.

Acknowledging that photographs are artitifacts does not liberate me from the joyful task of discerning which I like and which I don't. It liberates me from fretting about whether it 'really' looked like that. Of course it didn't. Photography isn't virtual reality, damn, I used the word reality. Photography is.

Pete D.

ps.
I see the garbage connection rather clearly. A beautiful wildflower next to litter can be photographed to exclude the litter. Why not make the litter an important or attractive part of the photograph? Is excluding it complying to fashion?

Here's what garbage has to do with this thread Tim:

" To my way of thinking, a good portrait reveals a certain truth about the subject's character. "

It's the first sentence in the first paragraph you used to start this thread. Garbage is an innate truth in landscapes today. Pick it up, frame it out or clone it out and are you telling the truth about the contemporary landscape "portrait?"

Thanks Timothy and all for a most enjoyable and illuminationg thread. I have even begun to grasp what Mark is on about!

John

I wrote this the other night and would have posted it earlier in the discussion but it got lost in cyberspace somehow . . .


NPN is a magazine, it's an online version but still it is a magazine. In my
view, it is much closer to a National Geographic model than a National Inquirer. National Geographic has earned a reputation through the years of producing outstanding articles and photography. I believe that NPN has earned a similar type of reputation online. We here all contribute to that reputation. Although we don't all produce the monthly articles etc, we
contribute via the various forums and I expect that Jim and others would confirm that.

Awhile back (I believe this is accurate) NG got dinged for publishing a
photo of sea turtles, underwater. It was a beautiful image. The problem, it
wasn't real. The photographer cloned in extra turtles for, I guess,
artistic reasons. Some people recognized that they were not the same /
proper species. Now NG apologized, and an explanation was put forth
explaining that it was not intentional. But, that really didn't end the
issue. For example, the fact that I bring it up here testifies to the fact
that it did hurt their reputation; how many other "false" images did the
unsuspecting public value as being real. NG has gone to great pains to re
establish its credibility. (Hopefully that information is accurate and I
don't get sued, but is my understanding of the events).

Let's take another example. Remember the image of the Afghanistan girl
with the piercing blue/green eyes from a decade ago, on the NG cover, the
one they updated many years later. What if at the time that image was
doctored? A little extra colour saturation here a colour balance there.
Given today's digital world, many would almost expect some manipulation. Do
you think that would be a problem? What if the image was extensively
doctored? Perhaps her eyes were originally brown? Apart from the problem of
the current day photographer trying to show a comparison of reality, what
about National Geographic's reputation?

Now nowhere is it stated that either National Geographic or NPN has to
tell the truth, the whole truth, but I think there is an expectation of
truth in these reputable magazines. I mean the sign over the door here says
Nature Photographers, I think that differentiates us from other types of
photography and implies different values in regards to what's real.

Tabloids on the other hand are not held in much esteem, in this regard. The
general view, in my opinion is that they aren't really interested in the
truth; there is little or no verification of what's real.
Fashion magazines, as far as cover shots etc, are held in a similar light
(by many people). Even more main stream news type publications have fallen
down, due to cutting and pasting people's heads on other people's bodies
etc. This becomes a problem when people don't realize the difference. It
doesn't matter which publication is involved. Some people truly believe
that a man gave birth to a horse because they read about it in a real
magazine.

Likewise my point about the Fashion Magazines, was not to equate the very
serious eating disorders with the seemingly innocent image manipulation going on here but rather to simply point out, that in my opinion, part of the problem is people trying
to emulate an ideal ( body shape, skin complexion etc ) based on a
completely false ( photographic ) reality.

By allowing and promoting the insertion of props, excessive cloning, heavy
colour saturation etc. up to the point that the image hardly resembles reality anymore I feel we are taking a big step down, a very slippery slope. Unless, of course the
subject is explicitly a Photo Art type piece.

Also, perhaps most importantly, the idea or story behind the image is given
less importance and the manipulative skills of the photographer to create an attractive,
false ideal, takes priority.

Basically what I'm saying, is not that we should be more documentary in our style, or that
we should record every scene with no filters etc. or argue over whether a canera records a scene as accurately as we see it . . . BUT we should be true to qualities of our subject, that again, is what is important is any decent portrait, the true character is the subject. I think it's relevant because I feel that what we doing, creating portraits of Earth.

Thanks, Tim

HI Tim,

You bring up some good points, but to a degree I think you're comparing apples to oranges. If an image is to be used in a documentray style publication I personally feel there's a higher standard to be met in regards to accuracy than if the image is strictly for aesthetic purposes. Also, there comes a point when manipulation becomes misrepresentation. If one creates a composite image but tries to sell it as the real thing that's fraudulent, just the same as doctoring a deed or title. If, however, the artist is up front about it being a composite I don't have a problem with it. The same with the photo art forum here on NPN. Heavily manipulated in many cases, but revealed as such. I believe your issue lies, if I understand you correctly, in the motives and motivations of the photographer.

This thread has been great, and has brought up many interesting aspects. In fact, I've begun writing an article concerning image manipulation as a result of this thread. It doesn't cover the exact thought process discussed here, but just gives my thoughts on the overall subject. I hope to share it with you soon.

Now nowhere is it stated that either National Geographic or NPN has to tell the truth, the whole truth, but I think there is an expectation of truth in these reputable magazines.

At least in terms of the type of photo typically posted on this site (no "tabloid" photos with cloned-in aliens, 3-headed alligators, etc.), truth is in the eye of the beholder - whether it be the eye of photographer just as they trip the shutter, or in the eye of those who view the resulting photo.

While an "over saturated" photo may look "unrealistic" to one person, it may better portray the sense of awe the photographer experienced being there to witness the scene first-hand.

While an unenhanced photo may look "dull and uninteresting" to one person, it may better portray what the photographer perceived as "reality" being there to witness the scene first-hand.

Imagine how boring nature photography would be if we all saw the world the same way, and expressed it the same way in our photography?

Jim, I think if you reread my last paragraph -

"Basically what I'm saying, is not that we should be more documentary in our style, or that
we should record every scene with no filters etc. or argue over whether a canera records a scene as accurately as we see it . . . BUT we should be true to qualities of our subject, that again, is what is important is any decent portrait, the true character is the subject. I think it's relevant because I feel that what we doing, creating portraits of Earth."

you can understand that I agree with you . I don't have a problem with people, say ,colour balancing some to show the warmth of a scene somewhat etc. In order to relate what they truly felt or thought about a scene. What I don't understand is when that ability to control via Photoshop or whatever, is used not to tell the story but simply to make the subject look more attractive.

Using that Afghanistan girl as an example, it's like someone suggesting that after living 10 years in that arid, harsh climate, that the best thing to do, is to clone out or airbrush many of her wrinkles, or you know boost the colour satuaration of her eyes to more closely match the original photo. It bothers me because, for one, every wrinkle in her face, the aging and faded colouring of her eyes , tells the story, reveals the true character of the subject.

Likewise, to my way of thinking, suggesting to clone out all of the driftwood and debris of a wind swept beach, makes no sense to me. Those things tell the REAL story of what that beach is all about. Just like the wrinkles, they are real, they tell the story, so why remove them? Especially if it is just to make the image more pleasing. To be honest, I see / read quite a bit of that type of thinking.

That's why I have such a hard time understanding Bill's comments, to use his beach photo as an example. I mean , I have lived my whole life next to water and I can honestly say that I can't remember ever, I'm sure it may have happened but I can't honestly recall ever being in that situation and wind not pick and start to breeze. Now, in my mind those blurred flowers
capture that reality,perfectly. Just like wrinkled skin describes a life in a harsh desert climate.

NOW, this is the important part, please consider what I say next , if Bill had said that what he tried to capture was the static solitude of that scene, that the idea was to relate the stillness, there was no wind and that is what he was trying to relate then I would have much less of a problem with the comments about the flowers being blurred as unfortunate. I also don't have a real problem with the use of colourbalancing etc. to relate that , within reason .

To me, as in a portrait, if the aim isn't to bring out the true nature of your subject, or at least
your interpetation of the subject's character but to make the subject look more attractive or pleasing , as an example, it's showing a lack of respect to your subject. Whether it's a girl in
Afghanistan or Mother Nature. That's the point I'm trying to make. Thanks, Tim

"Basically what I'm saying, is not that we should be more documentary in our style, or that we should record every scene with no filters etc. or argue over whether a canera records a scene as accurately as we see it . . . BUT we should be true to qualities of our subject, that again, is what is important is any decent portrait, the true character is the subject. I think it's relevant because I feel that what we doing, creating portraits of Earth."

Once again, that is based on just one reason someone may pick up a camera and take photos of nature. For example, sometimes photos are created to depict nature as accurately as possible. Other times, nature becomes the subject to create a compelling and/or aesthically pleasing photo - whether it depicts "reality" accurately or not (like much of Ansel Adam's work, or the type of work found in the Photo Art gallery). And I suspect Ansel was as respectful of nature as any of us.

Hi Tim.......this has been very interesting, First of all Photo Journalism (ie. the Afghanistan Girl image) and Portrait Photography are not the same thing. " I have always viewed Nature Photography as being similar to Portrait
Photography, in the sense that the "story" the picture tells is one that projects a sense of truth. " is Photo Journalism. Fashion Photography is just that, it is intended to glamorize the individual for a predetermined purpose. Portrait Photography is quite similar to Fashion Photography in that every aspect of the portrait is strictly controlled. Of all the high school Senior Portraits I have done, I have yet to have girl or boy say they wanted to look the way they do every day. They want to look special or better than normal. .....and again" To me, as in a portrait, if the aim isn't to bring out the true nature of your subject, or at least
your interpretation of the subject's character but to make the subject look more attractive or pleasing , as an example, it's showing a lack of respect to your subject. " Now to me this is a conflicting statement and the key is " your interpretation of the subject's character ". I believe that what I do or try to do is interpret my subjects character be it a person or Mother Nature. I live in an area that I Believe is unique and quite beautiful, and it is to quite a few others. But I do not have some of what I feel is the dramatic beauty we associate with say a Mountain scene, a Western River, a coastal scene, an Adirondack or Smokey Mountain scene or the Pacific Rain Forest to name a few. For a long time photographers have struggled with the question of whether or not a photograph is Art or photographers are Artists. I believe photography is Art and as such like any other artist I have the ability and right to interpret a landscape scene for instance how I see fit. My tools are the camera, various filters, using natural lighting etc. and to finish the image I use computer software; to what degrees are my artistic choices. All art is subjective, both to its creator and audience. I would not think of telling a watercolorist or an oil painter that they used way too much color in an image or that a part of an image didn’t look real to me, they have created their interpretation leaving me to either like it or not.
You ask the question if I/we have ever felt the subtle pressure to conform to what's fashionable, in the area of Nature Photography. No I can’t say that I have.

You ask What about you people who haven't compromised your principles as I feel I have. I know this will seem harsh Tim, but the only thing I can say to this is shame on you.


And then You ask Do you think you get your fair share of comments. and BTW I can’t help but think this is the primary reason for this entire thread. : to answer this I’d have to say sometimes I do and sometimes depending on what forum …..no I don’t. Recently, in ESS I have received my fair share and then some of comments. Do I believe that this is because I have compromised my principles or succumbed to some perceived pressure to conform to “fashion Photography”…. No I don’t. Does it bother me that other posted images receive very few comments …..Yes it does. It bothers me when I get very few. Do I have a reason or an answer … Nope I don’t. I wish I did. I think there are several factors that come into play regarding how many comments a photo gets, but I do not believe that it has anything to do with conformity or compromise.

Barb said,

" You ask What about you people who haven't compromised your principles as I feel I have. I know this will seem harsh Tim, but the only thing I can say to this is shame on you. "

Shame on me for what, trying to be honest?

" And then You ask Do you think you get your fair share of comments. and BTW I can’t help but think this is the primary reason for this entire thread. "

Well you can think whatever you like. I feel I've been very open and honest with everything I've said. You may not agree with my opinion but it doesn't mean I have some hidden agenda.

Thanks for your comments, Tim

Tim, a good thought-provoking thread with some differing POVs offered. Thanks again for posting it!

Thanks Jim and thanks for your input. I just wanted to show what I consider to be the most impressive portrait I have ever seen. Again, it has nothing to do with the subject's appearance,in terms of how attractive they look and really, the technique used to render the subject sharp ,if the eyes are in focus, pales in camparison to what is really important.

" To my way of thinking, a good portrait reveals a certain truth about the subject's character. "

Take a look at the image but before you read the information about it, please just click on "enlarge" study the image for a minute or two and ask yourself what message you get from it . . . then read the information about the reality of the person's life.

That's the Art of a meaningful portrait to me. Thanks.

Here's the link

Tim, I agree - a very powerful - and masterfully "designed" - photo. My impression of it without first reading the narrative was exactly what the photographer was looking to portay.

A few thoughts;

1. This was obviously a "staged" photo in that Karsh brought Casals to this location, and masterfully set up the shot to convey the message he had "previsualized."

2. Though Karsh successfully conveyed his "previsualized message" - one that accurately depicts the life of Casals - it's a "staged" photo nonetheless.

3. If I have interpreted what you are saying in this thread correctly, doing the same for a wildlife shot would be considered "untruthful" as the scene never would have happened without the photographer's intervention.

4. In many ways, it much like this widlife photo.

Which leads us back to our futile attempt in trying to define what is a "truthful depicition" and what is not. While Karsh's photo tells the story of Casal's life, is the photo itself really truthful? Or is it just a contrived attempt by the photographer to convey his sense of the truth?

When all is said and done, short of aliens and 3-headed alligators created in Photoshop and presented as a "real photo", I'm still having difficulty buying into your premise in regards to nature photography as it typically appears on this site - that photos with basic PS enhancements are not "truthful."

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Now, in my mind those blurred flowers capture that reality,perfectly.

I just do not think that is a good example of how to capture that reality. Darwin's photo here and some of the other photos in that article are better examples. To me, it is about isolating your subject to make sure it is the center of attention. The sky, moon, and other elements would be superflous if the message was windy flowers.

Hey Tim

I guess I'm seeing your orginal post as being skewed into a Photoshop versus non-photoshop thing now, which is a shame. It seemed to me the original scope went beyond that, and those were merely examples of how we follow the 'fashionable' in our photography, and an examination of how that may be potentially detrimental. Is it about 'truth' or simply trying to shoot and present what's seen as fashionable - garnering more accolades, and simulatenously growing 'inwardly', in an artistic sense. Is that kinda, sorta, correct?

Cheers

Carl

Carl, to be completely honest, I just don't understand why people don't get it. Maybe I offended them , maybe it's the way I have tried to comminicate my thoughts, I don't know.

Perhaps using myslef as an example that using my skills to produce images that were
more attractive to my peers and perhaps potential buyers than being really "true" to my subject, and admitting that, is a mistake.

Either this isn't a problem, nobody else sees this as a problem, or nobody else wants to admit it.

Here I'll try again with Jim,

Jim said -
Which leads us back to our futile attempt in trying to define what is a "truthful depicition" and what is not. While Karsh's photo tells the story of Casal's life, is the photo itself really truthful? Or is it just a contrived attempt by the photographer to convey his sense of the truth?

When all is said and done, short of aliens and 3-headed alligators created in Photoshop and presented as a "real photo", I'm still having difficulty buying into your premise in regards to nature photography as it typically appears on this site - that photos with basic PS enhancements are not "truthful."

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. "


Ok, let's just cut to the heart of the matter, what makes this image brilliant in my opinion
is that it tells the story of Pablo Casals in a very symbolic way. In the photo he is playing alone by himself in a room. In real life he played unaccompanied cello. In the photo he has his back turned towards the camera, in real life he turned his back on Nazi Germany and fascist Spain. In doing so he endured exile, isolation, but kept on playing through it. In the photo he is isolated, alone, playing his instrument

Now you can say "Which leads us back to our futile attempt in trying to define what is a "truthful depicition" and what is not. " Come on Jim, that's the story of his his life. It's real he lived it.

If you want an example of a contirved attempt by the photographer, how about if when Karsh
took this image he placed him at a piano instead, and how about the reason he did this was because he thought the piano would "look" better?

What I would say to that is, hey that's not what great portraits are about , they are to quote my first post -

"To my way of thinking, a good portrait reveals a certain truth about the subject's character. That is the main purpose and measure of success of a good portrait, people that know the subject well, will hopefully exclaim "that's it, that's the person I know, you've captured their spirit, their essence, exactly ". The measure of success is not how good you made the person look, how attractive they appear, at least that's not the measure of
a truly meaningful portrait. "

Is there a connection between let's say Landscape Photography and Portraiture. In my opinion they are very similar, or at least should be. Please, go up to my last quote above and insert "Landscape" instead of Portrait and place instead of person. That is still my opinion.

In the example you give, about the ranchers and the coyotes. I 'm having a little trouble understanding you. To my knowledge this a real image of a real event. I don't have any problem with it.

Thanks, Tim

Back to your OP -

What I find disturbing are some signs, at least in my own experience, of a subtle pressure to conform to what's fashionable, in the area of Nature Photography. In a similar way, perhaps, many people new to this genre will see the path to "success" follows a similar, non realistic route.

Examples of what I mean are images that are overly saturated with colour,cloning out all "objectionable" details that "take away" from the main subject. Inserting objects into the scene. Idolization of certain iconic type scenes. To me, they are very similar to the airbrushing and celebrity promotion that the fashion industry portrays.

To many, nature is pure beauty - regardless of how much man defiles it. So if they want to bump up the saturation, use GND filters, use the clone tool to remove some trash, etc. to better depict that beauty in a photo, isn't that what the art and technique of nature photography all about?

I could easily construe your original post as an indictment of those who do this, and if that is indeed the case, I could not disagree with you more. No one has the right to tell me or anyone else how they should go about their photography.

If, on the other hand, you mean to say that use of certain techniques (greater saturation, clone tool, etc.) can become "trendy" and lead to lack of originality, then I agree with you.

In regards to "faithful rendering of the subject" I will maintain that at least in the context of the typical photo posted here on NPN, I see no problem with any of them - from the visually stunning work of Marc Adamus to the more visually restrained work of Mark Hobson. They all have a place and are all welcome on NPN - without any need to call into question the validity of the work.

Tim, if I totally missed your point, my apologies. Topics like this can be difficult to discuss as we struggle to effectively communicate our thinking by written word alone.

Hi Tim.......first of all I want to say that I didn't mean to offend you with my "shame on you " comment, I was strictly refering to your statements about compromsing your prinicples, and not about your truthfulness.
As for Karsh's Portrait of Pablo Casals, I agree with you, it is one of the Best Portraits I've seen and indeed tells this persons story. I believe even with out knowing the story the image tells of loneliness, solitude and quiet defiance.
I do like the idea or concept of Landscape Portraiture of being what we are trying to do or should be.
I THINK I have some idea of what you have been trying to say all along Tim, but for right this minute I have some things I need to go and do. I'd like to come back to this afterwhile IF it's OK with you. Also, I can't or won't discuss this topic using someone else sooo if it is of any help please feel free to use any of my images as examples of your original points. That is if they work for that purpose, I promise I won't get offended. For what it's worth .....no I don't believe that an image of a dead coyote on a fence post or a power plant with geese in the foreground have anything to do with what you are talking about.
Later.......

Tim,

I'm glad you have found your way when it comes to your photography! I'm serious and not poking fun. But, whether right or wrong, lots of photographers have found they’re way as well. Maybe it's not your way but it's their way! I truly believe that you are working way to hard trying to convince all that you are correct. For you maybe but for me I feel that I have a personal style and that style sometimes contains images with lots of saturation. It's just the way I do it and I have no interest in changing. I don't see it as any different than a black & white photograph. You want to talk about manipulation, well black & white is manipulation. Way more than any overly saturated color image! I've yet to see any part of this world with my eyes that doesn't contain color. As for digital, for me you can't get any truer to real life, that is if you what your images to be true life color. Might I remind you that with all film you are at the mercy of the emulsion for color accuracy.

Ok, Barb, I agree it is a good idea about using our own work to discuss this topic, that's an honorable thing to do. For example I don't want to post the link to the image I was referring to where the person introduced an object into the scene becuse I didn't want to possibly offend them. In Bill's case I honestly was presenting his image as something I admired and hoped that he wasn't offended.That's why I apologized and admiitted that I was mistaken.

As far as your comments, well it didn't really bother me about the shame thing because on some level I do feel a bit of shame , that's why I came clean and admitted it. I felt that when you said " Do you think you get your fair share of comments. and BTW I can’t help but think this is the primary reason for this entire thread." that hurt a bit because I feel I've always gone out my way to try and encourage new people to this craft ,to post images , join in and feel welcome, even if their images aren't "perfect". That's why I started "The Anonymous Game" , for example. So, I'm aware some people might think I being self righteous and perhaps whining or that my posts are not getting enough attention. Some people might think that but it is far from the truth.

I'm glad that you want to discuss this futher, to be honest, because I do have more to say but I just fiqured perhaps people have heard enough.

Before we start , could you just expand on something you said above becuase I'm not sure I understand you correctly -

" I live in an area that I Believe is unique and quite beautiful, and it is to quite a few others. But I do not have some of what I feel is the dramatic beauty we associate with say a Mountain scene, a Western River, a coastal scene, an Adirondack or Smokey Mountain scene or the Pacific Rain Forest to name a few."

Thanks, Tim

Thanks Tim,
I'll try answer your question, but first and this is real and not an attempt at a cop-out; since losing my oldest son nearly 5yrs ago I have struggled with the inability, more often than not, to verbally express myself. In a very real way this is what brought me to photography and although I didn't realize it for quite some time proved to be a very needed form of emotional therapy. Then I stumbled across this really cool web site..... NPN, it took me nearly six months to get the courage to join. I wasn't so afraid of showing my images,as I was of having to say something either about my own images or commenting on others. But enough about me.
For simplifying this I'll use rivers as an example: where I live most of the rivers shorelines are clay and with lots of alder brush, ( and it is brush) along with a variety of other low vegetaition. All of which makes it difficult to get even close to a clean or nice appealing image ......and yes I understand what I just said. Somehow and from somewhere I have a perception that a River picture should have a certain look. But I can't make them into something they're not, and for the most part my image will not compare to a Smokey Mountain river scene or a Colorado River scene, as an example. Without showing an image, when I say Smokey Mountain, Pacific Rain Forest, Rocky Mountians or the Swiss Alps images, pictures form in our minds mostly from familiarity. If I say Flagg River I doubt if too many could conjure up an image in their mind. Some parts of this wonderful world we live in represent a certain Dramtic beauty...... I don't happen to live near them. Hope this answers your question and makes some sence. This is not to say that I don't think my area is just as beautiful in it's own right ......maybe it's beauty is more sublte and less dramatic. BTW Tim You do really have me thinking about several things but specifically as regards this conversation, something I have thought about doing for some time now is to show some of the devestation caused by disease of a huge amount of our Birch and Oak trees . But it is not going to be a "pretty picture", and I guess I convinced myself - what would be the point.

You know Barb I think I do owe you and everyone else an apology. It's not that I don't believe very strongly in what I've said, it's just that , learning from what you've said, I do get a little self righteous. I don't mean to be, um, it's kind of ironic because I really wanted to use myself as an example and should have stuck to that. I'm just a little head strong, I guess. As Jim pointed out, people participate here for a lot of different reasons, different from mine.

Having been married for 27 years but not as a parent, I honestly can't even imagine your sense of loss. I know even losing my father 10 years ago, I was 38, changed my life. I really want you to enjoy your time here , I know it's important to you and it is for me too. This is the only place I go to online and until I found this place, I hadn't picked a camera up for a few years, I was sick of it. Now I love it and NPN is probably the biggest reason for that.

I guess I'm in a similar situation as you, as compared to those other places you've mentioned, the Miramichi River is a very beautiful place but not in the same way as those other places.

Recently, even after photographing for close to 20 years and having developed a certain "style" if you want to call it that, and having some pretty good success. I just sort of realized that perhaps my style was based more on a , I don't know, ego reward basis.
Part of that is based on posting images and the resulting critiques and part of that is from selling prints etc. The images that seemed to get the most attention and favourable comments and sales were the more dramatic ones, in terms of colour , composition , things like that. As I had more "success" I settled into a pattern, and looking back I realized I was applying that pattern to mostly everything, more saturation, more contrast more of the good stuff and more favourable comments and so on.

However, lately I been thinking that is not the way to go. As a matter of fact I've decided for myself that I'm going to approach Nature Photography from more of a portrait type basis.
Portraits, perhaps not in the traditional sense but more subject based, form follows function sort of thing.

So, for me, when I try to show the beauty of my Miramichi, I'm going to concentrate on what is beautiful here, and be true to that. It may be subtle, so I'm really going to try and display that subtle beauty rather than use my usual skills to introduce other qualities such as contrast, saturation and strong measures that increase the wow factor but lessen my real appreciation of the scene, and I was doing that often, almost every image.

I really do appreciate your input, we often comment on each other's images and I really consider your opinion important. You , having done many portraits could really help me improve my photography in these portraits of earth, as I like to call it. I really see alot of similarities in the two genres.

I'll make you a deal, if you continue to help me improve in this area, I'll try and not be such an overbearing SOB about it. Deal?

However, lately I been thinking that is not the way to go. As a matter of fact I've decided for myself that I'm going to approach Nature Photography from more of a portrait type basis. Portraits, perhaps not in the traditional sense but more subject based, form follows function sort of thing.

Tim, your participation here on NPN has had more of an impact than I think you realize - and I mean in a very positive way. I very much look forward to this new focus in your work!

Barb, God bless all parents who have lost a child. Donna and I are so very fortunate that up to this point, we have not.

Tim, you really do not owe me an apology. Your passion has probably made many of us stop and think, and that is never a bad thing. IFI had anything to do with you finding your way through all of this I am so very pleased Tim and like Jim I really do look forward to seeing where this takes you. Just remember that it is your inner soul and only you can fulfill it. I never considered you an overbearing SOB.......a passionate one maybe!!! Yes I'm kidding and Yes Tim we have a Deal
Thanks Jim.

I don't like the notion that photography is supposed to look or represent any one thing. And yet I can find pleasure in the strong feelings of Mark and Tim. I do believe that recent changes in the medium have many of us suffering an Identity Crisis. It's not easy defining who we are now as photographers or what we want to be, or represent (was it ever easy?). I struggle with it as well, but enjoy the struggle. I'll only add that the exchange here has been brilliant and encouraging. And maybe the real goal is not to define photography for others but to help each other find our own identities.

Paul

Well said Paul, thanks. Thanks Jim and Barb too, and Barb, I'll try not to hound you too much for advice! Tim