After a recent post in ES&S, I know a lot of NPN'rs have expressed interest in the process behind capturing the 'beams' at Antelope and I thought I might share some of my experience there and in other canyons in the hopes of saving some of you guys from the bottom of the learning curve.
In upper antelope, the guides know where the beams will be and at what time of day. A guide is required to visit there, and if you sign up for the two hour 'photography' tour, they will assist in throwing sand up into the lightshaft to give it contrast and help manage the foot traffic through the canyon so other's don't walk into your shot. This is easier said than done, however, so I purposely use a long shutter speed and then if someone walks right through the shot you might not be able to see them in the final image. The other benefit of a longer shutter speed is that it allows the sand in the beam to flow through it and blend into a more uniform shaft without ghosting (see attached image). Sometimes no matter what you do, there will be some ghosting that can be difficult to correct in PS. And after throwing up a lot of sand, the chamber can become filled with a light haze that dramatically reduces the contrast and impact of the sandstone around the beam. One way around this is to anticipate where the beam will be (look for the bright spots on the lower walls that are nearing the floor)and then shoot a few images before the beam is there. The exposure will be very similar, and without the dust cloud, and you will have nice contrast in the sandstone. Then shoot the beam with many takes until you get an even, mostly transparent light shaft. If you end up with too much contrast and the beam looks like a laser, you can then blend in part of the back wall from your previous shots into the beam to give it a more transparent look.
Lastly, make sure you throw the sand 'out' and not 'up' or your camera will get trashed. And I would constantly wipe the lens with a soft cloth and I used a lens hood to cut down on glare and protect the glass from some of the dust.
If you want to find beams in other slots (which is a lot more adventurous and fun) look for a canyon that is OVERHUNG at the top. The canyon has to be deep, overhung, and wide at the base to set up the right conditions for a beam. Be there at 10am -1pm and look for a bright patch of light low on the wall that appears to be descending to the canyon floor. That should become a beam if you're lucky. There are a lot of these out there if you look for them. May and June are the best time to shoot the beams because the sun is highest near the summer solstice and the risk of flash flooding is lower than July and August. But always keep an eye on the sky and check the forecast before you head out.
Here is an example of the effect of throwing dust into a beam. As you can see, getting a uniformity of dust in the beam is the real trick and will take a lot of practice. I posted an image in ESS a few days ago that shows a uniform beam followed by several versions where the back wall was blended in to give the beam varying degrees of transparency. This technique isn't for everybody, especially the large format guys out there, but if you remember to shoot an exposure before you throw the dust, you'll have the option later to blend in the back wall to give the beam transparency and enhance the 'natural' appearance of a high contrast beam. But as you can see, the 'natural' look actually has a spectrum in reality. As some others here have said, sometimes you have to do a little photo developing to actually make the image look real, not just enhance it. Assuming you're into that....
As to the question of weather the enhancement of these natural beams with sand or in photoshop is altering the reality of a natural scene, see the lengthy discourse below.
These are just my thoughts on the subject and this isn't meant to be a tutorial but hopefully it will save you some headache if you find yourself out there with a day to shoot the canyons.
Here's the final version after getting a uniformly lit beam and then blending in some of the back wall to give it more transparency. Hopefully this makes sense to everyone...
Mike - Thanks for sharing your efforts in experimentation with this phenomenon. It's fun to see all the different options. I ran into a similar situation in an ice cave at one point, but in the absence of sand, I had to wait for the misty wet air from the cave to flow into the shaft of light.
Wow - very well done. Smart idea - throwing up the sand. I would've never thought about it ... and I actually don't know if this is standard procedure. Very grateful of you too for freely sharing your technique! I appreciate it very much! Thanks.
There's one more way to get these shots. Here's a quote from a friend that e-mailed me about my technique:
"Why all the fuss and hassle throwing sand around? Just show up extra early with a big MJ bong, let the smoke fill the chamber, then wait for the beam, leisurely take out your camera and get the shot. And the people around you will appreciate the technique more than you throwing sand all over everybody. Just keep it simple and fun."
Cool.
Posted by Marc Adamus on June 18, 2007 at 10:12 PM
Technique #2 may not be for everyone either....
That has to be the best description of slot-beam technique ever. The only time I've ever used it personally was in an Oregon cave.
Another thought - never go to any area where tours are required. Just my opinion, of course.
Posted by Tom Webster on June 18, 2007 at 10:21 PM
I have to ask, "Where is the "nature" in a constructed image like this?" I guess, do anything to make the image and nature be darned.
Posted by Marc Adamus on June 18, 2007 at 10:25 PM
I whole other discussion needed there, Tom. Landscape photography is often viewed as the interpretion of nature, not nature itself.
Posted by Kevin McNeal on June 19, 2007 at 12:05 AM
Mike,
Those are some stunning examples of the slots. I would love to have these in my collection. Thanks for the tutorial.Kevin
I hear your point loud and clear. I certainly would not condone the routine 'construction' of nature images like this. I posted this topic because I got several e-mails asking about the mechanics behind making the image. I know there are a lot of people who have seen these kinds of images, are interested in seeing and photographing the canyons and I thought I would share my experiences with everyone. Some may find these beam images cliche or unnatural. But if a high wind is blowing over the canyons in June you will see something like this naturally as the sand filters down into the canyon. But you'd have to enjoy the spectacle without a camera if you didn't want your gear grinding to a halt with encrusted grit. Yet the phenomena exists in the canyons. Displaying the beam in a photograph is a way of giving artistic impact to the natural elements of the canyon; it's depth and the quality of the filtered light that makes it to the bottom on a few days of the year.
But you've brought up a very good point. Where do we draw the line between 'visualizing a phenomenon in nature and finding a way to ENHANCE the impact artistically' versus 'MISREPRESENTING a natural phenomenon by portraying it in a way that doesn't LITERALLY exist'?
Have you ever seen a waterfall look like pure flowing silk in real time? Or seen an ocean with a floating eight inch mist over a field of low boulders in a tide pool? Or seen billions of stars streak into a circle of lines around an illuminated tent at night? None of these things exist in a literal sense to our eyes. These kinds of images IMPLY that a natural flow or phenomenon is occurring but they don't represent the phenomenon literally. They offer a unique portrait of the intangible 'feel' of a place and give the effect a visceral impact without documenting it literally as our eyes see it. Sometimes the artistic implication of something we can't literally see is paradoxically more illuminating to our brains. And that to me is where the art of photography begins.
But here is where it gets tricky. Where can we as artists introduce that vague IMPLICATION of a dynamic phenomenon? Is it critical that the dynamic state be introduced in the image while the shutter is being pressed? Or is it reasonable to introduce the effect in the DEVELOPMENT STAGE of the image? Do we all agree that photography is a PROCESS from a set up through the click of a shutter to development of an image to the printing of a final piece of art? I feel it is possible to introduce your artistic vision at any point in the process as long as you stay true to your original vision. Your audience's response will likely be the final judge as to whether you were effective in communicating the vision or not. It's also important to be truthful to your audience about how you made the image.
In my original ES&S post, the LITERAL image captured in RAW by my camera didn't look real to anybody. It looked like a Hollywood laser beam. But it was a perfect documentation of the scene from a literal point of view given the capabilities of the dynamic range of my sensor. The 1000 fold better dynamic range of my retina could actually see detail in the beam that the camera couldn't. If I had stopped the artistic process there, I would have failed at communicating my vision of what my brain could visualize happening in the beam. I stepped over the 'boundary' for some people and decided to develop the image further in Photoshop. Yet the end result of the process was an image that correctly matched most people's perception of reality and is a much better representation of how my eye could 'see' the beam.
The inclusion of a beam of light in the image provides the artistic impact I was looking for. It also exemplifies the intangible natural elements of the experience including the sense of immense canyon depth, the sanctity of a secret glowing chamber hidden from the rest of the world and the warmth of a hot desert breeze drifting into this sanctuary from a featureless plain above. If I am effective in communicating my love for a natural place with an image that impacts the viewer and includes some dynamic effect that captures the intangible elements of a place but still conforms to their compass for reality, I feel I have succeeded. The process of getting to that point is less important to me as an artist. But getting back to your original question, for me, the process should always involve the celebration of the natural world and never the expoitation of it. And anything I include in an image must have some implied and valid presence in the scene and nothing is ever 'imported' from somewhere else.
And as a last point, I fully agree with Marc that getting out into the wilderness away from tour groups is the best way to truly experience the beauty of these canyons assuming you have the physical ability to do that. I was alone in the canyon when I got the shot taken above, which is a bit of a rarity in Lower Antelope, and that intimacy probably reflects my connection to the image. But I spent the rest of my trip exploring wilderness slot canyons and applied the skills I learned in Antelope to those areas where I was completely alone. I will show you some of the images from those hikes later in ES&S.
Thanks for listening and bringing up a great point for discussion! I hope I'm not getting too serious and boring for everyone here.
I hear ya Tom, but then I ask myself, is it any worse than baiting.........birds, macro, animals, etc. Probably not M8t. Reading through here I must admit I was thinking the same things after seeing a few of these from up your way, then I had to think about melons, sugar water, ant's and flies and guilty as charged this end
Absolutely gorgeous results thats for sure. Spectacular images.
Just to throw in my $0.02. If you're fortunate enough to show up on a day when the crows are busy kicking up sand on the top, you won't need an assistant to throw up the sand. So, yes, the beams do occur naturally if you consider crows nature. I've seen this happen twice in the past 19 years that I've been going there.
Another "trick" to get the beam to light up is to use a bottle of baby powder. It will take a little trial and error to see where the breeze is taking the baby powder plume. The plume from baby powder stays in the air much longer than the dust from the sand. I watched a guy do this once and it worked great!
Or, you could try the Fatali method and use only God's light with a little help from a fire.
BTW - Great shot Mike!!!!
Posted by Tom Webster on June 19, 2007 at 10:06 AM
nzmacro wrote:
I hear ya Tom, but then I ask myself, is it any worse than baiting.........birds, macro, animals, etc.
Hi ya' mate! I don't practice baiting, luring, calling animals and I don't condone those practices, either. I just get tired of all the staged nature images that are posted anymore. It's as if Nature in its natural state is not good enough anymore. So many photographers want to make nature "super-natural". It is not good enough to photograph an animal or bird doing what they naturally do in the areas they naturally live in. It is not good enough to present a landscape as it is but we have to enhance that landscape or make it appear as we see it with our "inner vision". I just sometimes think that we, as nature photographers, need to take off the rose-colored, technicolor glasses we wear over our mind's eye and look at things as they naturally are and not how we want them to unnaturally be.
(These statements of mine probably belong in the "Hot Topics Forum". )
I photographed Antelope Canyon in the late 1970s to early 1980s before most of the world outside the reservation knew there was such a slot canyon. Then, it was just a short drive from Page, AZ, open a 3-wire gate in a fence, and another short drive down a sandy wash/road that changed locations depending on where the winds shifed the sands. In all the times I went there I never felt the need to "enhance" what I saw. Actually, it was a small group of us photographers that visited Antelope Canyon regularly and I can't recall anyone in our group "enhancing" the nature of Antelope Canyon.
I quit going there when it started to become the tourist trap it has become, today. However, I worked in a professional photolab until the year 2000 and we custom printed literally hundreds of Antelope Canyon images per month. In just about every one of the images made from the location in the canyon that has the sunbeam, you could tell people had thrown sand in the air to "enhance" the sunbeam. It is hard for me to want to recreate images that hundreds and thousands of other photographers have already created because the sunbeam by itself wasn't "natural" enough.
My good friend Richard Ditch has the perfect description for these types of images. He calls them "engineered nature images". I think Rich is a pretty smart guy.
Mike, I prefer the image at the top of your post over the image at the bottom of your post. The top image looks much more "real" to me than the bottom image. I have never once, ever, seen a solid sunbeam in Antelope Canyon like the sunbeam in your bottom image. I've only seen that kind of sunbeam in thousands of images made by other photographers before you. If you want to present Nature naturally, accept the top image as a better rendition of reality unless, of course, you have a need to re-engineer Nature.
People feel strongly about their own ways of seeing nature. And people are different, so it's no surprise that those strong feelings will show us how many sides there are to our individual views. When I saw the initial thread, I figured it was only a matter of time before the altering-nature topic would come up. It's come up many, many times (and I've only been here for a year). While the arguments for and against may feel tired to many people, it seems that each time the drama is played out the actors find interesting ways to define their positions, and this time is no different.
I wonder how Tom feels about the many, many "staged" nature images that have graced the pages of National Geographic overe the years. The "staging" helps tell the story, and it's effective. I don't see Mr. Anderson's image any differently, and assume that he's photographing nature as art, not as science/journalism. There's definitely a different set of "rules" for each.
Posted by Wayne Rhodus on June 19, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Wikipedia: Nature ... "It is often taken to mean the "natural environment" or wilderness – wild animals, rocks, forest, beaches, and in general those things that have not been substantially altered by human intervention, or which persist despite human intervention. This more traditional concept of natural things which can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the latter being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human or human-like consciousness or mind."
That statement seems appropriate to this discussion, with the key being "distinction between the natural and the artificial". I respect all opinions on the subject and embrace the fact that there are a wide range of opinions on the subject.
For me personally, "nature" can only be experienced first hand. The mere act of photography introduces the human element. After all, even without the act of a "staged" image there is nothing "natural" about an image of nature on a computer monitor or nothing "natural" about an image in print being viewed by another. Only the singular experience of being immersed in a natural setting and interacting in that environment qualifies as natural.
I for one will be eternally grateful to nature photographers of all mindsets because their dedication, efforts and "yes" creativity to capture images in natural settings have exposed me to things I may never experience in person. I feel priviledged to be able to share their moments in nature.
Posted by David Bostedo on June 19, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Despite the fact that "being there" is the only "real" nature experience, I still see a difference between capturing a photo of what was available, versus taking one of what was created/altered by the proverbial hand of man. And I really don't have a problem with either. But here's another vote for the first light beam. It looks more plausible, for lack of a better word.
I tried to reason out why I don't mind manufactured images, but this all comes down to the usual argument about how far is too far, with documentary photos on one end, and photo art on the other.
Out of curiosity, Tom, what DO you think of National Geographic printing engineered images?
I think part of the issue here is that too many photographers attempt to force upon other photographers their arbitrarily imposed rules of what "nature photography" is or should be. Fortunately, there are no laws/guidelines which bind non-editorial photographers to anything.
I find "rules" to be a serious impediment to creativity and personal expression.
Posted by Tom Webster on June 19, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Michael Gordon wrote:
I wonder how Tom feels about the many, many "staged" nature images that have graced the pages of National Geographic overe the years. The "staging" helps tell the story, and it's effective. I don't see Mr. Anderson's image any differently, and assume that he's photographing nature as art, not as science/journalism. There's definitely a different set of "rules" for each.
Michael, I don't buy National Geographic or any of the popular periodicals. I joined the Audubon Society to support their work towards avian conservation. I don't even crack the cover, just hand it off to one of my children for their amusement. I don't subscribe to any of the common periodicals because they are full of "engineered" situations and images. No, I don't support setups and I don't use them in my images. Well, I did photograph some warblers Sunday at an artificial water feature but I would never claim them to be "natural" images of warblers and I did not go out of my way to create the artificial water feature.
Why are we so conceited to think that we have to "improve" nature to have nature meet our expectations and not see nature as it really is? Artistic? I don't think, so. Egotistic (and I don't mean this in the negative connotation of the word)? Yes. Artist or not, I think modern man is so egotistical that modern man thinks he can improve anything. Artist or not, modern man seems to find the natural world lacking on its own and, therefore, devises means to "prettify" nature to make nature match his own "inner vision". I think "artistic vision" is just an excuse to justify ignoring the reality of nature and allows an "artist" carte blanche to recreate nature to match the artist's expectations.
I think, as artists and documentary photographers, we expect too much instant gratification. Instead of returning to a location time and again to photograph natural events, we devise ways and means of instantly producing what we want nature to be. Instead of returning time and again to Antelope Canyon to catch a ray of light in the natural dust that drifts in the air, we throw a handful of dust in the air and call it "natural". Horse hocky! We just "engineered nature" to meet our needs of instant gratification. Takes a whole lot less dedication to our subject to engineer an image of nature than it does to allow Nature to play itself before us.
I take this same attitude towards avian, wildlife photographers, and...yes, Danny ...macro photographers, too. It's very difficult to photograph many species in their natural habitats doing what they naturally do. What do we do about it? Do we put in the time and effort it requires to make these natural images? Nope. We use different means to attract these species to locations of easy to easier photography without concern whether or not we are presenting a natural animal. We "engineer" traps and setups and then present the photos as "nature" photos. We engineer nature for our own instant gratification without concern for what is produced being "natural" or artificial. Basically, we "engineer" our own realities because we find reality lacking and we have to "prettify" our world.
I don't expect anyone to agree with me or to follow the approaches of nature photography I have set for myself. I may not agree with the various approaches used but I will vehemently defend anyone's right to photograph subjects and present them as they want. We have our own individual sense of right or wrong which we must follow to be faithful to ourselves, first and foremost. I just don't like "engineered nature". I find Nature beautiful enough to satisfy my needs and I do not expect more of the natural world than what the natural world has to offer. YMMV
Tom: I'm curious; how do you feel about Monet? Pissarro? Renoir? Bierstadt? Moran? Or the scores of California plein-air painters? None have faithfully reproduced nature or the landscape in excruciatingly exact detail.
The camera is only a recording device in scientific applications. In all others, I see it no differently than a paintbrush and canvas or pencil and paper; all are instruments capable of producing self-expression and art for those open to it. Photography has earned its keep as an art form and has absolutely no obligation to reproduce fact.
Tom: I'm curious; how do you feel about Monet? Pissarro? Renoir? Bierstadt? Moran? Or the scores of California plein-air painters? None have faithfully reproduced nature or the landscape in excruciatingly exact detail.
Yes, you are correct. However, in the periods during which these works of art were created, there never was the expectation that art would reproduce nature faithfully. It was a common expectation that a painting was not true to a scene but an amalgam of scenes and experiences. Much of Victorian art was created to tell a story, sort of a novella on canvas. Much of Impressionist art was about color relations and the color of light. These properties were the expectations of the times and the society.
We live in a society that has different expectations, Michael. There is a perceived expectation by our viewing public that photography can offer a more "truthful" rendition of reality than can the traditional arts. We can gather in our "artistic" little groups and slap each other on our backs and congratulate each other on capturing our "inner vision" of a scene. When the truth be known, should we mingle amongst the general populous, those that truly define our society and times, the general populous feels betrayed by our "inner vision". I've heard time and time again..."I visited 'such and such' place and it didn't look at all like what 'such and such' place looked in a photograph." And we wonder why the general public distrusts photographers, especially "nature photographers"? We wonder why we are constantly questioned regarding digital "improvements"? Art needs to meet some of the expectations of the society that views the art and our society has become distrustful of over-saturated scenes and Disney-esque portrayals of nature that do not meet their expectations.
We, as photographers, are the only ones that define cameras as a recording device cum canvas. The majority of the viewing public looks at a camera more as a lie detector.
David Bostedo wrote:
Out of curiosity, Tom, what DO you think of National Geographic printing engineered images?
As Michael Gordon has pointed out, Nat'l Geo is out to tell a story. I just don't care to "read" the story as presented, so I don't read Nat'l Geo. IMO, I feel their standards have slipped considerably over the last couple of decades. But, that is my opinion and mine alone. If others enjoy Nat'l Geo I am not one to tell them they shouldn't read it.
More great discussion. Tom, thanks for expanding on your thoughts.
"I don't expect anyone to agree with me or to follow the approaches of nature photography I have set for myself. I may not agree with the various approaches used but I will vehemently defend anyone's right to photograph subjects and present them as they want."
Thanks Tom. These are the kinds of statements that make the NPN community unique in the online world. We can have a lively discussion, present very different points of view, and yet we all respect each other and in the end we leave with a few points to ponder without pissing anybody off. That's the way it should always be done!
Art needs to meet some of the expectations of the society that views the art...
Is that right, Tom? That's news to me.
I certainly don't expect to influence your thinking, but it seems rather narrow to me on this subject. I agree; the Disneyfied stuff is over the top for me as well, especially when anyone can go see for themselves what the icons look like in their normal or best light. However, there are scores of photographers using nature and landscape in ways that defy categorization such as you've attempted. Despite waht you may think, not everyone looks to or purchases photographs which include nature/landscape as faithful reproductions of nature.
How sad it would be if photographers were only limited to the reproduction of the factual and common. The camera is an incredible tool; to use it in such a narrowly-defined scope seems unfortunate to me.
Art needs to meet some of the expectations of the society that views the art...
Is that right, Tom? That's news to me.
It shouldn't be, Michael. Consider Vincent Van Gogh and how unsuccessful he was for his time. Certainly, he painted what he "saw" but received little to no public attention until the viewing public (and art critics, too) changed in their sophistication and expectations. Of course, there will always be limited audiences for almost any type of art. Van Gogh's brother, Theo, was his greatest collector and died a pauper within a year of Vincent's death. Art that appeals to the general masses, however, is a different creature and is subject to the expectations of the populace of the time in which it was created.
My whole point, however, is: Why the need to improve upon Nature? What in our visualization do we feel we need to perform to improve that which Nature lays before us?
Tom: not surprisingly, you see the Van Gogh story differently than I do I see an artist who remained true and faithful to his art. He has my utmost admiration.
I don't for a second suggest that nature needs to be improved upon, but as with anything else, there is lots of room for personal interpretation. You do it one way, Michael Anderson another, and myself another. NONE of these approaches are right are wrong, and NONE are guilty of anything.
I see Mike's image as an interpretation of the place. To me, this is thinking outside the box. Unless I'm reading you wrong, you see what he's done as some sort of violation of unwritten codes of conduct. I call it personal expression, or art. I looked at Mike's site, and he doesnt claim to be a "nature photographer" nor does claim to be a faithful recordist of nature (thank goodness).
I wrote my last reply before you put up your discussion about the expectations of the public.
I wanted to add one more thought to that point. You have to read your audience as well as be true to youself and you have to be honest with your audience about the photographic process. The audience for wildlife photography can be different than the audience for landscapes.
Wildlife connoisseurs seem to want an intimate view of an animal in it's natural state with an expression or action that they can connect to. The light is not always as critical as the body language of the animal. But occasionally fill flash or fill lighting is used to emphasize contrast that wasn't there naturally. But the animal has to be both real and wild. If they knew it was taken in a zoo, they wouldn't like it.
I believe you have misjudged the audience for landscapes. No audience is homogenous, but I believe in general they want to see images that appear real but carry an emotional IMPACT. Literal postcard landscapes often fail to a general audience. Collectors of landscapes often want a view of the land in the most extraordinary light that shows just how beautiful the place can be, even if they weren't able to witness it that way themselves. The landscape itself is breathtaking to them, and overwhelms all five of their senses. A simple snapshot from a P&S doesn't translate well to their friends (or their own memories) the 'emotional rush' they experienced there with all of their senses. They want to share with others the unseen perceptions of wind, quiet, cold, or overwhelming vastness that a simple straight photograph can't convey. Landscape photography is about capturing the full sensory relationship we have in a place. A master landscape photographer knows how to extract from a scene the elements that generate the emotional high. That often requires perfect lighting or an artistic leap to give the implication of an element in the scene we can't always see literally. Marc Adamus's masterpiece 'Winters Fury' implies the presence of a howling wind without showing it directly. His presentation of the image in black and white with a hint of blue in the shadows implies a cold stark place and that contributes to the emotional impact of the image. But it didn't look like exactly like that in reality (B&W). Yet his audience and clientele completely accept his interpretation of the scene. Galen Rowell's image of the snow capped Mt Kailas under a full moon with a dome of stars spinning around the peak considered 'the center of the universe' to Tibetan Buddhists is accepted as 'real' to his audience as well. It has an impact that is valid in their perception of the world. I believe it's possible to use artistic vision to convey an unseen emotional dynamic that is present in our experience with the landscape that can't be photographed literally. And if the artist's vision is true to his perception of a place, and he is a master of his craft, the audience will accept the image as 'real' and the emotional impact of his experience in the landscape will be more intuitive to someone who was never there. If we aren't true enough to our vision, then the image won't resonate with others and we run the risk of others feeling like we 'misrepresented' the landscape. We are the stewards of a refined artform that's continuing to mature and we SHOULD constantly push the limits of our medium to share with others new aspects of our intimate relationship with the natural world that they have never seen before or can't experience due to lack of time or access. Transcending the boundaries of a two dimensional visual medium is the ultimate goal for my images as long as they remain valid to a broad perception of my experience with nature rather than just a literal documentation of it. I'm sure I will fail at times and hopefully I won't lose the trust of my audience in the process. But it's a worthy pursuit in my opinion. Ultimately the audience decides the success of an image and that is what will define a successful artist from everyone else.
To me, this is thinking outside the box. Unless I'm reading you wrong, you see what he's done as some sort of violation of unwritten codes of conduct.
Yes, Michael, you are reading me wrong. I'm not concerned with "rules" violations. I defend anybody's right to present an image any way they want. I stated so in a previous reply. I am questioning, "Why?" Why is it necessary to present something not as it is, but as the photographer wants it to be? There's no rules implied. I want to understand the thinking behind the need to present what isn't there. What is it that Nature lacks that motivates photographers to create or "engineer" images through either direct manipulation of the environment, as in the Antelope Canyon image above, or through post-processing techniques that enhances the nature of a scene or subject beyond that presented by Nature. Does Nature really need our help?
Sorry, Michael, I didn't mean to hijack your post.
Look at the image of a Lucy's Warbler I photographed Sunday. Nature presented me a warbler and I appreciated the visual gift in light of the astounding miracle of Nature that brought me the warbler. I photographed the warbler and performed my usual curves, etc. Nothing more. If I were to post this in the Avian Gallery there would be a bunch of replies to tell me how to make it better. What's to improve? Nature presented me a perfect creation and I appreciated that creation as presented. I have no desire to "improve" upon Nature nor do I have a desire to impose an "inner vision" as to what constitutes a Lucy's Warbler.
I want to know why we are never satisfied with the gifts we are given by Nature. Why must we always straddle Nature with our own interpretation and "improvements"? My opinion is because man is never satisfied with anything that man cannot ultimately control. Nature can't truly be controlled by man but the images made of Nature can be controlled and embellished to suit man's desires. Not always reality, is it? Why do we prefer fantasy over reality?
I believe it's possible to use artistic vision to convey an unseen emotional dynamic that is present in our experience with the landscape that can't be photographed literally. And if the artist's vision is true to his perception of a place, and he is a master of his craft, the audience will accept the image as 'real' and the emotional impact of his experience in the landscape will be more intuitive to someone who was never there. If we aren't true enough to our vision, then the image won't resonate with others and we run the risk of others feeling like we 'misrepresented' the landscape.
Very well stated, Mike.
Ultimately the audience decides the success of an image and that is what will define a successful artist from everyone else.
I vehemently disagree! The photographer decides the success of his/her images! There are scores of amateur photographers, actors, musicians, athletes, etc that perhaps dont have the resources, energy, or interest to become professional. I believe we've all seen or have met a few of these 'artists' from time to time, and although they might not be financially "successful", I think you'd agree by watching or listening that they are immensely successful.
Commercial success and personal success are obviously very different animals, which is again why I hold such high regard for an artist like Van Gogh.
Ultimately the audience decides the success of an image and that is what will define a successful artist from everyone else.
I vehemently agree! Van Gogh would have never had the following he has or had been recognized if his work had not been found by an audience that appreciated it. It's just too bad that the audience was found after his death. But his audience at the time he created his works did not have the appreciation for his work during his lifetime. That, I believe is what we as nature photographers face, today. An audience of skeptics because our work is viewed with skepticism.
Very good point, but I wasn't talking about the financial success of an artist or image. I was talking about the success of connecting with the audience and the ability to convey a vision or emotion of a 5 dimensional experience to a 2 dimensional medium. And I'm not sure I can exclude the opinion of my audience in defining my own success. I learn a lot from the reaction of my audience and then I grow as a photographer. Sure, this type of sentiment may end up pulling me to the gully of 'broad appeal' mediocrity, but not if I keep my original goal of showing people the world in a way they may have experienced it but never seen it in a two dimensional medium. Hopefully the last two posts answer Tom's question indirectly as well.
I gotta get to work now, but thanks for the great discussion you guys. I'll be checking back in when I get home.
I am questioning, "Why?" Why is it necessary to present something not as it is, but as the photographer wants it to be? There's no rules implied. I want to understand the thinking behind the need to present what isn't there. What is it that Nature lacks that motivates photographers to create or "engineer" images through either direct manipulation of the environment, as in the Antelope Canyon image above, or through post-processing techniques that enhances the nature of a scene or subject beyond that presented by Nature. Does Nature really need our help?
Hello Tom.
You are right, nature doesn't need my help (in the form of manipulated photographs). At the same time I too don't feel any need whatsoever to make perfectly realistic and documentary images of nature. So we have struck a mutual agreement. Nature does her thing and I do mine.
I present what I do via my work simply because I can and I want to. Its about satisfying a personal itch, not gratifying the masses. A lot of people don't see anything in my photographs and that is perfectly okay.
Posted by Richard Wong on June 19, 2007 at 6:34 PM
I personally think this was a creative way to get the photo and never thought of that before.
Posted by John W. Wall on June 19, 2007 at 7:26 PM
Sorry to butt into the discussion guys, but Michael, this quote of yours is incorrect:
Galen Rowell's image of the snow capped Mt Kailas under a full moon with a dome of stars spinning around the peak considered 'the center of the universe' to Tibetan Buddhists is accepted as 'real' to his audience as well.
It's the followers of Sanatana Dharma (known to the rest of the world as Hindus) that consider Mount Kailash to be the center of the universe and the abode of Lord Shiva, while Tibetan Tantrik Buddhists consider it to be the abode of Demchok Buddha.
A photograph is a piece of craftsmanship that may evoke some aspect/s of being there. If we evoke that feeling by throwing dirt, using Kodachrome 25 or spinning our camera during exposure, or none of those, the fact that a viewer is NOT there remains unchanged. The photographer is showing you a depiction of what he wants to show you.
My apologies, Michael, if I have offended you or caused you emotional distress. I truly thought we were having a discussion on the philosophical merits of nature photography and I did not realize we were engaged in debate with a winner or loser. Again, my sincerest apologies.
I'll say no more on this topic and keep my personal beliefs to myself, henceforth.
Now, Tom, you are a smart fellow, and you must have known that expressing yourself so forcefully -- and extending the debate beyond your initial comment -- would eventually put off at least one person.
Some might have taken your statements as indictments of their own beliefs but, while I don't believe exactly as you do, I did not interpret your strong feelings as an attack on my perspective, simply as a clear and emphatic manner of self expression.
No harm there, right?
Now, if you meant to cast judgment on those who see things differently than you do, I would have a problem with that, because no artist should consider himself/herself the arbiter of standards.
Steve, I cast no judgements on anybody. In fact, I've stated twice that these are my beliefs and I don't expect anybody else to agree with or hold those same beliefs. I'll say it one more time...These are the expectations I set for myself and nobody else. I will defend anybody's right to their own nature photography philosophy and their right to express it. Good enough? I, frankly, thought this was a good discussion and that no one had been offended.
I know my feelings are not "mainstream" but they are my feelings and convictions. Right or wrong, although, I do not believe there is a right or wrong philosophy, except those that we set for ourselves and live with by example.
It was your final statement after hearing one lone viewer "give up" -- that you'd say no more on this topic and would keep your thoughts to yourself -- that I thought might be a bit petulant.
I've valued your perspectives, though they are not my perspectives, quite. I can't know it all, so it's nice to reflect on clear insights supplied by others.
Here's one of mine, and it is a direct response to your core question.
Man is as much a part of nature as anything in the universe. Any human who believes he or she needs to become "one with nature" has fallen victim to social entropy and forgotten that fundamental fact. That person has raised a false barrier. If I to some degree stage a scene or in any way alter what was there when I first saw it, it must then be within my nature to do so, and if I am an integral part of nature, what I do must therefore be natural.
My inclination to change some aspects of a scene is no different than a beaver's inclination to change a landscape to suit how a beaver sees the world. For both beaver and human, such impetus seems to be the norm. I'm not comparing the relative impact of human vs beaver manipulation on the state of the world, but if both beavers and humans do what is in our natures to do, what's unnatural about that?
You've asked a question, Tom, and I've provided my perspective. I have thought very long and very hard on these things for all my adult years. Will you acknowledge the value of a perspective different than your own, or will you simply attempt to counter my thoughts with arguments?
Posted by Tom Webster on June 19, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Steve Foss wrote:
You've asked a question, Tom, and I've provided my perspective. I have thought very long and very hard on these things for all my adult years. Will you acknowledge the value of a perspective different than your own, or will you simply attempt to counter my thoughts with arguments?
Steve, I have no problems with a different point of view and I am all in favor of validating your personal feelings. However, you are attempting to push this past a discussion of different philosophies by stating, "...or will you simply attempt to counter my thoughts with arguments?" Nope, not gonna fall in that trap, thanks. I bid you all good night and I shall not revisit this topic.
Tom, I only infrequently involve myself in such philosophical discussions with others because it so rarely changes our own perspectives, but I see in you someone willing to both express yourself and listen to different views, and that's what I was after here.
If the last line of my post was so clumsily worded that you saw it as an attempt to trap you rather than engage you with the ideas that went before it, I apologize.
Michael, in a belated and deflated effort to return this to where you started it, thanks for your fine and detailed explanation. I like the first image better than the second not because I feel one is more "natural" than the other, but because I Iike the elusive quality of the beam in the former. It's hard to pin down, much like life is, and offers a bit of mystery -- also reflecting our lives.
This thread and discussion should be saved and archived. Its that darn interesting. Totally different ways of looking and going about things. I can see both sides in this and that includes what I'll do to get a shot. Very interesting.
All the best and one fascinating thread. Save it somewhere Jim, it deserves it M8t
I did not really want to jump into this discussion, but I just had to after you posted your image of the Warbler. Can you honestly tell us that that is excatly what that scene looked like? Your telling us that the camera itself did not alter the rays of light that would have reachded your eye had the camera not been in the way? I say nay!. That background was not blurred to a soft green, it was probably a jumbled mess of branches and leaves. Did that bird have the wonderful catch light in its eye, or was that the artifical light that came from your flash? The camera produces a lie, a figment of what was truly there. The photographic artist is one who can take what the camera captures and turns it into something that can move others to admire nature, to love nature and ultimately, I think, to care about nature.
Posted by Bruce Painter on June 20, 2007 at 10:36 PM
I have very much enjoyed this thread for several reasons. First for the technique of how these images were made. BTW while I like both, I like the first one best. I think it is because this is more of what I would expect to see if the wind were to be causing sand to fall through the hole.
I have also really enjoyed the way that Tom, Michael A. ,Michael G. and the rest have articulated their views so well and also with out moving this into bashing and namecalling. I can not articulate my views nearly as well. I think I have also enjoyed this because I don't fall very far to either side of the debate. I view all of what we do as "art" which leaves it up to each one to decide if we should move, add to, take away, or alter as long as we don't damage the area. I also love being out in nature and find the exact natural state worth being there even if there is something about the scene that causes me to not be able to make an image I am proud of for one reason or another.
I hope that the difference of opinion on the two sides here do not cause any of us to withhold our views in this thread or in any future threads. That is the way we all learn of views that we may have never thought of on our own.
I love this - a spirited discussion that I'm not in the middle of...
I love both images Mike, but I prefer the "rigged" shot better. Personally, I see no difference in using a little sand to enhance an image any more than I would changing a compositional perspective to enhance an image. If I were interested in true reality I'd be a photjournalist in Iraq or somehwere. I can understand Tom's viewpoint, but I think this is a situation where "to each his own" applies, and well as "live and let live" perhaps.
Jeez, Bill, how DID you avoid this one for so long?
Posted by David Senesac on June 21, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Just back from this summer's fourth backpack and I see we have yet another photography manipulation hijacked thread with all the usual hot irons tossed in.
Dust thrown to make the shot? Fine as long as they were upfront about creatively doing so with their audience. I'm of course in Tom's camp for what I personally prefer. ...David
If you think that by shooting a image of a slot canyon and using sand is so wrong then why do you ion shooting the bird use a shallow DOF to blur the BG, that in itself is a misrepresentation of nature. Our eyes don't see that way so you to me have contradicted yourself to the highest degree, Nothing in that bird image is following your OWN code of conduct.
I wasn't going to revisit this thread but I will answer Keith. A shallow depth of field is the optical result of using a long telephoto lens at a large enough aperture to keep a high enough shutter speed so as not to have motion blur in the image of the bird, Keith. And I know you know that, sir.
Now, Keith, focus your eyes on a single object that close and tell me how sharply you see a background then try to tell me how "unnatural" is the shallow DOF. Landscape shooters get "unnaturally" large amounts of DOF in an image that our eyes can't perceive. Using your own argument, you're point doesn't wash, Keith.
Tom, you could use that same point to state that taking pictures with a camera produces nothing like real life, given DOF, velvia, contrasty paper, etc... couldn't you?
All images are our own interpretation of a scene, Shooting a landscape with huge DOF makes everything sharp, which may or may not be real, shooting a bird, macro or anything else for that matter with a shallow DOF is not real either. so if we look at this image whats real to begin with. If we add a little sand to highlight a sun ray, or add fill flash to brighten a area or add a catchlight to a bird what's the difference??? They are both manipulating nature and what was there.
Now don't say that you have to standards and adding fill flash to a bird image is ok but not to a landscape.
Oh and for me personally if I was to buy one of these prints of the image it would be the first one because it looks more natural. But if the artist prefers the second one why do we judge
For a so-called 'Nature' photography forum I find some of the posts here a bit depressing. Many of the contributors seem to be confusing interpreting a scene with your skills/tools, and physically altering a scene to obtain an effect. They are not the same.
There's a fundamental difference between taking an image that celebrates nature, using all the tools in your toolbox and the skills you've gained as a practitioner, and actually interfering with the subject by throwing dust around (damaging soil micro organisms) and lobbing baby powder (and poisoning something). The next step down that route is the Fatali technique - is that something many of you would consider appropriate?
With all due respect Keith A - your lens example is a red herring. There's a good reason for using a 500mm lens rather than a 50mm lens (which by your logic is probably closest to 'normal' vision's field of view) and thats to either protect yourself (from a bear) or protect the subject if its liable to be dangerously disturbed by your presence (nesting birds). Or even just to get a nice blurry background. The 500mm lens' resultant 'alteration of reality' is simply a function of using that lens, not necessarily a function of a photographer deliberately 'misrepresenting' or 'altering' nature, although it could be that too - its called creativity.
" If we add a little sand to highlight a sun ray, or add fill flash to brighten a area or add a catchlight to a bird what's the difference??? They are both manipulating nature and what was there. "
They are VERY different, and they are NOT "both manipulating nature and what was there" - and the difference is that one (fill-flash) creates an image of something usually without damage to the scene, whereas the other (lobbing dust) can be fundamentally damaging and may alter the scene permanently. Whether that's 'dishonest' is another argument entirely and depends on captions, usage, etc as I'm sure you're aware.
To answer the OP's original question "Thoughts on the Creation of Antelope Beam Images and what is Real in Nature Photography?" - all thats real is the scene before you, what you decide to do with that is your choice, but in exercising that choice you have to ask yourself is it worth damaging what's there just to make a pretty picture?
Which picture do I prefer? The first one.
Nature photography, in many cases, gives more insight into human nature than anything else.
John, I am not taking sides here, and I don't want to, because seriously, I myself don't know which side I am on. However this statement of yours caught my attention, and I quote:
The 500mm lens' resultant 'alteration of reality' is simply a function of using that lens, not necessarily a function of a photographer deliberately 'misrepresenting' or 'altering' nature, although it could be that too - its called creativity.
So are you saying that 'misrepresenting' or 'altering' nature is alright (or creative) as long as you yourself didn't do it with your own hands? The same argument could be applied to film-fans who think that digital guys are cheating - because their film was 'misrepresenting' or 'altering' on it's own and not something that they were doing themselves?
In that case, is it ok for me to ask somebody else to throw sand for me rather than do it myself?
Ashutoj - No thats not what I'm saying. I think you need to re-read the posts previous to mine very carefully.
A previous poster was 'accused' of "manipulating nature" by using a long lens, and this was compared to tossing sand around, or baby powder. You dont "manipulate nature" by using a long lens - you manipulate the image. Thats a HUGE difference.
I'll answer your questions:
1) No
2) No
3) No
Perhaps if I clarify my original post it may better convey the meaning I was perhaps too quickly trying to impart:
"The 500mm lens' resultant 'alteration of reality' is simply a function of using that lens, not necessarily a function of a photographer deliberately 'misrepresenting' or 'altering' nature, although it could be that too - its called creativity. "
My references to 'misrepresenting' or 'altering' refer to perception, what people/viewers will take from the image or understand by seeing it. Nothing more. Does that clarify?
After reading the tenor of my post I cant believe you actually posed question 3!
Hi John, I see what you are saying - but when you say that "manipulating the image" is better than "manipulating nature", isn't the end result in both cases a "manipulation of reality" anyways? (and I am going to refrain from defining the term "reality", since IMO it is a very loaded proposition).
Also if throwing sand in the air can be construed as "manipulating nature", then does adjusting the petals on a flower or removing a dead tree from a beautiful scenic vista count towards the same?
Hey Ashutoj - picture me smiling when I posted the previous - it 'reads' a wee bit more abrupt than was intended! Difficult in online forums to see what people's faces are doing!
I appreciate your feelings about not knowing which side you're on. This is an emotive issue and as can be seen from the previous posts it's one that evokes strong feelings. And I guess the reality is that there are no correct answers, only opinions.
I think we need to draw a clear line between manipulating the image (using lenses, filters, long exposures etc) and physically manipulating the scene.
"but when you say that "manipulating the image" is better than "manipulating nature", isn't the end result in both cases a "manipulation of reality" anyways?"
Absolutely they are both manipulating reality, but one does not damage the subject in any way. It may alter people's perceptions of that subject, but the integrity of the subject itself is unaltered. The test would be - can someone else walk back into that scene I just 'worked on' and find it exactly as I found it at first?
Example - you have a wonderful scene with a bird on the nest, its perfect in every way, gorgeous lighting, great composition.....except for one branch that hangs across the nest. Do you:
1) go to the nest, scare off the bird, cut down the branch, wait for bird to return
2) take the picture and remove the branch in Photoshop
3) not take the picture at all and move on
Thats the choices. I'm sure you can decide on the one that most of us would not select,
"Also if throwing sand in the air can be construed as "manipulating nature", then does adjusting the petals on a flower or removing a dead tree from a beautiful scenic vista count towards the same?"
The point is that sand tossing may not just be manipulation it's potentially damaging to the very scene that you are drawn to. Adjusting the petals on a flower is fine, but removing a dead tree is not. Dead trees are wonderful habitats for many species and their removal, whilst possibly making the scene 'prettier', will damage the ecosystem. Unless of course you choose to do it in Photoshop.
"and I am going to refrain from defining the term "reality", since IMO it is a very loaded proposition). "
I dont think you need to refrain. For the purposes of this discussion 'reality' is the scene you encounter first hand. The choice you then have is to either record as-is, or alter in some way to enhance according to your taste. Maybe using polarizing filter, wideangle lens, fill-flash, whatever. All of which is fine.
Or getting in about the scene and cutting stuff down, lobbing possible contaminants around willy nilly, and setting fire to stuff to get 'atmosphere'. All of which is not fine in my opinion.
Before getting too far down the road of non-manipulation of subject, let me add some exceptions. At least out of heavy use public trail areas, any of us the many of us that take closeup wildflowers images are likely to move grass and other non subject vegetation out of our lens perspectives. Might be simply bending stems away or in the case of dried plant stalks, I'll just toss them away. And in some cases I've worked in vast fields of dense wildflowers, ever place I walk a trampled path is left, and many places I'll work a flattened bombhole may result. Of course more generally everywhere we walk, our boots leave a mark. ...David
I agree David. Another exception might be situations where the use of fill-flash, which I've said is ok compared to lobbing stuff about, will actually cause certain subjects stress. There are no hard and fasts in all of this, only personal experience and common sense. And of course think of all the excellent pollination thats resulted from your boots wandering through that meadow!
Discussion
60 repliesIn upper antelope, the guides know where the beams will be and at what time of day. A guide is required to visit there, and if you sign up for the two hour 'photography' tour, they will assist in throwing sand up into the lightshaft to give it contrast and help manage the foot traffic through the canyon so other's don't walk into your shot. This is easier said than done, however, so I purposely use a long shutter speed and then if someone walks right through the shot you might not be able to see them in the final image. The other benefit of a longer shutter speed is that it allows the sand in the beam to flow through it and blend into a more uniform shaft without ghosting (see attached image). Sometimes no matter what you do, there will be some ghosting that can be difficult to correct in PS. And after throwing up a lot of sand, the chamber can become filled with a light haze that dramatically reduces the contrast and impact of the sandstone around the beam. One way around this is to anticipate where the beam will be (look for the bright spots on the lower walls that are nearing the floor)and then shoot a few images before the beam is there. The exposure will be very similar, and without the dust cloud, and you will have nice contrast in the sandstone. Then shoot the beam with many takes until you get an even, mostly transparent light shaft. If you end up with too much contrast and the beam looks like a laser, you can then blend in part of the back wall from your previous shots into the beam to give it a more transparent look.
Lastly, make sure you throw the sand 'out' and not 'up' or your camera will get trashed. And I would constantly wipe the lens with a soft cloth and I used a lens hood to cut down on glare and protect the glass from some of the dust.
If you want to find beams in other slots (which is a lot more adventurous and fun) look for a canyon that is OVERHUNG at the top. The canyon has to be deep, overhung, and wide at the base to set up the right conditions for a beam. Be there at 10am -1pm and look for a bright patch of light low on the wall that appears to be descending to the canyon floor. That should become a beam if you're lucky. There are a lot of these out there if you look for them. May and June are the best time to shoot the beams because the sun is highest near the summer solstice and the risk of flash flooding is lower than July and August. But always keep an eye on the sky and check the forecast before you head out.
Here is an example of the effect of throwing dust into a beam. As you can see, getting a uniformity of dust in the beam is the real trick and will take a lot of practice. I posted an image in ESS a few days ago that shows a uniform beam followed by several versions where the back wall was blended in to give the beam varying degrees of transparency. This technique isn't for everybody, especially the large format guys out there, but if you remember to shoot an exposure before you throw the dust, you'll have the option later to blend in the back wall to give the beam transparency and enhance the 'natural' appearance of a high contrast beam. But as you can see, the 'natural' look actually has a spectrum in reality. As some others here have said, sometimes you have to do a little photo developing to actually make the image look real, not just enhance it. Assuming you're into that....
As to the question of weather the enhancement of these natural beams with sand or in photoshop is altering the reality of a natural scene, see the lengthy discourse below.
These are just my thoughts on the subject and this isn't meant to be a tutorial but hopefully it will save you some headache if you find yourself out there with a day to shoot the canyons.
-Mike Anderson
-Mike
There's one more way to get these shots. Here's a quote from a friend that e-mailed me about my technique:
"Why all the fuss and hassle throwing sand around? Just show up extra early with a big MJ bong, let the smoke fill the chamber, then wait for the beam, leisurely take out your camera and get the shot. And the people around you will appreciate the technique more than you throwing sand all over everybody. Just keep it simple and fun."
Cool.
That has to be the best description of slot-beam technique ever. The only time I've ever used it personally was in an Oregon cave.
Another thought - never go to any area where tours are required. Just my opinion, of course.
Those are some stunning examples of the slots. I would love to have these in my collection. Thanks for the tutorial.Kevin
I hear your point loud and clear. I certainly would not condone the routine 'construction' of nature images like this. I posted this topic because I got several e-mails asking about the mechanics behind making the image. I know there are a lot of people who have seen these kinds of images, are interested in seeing and photographing the canyons and I thought I would share my experiences with everyone. Some may find these beam images cliche or unnatural. But if a high wind is blowing over the canyons in June you will see something like this naturally as the sand filters down into the canyon. But you'd have to enjoy the spectacle without a camera if you didn't want your gear grinding to a halt with encrusted grit. Yet the phenomena exists in the canyons. Displaying the beam in a photograph is a way of giving artistic impact to the natural elements of the canyon; it's depth and the quality of the filtered light that makes it to the bottom on a few days of the year.
But you've brought up a very good point. Where do we draw the line between 'visualizing a phenomenon in nature and finding a way to ENHANCE the impact artistically' versus 'MISREPRESENTING a natural phenomenon by portraying it in a way that doesn't LITERALLY exist'?
Have you ever seen a waterfall look like pure flowing silk in real time? Or seen an ocean with a floating eight inch mist over a field of low boulders in a tide pool? Or seen billions of stars streak into a circle of lines around an illuminated tent at night? None of these things exist in a literal sense to our eyes. These kinds of images IMPLY that a natural flow or phenomenon is occurring but they don't represent the phenomenon literally. They offer a unique portrait of the intangible 'feel' of a place and give the effect a visceral impact without documenting it literally as our eyes see it. Sometimes the artistic implication of something we can't literally see is paradoxically more illuminating to our brains. And that to me is where the art of photography begins.
But here is where it gets tricky. Where can we as artists introduce that vague IMPLICATION of a dynamic phenomenon? Is it critical that the dynamic state be introduced in the image while the shutter is being pressed? Or is it reasonable to introduce the effect in the DEVELOPMENT STAGE of the image? Do we all agree that photography is a PROCESS from a set up through the click of a shutter to development of an image to the printing of a final piece of art? I feel it is possible to introduce your artistic vision at any point in the process as long as you stay true to your original vision. Your audience's response will likely be the final judge as to whether you were effective in communicating the vision or not. It's also important to be truthful to your audience about how you made the image.
In my original ES&S post, the LITERAL image captured in RAW by my camera didn't look real to anybody. It looked like a Hollywood laser beam. But it was a perfect documentation of the scene from a literal point of view given the capabilities of the dynamic range of my sensor. The 1000 fold better dynamic range of my retina could actually see detail in the beam that the camera couldn't. If I had stopped the artistic process there, I would have failed at communicating my vision of what my brain could visualize happening in the beam. I stepped over the 'boundary' for some people and decided to develop the image further in Photoshop. Yet the end result of the process was an image that correctly matched most people's perception of reality and is a much better representation of how my eye could 'see' the beam.
The inclusion of a beam of light in the image provides the artistic impact I was looking for. It also exemplifies the intangible natural elements of the experience including the sense of immense canyon depth, the sanctity of a secret glowing chamber hidden from the rest of the world and the warmth of a hot desert breeze drifting into this sanctuary from a featureless plain above. If I am effective in communicating my love for a natural place with an image that impacts the viewer and includes some dynamic effect that captures the intangible elements of a place but still conforms to their compass for reality, I feel I have succeeded. The process of getting to that point is less important to me as an artist. But getting back to your original question, for me, the process should always involve the celebration of the natural world and never the expoitation of it. And anything I include in an image must have some implied and valid presence in the scene and nothing is ever 'imported' from somewhere else.
And as a last point, I fully agree with Marc that getting out into the wilderness away from tour groups is the best way to truly experience the beauty of these canyons assuming you have the physical ability to do that. I was alone in the canyon when I got the shot taken above, which is a bit of a rarity in Lower Antelope, and that intimacy probably reflects my connection to the image. But I spent the rest of my trip exploring wilderness slot canyons and applied the skills I learned in Antelope to those areas where I was completely alone. I will show you some of the images from those hikes later in ES&S.
Thanks for listening and bringing up a great point for discussion! I hope I'm not getting too serious and boring for everyone here.
-Mike
Absolutely gorgeous results thats for sure. Spectacular images.
Danny.
Another "trick" to get the beam to light up is to use a bottle of baby powder. It will take a little trial and error to see where the breeze is taking the baby powder plume. The plume from baby powder stays in the air much longer than the dust from the sand. I watched a guy do this once and it worked great!
Or, you could try the Fatali method and use only God's light with a little help from a fire.
BTW - Great shot Mike!!!!
Hi ya' mate!
(These statements of mine probably belong in the "Hot Topics Forum".
I photographed Antelope Canyon in the late 1970s to early 1980s before most of the world outside the reservation knew there was such a slot canyon. Then, it was just a short drive from Page, AZ, open a 3-wire gate in a fence, and another short drive down a sandy wash/road that changed locations depending on where the winds shifed the sands. In all the times I went there I never felt the need to "enhance" what I saw. Actually, it was a small group of us photographers that visited Antelope Canyon regularly and I can't recall anyone in our group "enhancing" the nature of Antelope Canyon.
I quit going there when it started to become the tourist trap it has become, today. However, I worked in a professional photolab until the year 2000 and we custom printed literally hundreds of Antelope Canyon images per month. In just about every one of the images made from the location in the canyon that has the sunbeam, you could tell people had thrown sand in the air to "enhance" the sunbeam. It is hard for me to want to recreate images that hundreds and thousands of other photographers have already created because the sunbeam by itself wasn't "natural" enough.
My good friend Richard Ditch has the perfect description for these types of images. He calls them "engineered nature images". I think Rich is a pretty smart guy.
Mike, I prefer the image at the top of your post over the image at the bottom of your post. The top image looks much more "real" to me than the bottom image. I have never once, ever, seen a solid sunbeam in Antelope Canyon like the sunbeam in your bottom image. I've only seen that kind of sunbeam in thousands of images made by other photographers before you. If you want to present Nature naturally, accept the top image as a better rendition of reality unless, of course, you have a need to re-engineer Nature.
That statement seems appropriate to this discussion, with the key being "distinction between the natural and the artificial". I respect all opinions on the subject and embrace the fact that there are a wide range of opinions on the subject.
For me personally, "nature" can only be experienced first hand. The mere act of photography introduces the human element. After all, even without the act of a "staged" image there is nothing "natural" about an image of nature on a computer monitor or nothing "natural" about an image in print being viewed by another. Only the singular experience of being immersed in a natural setting and interacting in that environment qualifies as natural.
I for one will be eternally grateful to nature photographers of all mindsets because their dedication, efforts and "yes" creativity to capture images in natural settings have exposed me to things I may never experience in person. I feel priviledged to be able to share their moments in nature.
I tried to reason out why I don't mind manufactured images, but this all comes down to the usual argument about how far is too far, with documentary photos on one end, and photo art on the other.
Out of curiosity, Tom, what DO you think of National Geographic printing engineered images?
I find "rules" to be a serious impediment to creativity and personal expression.
Michael, I don't buy National Geographic or any of the popular periodicals. I joined the Audubon Society to support their work towards avian conservation. I don't even crack the cover, just hand it off to one of my children for their amusement. I don't subscribe to any of the common periodicals because they are full of "engineered" situations and images. No, I don't support setups and I don't use them in my images. Well, I did photograph some warblers Sunday at an artificial water feature but I would never claim them to be "natural" images of warblers and I did not go out of my way to create the artificial water feature.
Why are we so conceited to think that we have to "improve" nature to have nature meet our expectations and not see nature as it really is? Artistic? I don't think, so. Egotistic (and I don't mean this in the negative connotation of the word)? Yes. Artist or not, I think modern man is so egotistical that modern man thinks he can improve anything. Artist or not, modern man seems to find the natural world lacking on its own and, therefore, devises means to "prettify" nature to make nature match his own "inner vision". I think "artistic vision" is just an excuse to justify ignoring the reality of nature and allows an "artist" carte blanche to recreate nature to match the artist's expectations.
I think, as artists and documentary photographers, we expect too much instant gratification. Instead of returning to a location time and again to photograph natural events, we devise ways and means of instantly producing what we want nature to be. Instead of returning time and again to Antelope Canyon to catch a ray of light in the natural dust that drifts in the air, we throw a handful of dust in the air and call it "natural". Horse hocky! We just "engineered nature" to meet our needs of instant gratification. Takes a whole lot less dedication to our subject to engineer an image of nature than it does to allow Nature to play itself before us.
I take this same attitude towards avian, wildlife photographers, and...yes, Danny
I don't expect anyone to agree with me or to follow the approaches of nature photography I have set for myself. I may not agree with the various approaches used but I will vehemently defend anyone's right to photograph subjects and present them as they want. We have our own individual sense of right or wrong which we must follow to be faithful to ourselves, first and foremost. I just don't like "engineered nature". I find Nature beautiful enough to satisfy my needs and I do not expect more of the natural world than what the natural world has to offer. YMMV
The camera is only a recording device in scientific applications. In all others, I see it no differently than a paintbrush and canvas or pencil and paper; all are instruments capable of producing self-expression and art for those open to it. Photography has earned its keep as an art form and has absolutely no obligation to reproduce fact.
Yes, you are correct. However, in the periods during which these works of art were created, there never was the expectation that art would reproduce nature faithfully. It was a common expectation that a painting was not true to a scene but an amalgam of scenes and experiences. Much of Victorian art was created to tell a story, sort of a novella on canvas. Much of Impressionist art was about color relations and the color of light. These properties were the expectations of the times and the society.
We live in a society that has different expectations, Michael. There is a perceived expectation by our viewing public that photography can offer a more "truthful" rendition of reality than can the traditional arts. We can gather in our "artistic" little groups and slap each other on our backs and congratulate each other on capturing our "inner vision" of a scene. When the truth be known, should we mingle amongst the general populous, those that truly define our society and times, the general populous feels betrayed by our "inner vision". I've heard time and time again..."I visited 'such and such' place and it didn't look at all like what 'such and such' place looked in a photograph." And we wonder why the general public distrusts photographers, especially "nature photographers"? We wonder why we are constantly questioned regarding digital "improvements"? Art needs to meet some of the expectations of the society that views the art and our society has become distrustful of over-saturated scenes and Disney-esque portrayals of nature that do not meet their expectations.
We, as photographers, are the only ones that define cameras as a recording device cum canvas. The majority of the viewing public looks at a camera more as a lie detector.
David Bostedo wrote:
As Michael Gordon has pointed out, Nat'l Geo is out to tell a story. I just don't care to "read" the story as presented, so I don't read Nat'l Geo. IMO, I feel their standards have slipped considerably over the last couple of decades. But, that is my opinion and mine alone. If others enjoy Nat'l Geo I am not one to tell them they shouldn't read it.
More great discussion. Tom, thanks for expanding on your thoughts.
"I don't expect anyone to agree with me or to follow the approaches of nature photography I have set for myself. I may not agree with the various approaches used but I will vehemently defend anyone's right to photograph subjects and present them as they want."
Thanks Tom. These are the kinds of statements that make the NPN community unique in the online world. We can have a lively discussion, present very different points of view, and yet we all respect each other and in the end we leave with a few points to ponder without pissing anybody off. That's the way it should always be done!
Is that right, Tom? That's news to me.
I certainly don't expect to influence your thinking, but it seems rather narrow to me on this subject. I agree; the Disneyfied stuff is over the top for me as well, especially when anyone can go see for themselves what the icons look like in their normal or best light. However, there are scores of photographers using nature and landscape in ways that defy categorization such as you've attempted. Despite waht you may think, not everyone looks to or purchases photographs which include nature/landscape as faithful reproductions of nature.
How sad it would be if photographers were only limited to the reproduction of the factual and common. The camera is an incredible tool; to use it in such a narrowly-defined scope seems unfortunate to me.
It shouldn't be, Michael. Consider Vincent Van Gogh and how unsuccessful he was for his time. Certainly, he painted what he "saw" but received little to no public attention until the viewing public (and art critics, too) changed in their sophistication and expectations. Of course, there will always be limited audiences for almost any type of art. Van Gogh's brother, Theo, was his greatest collector and died a pauper within a year of Vincent's death. Art that appeals to the general masses, however, is a different creature and is subject to the expectations of the populace of the time in which it was created.
My whole point, however, is: Why the need to improve upon Nature? What in our visualization do we feel we need to perform to improve that which Nature lays before us?
I don't for a second suggest that nature needs to be improved upon, but as with anything else, there is lots of room for personal interpretation. You do it one way, Michael Anderson another, and myself another. NONE of these approaches are right are wrong, and NONE are guilty of anything.
I see Mike's image as an interpretation of the place. To me, this is thinking outside the box. Unless I'm reading you wrong, you see what he's done as some sort of violation of unwritten codes of conduct. I call it personal expression, or art. I looked at Mike's site, and he doesnt claim to be a "nature photographer" nor does claim to be a faithful recordist of nature (thank goodness).
I wanted to add one more thought to that point. You have to read your audience as well as be true to youself and you have to be honest with your audience about the photographic process. The audience for wildlife photography can be different than the audience for landscapes.
Wildlife connoisseurs seem to want an intimate view of an animal in it's natural state with an expression or action that they can connect to. The light is not always as critical as the body language of the animal. But occasionally fill flash or fill lighting is used to emphasize contrast that wasn't there naturally. But the animal has to be both real and wild. If they knew it was taken in a zoo, they wouldn't like it.
I believe you have misjudged the audience for landscapes. No audience is homogenous, but I believe in general they want to see images that appear real but carry an emotional IMPACT. Literal postcard landscapes often fail to a general audience. Collectors of landscapes often want a view of the land in the most extraordinary light that shows just how beautiful the place can be, even if they weren't able to witness it that way themselves. The landscape itself is breathtaking to them, and overwhelms all five of their senses. A simple snapshot from a P&S doesn't translate well to their friends (or their own memories) the 'emotional rush' they experienced there with all of their senses. They want to share with others the unseen perceptions of wind, quiet, cold, or overwhelming vastness that a simple straight photograph can't convey. Landscape photography is about capturing the full sensory relationship we have in a place. A master landscape photographer knows how to extract from a scene the elements that generate the emotional high. That often requires perfect lighting or an artistic leap to give the implication of an element in the scene we can't always see literally. Marc Adamus's masterpiece 'Winters Fury' implies the presence of a howling wind without showing it directly. His presentation of the image in black and white with a hint of blue in the shadows implies a cold stark place and that contributes to the emotional impact of the image. But it didn't look like exactly like that in reality (B&W). Yet his audience and clientele completely accept his interpretation of the scene. Galen Rowell's image of the snow capped Mt Kailas under a full moon with a dome of stars spinning around the peak considered 'the center of the universe' to Tibetan Buddhists is accepted as 'real' to his audience as well. It has an impact that is valid in their perception of the world. I believe it's possible to use artistic vision to convey an unseen emotional dynamic that is present in our experience with the landscape that can't be photographed literally. And if the artist's vision is true to his perception of a place, and he is a master of his craft, the audience will accept the image as 'real' and the emotional impact of his experience in the landscape will be more intuitive to someone who was never there. If we aren't true enough to our vision, then the image won't resonate with others and we run the risk of others feeling like we 'misrepresented' the landscape. We are the stewards of a refined artform that's continuing to mature and we SHOULD constantly push the limits of our medium to share with others new aspects of our intimate relationship with the natural world that they have never seen before or can't experience due to lack of time or access. Transcending the boundaries of a two dimensional visual medium is the ultimate goal for my images as long as they remain valid to a broad perception of my experience with nature rather than just a literal documentation of it. I'm sure I will fail at times and hopefully I won't lose the trust of my audience in the process. But it's a worthy pursuit in my opinion. Ultimately the audience decides the success of an image and that is what will define a successful artist from everyone else.
-Mike
Yes, Michael, you are reading me wrong. I'm not concerned with "rules" violations. I defend anybody's right to present an image any way they want. I stated so in a previous reply. I am questioning, "Why?" Why is it necessary to present something not as it is, but as the photographer wants it to be? There's no rules implied. I want to understand the thinking behind the need to present what isn't there. What is it that Nature lacks that motivates photographers to create or "engineer" images through either direct manipulation of the environment, as in the Antelope Canyon image above, or through post-processing techniques that enhances the nature of a scene or subject beyond that presented by Nature. Does Nature really need our help?
Sorry, Michael, I didn't mean to hijack your post.
Look at the image of a Lucy's Warbler I photographed Sunday. Nature presented me a warbler and I appreciated the visual gift in light of the astounding miracle of Nature that brought me the warbler. I photographed the warbler and performed my usual curves, etc. Nothing more. If I were to post this in the Avian Gallery there would be a bunch of replies to tell me how to make it better. What's to improve? Nature presented me a perfect creation and I appreciated that creation as presented. I have no desire to "improve" upon Nature nor do I have a desire to impose an "inner vision" as to what constitutes a Lucy's Warbler.
I want to know why we are never satisfied with the gifts we are given by Nature. Why must we always straddle Nature with our own interpretation and "improvements"? My opinion is because man is never satisfied with anything that man cannot ultimately control. Nature can't truly be controlled by man but the images made of Nature can be controlled and embellished to suit man's desires. Not always reality, is it? Why do we prefer fantasy over reality?
Very well stated, Mike.
Ultimately the audience decides the success of an image and that is what will define a successful artist from everyone else.
I vehemently disagree!
Commercial success and personal success are obviously very different animals, which is again why I hold such high regard for an artist like Van Gogh.
I vehemently agree!
Very good point, but I wasn't talking about the financial success of an artist or image. I was talking about the success of connecting with the audience and the ability to convey a vision or emotion of a 5 dimensional experience to a 2 dimensional medium. And I'm not sure I can exclude the opinion of my audience in defining my own success. I learn a lot from the reaction of my audience and then I grow as a photographer. Sure, this type of sentiment may end up pulling me to the gully of 'broad appeal' mediocrity, but not if I keep my original goal of showing people the world in a way they may have experienced it but never seen it in a two dimensional medium. Hopefully the last two posts answer Tom's question indirectly as well.
I gotta get to work now, but thanks for the great discussion you guys. I'll be checking back in when I get home.
Over and out....
Hello Tom.
You are right, nature doesn't need my help (in the form of manipulated photographs). At the same time I too don't feel any need whatsoever to make perfectly realistic and documentary images of nature. So we have struck a mutual agreement. Nature does her thing and I do mine.
I present what I do via my work simply because I can and I want to. Its about satisfying a personal itch, not gratifying the masses. A lot of people don't see anything in my photographs and that is perfectly okay.
Sunbeam 3 for sure.
Pete D.
My apologies, Michael, if I have offended you or caused you emotional distress. I truly thought we were having a discussion on the philosophical merits of nature photography and I did not realize we were engaged in debate with a winner or loser. Again, my sincerest apologies.
I'll say no more on this topic and keep my personal beliefs to myself, henceforth.
Some might have taken your statements as indictments of their own beliefs but, while I don't believe exactly as you do, I did not interpret your strong feelings as an attack on my perspective, simply as a clear and emphatic manner of self expression.
No harm there, right?
Now, if you meant to cast judgment on those who see things differently than you do, I would have a problem with that, because no artist should consider himself/herself the arbiter of standards.
I know my feelings are not "mainstream" but they are my feelings and convictions. Right or wrong, although, I do not believe there is a right or wrong philosophy, except those that we set for ourselves and live with by example.
It was your final statement after hearing one lone viewer "give up" -- that you'd say no more on this topic and would keep your thoughts to yourself -- that I thought might be a bit petulant.
I've valued your perspectives, though they are not my perspectives, quite. I can't know it all, so it's nice to reflect on clear insights supplied by others.
Here's one of mine, and it is a direct response to your core question.
Man is as much a part of nature as anything in the universe. Any human who believes he or she needs to become "one with nature" has fallen victim to social entropy and forgotten that fundamental fact. That person has raised a false barrier. If I to some degree stage a scene or in any way alter what was there when I first saw it, it must then be within my nature to do so, and if I am an integral part of nature, what I do must therefore be natural.
My inclination to change some aspects of a scene is no different than a beaver's inclination to change a landscape to suit how a beaver sees the world. For both beaver and human, such impetus seems to be the norm. I'm not comparing the relative impact of human vs beaver manipulation on the state of the world, but if both beavers and humans do what is in our natures to do, what's unnatural about that?
You've asked a question, Tom, and I've provided my perspective. I have thought very long and very hard on these things for all my adult years. Will you acknowledge the value of a perspective different than your own, or will you simply attempt to counter my thoughts with arguments?
Steve, I have no problems with a different point of view and I am all in favor of validating your personal feelings. However, you are attempting to push this past a discussion of different philosophies by stating, "...or will you simply attempt to counter my thoughts with arguments?" Nope, not gonna fall in that trap, thanks. I bid you all good night and I shall not revisit this topic.
If the last line of my post was so clumsily worded that you saw it as an attempt to trap you rather than engage you with the ideas that went before it, I apologize.
Michael, in a belated and deflated effort to return this to where you started it, thanks for your fine and detailed explanation. I like the first image better than the second not because I feel one is more "natural" than the other, but because I Iike the elusive quality of the beam in the former. It's hard to pin down, much like life is, and offers a bit of mystery -- also reflecting our lives.
All the best and one fascinating thread. Save it somewhere Jim, it deserves it M8t
Danny.
I did not really want to jump into this discussion, but I just had to after you posted your image of the Warbler. Can you honestly tell us that that is excatly what that scene looked like? Your telling us that the camera itself did not alter the rays of light that would have reachded your eye had the camera not been in the way? I say nay!. That background was not blurred to a soft green, it was probably a jumbled mess of branches and leaves. Did that bird have the wonderful catch light in its eye, or was that the artifical light that came from your flash? The camera produces a lie, a figment of what was truly there. The photographic artist is one who can take what the camera captures and turns it into something that can move others to admire nature, to love nature and ultimately, I think, to care about nature.
I have also really enjoyed the way that Tom, Michael A. ,Michael G. and the rest have articulated their views so well and also with out moving this into bashing and namecalling. I can not articulate my views nearly as well. I think I have also enjoyed this because I don't fall very far to either side of the debate. I view all of what we do as "art" which leaves it up to each one to decide if we should move, add to, take away, or alter as long as we don't damage the area. I also love being out in nature and find the exact natural state worth being there even if there is something about the scene that causes me to not be able to make an image I am proud of for one reason or another.
I hope that the difference of opinion on the two sides here do not cause any of us to withhold our views in this thread or in any future threads. That is the way we all learn of views that we may have never thought of on our own.
Bruce
I love both images Mike, but I prefer the "rigged" shot better. Personally, I see no difference in using a little sand to enhance an image any more than I would changing a compositional perspective to enhance an image. If I were interested in true reality I'd be a photjournalist in Iraq or somehwere. I can understand Tom's viewpoint, but I think this is a situation where "to each his own" applies, and well as "live and let live" perhaps.
Dust thrown to make the shot? Fine as long as they were upfront about creatively doing so with their audience. I'm of course in Tom's camp for what I personally prefer. ...David
If you think that by shooting a image of a slot canyon and using sand is so wrong then why do you ion shooting the bird use a shallow DOF to blur the BG, that in itself is a misrepresentation of nature. Our eyes don't see that way so you to me have contradicted yourself to the highest degree, Nothing in that bird image is following your OWN code of conduct.
Now, Keith, focus your eyes on a single object that close and tell me how sharply you see a background then try to tell me how "unnatural" is the shallow DOF. Landscape shooters get "unnaturally" large amounts of DOF in an image that our eyes can't perceive. Using your own argument, you're point doesn't wash, Keith.
All images are our own interpretation of a scene, Shooting a landscape with huge DOF makes everything sharp, which may or may not be real, shooting a bird, macro or anything else for that matter with a shallow DOF is not real either. so if we look at this image whats real to begin with. If we add a little sand to highlight a sun ray, or add fill flash to brighten a area or add a catchlight to a bird what's the difference??? They are both manipulating nature and what was there.
Now don't say that you have to standards and adding fill flash to a bird image is ok but not to a landscape.
Oh and for me personally if I was to buy one of these prints of the image it would be the first one because it looks more natural. But if the artist prefers the second one why do we judge
There's a fundamental difference between taking an image that celebrates nature, using all the tools in your toolbox and the skills you've gained as a practitioner, and actually interfering with the subject by throwing dust around (damaging soil micro organisms) and lobbing baby powder (and poisoning something). The next step down that route is the Fatali technique - is that something many of you would consider appropriate?
With all due respect Keith A - your lens example is a red herring. There's a good reason for using a 500mm lens rather than a 50mm lens (which by your logic is probably closest to 'normal' vision's field of view) and thats to either protect yourself (from a bear) or protect the subject if its liable to be dangerously disturbed by your presence (nesting birds). Or even just to get a nice blurry background. The 500mm lens' resultant 'alteration of reality' is simply a function of using that lens, not necessarily a function of a photographer deliberately 'misrepresenting' or 'altering' nature, although it could be that too - its called creativity.
" If we add a little sand to highlight a sun ray, or add fill flash to brighten a area or add a catchlight to a bird what's the difference??? They are both manipulating nature and what was there. "
They are VERY different, and they are NOT "both manipulating nature and what was there" - and the difference is that one (fill-flash) creates an image of something usually without damage to the scene, whereas the other (lobbing dust) can be fundamentally damaging and may alter the scene permanently. Whether that's 'dishonest' is another argument entirely and depends on captions, usage, etc as I'm sure you're aware.
To answer the OP's original question "Thoughts on the Creation of Antelope Beam Images and what is Real in Nature Photography?" - all thats real is the scene before you, what you decide to do with that is your choice, but in exercising that choice you have to ask yourself is it worth damaging what's there just to make a pretty picture?
Which picture do I prefer? The first one.
Nature photography, in many cases, gives more insight into human nature than anything else.
In that case, is it ok for me to ask somebody else to throw sand for me rather than do it myself?
A previous poster was 'accused' of "manipulating nature" by using a long lens, and this was compared to tossing sand around, or baby powder. You dont "manipulate nature" by using a long lens - you manipulate the image. Thats a HUGE difference.
I'll answer your questions:
1) No
2) No
3) No
Perhaps if I clarify my original post it may better convey the meaning I was perhaps too quickly trying to impart:
"The 500mm lens' resultant 'alteration of reality' is simply a function of using that lens, not necessarily a function of a photographer deliberately 'misrepresenting' or 'altering' nature, although it could be that too - its called creativity. "
My references to 'misrepresenting' or 'altering' refer to perception, what people/viewers will take from the image or understand by seeing it. Nothing more. Does that clarify?
After reading the tenor of my post I cant believe you actually posed question 3!
Also if throwing sand in the air can be construed as "manipulating nature", then does adjusting the petals on a flower or removing a dead tree from a beautiful scenic vista count towards the same?
I appreciate your feelings about not knowing which side you're on. This is an emotive issue and as can be seen from the previous posts it's one that evokes strong feelings. And I guess the reality is that there are no correct answers, only opinions.
I think we need to draw a clear line between manipulating the image (using lenses, filters, long exposures etc) and physically manipulating the scene.
"but when you say that "manipulating the image" is better than "manipulating nature", isn't the end result in both cases a "manipulation of reality" anyways?"
Absolutely they are both manipulating reality, but one does not damage the subject in any way. It may alter people's perceptions of that subject, but the integrity of the subject itself is unaltered. The test would be - can someone else walk back into that scene I just 'worked on' and find it exactly as I found it at first?
Example - you have a wonderful scene with a bird on the nest, its perfect in every way, gorgeous lighting, great composition.....except for one branch that hangs across the nest. Do you:
1) go to the nest, scare off the bird, cut down the branch, wait for bird to return
2) take the picture and remove the branch in Photoshop
3) not take the picture at all and move on
Thats the choices. I'm sure you can decide on the one that most of us would not select,
"Also if throwing sand in the air can be construed as "manipulating nature", then does adjusting the petals on a flower or removing a dead tree from a beautiful scenic vista count towards the same?"
The point is that sand tossing may not just be manipulation it's potentially damaging to the very scene that you are drawn to. Adjusting the petals on a flower is fine, but removing a dead tree is not. Dead trees are wonderful habitats for many species and their removal, whilst possibly making the scene 'prettier', will damage the ecosystem. Unless of course you choose to do it in Photoshop.
"and I am going to refrain from defining the term "reality", since IMO it is a very loaded proposition). "
I dont think you need to refrain. For the purposes of this discussion 'reality' is the scene you encounter first hand. The choice you then have is to either record as-is, or alter in some way to enhance according to your taste. Maybe using polarizing filter, wideangle lens, fill-flash, whatever. All of which is fine.
Or getting in about the scene and cutting stuff down, lobbing possible contaminants around willy nilly, and setting fire to stuff to get 'atmosphere'. All of which is not fine in my opinion.