Dan Baumbach, thanks for the thought-provoking article.
I disagree with the premise, however. There is majority opinion of what is beautiful in nature. I don't say unanimous. I say majority. As I believe John Shaw wrote in one of his books, there is a reason that our National Parks were set aside as parks. Elk bugling on a frosty morning in Yellowstone are more photogenic than the roadkill opossum I spotted today. Half Dome is prettier than the highest point in Hamilton County, Ohio. The much-photographed icons of the West are very photogenic.
Perhaps "we" don't need another photograph of Half Dome, but I might. I've made trips to photo icons over the years and I greatly enjoyed every one. If my take on a view is the same as Ansel's, great. If not, I'm sure my NPN and photo club friends will tell me. Well, they will "tell" me by damning, faint praise.
Meanwhile, I do practice a lot of local photography. That is probably the majority of what I share here and elsewhere. I rail at the notion that I should stay home rather than shoot beautiful, exotic, quintessential subjects that have "already been done."
I'm with Pete on this one...although I would have liked to have seen the oppossum photo...;) Hey, Pete, IS there a high point in Ohio?!!! Just kiddin, I grew up in the midwest, I remember what it's like.
I guess it depends on what you're doing with your photography - if you're selling it, those iconic shots can pay off, whereas I'm just not finding anyone willing to buy a photo of my backyard, beautiful as it may be. Like Pete, I also WANT those iconic shots for myself...I want to see what kind of a photo I can pull off.
I'll concede one thing...maybe I'm not trying hard enough to find the "sweet spot" in my yard that yields a great photo. Maybe that was Dan's point. I have been finding some neat macro stuff, but I'm far FAR more fascinated by the absolutely beautiful stuff that's outside of my yard.
Either way, the fact that his article got us talking is pretty cool in and of itself!
I just read Dan's article and I have to say I agree whole-heartedly! Don't get me wrong...I love the "icon" shots and I would love the opportunity to go to some of the beautiful places showcased in the "icon" images. But I find many opportunities are right in your own back yard. I think it takes some vision...actually makes you exercise your vision...to shoot in places that are not known to the public. To be able to find the extraordinary in the ordinary is something that takes a little more effort. You may have to work on it awhile...practice many times...but when you find that special image in an environment that's not so remarkable, it's very rewarding. Is it financially profitable? Well, for me it hasn't been...but it's been very personally rewarding and satisfying. Does the general public find my images as satisfying as I do? Probably not...but the images are special to me and I find a great deal of satisfaction in them. And I didn't even have to buy a plane ticket!
Posted by Mike Sellers on August 11, 2007 at 7:27 AM
Yes,there is a highpoint in the Hamilton County area called Mount Rumpke-maybe you`ve heard of it?? Quite photogenic!
A topic that has been on my mind for some time. My stock agency, in it's instructions to photographers, states; no more landscapes. Commercially, icons rule. They want lifestyle shots and there isn't a great demand for active boomers in heavy parkas!
The Internet has been a boon in that we can now see a lot of beautiful work that we might not have seen before. There is also a lot of 'seen that.' The work I appreciate most on the galleries here and other sites are the ones where somebody has followed be yourself and shown me something not seen before. Whether stepping back from an icon and depicting an aspect not seen before or covering an area 'not commercially viable.'
A bit of a dichotomy, the commercial world seems to be going very iconic and conservative while much of the most original and interesting work resides unpublished, or at least with little financial gain, on the Internet.
Posted by Mike Sellers on August 11, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Now Nancy,since this is an inside joke,just to be fair to everyone else,we should dump this exchange and relegate it to the refuse heap of history? Or not.What do you say?
Mike, on a serious note, your portfolio on here is sort of what I think this author was trying to say, find the beauty locally. Just had to say that you have beautiful photos, so colorful (no trash there...ok, I couldn't resist one last attempt-HA!).
I want to hereby thank Dan for his great article and I do agree, also Alice pretty much sums up what I think about that topic. Personally I can relate a lot to what Dan discusses and it is true what he says. However, there is one tiny flaw. Although it is true that one can make (the emphasis is on the creation) a photo from every kind of outdoor setting - you have to like this kind of outdoor-setting and its potential images. If you are into photographing mountains, lakes, rocks, red desert, then you will have a hard time gettig satisfied while trying to get decent image from that one green park in your overly crowed urbanized location.
It comes as no surprise to me that most landscape photographers from the US are mostly working in Nationalparks. Most workshops are also done in these locations. And finally images from these locations probably sell better. These three examples are just undeniable.
But honestly - I was disappointed by my location after I came back from a trip through some US-parks. It was this community that motivated me to see the beauty in every location, and I focussed on my shooting area close to Venna. Some photo's that really satisfied me emerged and I think this would not have happened if I had not had the encouraging words of NPNlers. The thing is however: That location is as well a National Park, not as spectacular compared to what I have seen in the states, but still some beautiful scenery, but I can tell you that one has to look very hard to find the beauty sometimes. So hard, that except Verena&Georg no one else from Austria finds it worth to take pictures of that location.
I was not alone in that park, but I was always the only one with a camera and my gear did draw a lot of attention in an area where people walk their dogs, walk.
That being said i still agree with Dan. His photo's in particular his trees proof his words right. He lives what he talks about. His article holds a lot of further inspiration and credibility. Thank you Dan!
Posted by Richard Wong on August 12, 2007 at 3:00 PM
It's about following your passion. Dan lives in one of the most beautiful areas in Marin County and it would make sense to. While it isn't as recognizable as a Yosemite, it is still a beautiful spot. Other places aren't so easy to photograph but that doesn't mean that they can't be photographed either. There are some photographers who only shoot while on assignment or whatever so that may be a reason why all of their images are from popular spots, but I think it should all go back to the reason why you became a photographer: To take pictures hopefully. Take them on your own self-assignments, you don't need a publisher to tell you what to shoot. People do earn a living take photos obviously, but did the reason why they became a photographer is to earn money or because they enjoy the process? Both don't have to be mutually exclusive in my opinion.
I don't see anything wrong with shooting more "icon" photos though. If they weren't so incredible to experience then they wouldn't be icons to begin with. I think it's sad when people have to become so jaded that they can't appreciate natural beauty for what it is. Visit them during the off-season.
Posted by Leann Greene on August 12, 2007 at 4:51 PM
When I read the article I sent Dan B an email describing how satisfying it is to show a local person an image of a local area and see the"that is ----??" expression.
I agree with finding sweet spots locally because more people need to feel an attachment and hopefully want to encourage backyard conservation. If it's all about famous possibly comercial spots well then shame on us because comercialism is also the power drive for building developments that pave over our local spots
Posted by Mike Sellers on August 12, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Hi Nancy,
Let`s not forget Mt. Adams and Mt. Airy! Yes,it is a good thing to become an expert on your own back yard.The problem is that it is exciting to take trips to the National Parks but if you only have a limited amount of time at each location chances are you won`t get much.Craig Blacklock has nice pictures of Lake Superior and its environs,why,because he lives there! I have nice photos of the Sedona area because I lived there at one time.
Posted by Mike Sellers on August 12, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Hi Nancy,
Let`s not forget Mt. Adams and Mt. Airy! Yes,it is a good thing to become an expert on your own back yard.The problem is that it is exciting to take trips to the National Parks but if you only have a limited amount of time at each location chances are you won`t get much.Craig Blacklock has nice pictures of Lake Superior and its environs,why,because he lives there! I have nice photos of the Sedona area because I lived there at one time.
I reside in Quebec, and am a predominantly landscape photographer by passion. I love to shoot great geological features in tandem with nature. Unfortunately Quebec is not terribly exciting for these things; and although there are parts of Quebec where literally no man has ever been before, it would take atleast $5000 and a month of free time to get to those places.
Here we don't have many interesting things, a few mountains scattered around but are usually atleast 5-6 hours away, with good shorelines atleast 8-9 hours away. Consequently I have had quite a troubling time fulfilling my passion - everytime I decide to go out to take photos I feel like I really need to bag something - it can get really hard to get good photographs. Almost 80% of my shooting happens on the weekends, and roughly 50% of these weekend trips result in zero photographs worth showing anybody.
The limited portfolio I have built over the last two years ever since I picked up photography has involved about 10000kms of road travel and about 30000kms of airline travel in each year. Despite this huge amount of travelling, I don't have too much to show.
There is a local nature park on the island of Montreal which is about 1.5 hours (3 hours round-trip) by public transport. It's called Parc Nature du Cap-Saint-Jacques. I have really worked this park over the last two years, and continue to do so. There's nothing spectacular here; it's just bordering the Ottawa river (which splits into Rivière des Mille Îles and Rivière des Prairies when it reaches Montreal) but it's just that I know this park like the back of my hand, and I use the different seasons to show different scenes from the same park.
Sometimes I really get jealous of all those guys living in the Yukon, NWT, Alaska, BC, Alberta, Oregon, Montana, Wyoming and RMNP. I wish I was living closer to those areas. But on the other hand I'm happy I'm not in Ontario
Maybe I'm just too easy to please. I take 99.9% of my images in my backyard. I don't know, I just find life to be interesting and as corny as it sounds, the one big lesson I've learned is ; everything really is beautiful in it's own way.
I don't know if this relates or not, but perhaps the icons are so powerful , popularity-wise not because of what they are but what they represent. They are a symbol of nature that people can identify with, rather than the reality of a natural space, something they don't have the opportunity to experience.
It's kinda strange to me. It's like how our society holds an actor to a higher esteem than the actual hero they are portraying , in a true life story. I don't really get it but that's just me. Everybody is different. Tim
Posted by Richard Wong on August 12, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Aushutosh, I don't know anything about Quebec really but I have been wanting to visit Montreal and Quebec city for some time now to shoot the Canadian-French culture, perhaps if you modified your subject matter a little you could come away with more productive photography trips? Those places are undeniably unique for North America.
I started off seven years ago bemoaning the fact that I lived in Southern California, where nature has mostly been damaged by man or developed over, but once I accepted that was the reality I started to enjoy myself by finding other subject matter than seeking out pristine landscapes. Either that, or relocating is the other option...
Posted by Richard Wong on August 12, 2007 at 11:06 PM
btw, I just saw your portfolio and think it looks awesome. Certainly you are getting something productive done.
Posted by Steve Foss on August 12, 2007 at 11:40 PM
I look at icons in two ways: I'll never expect to reproduce the amazing landscape images of those truly gifted photographers who have gone before me in those locations. On the other hand, those of my clients who believe in my vision of the world and want an image of those places composed by ME will pay for it, and satisfying clients is gratifying personally and professionally.
However, I don't have the money to travel to those amazing locations, and my backyard, while it contains a dearth of vistas, is one of the most sought-after wilderness locations in the lower 48 states, and any images I compose, regardless of their scale, from the BWCAW, have an ability to be marketed because of that. And, as importantly, photographing in the forest with not a lot of broad-scale views allows a person to more easily market images of the medium- and close-view world of the boreal forest. This is, also, how I prefer to express the world, so it works nicely that my own back yard is where I want to be the most.
That's not to say I'd refuse an all-expense-paid trip to Yosemite or certain locations within the Smoky Mountains.
Posted by Mike Sellers on August 13, 2007 at 8:37 AM
Hey,don`t let those "truly gifted" photographers intimidat ! Everyone sees differently therefore your composition won`t be the same as theirs anyway! The other thing is that the weather conditions are constantly changing which will make your shot of an "icon" unique.I`m looking forward to visiting all the iconic locations so I can photograph them my way.
The icons became icons because they deserve it. And I am the first to admit that I love to photograph them as well, and if I come up with a pleasing image I am also the first one that thinks that it is an essential, creative photo.
However there's one thing that makes photographing icons less creative in my opinion: The process of selecting the subject-matter itself: It's like being told what to photograph - either by commercialism, icon-addiction, or a nice-to-have-attitude. I am more referring to the creativity that is involved in selecting what to photograph, I don't necessarly mean - that once it is agreed to shoot an icon - that the way the icon is rendered cannot be creative anymore.
It is more like either covering a song vs. writing a song. A good cover probably is better than a bad self-written song. But if a self-written song is even better than an existing (or a cover for that matter), we have something really new and innovative.
Just my thoughts on the notorious icon-issue.
Posted by Dan Baumbach on August 13, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Dietrich,
You song analogy is superb.
As the author of the article, I want to make a couple of things clear. I love icons. Every time I go to Yosemite, I drive up to Tunnel View and ooh and aah along with the crowds. It's a breath taking experience. I've even photographed it.
If you're making a living with photography and icons is what your selling, that's a totally different matter and not what my article is addressing.
To reiterate my point. Most of us here, including myself, have day jobs and limited time to travel. There's a whole world out there of local beauty that's waiting for your inspiration. Go out and have fun.
Dan, I too would like to thank you for putting your thoughts together. I've been following your landscape photography for a few years since you famous series of beach sunsets/sunrises, and I appreciate it all throughout.
If I look through my portfolio, I can see some of Slovenian iconic stuff, but what's interesting is that most uhhhhhhhhhhhs and ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhs I heard were of a couple of photos taken within 15 minutes of driving from my home. And there is a good reason for it me thinks: I know this spots like back of my hand, I know when and from where this places looks best. And that's my advantage and reason why those photos look as good as they do. And another thing goes in line with your analogy with your wife: I know these places, I like them, and when I photograph them, I'm keen to make them look as good as possible.
Discussion
21 repliesI disagree with the premise, however. There is majority opinion of what is beautiful in nature. I don't say unanimous. I say majority. As I believe John Shaw wrote in one of his books, there is a reason that our National Parks were set aside as parks. Elk bugling on a frosty morning in Yellowstone are more photogenic than the roadkill opossum I spotted today. Half Dome is prettier than the highest point in Hamilton County, Ohio. The much-photographed icons of the West are very photogenic.
Perhaps "we" don't need another photograph of Half Dome, but I might. I've made trips to photo icons over the years and I greatly enjoyed every one. If my take on a view is the same as Ansel's, great. If not, I'm sure my NPN and photo club friends will tell me. Well, they will "tell" me by damning, faint praise.
Meanwhile, I do practice a lot of local photography. That is probably the majority of what I share here and elsewhere. I rail at the notion that I should stay home rather than shoot beautiful, exotic, quintessential subjects that have "already been done."
Pete D.
I guess it depends on what you're doing with your photography - if you're selling it, those iconic shots can pay off, whereas I'm just not finding anyone willing to buy a photo of my backyard, beautiful as it may be. Like Pete, I also WANT those iconic shots for myself...I want to see what kind of a photo I can pull off.
I'll concede one thing...maybe I'm not trying hard enough to find the "sweet spot" in my yard that yields a great photo. Maybe that was Dan's point. I have been finding some neat macro stuff, but I'm far FAR more fascinated by the absolutely beautiful stuff that's outside of my yard.
Either way, the fact that his article got us talking is pretty cool in and of itself!
The Internet has been a boon in that we can now see a lot of beautiful work that we might not have seen before. There is also a lot of 'seen that.' The work I appreciate most on the galleries here and other sites are the ones where somebody has followed be yourself and shown me something not seen before. Whether stepping back from an icon and depicting an aspect not seen before or covering an area 'not commercially viable.'
A bit of a dichotomy, the commercial world seems to be going very iconic and conservative while much of the most original and interesting work resides unpublished, or at least with little financial gain, on the Internet.
Mike, on a serious note, your portfolio on here is sort of what I think this author was trying to say, find the beauty locally. Just had to say that you have beautiful photos, so colorful (no trash there...ok, I couldn't resist one last attempt-HA!).
Nancy
It comes as no surprise to me that most landscape photographers from the US are mostly working in Nationalparks. Most workshops are also done in these locations. And finally images from these locations probably sell better. These three examples are just undeniable.
But honestly - I was disappointed by my location after I came back from a trip through some US-parks. It was this community that motivated me to see the beauty in every location, and I focussed on my shooting area close to Venna. Some photo's that really satisfied me emerged and I think this would not have happened if I had not had the encouraging words of NPNlers. The thing is however: That location is as well a National Park, not as spectacular compared to what I have seen in the states, but still some beautiful scenery, but I can tell you that one has to look very hard to find the beauty sometimes. So hard, that except Verena&Georg no one else from Austria finds it worth to take pictures of that location.
I was not alone in that park, but I was always the only one with a camera and my gear did draw a lot of attention in an area where people walk their dogs, walk.
That being said i still agree with Dan. His photo's in particular his trees proof his words right. He lives what he talks about. His article holds a lot of further inspiration and credibility. Thank you Dan!
I don't see anything wrong with shooting more "icon" photos though. If they weren't so incredible to experience then they wouldn't be icons to begin with. I think it's sad when people have to become so jaded that they can't appreciate natural beauty for what it is. Visit them during the off-season.
I agree with finding sweet spots locally because more people need to feel an attachment and hopefully want to encourage backyard conservation. If it's all about famous possibly comercial spots well then shame on us because comercialism is also the power drive for building developments that pave over our local spots
Let`s not forget Mt. Adams and Mt. Airy! Yes,it is a good thing to become an expert on your own back yard.The problem is that it is exciting to take trips to the National Parks but if you only have a limited amount of time at each location chances are you won`t get much.Craig Blacklock has nice pictures of Lake Superior and its environs,why,because he lives there! I have nice photos of the Sedona area because I lived there at one time.
Let`s not forget Mt. Adams and Mt. Airy! Yes,it is a good thing to become an expert on your own back yard.The problem is that it is exciting to take trips to the National Parks but if you only have a limited amount of time at each location chances are you won`t get much.Craig Blacklock has nice pictures of Lake Superior and its environs,why,because he lives there! I have nice photos of the Sedona area because I lived there at one time.
Here we don't have many interesting things, a few mountains scattered around but are usually atleast 5-6 hours away, with good shorelines atleast 8-9 hours away. Consequently I have had quite a troubling time fulfilling my passion - everytime I decide to go out to take photos I feel like I really need to bag something - it can get really hard to get good photographs. Almost 80% of my shooting happens on the weekends, and roughly 50% of these weekend trips result in zero photographs worth showing anybody.
The limited portfolio I have built over the last two years ever since I picked up photography has involved about 10000kms of road travel and about 30000kms of airline travel in each year. Despite this huge amount of travelling, I don't have too much to show.
There is a local nature park on the island of Montreal which is about 1.5 hours (3 hours round-trip) by public transport. It's called Parc Nature du Cap-Saint-Jacques. I have really worked this park over the last two years, and continue to do so. There's nothing spectacular here; it's just bordering the Ottawa river (which splits into Rivière des Mille Îles and Rivière des Prairies when it reaches Montreal) but it's just that I know this park like the back of my hand, and I use the different seasons to show different scenes from the same park.
Sometimes I really get jealous of all those guys living in the Yukon, NWT, Alaska, BC, Alberta, Oregon, Montana, Wyoming and RMNP. I wish I was living closer to those areas. But on the other hand I'm happy I'm not in Ontario
I don't know if this relates or not, but perhaps the icons are so powerful , popularity-wise not because of what they are but what they represent. They are a symbol of nature that people can identify with, rather than the reality of a natural space, something they don't have the opportunity to experience.
It's kinda strange to me. It's like how our society holds an actor to a higher esteem than the actual hero they are portraying , in a true life story. I don't really get it but that's just me. Everybody is different. Tim
I started off seven years ago bemoaning the fact that I lived in Southern California, where nature has mostly been damaged by man or developed over, but once I accepted that was the reality I started to enjoy myself by finding other subject matter than seeking out pristine landscapes. Either that, or relocating is the other option...
However, I don't have the money to travel to those amazing locations, and my backyard, while it contains a dearth of vistas, is one of the most sought-after wilderness locations in the lower 48 states, and any images I compose, regardless of their scale, from the BWCAW, have an ability to be marketed because of that. And, as importantly, photographing in the forest with not a lot of broad-scale views allows a person to more easily market images of the medium- and close-view world of the boreal forest. This is, also, how I prefer to express the world, so it works nicely that my own back yard is where I want to be the most.
That's not to say I'd refuse an all-expense-paid trip to Yosemite or certain locations within the Smoky Mountains.
However there's one thing that makes photographing icons less creative in my opinion: The process of selecting the subject-matter itself: It's like being told what to photograph - either by commercialism, icon-addiction, or a nice-to-have-attitude. I am more referring to the creativity that is involved in selecting what to photograph, I don't necessarly mean - that once it is agreed to shoot an icon - that the way the icon is rendered cannot be creative anymore.
It is more like either covering a song vs. writing a song. A good cover probably is better than a bad self-written song. But if a self-written song is even better than an existing (or a cover for that matter), we have something really new and innovative.
Just my thoughts on the notorious icon-issue.
You song analogy is superb.
As the author of the article, I want to make a couple of things clear. I love icons. Every time I go to Yosemite, I drive up to Tunnel View and ooh and aah along with the crowds. It's a breath taking experience. I've even photographed it.
If you're making a living with photography and icons is what your selling, that's a totally different matter and not what my article is addressing.
To reiterate my point. Most of us here, including myself, have day jobs and limited time to travel. There's a whole world out there of local beauty that's waiting for your inspiration. Go out and have fun.
- Dan.
If I look through my portfolio, I can see some of Slovenian iconic stuff, but what's interesting is that most uhhhhhhhhhhhs and ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhs I heard were of a couple of photos taken within 15 minutes of driving from my home. And there is a good reason for it me thinks: I know this spots like back of my hand, I know when and from where this places looks best. And that's my advantage and reason why those photos look as good as they do. And another thing goes in line with your analogy with your wife: I know these places, I like them, and when I photograph them, I'm keen to make them look as good as possible.
Cheers,
Marko