The accepted definition of nature photography is no hand of man. Hand of man is not only buildings, cars, fences etc. in a scenic, it is also hybrid flowers, hybrid trees, horses, domestic dogs and cats, rabbits, zoo animals, etc. Also eliminates any PS work, post processing, enhancing filters, etc.
I, for one, would hate to be restricted to just animals and wildflowers in their natural environment, although I do adhere to the general rule when entering contests.
I feel the variety of images allowed on NPN is a good balance of both worlds and needs to be maintained. What are your thoughts on the subject.
it always bugs me how these defintions seem to eliminate us humans from nature...
wilderness - maybe, but nature? I belong to mother nature, I'm pretty sure on that.
so NPN variety is fine with me more or less, I don't analyze it to closely anyways.
georg
Posted by Wayne Rhodus on May 27, 2009 at 12:08 PM
I'm not sure exactly where you wanted to go with this thread Patricia but I do think that there is a good balance of images on NPN. As far as contests go, the rules are what they are, comply if you want to participate.
Like Georg, humans are as much a part of nature as any other species in my humble opinion. At the most basic level what differentiates humans from "wild" animals and flora is that they adapt to the environment in which they live to survive. We in turn have evolved to adapt the environment to fit our needs (or desires). Of course there may be consequences to the latter approach.
I prefer making images without the "hand of man" being obvious. I'm not going to worry about whether a plant or animal is a hybrid or not though.
I'm with Wayne on this. Mother Earth News used to have a line on their title page (maybe still do, I haven't read it is several years) that went something like 'For all man's art, technology and science our continued existence depends on 6 inches of topsoil and the fact that it rains'. I don't get the notion that humans are not part of nature. I'm not about to campaign to have street, architecture or industrial photo sections on NPN but I think prohibiting any hint of humans flies in the face of the fact that our photos are a product of "the hand of man" too.
This is a real, real tough one and on any given day my feelings will go from one side to the other. Here are some of the things that confound me more than the sweeping generalizations of whether or not humans are part of nature.
If one photographs wild mustangs in the American West, that's "OK" for nature but domestic horses are not. Why?? If a photograph of a wild wood stork is taken sitting in a tree, that's nature and that's fine. If the same stork flies 50 feet to sit on a fence post, that's no longer nature. Same bird. If you photograph a lion in Africa, that's clearly nature. If that same lion is extracted from his environment and put in a zoo and you photograph him, he's no longer "nature". ??????? Are feral cats nature? Are feral ponies nature? Is anything feral nature? How do you tell the difference? Same thing with plants. Hybrid plants or cultivated plants are not "nature". Makes no sense. They require the same things to survive as "wild" plants. What about cultivated plants that have escaped their culitvated environments...old homesteads that have been abandoned and reclaimed by nature for example. They may still contain may plants originally tended and cultivated by humans which have since gone wild. Is that "nature" or isn't it? And finally think of this (not my original thought - actually heard from an editor at Outdoor Photographer). What is TRULY nature anyway when man has so profoundly changed the environment? For example, a retention pond that now harbors wild creatures is OK. Or a pine forest where the trees are all neatly planted in rows. Clearly, they did not grow that way on their own. Man at some point planted them that way whether for timber or paper or whatever. Yet a photograph of that environment is totally OK as far as nature.
I could go on and on but hopefully my point is made. As I said, I waffle myself but I think more often than not I tend to side toward the thinking that we should not be so restrictive or somehow make some sort of allowances. I just don't know what they are. What I do think is that a wild bird on a fence post should be OK.
There is very little old growth forest left in the entire eastern (north and south) United States. Does this not make it nature?
Climate change is effecting every ecosystem on the planet.
We humans have had an effect on nearly every aspect of nature since we started controlling the natural world around 10,000 years ago. Change, however, is a constant of the natural world and, while I lament the large and quick changes of climate change (due to their negative impact on biodiversity), change itself is not foreign to nature by any means. That being said, is the act of humans changing nature simply a natural act or is it "unnatural"...
I'm not sure what the point of this thread is either...
The accepted definition of nature photography is no hand of man...
Well if we're talking about this site, then that's clearly not the case; I can only assume you're really asking why photo contests have such stringent rules about "hand of man", right Patricia?
I feel that such artificial restrictions placed on "nature" photography is in itself a form of "hand of man." I don't see the world as a dichotomy, but rather a gradient. Yesterday I was paddling a kayak around the south end of Siesta Key, FL. My immediate area was still very wild with all kinds of critters moving on the mangrove roots, crawling out of the water, and flying over head. In the background condos and hotels were sticking up just about every where. Did I enjoy my exploring less because of that? No. My wife said she could have done with a few less snakes though.
I think if you go so far as to say no post-processing and enhancing filters then you might as well eliminate the camera as well since that is man-made and there would be no nature photography. And just being there means the scene being photographed is being affected by "the hand of man" because we are part of that environment when us humans are there. It is impossible to photograph a scene unaffected by "the hand of man" but I don't think that makes it not nature photography. I think nature photography is photographing subjects which are primarily created from nature, such as the natural landscape and animals. Gigantic mountains or a rare spotted owl certainly aren't man made, they came from the earth. I guess there is more of a point to argue if it is a re-introduced species such as california condors. However, I still think that is not a huge deal and anyone who wants to argue that that is not nature photography is probably arguing just for the sake of arguing. I would say nature photography is a subject that is mostly not human influenced and then there is human photography which is obviously human influenced such as portraits, street scenes or architecture photography. Then there is the in-between, in which man is interacting with nature, such as a backpacker in a remote location in the wilderness. All in all it is just photography no matter what the subject and that is what is most important. If someone is actually worrying about whether it is really nature photography down to the minute technicalities such as if a GND was used or if every single plant in the scene is native then they need to stop, take a deep breath and let it go.
The trigger for this thread was a suggestion for a floral theme of wild flowers and another for field of flowers. There was an implied suggestion that it is more difficult to take wild flowers than hybrid ones. So, I just began wondering how many NPNers feel the same way... if it is not purely wild that it isn't a challenge to get a good picture and, to carry it further, how "only natural" would affect each category such as ESS, M&N, macro, etc. Maybe we should step out of comfort zones when it comes to the subject of our pictures just for a week or so. It might broaden our portfolios.
Thanks for the replies. Hope this helps to determine "what I'm talking about".
Patricia, I agree with the gist of the first of your two sentences defining nature photography. The second sentence on equipment and processing brought to bear on images is a rather unrelated issue though I might guess what you were thinking at the time. I too see the variety of images allowed as fine as it broadens interest and one can argue the same tools and skills may be used on both the most natural and the most unnatural urban nature subjects. For instance a robin shot tele on a branch of a tree up against the blue sky is going to require the same skills whether in Central Park or ten miles into a wilderness. On the other hand there are subjects, skills, techniques, gear, and processes unique to both realms.
As to your second post about the difficulty of working in the field versus backyard or urban, the comment ought not be that one is innately more difficult than the other but rather there are several ways they might be described as different. That there are often different goals, challenges, and expectations. In any case the variety of specific subjects varies so much that at best one can only make vague generalizations ala Bell curve. Any commercial product photographer with their array of expensive and complex indoor lighting gear could easily make an argument that for them taking an exceptional still life of a vase full of flowers on a table brings a lot of skills to fore few others without experience could match. Conversely bending down along a backcountry trail to shoot a group of flowers against a boulder under cloudy light can probably be sized up and shot within a couple of minutes by both amateurs with a point and shoot or pros with their 20mp DSLR. Thus I'm saying both realms have there simple and easy as well as complicated and difficult. And both are certainly different in some ways.
It isn't infrequent that something is posted on ESS and someone complains that there is a HOM element and it should go to the Man & Nature forum. These are usually tiny specks of roadway visible in the distance or a clearly man-made cut on a mountainside. But, people post photos of the rolling wheat fields of the Palouse without a single comment about it being incorrectly categorized.
Anyways, I think it is all hogwash. I would rather see the distinction being that if the natural elements are the subject and focus of the photo, then post to ESS, if the human elements are the focus then post to M&N. That might mean more than 25% man-made in M&N and it might mean some lighthouse, pathways, distant roads and so on in ESS. But, I'm not active enough on here to really deserve to argue for such.
My personal feeling is shoot what you want and if someone is bothered by the fencepost, it is their problem, not yours.
Of course, that does put some restrictions on entries into the "no hand of man" events but I'd rather be happy with what I shoot than trying to fit my work into someone else's definition. If both overlap, great. If not, I'm not going to worry about it.
Hmmm, Patricia I just opened this thread because you started it. If you noticed I posted the Flora theme for June as Hand of Manbefore I read your thread. Perhaps great minds think alike . I think how nature interacts with man and vice versa are often compelling subjects. In two weeks we'll get to see! >=))>
it always bugs me how these defintions seem to eliminate us humans from nature...
wilderness - maybe, but nature? I belong to mother nature, I'm pretty sure on that.
so NPN variety is fine with me more or less, I don't analyze it to closely anyways.
georg
Discussion
17 repliesI, for one, would hate to be restricted to just animals and wildflowers in their natural environment, although I do adhere to the general rule when entering contests.
I feel the variety of images allowed on NPN is a good balance of both worlds and needs to be maintained. What are your thoughts on the subject.
wilderness - maybe, but nature? I belong to mother nature, I'm pretty sure on that.
so NPN variety is fine with me more or less, I don't analyze it to closely anyways.
georg
Like Georg, humans are as much a part of nature as any other species in my humble opinion. At the most basic level what differentiates humans from "wild" animals and flora is that they adapt to the environment in which they live to survive. We in turn have evolved to adapt the environment to fit our needs (or desires). Of course there may be consequences to the latter approach.
I prefer making images without the "hand of man" being obvious. I'm not going to worry about whether a plant or animal is a hybrid or not though.
Jim Bullard
If one photographs wild mustangs in the American West, that's "OK" for nature but domestic horses are not. Why?? If a photograph of a wild wood stork is taken sitting in a tree, that's nature and that's fine. If the same stork flies 50 feet to sit on a fence post, that's no longer nature. Same bird. If you photograph a lion in Africa, that's clearly nature. If that same lion is extracted from his environment and put in a zoo and you photograph him, he's no longer "nature". ??????? Are feral cats nature? Are feral ponies nature? Is anything feral nature? How do you tell the difference? Same thing with plants. Hybrid plants or cultivated plants are not "nature". Makes no sense. They require the same things to survive as "wild" plants. What about cultivated plants that have escaped their culitvated environments...old homesteads that have been abandoned and reclaimed by nature for example. They may still contain may plants originally tended and cultivated by humans which have since gone wild. Is that "nature" or isn't it? And finally think of this (not my original thought - actually heard from an editor at Outdoor Photographer). What is TRULY nature anyway when man has so profoundly changed the environment? For example, a retention pond that now harbors wild creatures is OK. Or a pine forest where the trees are all neatly planted in rows. Clearly, they did not grow that way on their own. Man at some point planted them that way whether for timber or paper or whatever. Yet a photograph of that environment is totally OK as far as nature.
I could go on and on but hopefully my point is made. As I said, I waffle myself but I think more often than not I tend to side toward the thinking that we should not be so restrictive or somehow make some sort of allowances. I just don't know what they are. What I do think is that a wild bird on a fence post should be OK.
My two cents (well, maybe a quarter)
JR
Climate change is effecting every ecosystem on the planet.
We humans have had an effect on nearly every aspect of nature since we started controlling the natural world around 10,000 years ago. Change, however, is a constant of the natural world and, while I lament the large and quick changes of climate change (due to their negative impact on biodiversity), change itself is not foreign to nature by any means. That being said, is the act of humans changing nature simply a natural act or is it "unnatural"...
Love this brain candy.
Well if we're talking about this site, then that's clearly not the case; I can only assume you're really asking why photo contests have such stringent rules about "hand of man", right Patricia?
Kent in SD
Thanks for the replies. Hope this helps to determine "what I'm talking about".
Pete D. staring in deep appreciation at his opened hands
As to your second post about the difficulty of working in the field versus backyard or urban, the comment ought not be that one is innately more difficult than the other but rather there are several ways they might be described as different. That there are often different goals, challenges, and expectations. In any case the variety of specific subjects varies so much that at best one can only make vague generalizations ala Bell curve. Any commercial product photographer with their array of expensive and complex indoor lighting gear could easily make an argument that for them taking an exceptional still life of a vase full of flowers on a table brings a lot of skills to fore few others without experience could match. Conversely bending down along a backcountry trail to shoot a group of flowers against a boulder under cloudy light can probably be sized up and shot within a couple of minutes by both amateurs with a point and shoot or pros with their 20mp DSLR. Thus I'm saying both realms have there simple and easy as well as complicated and difficult. And both are certainly different in some ways.
Anyways, I think it is all hogwash. I would rather see the distinction being that if the natural elements are the subject and focus of the photo, then post to ESS, if the human elements are the focus then post to M&N. That might mean more than 25% man-made in M&N and it might mean some lighthouse, pathways, distant roads and so on in ESS. But, I'm not active enough on here to really deserve to argue for such.
Of course, that does put some restrictions on entries into the "no hand of man" events but I'd rather be happy with what I shoot than trying to fit my work into someone else's definition. If both overlap, great. If not, I'm not going to worry about it.
It's not the people, but the clothing. :)