What about blending, and grads, and polarizers, and dodging/burning, and lenses, and cameras? They're all man-mediated.... and as Mark noted, we are part of nature, no matter how proudly some of us like to pretend we're above it..
Posted by Matt Anderson on December 4, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Humans are implicitly destructive and invasive to nature. (pretty much opposite of nature by definition)
Maybe photo art, man and nature, & earth, sea, and sky should merge ?
Beavers, for their size and numbers, are probably pretty close to being as destructive and invasive as we are. Are they part of nature? Every mature beaver alive has chopped down more trees and affected more waterways and had more children than I have, or ever will.
Please note that was largely sarcastic But.... I can't agree that humans are implicitly destructive.. that's the same as saying it's human nature to destroy and kill, which I disagree with. It may be that our current lifestyle has a lot of destructive side effects, we do what many other species (beavers, ants, termites, weaverbirds, bacteria, etc) does: harvest resources, reproduce, and build communities. We just do it at an obscene scale.
My point is, we are a part of the system (nature)... we are not above it (or below it)... we evolved in it, we live in it.. and we photograph it - however you look at it, we are a part of ever photograph. I think the gallery distinctions are just fine though as they are.
Images should be posted in the appopriate gallery according to the posting guidelines.
If somone posts a photo that is clearly not appropriate for that gallery, the issue should be handled by a moderator, in private, with the individual.
If a photo is posted that exhibits techniques or other attributes that a commenter does not agree with, the commentor should be honest and state their opinion or critique in a positive manner.
Just my 0.02.
-P
Posted by Scott Fricke on December 4, 2009 at 3:17 PM
I'd say it depends on how the light-painting was done. If it just illuminated a surface similar to what a flash would do then I think its fine. But if you start painting shapes or words or outlining a natural feature then it maybe should go to Photo Art. Judge on a case-by-case basis, did the light painting add an element to the scene that wasn't there before, or simply highlight part or all of the scene?
Quote from above: "Humans are implicitly destructive and invasive to nature. (pretty much opposite of nature by definition)"
I would say that is generalizing and stereotyping and is a misleading statement.
Of course there is truth in the statement, but humans are BOTH quite constructive and destructive to nature. I think because we love nature we tend to focus or emphasize on the bad things done (and the media loves money making, sensationalism). As far as invasive, yes sometimes, but sometimes not.
I think we often forget that WE are nature. To somehow think that the natural world without our footprint in it is true nature is a strange concept to me. Balance must be struck.
Posted by Lon Overacker on December 7, 2009 at 1:19 AM
Matt,
I'll completely avoid the "man destroys nature" or "man is part of nature" debate - I think that would be a great thread in the Hot Topics Forum!
But I will try and address your direct question as to whether or not "light painting" belongs in ES&S. Preston is correct in mentioning the guidelines. It's up the to original poster to place their images in the "most appropriate" gallery. Now, obviously many images can fit in multiple galleries. A flock of geese flying through a sunset could easily go in Avian or ES&S for example. What is appropriate very quickly becomes subjective.
Personally, I think light painting belongs in Photo Art. Not because of the indirect "hand of man," but because it is an "artistic rendition" of nature. IMHO, there is a difference between an object which is "evidence of man" such as a bridge, a road, a trail, a fence, barn, etc., etc. etc. and light painting, grads, filters, reflectors, etc. These are all tools to enhance, modify, correct or otherwise alter the original scene - either artistically or to correct some technical aspect or flaw.
Now, as a moderator, I can only speak for myself, but can tell you that Guy, Marc and I occasionally have these discussions. What has been consistent and we continue to agree with is that we do not want to be heavy handed and certainly don't care to be gallery police.
For anyone who regularly follows ES&S, 99% of the time the only images that get moved are obvious "hand of man" images that contain objects such as roads, buildings, fences etc. as I mentioned above. And if you're one that really pays attention, you'll know that we don't always catch these images and many images don't get moved because the "hand of man" is so minor, or perhaps it's a new member, whatever. Our intent as moderators is to keep an eye on things, but to also stay out of the way.
Hope that helps Matt,
Lon
Posted by Scott Fricke on December 7, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Excellent response Lon. It would be very easy to get into trap of judging where each image should go, especially when you talk about degrees of post processing. How much saturation/contrast/HDR/color balance modification makes it Photo Art, etc. Heck you could even say most B&W photos should all go into Photo Art because they in no way represent a true rendition of nature. There are Man & Nature photos regularly submitted that exceed the guideline limiting the "man" portion to 25% of the image. The great thing about this forum is how respectful everyone is to each other and willing to accept the gray areas in regard to posting to specific galleries.
Discussion
12 repliesYes or No
Your thoughts ?
Kent in SD
Maybe photo art, man and nature, & earth, sea, and sky should merge ?
Please note that was largely sarcastic
My point is, we are a part of the system (nature)... we are not above it (or below it)... we evolved in it, we live in it.. and we photograph it - however you look at it, we are a part of ever photograph. I think the gallery distinctions are just fine though as they are.
If somone posts a photo that is clearly not appropriate for that gallery, the issue should be handled by a moderator, in private, with the individual.
If a photo is posted that exhibits techniques or other attributes that a commenter does not agree with, the commentor should be honest and state their opinion or critique in a positive manner.
Just my 0.02.
-P
Quote from above: "Humans are implicitly destructive and invasive to nature. (pretty much opposite of nature by definition)"
I would say that is generalizing and stereotyping and is a misleading statement.
Of course there is truth in the statement, but humans are BOTH quite constructive and destructive to nature. I think because we love nature we tend to focus or emphasize on the bad things done (and the media loves money making, sensationalism). As far as invasive, yes sometimes, but sometimes not.
I think we often forget that WE are nature. To somehow think that the natural world without our footprint in it is true nature is a strange concept to me. Balance must be struck.
I'll completely avoid the "man destroys nature" or "man is part of nature" debate - I think that would be a great thread in the Hot Topics Forum!
But I will try and address your direct question as to whether or not "light painting" belongs in ES&S. Preston is correct in mentioning the guidelines. It's up the to original poster to place their images in the "most appropriate" gallery. Now, obviously many images can fit in multiple galleries. A flock of geese flying through a sunset could easily go in Avian or ES&S for example. What is appropriate very quickly becomes subjective.
Personally, I think light painting belongs in Photo Art. Not because of the indirect "hand of man," but because it is an "artistic rendition" of nature. IMHO, there is a difference between an object which is "evidence of man" such as a bridge, a road, a trail, a fence, barn, etc., etc. etc. and light painting, grads, filters, reflectors, etc. These are all tools to enhance, modify, correct or otherwise alter the original scene - either artistically or to correct some technical aspect or flaw.
Now, as a moderator, I can only speak for myself, but can tell you that Guy, Marc and I occasionally have these discussions. What has been consistent and we continue to agree with is that we do not want to be heavy handed and certainly don't care to be gallery police.
For anyone who regularly follows ES&S, 99% of the time the only images that get moved are obvious "hand of man" images that contain objects such as roads, buildings, fences etc. as I mentioned above. And if you're one that really pays attention, you'll know that we don't always catch these images and many images don't get moved because the "hand of man" is so minor, or perhaps it's a new member, whatever. Our intent as moderators is to keep an eye on things, but to also stay out of the way.
Hope that helps Matt,
Lon