Posted by Peter Barnes on February 16, 2010 at 12:37 AM
I went to a large exhibition at our local public Art Gallery a while ago, all about landscape - drawings and paintings by some of the greats - Turner, Constable and some of those 17th(?) century Dutch painters who loved dramatic skies, plus a few local, famous painters who did their work early in the 1900s. What struck me was that in almost every painting there were either people or farm animals and very often both.
Obviously something has happened since then to our ideas about how our landscapes should be represented. I have recently published books edited by the famous British landscape photographers, one of Ansel Adams' work, and I have spent a fair bit of time looking at the photos here. I appreciate that wilderness photographers will want to show 'pristine' scenes, but even in scenes that include man-made elements (see the Man and Nature gallery) the inclusion of people is rare, and other mammals even rarer.
Can someone with a better understanding of art history than I have explain why this is so?
I can't, though I've wondered about it. In the travel and advertising genera that we work with, people in landscapes is almost mandatory, call it the "you are there" element. The lodges and such want potential clients to picture themselves in the same settings, and the advertising gurus pump the same concept. I guess that's what distinguishes landscape photography as an art from the art of advertising. Here is an example of the kind of work we do, and it sells well in our markets.
Posted by Richard Wong on February 16, 2010 at 1:58 AM
Perhaps I'm off base here but perhaps people who are drawn to wilderness photography are not exactly people-oriented?
In regards to art history I think modern landscape photography evolved from the environmental movement which was in response to irresponsible development practices. Perhaps if development were more aesthetically pleasing and integrated into the landscape better then there wouldn't be such a wide gap in attitude regarding M&N.
Posted by Jim Bullard on February 16, 2010 at 7:55 AM
The following is pure speculation on my part may may qualify as an "educated guess":
At one point Ansel Adams was asked why there were no people in his landscape photos and he replied that there were two people in every one of his photos, the photographer and the viewer. Ansel Adams influence on modern landscape photography is immense and I suspect that the absence of humans and domestic animals in landscapes is largely due to his example.
Posted by David Bostedo on February 16, 2010 at 8:38 AM
Two things :
-- A lot of paintings that include farm animals are from a time when folks generally had a lot more contact with farm animals. They were more a part of people's experience. And these paintings aren't usually intended to represent wilderness the way a lot of photos are - they're supposed to be about people's lives in more rural areas and times - a slightly different angle.
-- I also think there might be more "landscape" images with other mammals in them than you're thinking, if you're not including the fauna gallery.
All terrific points, and thanks for the thought that has gone into them. I'll add a couple of points to keep it rolling and back out.
I suspect there's a lot of "style" or convention at work, too, and that it will change again with time. And certainly personal taste. My two favorite Adams are Moonrise, and I've lost the name, but it's the view of the Sierras with a couple of horses in the foreground. They're standouts from all his other work simply for their "human" element.
And my second point, there's a pragmatic or "business" element to my own shooting. I shoot the straight landscape (both horizontal and vertical), then I pose one or several travel companions in the same scene. I'm covering all my bases, as long as I'm on location and the opportunity is there. By the same token, I take the obligatory "fang and claw" wildlife closeups, but then use shorter lenses to compose the animal in the larger landscape.
In our 20+ years running a dedicated photography business, the landscapes with people and animals outsell the bare landscapes about 10 to 1. Purely a pragmatic business decision and no reflection of what hangs on my walls. But following the market is an art, too.
Have you been to the Netherlands? It's all farms and people In America we're proud of our vast expanse of wilderness, and as Richard noted, the people that go there typically are looking to get away from people, so including them in the photo isn't a likely thing to happen. Though as far as saleability it's wise to take some of those too.
Posted by Jim Sabiston on February 16, 2010 at 1:24 PM
Good answers all around. I would suggest another aspect as well: What we consider to be a 'landscape' has changed somewhat over time. The examples you open with represent 'old school', when those works illustrating the remote edges of human development/occupation were considered the 'wilderness' by most. There was a transition where these works tended to include hikers in the wilderness - but the human element was still there, though minimized - man as visitor rather than man as ocuppier. I would site some of the Hudson River School of work to demonstrate good examples of this transition, where scenes often included some human factor, but paintings started to be made that were 'pristine' in their complete absence of human presence or artifact. The public concept of nature, wilderness, etc. has since continued to change to the point that the human aspect should be entirely eliminated. You would be amazed to see what takes place in discussion of wilderness designations in this sense - (ie: what is permitted and what isn't by way of human presence or influence).
Hank - in your images that contain people, are these generally for commercial applications or do you find a market for this type of image in what might be called 'art forums'?
Its somewhat well known and can be seen if you look at the history of art for yourself that up until about the 1800s the world in general (there are always a few notable exceptions to everything in art) viewed the subject of nature and wilderness as being "chaotic and ugly" and not a fitting subject for art by and of itself. Art, almost by definition, had to include the hand of man and his familiar sense of order to be seen as uplifting and artistic. We have some of the English and French and mainly the American school of landscape painting, Church, Cole, etc. that introduced the concept of beauty in nature for its own sake. Ansel Adams was considered a pioneer in the genre of photography in this same regard.
This is a subject that has long interested me. One has to remember that those old master paintings were often commissions (or painted for the purpose of selling) - these artists had to make a living just as the professional photographer does today. Images with people have always been much more saleable than 'empty' landscapes. People like a human connection for many different reasons. People's perception of nature has also changed over the centuries - it has not always been seen as a thing of beauty.
The human figure is an extremely powerful symbol, it can provide many things from simple scale to complex emotion relationships within the image. I'd love to see more figures in landscape photography and I have many ideas for figures in my own images. There is however often a practical issue in that personally I am almost always out alone in the early hours and placing one's self in the image is a rather difficult task when it comes to getting a accurate position and pose. I've not had success with attempts so far.
In general I'd like landscape photography to be less split by the issue of man and nature. Man is after all just as much a part of nature as any other. Tristan
"Hank - in your images that contain people, are these generally for commercial applications or do you find a market for this type of image in what might be called 'art forums'? "
That's an astute question Jim. While our original shooting was strictly for commercial uses, a "type" of those shots has moved into our print sales, specifically those where the people are not recognizable- whether silhouettes, back views from a distance, and especially where the people are tiny in the scene.
We've found that prints of landscapes with wildlife in them sell about twice as much as pure landscape and wildlife closeups combined. It's much higher than that in commercial sales of course, with the nod going about 10:1 in favor of landscapes with wildlife, rather than either separately.
We've got a really challenging climate, but on the studio side of our business outdoor portraits are vastly preferred. For many of our clients the studio shots are "backup" or second choice to location shots, a last resort when the wind and rain simply won't leave us alone (which is often). I'm betting we could double our portrait business if we could control the weather.
That's quite a change from 20 years ago, when studio shots were preferred. Draw your own conclusions, but I'm going to propose that as people have become more "nature" oriented, they see themselves in and a part of nature as "art."
Posted by Carl Donohue on February 16, 2010 at 4:35 PM
It'll answer everything you've wondered and then some. I don't think I've ever seen a more complete discussion of this subject.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Peter Barnes on February 16, 2010 at 6:01 PM
Thanks Carl, I am interested in this topic (obviously) but perhaps not to the extent of ploughing through 344 pages of non-fiction. And anyway, the responses here so far have been so interesting and informative, I reckon I am already close to being an expert on the topic
Posted by Peter Barnes on February 16, 2010 at 7:17 PM
Hank wrote:
"a type of those shots has moved into our print sales, specifically those where the people are not recognizable- whether silhouettes, back views from a distance, and especially where the people are tiny in the scene."
One of the reasons I raised the subject is that the coastal area I use for a lot of my work is used for recreation (swimming, fishing, surfing, etc) and I have come to enjoy including 'tiny' people where I can. I agree that we are powerfully drawn to images of humans, and I like the way a figure can add scale to a photograph.
But I didn't expect that I would get an excellent tip on how to increase print sales, and one that fits with my existing personal preference! Thanks Hank.
Posted by Carl Donohue on February 17, 2010 at 2:36 AM
Hey Peter,
Like everything Shepard wrote, it's pretty dense stuff, but thoroughly researched and his insights are pretty amazing. But, if you don't want to go that far into it, re-read Richard Grubola's reply above. :)
Just for sake of thought, consider the work of Galen Rowell. His inclusion of people in the environment is one of my key inspirations. As a matter of fact, I can't think of any of his shots that don't include people. When I commented on it in my one brief sit-down with him, he smiled and intoned the introduction to that WWII era news program: "You Were There!"
Posted by Mel Ladewig on February 17, 2010 at 4:23 PM
There was recently a discussion on the large format info forum about why Ansel Adam's Moonrise is his best selling and possibly most recognizable shot. Most of the comments focused around the idea that the inclusion of the human element created a better connection with viewers.
I've argued for a long time that NPN should tear down the walls between ES&S and Man and Nature because this is STIFLING the development of our own photographers. A topic in M&N is lucky to receive half as many views as an item in ES&S, but there is a much larger market for these images than those in ES&S. People like to look at images of "themselves" and their activities.
I think the time of nature for its own sake and Adam's wilderness has passed. Remember that when Ansel Adams, Eliot Porter and the Sierra Club were publishing alot of the early landscape photography books, they were doing it with the goal of encouraging the US Congress to create a wilderness system within our public lands. They needed to show an "untouched" world worthy of preservation. They needed to break the paradigm that nature required the hand of man to reach its potential. I believe people are ready to see themselves in nature as art again without requiring rearrangement of everything in the scene. Wilderness areas are now established and we use them for recreation. Almost every wilderness trailhead in Colorado is jam packed with cars on the weekend.
I've argued for a long time that NPN should tear down the walls between ES&S and Man and Nature because this is STIFLING the development of our own photographers. A topic in M&N is lucky to receive half as many views as an item in ES&S, but there is a much larger market for these images than those in ES&S.
If a photographer is letting their artistic development be driven purely by image views on an online forum, then they're missing something big. Creating images that get a lot of views and comments is not the way to forge a style or create art. So I disagree that the 'wall' is stifling. There are occasional jewels posted in M&N that many miss out on, and that is unfortunate... but I do not think that mixing the forums is a solution.
IMO the man and nature forum sees less viewers because overall the imagery isn't as top notch as the ESS forum. ESS sees some world class imagery on a regular basis from many of our members. Folks simply aren't putting that kind of time and energy into creating M&N images - and that's their decision. There is nothing preventing M&N from becoming a similarly incredible gallery, it's just not what people (on this forum) choose to shoot primarily, and thus not something they tend to spend their time viewing and commenting on. Most of the photographers on this forum are not shooting images to sell - they're doing it for their own satisfaction.
If the two forums were mixed, I think the pace of posting would be too fast and many of the M&N images would actually get less views and comments as they would be ignored by those who are not interested in such images and drop to the 2nd page more quickly (because they'd be mixed with the steady ESS image flow). Then those who are interested in M&N work would miss them altogether (because... we all know, once an image is past the first page the likelihood of it getting a view/comment approaches zero).
Posted by Stan Rose on February 18, 2010 at 5:44 AM
Almost every wilderness trailhead in Colorado is jam packed with cars on the weekend.
That's wilderness?? Not to me. All the more reason to keep people out of our photos--the very few that we can actually avoid buildings and people (and contrails!) being in, that is. Its a rare commodity, at least in the lower 48 and most of the world. Im not as well read as Carl, but as he and Richard alluded to, 'wilderness' back then was seen as something to be tamed (a 'subject not fitting for art') and that man was needed to tame it. Unfortunately, the 'taming' has led to the elimination of the true aesthetics from my modern perspective--hence the trend towards 'pristine' nature shots.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on February 18, 2010 at 8:00 PM
As Edward Weston stated, if its more than 6 feet from the road, its not photogenic. That can certainly be applied to most of the "wilderness" images on ES&S. Sure there are some exceptions, but I'd say its a safe bet that over 90% of the ESS content is within a pitch of the parking lot.
The reason people aren't in the shots? Normal people don't go out for a stroll before sunrise, they don't stand out in storms and they go home to eat around sunset. They really aren't that big a problem in our prime shooting times.
And besides, why worry if someone's in the scene when the clone stamp will do? Why worry about fence posts with CS5's new intelligent healing brush?
IMO the man and nature forum sees less viewers because overall the imagery isn't as top notch as the ESS forum. ESS sees some world class imagery on a regular basis from many of our members. Folks simply aren't putting that kind of time and energy into creating M&N images - and that's their decision. There is nothing preventing M&N from becoming a similarly incredible gallery, it's just not what people (on this forum) choose to shoot primarily, and thus not something they tend to spend their time viewing and commenting on. Most of the photographers on this forum are not shooting images to sell - they're doing it for their own satisfaction.
All regular contributors in ES&S each with equally high quality shots currently in M&N. All these images reach the same pinnacle of postcard landscape found in the current crop on ES&S.
In my opinion, ESS and M&N should be merged into a single Landscape photography category. If the inclusion of man-made content enhances the image, then it will stand, get more views and provide more feedback to the photographer about what is good and what falls short. Nobody can force you to include man-made content in the category. As is stands today, including man and nature in the ESS content would hardly accelerate the front page turn over. But forcing it to a second rate status certainly discourages people from sharing good content. Maybe being nature photographers network we say that a natural element must be the primary subject. I mean we don't want this to be overrun with architectural photographers and senior portraits.
And maybe if we're going to be so stringent about it we should push ALL the stuff from macro and flora forums to M&N too if they're shot in a garden. After all, they're all man-made too. Its a stupid segregation that hurts the development of our membership if they choose to pursue a professional path.
Posted by Carl Donohue on February 18, 2010 at 8:43 PM
Hey Mel,
Why then make a distinction at all? How about birds in the landscape, or deer or sheep in the landscape, or industrial disease in the landscape, etc?
I think the distinction is made when we call this thing 'nature' photography.
Almost every wilderness trailhead in Colorado is jam packed with cars on the weekend.
Well, doesn't that speak to the value of 'wilderness', of landscapes untrammeled by man? If those parking lots stood empty, then maybe the "time of nature for its own sake and Adam's wilderness has passed" - but the fact that so many people apparently seek out these wilderness areas perhaps that the time is now, rather than passed?
But forcing it to a second rate status certainly discourages people from sharing good content.
And how is it being forced into second rate status? It's simply a different category. Is avian second rate to fauna? Is flora second rate to ESS? Is PJ second rate to M&N? I suppose if we wanted to go down the road you suggest we should merge absolutely everything to be fair.... but of course you can just hit "all photos" to get that. And it can be a lot of fun to do just that... and browse all sorts of different kinds of images.
There is no doubt some great stuff posted in M&N, and I said just that. No delusions there. Personally, I just find a higher percentage of the ESS material to be inspiring compared to the M&N material, but that says nothing about individual images. I imagine many others feel the same way (judging by overall traffic); perhaps that's why you suggest M&N is second rate? Again... there's no need for it to be second rate, it's just what the masses have decided. If people choose not to share good content, that's a darn shame, and purely their personal choice... if they did, it would stick around on the first page of M&N longer than it would on ESS, that's for sure.
edit - Carl posted while I was writing... anyways, same idea.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on February 19, 2010 at 12:01 AM
The reason M&N is a second rate category is that it is specifically designated for landscape that isn't "pure" enough for ES&S.
The Earth, Sea and Sky image critique gallery is dedicated to photos of natural landscapes showing no evidence of hand-of-man.
The Man & Nature photo critique gallery is intended for photos that depict landscapes, seascapes, or rural scenes that contain limited evidence of hand-of-man (HOM) such as a path, fence, man-made structure or people within an overall nature theme. The HOM element of the photo may not occupy more than 25% of the frame.
The last line of the second description indicates that the hand of man is considered a detraction from the image and that the greater the evidence of hand of man, the greater the "penalty" for the image. Too much hand of man and your image gets kicked out altogether (I can't say I've ever seen one flatly rejected though). I can't say I've ever seen a moderator move an image from M&N to ESS because it didn't have enough HOM in it though.
Both ES&S and M&N are primarily focused on landscape photography and its clear from their descriptions. No other galleries are dedicated to landscape, just these two. And this landscape orientation doesn't preclude images with animals such as Floris' own deer in the redwoods.
As the Ken Burns National Parks series recently pointed out, white Americans like to pretend that they were the first to "discover" stuff despite the fact that people were here long before them using the landscape for sustenance and shelter. I think this defined purity is all related to these old American feelings of manifest destiny.
Anyways I'm playing devils advocate here and ruffling some feathers - no hard feelings I hope. I do think ending the segregation between M&N and ESS would be good for our members, especially those looking to go pro. But I wouldn't say its the make or break deal that would cause me to end my membership.
Hey Mel - no worries, conversations like this are certainly good to have.
I do agree that the hard line currently imposed that excludes any hand of man (even just a small figure), but does allow minor wildlife inclusions is a bit odd. Personally, I wouldn't mind allowing small figures in ESS, no larger than the deer in the image you reference of mine. IF we were to allow that, the line would become very arbitrary when it comes to the distinction of M&N vs ESS... and I do think some level of separation is desired here - personally I don't really want to see houses and bridges in ESS, and I think many feel the same way. But I don't actually know what NPN members in general would prefer - maybe we can arrange a simple poll to actually get a more accurate idea.
Discussion
24 repliesObviously something has happened since then to our ideas about how our landscapes should be represented. I have recently published books edited by the famous British landscape photographers, one of Ansel Adams' work, and I have spent a fair bit of time looking at the photos here. I appreciate that wilderness photographers will want to show 'pristine' scenes, but even in scenes that include man-made elements (see the Man and Nature gallery) the inclusion of people is rare, and other mammals even rarer.
Can someone with a better understanding of art history than I have explain why this is so?
In regards to art history I think modern landscape photography evolved from the environmental movement which was in response to irresponsible development practices. Perhaps if development were more aesthetically pleasing and integrated into the landscape better then there wouldn't be such a wide gap in attitude regarding M&N.
At one point Ansel Adams was asked why there were no people in his landscape photos and he replied that there were two people in every one of his photos, the photographer and the viewer. Ansel Adams influence on modern landscape photography is immense and I suspect that the absence of humans and domestic animals in landscapes is largely due to his example.
-- A lot of paintings that include farm animals are from a time when folks generally had a lot more contact with farm animals. They were more a part of people's experience. And these paintings aren't usually intended to represent wilderness the way a lot of photos are - they're supposed to be about people's lives in more rural areas and times - a slightly different angle.
-- I also think there might be more "landscape" images with other mammals in them than you're thinking, if you're not including the fauna gallery.
I suspect there's a lot of "style" or convention at work, too, and that it will change again with time. And certainly personal taste. My two favorite Adams are Moonrise, and I've lost the name, but it's the view of the Sierras with a couple of horses in the foreground. They're standouts from all his other work simply for their "human" element.
And my second point, there's a pragmatic or "business" element to my own shooting. I shoot the straight landscape (both horizontal and vertical), then I pose one or several travel companions in the same scene. I'm covering all my bases, as long as I'm on location and the opportunity is there. By the same token, I take the obligatory "fang and claw" wildlife closeups, but then use shorter lenses to compose the animal in the larger landscape.
In our 20+ years running a dedicated photography business, the landscapes with people and animals outsell the bare landscapes about 10 to 1. Purely a pragmatic business decision and no reflection of what hangs on my walls. But following the market is an art, too.
Hank - in your images that contain people, are these generally for commercial applications or do you find a market for this type of image in what might be called 'art forums'?
The human figure is an extremely powerful symbol, it can provide many things from simple scale to complex emotion relationships within the image. I'd love to see more figures in landscape photography and I have many ideas for figures in my own images. There is however often a practical issue in that personally I am almost always out alone in the early hours and placing one's self in the image is a rather difficult task when it comes to getting a accurate position and pose. I've not had success with attempts so far.
In general I'd like landscape photography to be less split by the issue of man and nature. Man is after all just as much a part of nature as any other. Tristan
That's an astute question Jim. While our original shooting was strictly for commercial uses, a "type" of those shots has moved into our print sales, specifically those where the people are not recognizable- whether silhouettes, back views from a distance, and especially where the people are tiny in the scene.
We've found that prints of landscapes with wildlife in them sell about twice as much as pure landscape and wildlife closeups combined. It's much higher than that in commercial sales of course, with the nod going about 10:1 in favor of landscapes with wildlife, rather than either separately.
We've got a really challenging climate, but on the studio side of our business outdoor portraits are vastly preferred. For many of our clients the studio shots are "backup" or second choice to location shots, a last resort when the wind and rain simply won't leave us alone (which is often). I'm betting we could double our portrait business if we could control the weather.
That's quite a change from 20 years ago, when studio shots were preferred. Draw your own conclusions, but I'm going to propose that as people have become more "nature" oriented, they see themselves in and a part of nature as "art."
Man in the Landscape: A Historic View of the Esthetics of Nature, by Paul Shepard.
It'll answer everything you've wondered and then some. I don't think I've ever seen a more complete discussion of this subject.
Cheers
Carl
"a type of those shots has moved into our print sales, specifically those where the people are not recognizable- whether silhouettes, back views from a distance, and especially where the people are tiny in the scene."
One of the reasons I raised the subject is that the coastal area I use for a lot of my work is used for recreation (swimming, fishing, surfing, etc) and I have come to enjoy including 'tiny' people where I can. I agree that we are powerfully drawn to images of humans, and I like the way a figure can add scale to a photograph.
But I didn't expect that I would get an excellent tip on how to increase print sales, and one that fits with my existing personal preference! Thanks Hank.
Like everything Shepard wrote, it's pretty dense stuff, but thoroughly researched and his insights are pretty amazing. But, if you don't want to go that far into it, re-read Richard Grubola's reply above. :)
Cheers
Carl
I've argued for a long time that NPN should tear down the walls between ES&S and Man and Nature because this is STIFLING the development of our own photographers. A topic in M&N is lucky to receive half as many views as an item in ES&S, but there is a much larger market for these images than those in ES&S. People like to look at images of "themselves" and their activities.
I think the time of nature for its own sake and Adam's wilderness has passed. Remember that when Ansel Adams, Eliot Porter and the Sierra Club were publishing alot of the early landscape photography books, they were doing it with the goal of encouraging the US Congress to create a wilderness system within our public lands. They needed to show an "untouched" world worthy of preservation. They needed to break the paradigm that nature required the hand of man to reach its potential. I believe people are ready to see themselves in nature as art again without requiring rearrangement of everything in the scene. Wilderness areas are now established and we use them for recreation. Almost every wilderness trailhead in Colorado is jam packed with cars on the weekend.
If a photographer is letting their artistic development be driven purely by image views on an online forum, then they're missing something big. Creating images that get a lot of views and comments is not the way to forge a style or create art. So I disagree that the 'wall' is stifling. There are occasional jewels posted in M&N that many miss out on, and that is unfortunate... but I do not think that mixing the forums is a solution.
IMO the man and nature forum sees less viewers because overall the imagery isn't as top notch as the ESS forum. ESS sees some world class imagery on a regular basis from many of our members. Folks simply aren't putting that kind of time and energy into creating M&N images - and that's their decision. There is nothing preventing M&N from becoming a similarly incredible gallery, it's just not what people (on this forum) choose to shoot primarily, and thus not something they tend to spend their time viewing and commenting on. Most of the photographers on this forum are not shooting images to sell - they're doing it for their own satisfaction.
If the two forums were mixed, I think the pace of posting would be too fast and many of the M&N images would actually get less views and comments as they would be ignored by those who are not interested in such images and drop to the 2nd page more quickly (because they'd be mixed with the steady ESS image flow). Then those who are interested in M&N work would miss them altogether (because... we all know, once an image is past the first page the likelihood of it getting a view/comment approaches zero).
That's wilderness?? Not to me. All the more reason to keep people out of our photos--the very few that we can actually avoid buildings and people (and contrails!) being in, that is. Its a rare commodity, at least in the lower 48 and most of the world. Im not as well read as Carl, but as he and Richard alluded to, 'wilderness' back then was seen as something to be tamed (a 'subject not fitting for art') and that man was needed to tame it. Unfortunately, the 'taming' has led to the elimination of the true aesthetics from my modern perspective--hence the trend towards 'pristine' nature shots.
The reason people aren't in the shots? Normal people don't go out for a stroll before sunrise, they don't stand out in storms and they go home to eat around sunset. They really aren't that big a problem in our prime shooting times.
And besides, why worry if someone's in the scene when the clone stamp will do? Why worry about fence posts with CS5's new intelligent healing brush?
What a load of deluded hubris.
Ian Cameron
Paolo De Faveri
Rick Lundh
All regular contributors in ES&S each with equally high quality shots currently in M&N. All these images reach the same pinnacle of postcard landscape found in the current crop on ES&S.
In my opinion, ESS and M&N should be merged into a single Landscape photography category. If the inclusion of man-made content enhances the image, then it will stand, get more views and provide more feedback to the photographer about what is good and what falls short. Nobody can force you to include man-made content in the category. As is stands today, including man and nature in the ESS content would hardly accelerate the front page turn over. But forcing it to a second rate status certainly discourages people from sharing good content. Maybe being nature photographers network we say that a natural element must be the primary subject. I mean we don't want this to be overrun with architectural photographers and senior portraits.
And maybe if we're going to be so stringent about it we should push ALL the stuff from macro and flora forums to M&N too if they're shot in a garden. After all, they're all man-made too. Its a stupid segregation that hurts the development of our membership if they choose to pursue a professional path.
Why then make a distinction at all? How about birds in the landscape, or deer or sheep in the landscape, or industrial disease in the landscape, etc?
I think the distinction is made when we call this thing 'nature' photography.
Well, doesn't that speak to the value of 'wilderness', of landscapes untrammeled by man? If those parking lots stood empty, then maybe the "time of nature for its own sake and Adam's wilderness has passed" - but the fact that so many people apparently seek out these wilderness areas perhaps that the time is now, rather than passed?
Cheers
Carl
And how is it being forced into second rate status? It's simply a different category. Is avian second rate to fauna? Is flora second rate to ESS? Is PJ second rate to M&N? I suppose if we wanted to go down the road you suggest we should merge absolutely everything to be fair.... but of course you can just hit "all photos" to get that. And it can be a lot of fun to do just that... and browse all sorts of different kinds of images.
There is no doubt some great stuff posted in M&N, and I said just that. No delusions there. Personally, I just find a higher percentage of the ESS material to be inspiring compared to the M&N material, but that says nothing about individual images. I imagine many others feel the same way (judging by overall traffic); perhaps that's why you suggest M&N is second rate? Again... there's no need for it to be second rate, it's just what the masses have decided. If people choose not to share good content, that's a darn shame, and purely their personal choice... if they did, it would stick around on the first page of M&N longer than it would on ESS, that's for sure.
edit - Carl posted while I was writing... anyways, same idea.
The last line of the second description indicates that the hand of man is considered a detraction from the image and that the greater the evidence of hand of man, the greater the "penalty" for the image. Too much hand of man and your image gets kicked out altogether (I can't say I've ever seen one flatly rejected though). I can't say I've ever seen a moderator move an image from M&N to ESS because it didn't have enough HOM in it though.
Both ES&S and M&N are primarily focused on landscape photography and its clear from their descriptions. No other galleries are dedicated to landscape, just these two. And this landscape orientation doesn't preclude images with animals such as Floris' own deer in the redwoods.
As the Ken Burns National Parks series recently pointed out, white Americans like to pretend that they were the first to "discover" stuff despite the fact that people were here long before them using the landscape for sustenance and shelter. I think this defined purity is all related to these old American feelings of manifest destiny.
Anyways I'm playing devils advocate here and ruffling some feathers - no hard feelings I hope. I do think ending the segregation between M&N and ESS would be good for our members, especially those looking to go pro. But I wouldn't say its the make or break deal that would cause me to end my membership.
I do agree that the hard line currently imposed that excludes any hand of man (even just a small figure), but does allow minor wildlife inclusions is a bit odd. Personally, I wouldn't mind allowing small figures in ESS, no larger than the deer in the image you reference of mine. IF we were to allow that, the line would become very arbitrary when it comes to the distinction of M&N vs ESS... and I do think some level of separation is desired here - personally I don't really want to see houses and bridges in ESS, and I think many feel the same way. But I don't actually know what NPN members in general would prefer - maybe we can arrange a simple poll to actually get a more accurate idea.