This week, I had the (possibly dubious) honour of having my image"Starfish Swirl" chosen as Photo.net's Photo of the Week. Other NPNer's to be featured included : Marc Adamus, Steve Sieren, Paolo Faveri. I'm finding the discussion to be quite interesting and wonder whether some of the criticisms might be due to a other photographers versus nature photographer type of perspective. Especially as the same image got quite a positive response here on NPN. Apart from the issues raised on photo.net about my image specifically, I'm curious about your thoughts on how other photographers view nature photography.
PS. To be honest, the photo in question is not one that I would regard as a favourite but IMO it's still one of my stronger images.
I ended up contributing to the thread and posting it as a blog ’blog article’
The discussion on ’Photo.net’
I can't really speculate on the motivations of the 'other photography' critics--all I can do is offer my own assessment--which I have, at Photo.net (you know, that place for NPN wannabes )
Thanks for your contribution to the thread Stan. Just to clarify too - if you have comment about the photo please leave it on the photo.net Pow thread or my blog. If you have a comment about how other photographers relate to nature photography leave it here.
I always find it helpful to learn more about the people providing the critique to better put their words into context. I checked the pages and portfolios of some of the posters and to me they seem to fall into two groups: those who are accomplished photographers in their own right but who possess different sensibilities than you (and I) and those who I will generally place into the "sheeple" category who generally just try to be noticed by being vocal and jumping on highly-visible bandwagons rather than distinguishing themselves through original thought and work.
The truth is you will never please everyone. In creative/artistic work you should be targeting an audience of exactly one - yourself. To the extent that you are able to reach others, it is those who happen to share your vision, and in your case be sure there are many. If you try to alter your work to make it more digestible and give it mass appeal, you'll end up with kitsch. Be true to yourself and to hell with the rest.
Boy, that's a tough one Kah Kit. Like Stan, it's hard to guess what other photographers motives or thoughts are, but I've always gotten the impression that nature photographers are kind of thought of as red headed stepchildren by other "serious" photographers, especially studio photgraphers. Don't know if that assessment is fair or not, but that's the impression I've been left with.
I spend a lot of time with pro photographers (both still and video) who shoot in other disciplines. For all of them "nature" shooting is mostly recreation. They think it's fun, and their "recreational" feelings certainly affects their view about the results- their own and anyone else's. Understand that these people are highly trained and very good, making good livings in very competitive arenas. None have tried seriously to make money shooting nature, and none show much interest in it beyond casual moments around a coffee table.
My first reaction was that they were condescending. Then I realized that they just don't take it seriously and think of it as more of an amateur activity. With those folks as examples and "style setters" in their own venues, is it surprising that aspirants in the same fields would ape their feelings, almost as a "fashion statement?"
I have to say that I often feel really condescending around them. While I mute the sound or leave the room during television commercials, these people thrive on them. Sheesh.
Kah, I would find Guy's comment a well summed up point of view on the subject....
Posted by Luke Ormand on July 28, 2010 at 12:16 PM
and I thought the people in ESS are tough...
I think there is some validity to what they say about the photo (I'm not familiar with photo.net) what with there being some centering or feeling that there is a lot going on in a small space. That being said, why people would suggest you photoshopped it, or say that it's way oversaturated or complain about the "oof" starfish is really beyond me. I think there is validity to the idea that non-nature photographers don't have an appreciation for all things natural and don't appreciate the difficulty in finding compelling natural subjects in conjunction with good light.
Photographing for the accolades of others is a shallow game that soon wears thin. It is a game for the insecure. And the results will never be memorable or moving.Trust your instincts, go with your heart, art is about what moves you, what comes from your soul, I agree 100% with Guy, just shoot to please yourself, you'll never go wrong doing that. I believe you already do that, it shows! Just keep doing what you do.
And nature photographers are never 'artists' according to other photographers, we simple document all the beauty that nature puts in front of us. That is not art... (at least to them).
Posted by Peter Conway on July 28, 2010 at 12:27 PM
I had never visited that site before.
The level of pretentiousness is off the scale. Guy's comments are spot on.
Guy summed it up for me. "To thine ownself, be true."
And Luke said, "I think there is validity to the idea that non-nature photographers don't have an appreciation for all things natural and don't appreciate the difficulty in finding compelling natural subjects in conjunction with good light."
I agree with this. I think the lack of appreciation may stem from a lack of experiences in the natural world, so there results a built-in bias. That said, even if one has little experience in the natural world, I believe one can still appreciate fine nature photography if they open their heart, as well as their eyes.
--P
Posted by Bill Brennan on July 28, 2010 at 12:32 PM
Kah, I like your image very much. Cannot understand why some critics want to change it. Just say thanks and move on.
Kah,
Ditto to Guy's comments. I thought (and think) it's a great shot. In today's blogging world it's sad that critics feel they can remain anonymous and throw darts without challenge. We are a much less civilized society because of it. I just consider the source. Keep up the great work. I enjoy seeing your images.
Posted by Steve Kennedy on July 28, 2010 at 12:59 PM
I also think Guy is spot on. I don't think the non-nature folks have an appreciation of you comments about being able to "see" and capture the harmony found in the chaos. The chaos found in the studio is very much under the control of the photographer. The chaos in nature is everywhere. Making art in the studio is very different from making art in the natural world. If those photographers think nature photography is all about the icon shots, or the rock-ocean-sunset/sunrise, they are very much missing the point.
Thanks for everyone's comments here. I should like to point out firstly that I'm not having a go at people who dislike the image. To be fair, "Photo of the Week" is not just about putting up a shot for comments. It's a discussion about what images the editors consider to be the significant in each genre. Given the quality of the photos selected each week, it's only understandable that people are far more critical than usual.
Someone recently stated the to me the following, "I guess that when you get to a certain level or standard in all things, you have to take the good with the bad and decide how to interpret or take on board what has been said". (David on APF). This should be the first commandment for forum participation.
Having said all this, I often get the feeling that photographers from other fields just don't get it when they view nature photography. Luke and Preston hit on the reason for this IMO. They don't have a connection with the natural world.
"And nature photographers are never 'artists' according to other photographers, we simple document all the beauty that nature puts in front of us. That is not art... (at least to them)." Personally I only shoot for myself. However I suspect that your assessment of this attitude towards the documentary aspect of nature photography is unfortunately true.
Posted by Daniel Ewert on July 28, 2010 at 1:18 PM
It is apparent to me that some of those folks don't shoot nature or don't shoot it very well. Many clearly did not understand the effect of a long exposure on moving water. Perhaps they have found that they can get more attention from their flaming rhetoric than from their own less than compelling images. I did observe that there were some good photographers that posted, but those did not make up the majority.
Nature photography is such a personal endeavor, views of other come from their personal thoughts and desires. The goal in my opinion is to learn, grow and enjoy that, that has been given us. This can only be done by doing and photographing what moves and inspires you. It's one thing to look at a pretty picture it's something completely different to look at a photograph that instills the photographers intent and emotions into the image. A struggle that all nature photographers attempt to achieve with every image. It's hard if not impossible to put into words what nature photography is to the artists that produces it. As long as you love what you do, appreciate what has been given to your to enjoy and share it, you will never go wrong. Regardless if anyone else in the world appreciates or understands it. Keep up the great work Kit.
Posted by Richard Wong on July 28, 2010 at 2:00 PM
Some of the comments I could understand like the far-near, we all know that is has been done to death but it certainly works and you have done it well. As for criticizing the subject and seascapes however that is just a personal bias on their part because they do not understand nature and probably don't spend anytime outdoors. Perhaps also a bit jealousy as well since their "artistic" photography probably doesn't have much aesthetic value to most people.
I am not a fan of photo.net, but what Kah is really after is "how non-nature photographers think of nature photography". I have gathered a lot of interest on similar topic lately and reading a lot of books of photography as art or contemporary photography. Nature photography is hardly mentioned in these literature as "art". It was rather shocking or surprising to me to begin with, but I also see the other side of the story. Most nature shots that we produce are "document" of a nice location with nice light - only some go beyond that to tell a story or express interpretation of our artistic minds. I think that "Nature photography" is yet to be accepted as an "art" widely - now whether it is an art or not is a very different question.
I am still looking for a good explanation or line of thoughts that can rationalize this. Probably there is none - but we can't probably just ignore the world around us. Is "art" really about "pleasing yourself" (sorry Guy)? I hate to disagree
Arnab, that's not exactly what I said. What I meant was that we should all acknowledge we won't please everyone. By satisfying our own sensibilities we are also creating work that appeals to others (sometimes a lot of others) who share our vision. The opposite would be to create work for the sole purpose of pleasing others and that does not fully reflect our own inspiration. I personally don't see much point in that.
I wouldn't get too carried away with decrying how us poor nature photogs aren't understood (not directed at anyone in particular).
Art, especially for other artists, is very personal. There are other genres of photography that are very popular but I generally don't care for, unless it's envisioned and executed extremely well. One of the most Popular types of images on Flickr is self-portraits of young, attractive females posing, maybe with some artistic processing. I often get the feeling it's more about personal vanity than artistic expression. There are notable exceptions like Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir who are exceptionally talented.
Some people have an emotional connection with a certain type of subject -- others don't. If everyone likes your work you probably aren't taking enough chances.
I suppose "other" photographers often view nature photography along the same lines that I view portrait photography. Being a landscape/architectural photographer myself, I'm always amazed to hear what other master portrait photographers have to say when commenting/critiquing on a portrait photograph. They often point out nuances in a portrait that my rudimentary eye never notices.
With that said, I rarely feel comfortable making comments towards such images that I have little experience in and conversely (as Guy noted) weigh others critiques based on their own sensibilities and expertise. It may not be one's cup of tea, but anyone with some degree of seascape experience would easily recognize the reasons for the OoF starfish, natural swirling pattern, etc.
Guy: I understand your point. I agree with that angle "you can't please everyone" (in fact, that's my mantra of life!). But I like to explore how and why nature photography is accepted among others (artists, collectors, those who just appreciate, art writer/historians, etc.) - not that it will help me creating better or artistic images, it's just my curiosity. I dont get the attitude "oh, they dont understand us" or "they are jealous because they cant shoot like us" (not directed to anyone in particular - thanks Mat!). I guess that with this PN pick, Kah also found a lot of viewpoints that he can't simply ignore - I love how professionally and smoothly, he has accepted all the comments and explained his stance.
I judge the important components of a photo by the following : composition, lighting, technique and emotional response. I think one of the reasons that photographers who have little connection with nature have trouble with wildnerness landscapes is the last component. It's something I struggle with myself. Emotional response to an image is much more accessible if there is some sort of human element. Given that we go out our way in most cases to show the lack of human influence in our work, nature photographers are at a disadvantage in this regard. On the other hand, we are able to witness and capture moments of beauty that others are unable to comprehend or imagine.
In my opinion, the vast majority of photographs of the natural landscape, as seen on Internet forums, bear little resemblance to nature. The folks behind their creation are getting more and more aggressive in applying digital tools to craft what can be best described as 'Dreamscapes.' The target audience, who are other members of these forums, have been conditioned to accept these pictures, thereby creating a vicious cycle. Take a quick look at the ESS forum and you will see the extent to which saturation and contrast are used these days as a means of artistic expression. The strange thing is that it is always the same subjects that are photographed and presented in near identical fashion.
Apparently such (extreme) artistic liberties are taken for the purpose of invoking an emotional response in the viewer. Anything short of that is considered documentary. I have a hard time accepting this. I cannot speak for others, but I know that when I am 'really' drawn to a picture, it is almost always because of the photographer's skill in choosing the particular frame, rather than some outlandish light derived in Photoshop or the forced application of near-far/up-down/in-out composition formulae. The less gimmicky the photograph, the more it resonates with me. This is why I love the portfolios of photographers such as Michael Gordon and Joel Truckenbrod.
I think Guy put it best. You have to please yourself and be true to what moves your heart, that is where art lies, and in doing so it will move the heart of others. I also have to agree with Anil as well to some extent. I have become very put off by most of the formulaic photos that are out there now. Those that use those formulas but are photographing what their heart dictates still come through as such however, and those that are looking for the ooohs and aaaahs, come through that way as well. Pleasing others will please no one.
If you really want to get pissed off, have your photograph rated on photo.net. It seems as though every time I visit this particular site I wind up with a virus attempt.. Do any of you have this problem, or is it just me their after. I do have virus protection, thank goodness.
Posted by Kah Kit Yoong on July 29, 2010 at 11:27 AM
I've not had any virus issues Jackie but I use a Mac.
I want to thank all of you for contributing to this discussion. I am a beginner (2 years) and continue to find this group of photographers to be generous, talented, proud and dedicated. When I think about nature photography, I consider my self a subject photographer. I take images of subjects in nature. Sometimes the subjects are concrete and well defined. Sometimes they are a mood or feeling. I critique me work based on how I feel when I am shooting. When I am smiling the happiness I feel is all the reward I need to encourage me to keep at it.
Posted by John W. Wall on July 29, 2010 at 4:37 PM
"One of the most Popular types of images on Flickr is self-portraits of young, attractive females posing..."
Mat, you forgot to mention what Flickr group those pix are in.
On a more serious note (I was going to post this on your blog, but changed my mind), I'd add that I don't even like to be critiqued by other nature photographers, much less photographers in other genres. If you're doing what you like and you like what you're doing, why subject yourself to the opinions of others at all?
If you're 100% satisfied with your results, John--then there is no reason. I'm not 100% satisfied with my work, i think there's always room for improvement.
Hi Kah Kit, photo.net is sure a more brutal place than ESS. I think what Anil says about the vicious cycle makes a lot of sense. Here are some of my thoughts:
I of course disagree with the statement of non nature photographers that nature photography is easy and lacks artistic merit. The point however is maybe that it is relatively easy to make an appealing image given a beautiful location and by applying formulaic composition concepts. Just my own experience but I find it harder to make appealing photographs from the streets in my (urban) neighbourhood or from a construction site, etc, you name it. But maybe it is because I am not inspired by it and it takes more work from my side to make it "work". The re-creational aspect discussed might be the reason why I prefer nature photography. It is a fact: For per se "ugly" locations, one needs to re-think what photography can actually be: and that is telling a story, giving a statement, bringing a message. Street photography only works like this. But how many nature photographs are like this? Not too many. Superficial appeal is not a substitution of interest. I am not sure if everyone involved in landscape photography has this point of view, but I do think that many landscape photographs are judged by non-landscape photographers by these standards. I think professionals involved in one field often take their standards and apply it to other fields. Same with music - aesthetics found in one genre are lacking in other genres and it is just too easy to bash it because of that. I try to consume different genres of photography. Not too seldom I encounter a portfolio where one "just" took images of everyday subjects like the rooms of a dormitory or whatever - "ugly" scenes of a suburb of a city, a man mowing the grass in his garden. My first reaction often is "what the f... did the photographer think he was doing. How can this stuff be selected to be showcased". But actually my reaction is only like that because I am programmed to see the (superficial) aesthetics of nature photography that often bear no further meaning beyond the illustrative value. After a while I learned to appreciate other genres in which the photographer starts out with a totally different motivation. It is not always about showing the beauty and the aesthetics. And not too seldom I think that in nature photography a lot of meaning is lacking. On the other hand, one thing is also clear: there is no excuse for a bad image. If it does not work it does not work. Whatever intellectual concept a photographer tried to bring across. And if it is just by telling the viewer what he was supposed to bring across by a writing next to the image. If it is not "seen" by the viewer, then indeed maybe it is not there to begin with.
But back to the "ease" of making a nature photograph because this is also a very shallow analysis. This neglects the fact that even with a beautiful location and a known recipe a lot of "design" is left to the photographer where he can unfold his creativity and talent. But I have the suspicion that in nature photography, an appealing image is very quickly accepted as piece of good art, and quite bluntly, this is not always the case. But of course an appealing landscape photograph can be art. There is a very simple reason why Ansel Adams is so highly regarded. It is not because he was a pioneer...
Ok enough of my opinions...
Regards
Dietrich
Edit: Thanks Kah Kit for your reply! I just want to add that I am often dissatisfied with my own photography or lets say with the limits of the genre that I am in. What I have written above is partly the result of analyzing my own work, what it lacks and how it can be made more interesing - in theory.
Dietrich, what you have written really resonates with me. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I recently went from photographing landscapes in New Zealand to shooting street scenes in New York. I really had to shift gears mentally to apply myself yo the different genre.
Posted by Pam Colander on July 30, 2010 at 4:18 PM
Anyone who does not have personal knowledge regarding a subject really has no business critiquing someone who DOES have that knowledge. Too many people just like to hear themselves talk no matter how uninformed they may be. Your link made for very interesting reading Kah...thanks for providing it. My thinking is along the lines of what Guy posted. Also, see my signature quote below...sums up my thinking well.
Many of the comments and critiques of your image on Photo.net are certainly valid and worthwhile. But also it seems that some of the commenters don't mind, or even enjoy, being frank to the point of being insulting.
I think the tenor of the commentary is as much the culture of the forum as it is the outlook of photographers from different genres. Here at NPN there is a more cordial and courteous approach and a feeling of camaraderie and sharing. Is this because our subject is limited to nature photography? I don't know. Obviously some of us work in genres other than nature.
The only general photography site with a culture similar to NPN that I ever found went defunct several years ago. I checked out Photo.net years ago but I don't go there. It's more comfortable here.
"the worst photographers are the old ladies who demand you look at 38 pictures of their grandchildren. We also need to avoid this syndrome . "
Wain, would you please explain how this statement is relevant to this discussion? By the way, I have seen portraits of grandkids, done by grandmas, that are anything but poor photographs.
You never can predict what people will or will not like. So I completely agree with the statements about doing what makes you happy first. I have never thought there was a lack of passion conveyed in any of your images. If the passion is there, it will be good, and it will connect with at least some of the people viewing it. It would be silly to expect everyone to like something just because we do.
I visit the other site often, but have not joined. I see some great stuff there, and some completely over processed fantasy stuff too. My problem with the criticisms of your image are mainly due to the fact that there are many images there that are obviously over pushed and it is never mentioned at all!!!! So the one or two minor nits that are credible about your image aren't really worth mentioning. In that regard, I would be confused. I would like to see at least some sort of consistancy.
I also think that misguided analysis of an image comes from ignorance about how it was captured. I don't think many studio photogs that don't shoot nature images have an understanding of the challenges involved. So it isn't fair for them to come to an uninformed conclusion. I wouldn't claim to know the first thing about portrait photography, or architectural photography, or numerous other genres of photography. Having said that, I still think the cause of some of the effects in question in your image are pretty obvious!
So, I think it's a risk when you present your work for public view, and for critic. You never know what you're gonna get. But your images are always technically superior, and in my opinion display your passion for photography, and for nature. That's what it's all about IMO.
Just keep doing what you do, and feel confident that anyone that appreciates beauty, will appreciate your work.
Chris
Posted by Pam Colander on July 31, 2010 at 3:36 PM
Forgot to mention in my last post that I did think the crop one of the guys offered up worked well.
Posted by Kah Kit Yoong on August 1, 2010 at 12:08 AM
People have a right to like or dislike an image and I encourage them to express this and why. However when you have individuals writing pages of pseudo-intellectual babble it merely reflects their own grandiose and narcissistic traits or some other agenda. Often the most scathing attacks come from the individuals with the least amount of distinguished work.
It's not that I can't take criticism, I've taken a lot on board and used it to improve my work. As I predicted, the discussion on the POW has now turned its attention to dissing the genre as a whole.
Posted by Peter Conway on August 1, 2010 at 9:33 AM
"People have a right to like or dislike an image and I encourage them to express this and why. However when you have individuals writing pages of pseudo-intellectual babble it merely reflects their own grandiose and narcissistic traits or some other agenda."
I agree, which is why I referred to the level of pretentiousness. Worthwhile criticism is aimed at helping the recipient of it, or educating a larger audience. Much of what I read there smacked of self-aggrandizement the sole purpose of which is to make the writer sound important. I have known many extraordinary people who are tops if their field in a broad range of disciplines. A shared trait is the sense of self that has no need to tear down others. It is always the pretenders that wish to build themselves up through an attempt to make others seem, look, or feel smaller.
Here on NPN there are any number of truly accomplished critics that help others through critique, it just isn't done with a sneer.
"It is always the pretenders that wish to build themselves up through an attempt to make others seem, look, or feel smaller. "
One has to be little to belittle.
"As I predicted, the discussion on the POW has now turned its attention to dissing the genre as a whole. "
This is truly unfortunate. Those who blatantly reveal their bias are simply revealing their lack of understanding, selfishness, and intolerance for the ideas of others. Their Karma will come back to haunt them, in the end.
The anonymity of the internet appears to foster these kinds of comments by offering a platform for stump speeches where the speaker can hide behind a psuedonym. I do believe that such comments would not be made in a one-on-one, face-to-face meeting.
I look at photographs from many genre of the art. While I may not like, or I if find a particular image offensive, I do make an effort to balance my subjective view with an objective appraisal. I do try to understand where the artist is coming from, and in doing so, I learn something about myself.
"To be able to really see, one must not only open one's eyes. One must, above all, open one's heart." Gaston Rebuffat. French Alpinist.
Well, I went and read through almost the whole thread over there. It just gets to a point of being rediculous in some ways IMO. Why can't people just agree to disagree? And do it with respect. I've never understood why a person has to get mean or down right rude in order to tell someone they don't like their image. To say one is bored with near/ far comps, sunrises, sunsets, long exposures of water, motion blurs, perspective distortion, seascapes that are trite, or cliche. I'm really getting tired of that. So now you can't recieve praise unless you only trip the shutter when you can capture something totally unique and original? Well, good luck with that endeavor!!!! I understand that if you put an image up for view and critique, you have to have some thick skin, and be willing to take the good with the bad. I have no problem with that. It's when people get all caught up in childish disputes about what approach is better that it starts to get boring and trite to me. I'm kind of liking the attitude of you like it, or you don't like it. I know it's more than that. I don't just want to hear yes, or no, but also why. I just think people at times get too caught up in trying to tell someone how much they think their effort was a failure, or a waste of time!
And now about the genre bashing!
Someone said that a landscape image is just a record of some moment that happened. If they are not there, it is reduced to just a pretty picture. That is why landscape photography left them unfulfilled. Well, If I see a great portrait shot, or a nude, or an abstract, or whatever. If it's beautiful, I enjoy it. If it makes some deeper connection, then I might enjoy it more, ansd even appreciate it for more complex reasons than just it's beauty. But I still wasn't there. So should it be reduced to just another pretty picture by me? I go out to experience nature. I have become passionate about it. I still work a 50-60 hour a week construction job. So I don't get to spend nearly as much time as I would like doing what I love. But I hope that passion at least to some extent is evident inmy images. If it is, I think it will make a connection from me and the actual experience, to the viewer that was not there. I look at some amazing moments in time, captured by great photogs. I can appreciate the experience, and the image is to me more than just another pretty picture.
I think if someone wants to be hyper critical, they could argue that 99 percent of all images in all genres are trite, or cliche, or whatever.
I think the tenor of the commentary is as much the culture of the forum as it is the outlook of photographers from different genres.
I think you have found the core Buck, but specific to that site (I won't even type their name), I'll offer this modification:
"I think the tenor of the commentary is MORE the culture of the forum THAN the outlook of photographers from different genres."
I left that site more than 5 years ago specifically because of the tenor of the commentary, and I simply cannot accept that the kind of comments there spill over to encompass photographers within other genre. I know and work with several "names" in other genre, and they're not like that. From what I used to see at that site, the harsh treatment was mostly from wannabes and pretenders in a genre, rather than true pros and achievers.
In contrast, the real pros in other genres recognize and appreciate the accomplishments in "nature" photography, but don't put their own time into it. The comments of one in particular provided a good summary for me. To paraphrase, he feels that nature photography is a holdover from times past, while his world is dominated by contemporary culture and cutting edge technology/techniques. He doesn't put the effort into nature photography of his own because doing it well requires more time and effort than he's willing to rob from his current lifestyle, and in fact he's uncomfortable doing it because he's not in control of EVERYTHING in the shot, as is the case with his pro shooting. To quote him directly "It's too damn hard and time consuming, and the results are always uncertain."
That's quite different than the wannabe "spokesmen" for the various genre on that site, isn't it?
Posted by Joseph Kayne on August 4, 2010 at 5:25 PM
Discussion
44 repliesPS. To be honest, the photo in question is not one that I would regard as a favourite but IMO it's still one of my stronger images.
I ended up contributing to the thread and posting it as a blog ’blog article’
The discussion on ’Photo.net’
The truth is you will never please everyone. In creative/artistic work you should be targeting an audience of exactly one - yourself. To the extent that you are able to reach others, it is those who happen to share your vision, and in your case be sure there are many. If you try to alter your work to make it more digestible and give it mass appeal, you'll end up with kitsch. Be true to yourself and to hell with the rest.
Guy
My first reaction was that they were condescending. Then I realized that they just don't take it seriously and think of it as more of an amateur activity. With those folks as examples and "style setters" in their own venues, is it surprising that aspirants in the same fields would ape their feelings, almost as a "fashion statement?"
I have to say that I often feel really condescending around them. While I mute the sound or leave the room during television commercials, these people thrive on them. Sheesh.
Kah, I would find Guy's comment a well summed up point of view on the subject....
I think there is some validity to what they say about the photo (I'm not familiar with photo.net) what with there being some centering or feeling that there is a lot going on in a small space. That being said, why people would suggest you photoshopped it, or say that it's way oversaturated or complain about the "oof" starfish is really beyond me. I think there is validity to the idea that non-nature photographers don't have an appreciation for all things natural and don't appreciate the difficulty in finding compelling natural subjects in conjunction with good light.
And nature photographers are never 'artists' according to other photographers, we simple document all the beauty that nature puts in front of us. That is not art... (at least to them).
The level of pretentiousness is off the scale. Guy's comments are spot on.
Peter
And Luke said, "I think there is validity to the idea that non-nature photographers don't have an appreciation for all things natural and don't appreciate the difficulty in finding compelling natural subjects in conjunction with good light."
I agree with this. I think the lack of appreciation may stem from a lack of experiences in the natural world, so there results a built-in bias. That said, even if one has little experience in the natural world, I believe one can still appreciate fine nature photography if they open their heart, as well as their eyes.
--P
Bill Brennan
Ditto to Guy's comments. I thought (and think) it's a great shot. In today's blogging world it's sad that critics feel they can remain anonymous and throw darts without challenge. We are a much less civilized society because of it. I just consider the source. Keep up the great work. I enjoy seeing your images.
Someone recently stated the to me the following, "I guess that when you get to a certain level or standard in all things, you have to take the good with the bad and decide how to interpret or take on board what has been said". (David on APF). This should be the first commandment for forum participation.
Having said all this, I often get the feeling that photographers from other fields just don't get it when they view nature photography. Luke and Preston hit on the reason for this IMO. They don't have a connection with the natural world.
"And nature photographers are never 'artists' according to other photographers, we simple document all the beauty that nature puts in front of us. That is not art... (at least to them)." Personally I only shoot for myself. However I suspect that your assessment of this attitude towards the documentary aspect of nature photography is unfortunately true.
Guy's and Darwin's comments are right on.
I am still looking for a good explanation or line of thoughts that can rationalize this. Probably there is none - but we can't probably just ignore the world around us. Is "art" really about "pleasing yourself" (sorry Guy)? I hate to disagree
Guy
Art, especially for other artists, is very personal. There are other genres of photography that are very popular but I generally don't care for, unless it's envisioned and executed extremely well. One of the most Popular types of images on Flickr is self-portraits of young, attractive females posing, maybe with some artistic processing. I often get the feeling it's more about personal vanity than artistic expression. There are notable exceptions like Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir who are exceptionally talented.
Some people have an emotional connection with a certain type of subject -- others don't. If everyone likes your work you probably aren't taking enough chances.
With that said, I rarely feel comfortable making comments towards such images that I have little experience in and conversely (as Guy noted) weigh others critiques based on their own sensibilities and expertise. It may not be one's cup of tea, but anyone with some degree of seascape experience would easily recognize the reasons for the OoF starfish, natural swirling pattern, etc.
Congrats on the PoW!
~Eric
Apparently such (extreme) artistic liberties are taken for the purpose of invoking an emotional response in the viewer. Anything short of that is considered documentary. I have a hard time accepting this. I cannot speak for others, but I know that when I am 'really' drawn to a picture, it is almost always because of the photographer's skill in choosing the particular frame, rather than some outlandish light derived in Photoshop or the forced application of near-far/up-down/in-out composition formulae. The less gimmicky the photograph, the more it resonates with me. This is why I love the portfolios of photographers such as Michael Gordon and Joel Truckenbrod.
Mat, you forgot to mention what Flickr group those pix are in.
On a more serious note (I was going to post this on your blog, but changed my mind), I'd add that I don't even like to be critiqued by other nature photographers, much less photographers in other genres. If you're doing what you like and you like what you're doing, why subject yourself to the opinions of others at all?
I of course disagree with the statement of non nature photographers that nature photography is easy and lacks artistic merit. The point however is maybe that it is relatively easy to make an appealing image given a beautiful location and by applying formulaic composition concepts. Just my own experience but I find it harder to make appealing photographs from the streets in my (urban) neighbourhood or from a construction site, etc, you name it. But maybe it is because I am not inspired by it and it takes more work from my side to make it "work". The re-creational aspect discussed might be the reason why I prefer nature photography. It is a fact: For per se "ugly" locations, one needs to re-think what photography can actually be: and that is telling a story, giving a statement, bringing a message. Street photography only works like this. But how many nature photographs are like this? Not too many. Superficial appeal is not a substitution of interest. I am not sure if everyone involved in landscape photography has this point of view, but I do think that many landscape photographs are judged by non-landscape photographers by these standards. I think professionals involved in one field often take their standards and apply it to other fields. Same with music - aesthetics found in one genre are lacking in other genres and it is just too easy to bash it because of that. I try to consume different genres of photography. Not too seldom I encounter a portfolio where one "just" took images of everyday subjects like the rooms of a dormitory or whatever - "ugly" scenes of a suburb of a city, a man mowing the grass in his garden. My first reaction often is "what the f... did the photographer think he was doing. How can this stuff be selected to be showcased". But actually my reaction is only like that because I am programmed to see the (superficial) aesthetics of nature photography that often bear no further meaning beyond the illustrative value. After a while I learned to appreciate other genres in which the photographer starts out with a totally different motivation. It is not always about showing the beauty and the aesthetics. And not too seldom I think that in nature photography a lot of meaning is lacking. On the other hand, one thing is also clear: there is no excuse for a bad image. If it does not work it does not work. Whatever intellectual concept a photographer tried to bring across. And if it is just by telling the viewer what he was supposed to bring across by a writing next to the image. If it is not "seen" by the viewer, then indeed maybe it is not there to begin with.
But back to the "ease" of making a nature photograph because this is also a very shallow analysis. This neglects the fact that even with a beautiful location and a known recipe a lot of "design" is left to the photographer where he can unfold his creativity and talent. But I have the suspicion that in nature photography, an appealing image is very quickly accepted as piece of good art, and quite bluntly, this is not always the case. But of course an appealing landscape photograph can be art. There is a very simple reason why Ansel Adams is so highly regarded. It is not because he was a pioneer...
Ok enough of my opinions...
Regards
Dietrich
Edit: Thanks Kah Kit for your reply! I just want to add that I am often dissatisfied with my own photography or lets say with the limits of the genre that I am in. What I have written above is partly the result of analyzing my own work, what it lacks and how it can be made more interesing - in theory.
Many of the comments and critiques of your image on Photo.net are certainly valid and worthwhile. But also it seems that some of the commenters don't mind, or even enjoy, being frank to the point of being insulting.
I think the tenor of the commentary is as much the culture of the forum as it is the outlook of photographers from different genres. Here at NPN there is a more cordial and courteous approach and a feeling of camaraderie and sharing. Is this because our subject is limited to nature photography? I don't know. Obviously some of us work in genres other than nature.
The only general photography site with a culture similar to NPN that I ever found went defunct several years ago. I checked out Photo.net years ago but I don't go there. It's more comfortable here.
Wain, would you please explain how this statement is relevant to this discussion? By the way, I have seen portraits of grandkids, done by grandmas, that are anything but poor photographs.
--P
I visit the other site often, but have not joined. I see some great stuff there, and some completely over processed fantasy stuff too. My problem with the criticisms of your image are mainly due to the fact that there are many images there that are obviously over pushed and it is never mentioned at all!!!! So the one or two minor nits that are credible about your image aren't really worth mentioning. In that regard, I would be confused. I would like to see at least some sort of consistancy.
I also think that misguided analysis of an image comes from ignorance about how it was captured. I don't think many studio photogs that don't shoot nature images have an understanding of the challenges involved. So it isn't fair for them to come to an uninformed conclusion. I wouldn't claim to know the first thing about portrait photography, or architectural photography, or numerous other genres of photography. Having said that, I still think the cause of some of the effects in question in your image are pretty obvious!
So, I think it's a risk when you present your work for public view, and for critic. You never know what you're gonna get. But your images are always technically superior, and in my opinion display your passion for photography, and for nature. That's what it's all about IMO.
Just keep doing what you do, and feel confident that anyone that appreciates beauty, will appreciate your work.
Chris
It's not that I can't take criticism, I've taken a lot on board and used it to improve my work. As I predicted, the discussion on the POW has now turned its attention to dissing the genre as a whole.
I agree, which is why I referred to the level of pretentiousness. Worthwhile criticism is aimed at helping the recipient of it, or educating a larger audience. Much of what I read there smacked of self-aggrandizement the sole purpose of which is to make the writer sound important. I have known many extraordinary people who are tops if their field in a broad range of disciplines. A shared trait is the sense of self that has no need to tear down others. It is always the pretenders that wish to build themselves up through an attempt to make others seem, look, or feel smaller.
Here on NPN there are any number of truly accomplished critics that help others through critique, it just isn't done with a sneer.
Peter
One has to be little to belittle.
"As I predicted, the discussion on the POW has now turned its attention to dissing the genre as a whole. "
This is truly unfortunate. Those who blatantly reveal their bias are simply revealing their lack of understanding, selfishness, and intolerance for the ideas of others. Their Karma will come back to haunt them, in the end.
The anonymity of the internet appears to foster these kinds of comments by offering a platform for stump speeches where the speaker can hide behind a psuedonym. I do believe that such comments would not be made in a one-on-one, face-to-face meeting.
I look at photographs from many genre of the art. While I may not like, or I if find a particular image offensive, I do make an effort to balance my subjective view with an objective appraisal. I do try to understand where the artist is coming from, and in doing so, I learn something about myself.
"To be able to really see, one must not only open one's eyes. One must, above all, open one's heart." Gaston Rebuffat. French Alpinist.
--P
And now about the genre bashing!
Someone said that a landscape image is just a record of some moment that happened. If they are not there, it is reduced to just a pretty picture. That is why landscape photography left them unfulfilled. Well, If I see a great portrait shot, or a nude, or an abstract, or whatever. If it's beautiful, I enjoy it. If it makes some deeper connection, then I might enjoy it more, ansd even appreciate it for more complex reasons than just it's beauty. But I still wasn't there. So should it be reduced to just another pretty picture by me? I go out to experience nature. I have become passionate about it. I still work a 50-60 hour a week construction job. So I don't get to spend nearly as much time as I would like doing what I love. But I hope that passion at least to some extent is evident inmy images. If it is, I think it will make a connection from me and the actual experience, to the viewer that was not there. I look at some amazing moments in time, captured by great photogs. I can appreciate the experience, and the image is to me more than just another pretty picture.
I think if someone wants to be hyper critical, they could argue that 99 percent of all images in all genres are trite, or cliche, or whatever.
Okay then,
Chris
I think you have found the core Buck, but specific to that site (I won't even type their name), I'll offer this modification:
"I think the tenor of the commentary is MORE the culture of the forum THAN the outlook of photographers from different genres."
I left that site more than 5 years ago specifically because of the tenor of the commentary, and I simply cannot accept that the kind of comments there spill over to encompass photographers within other genre. I know and work with several "names" in other genre, and they're not like that. From what I used to see at that site, the harsh treatment was mostly from wannabes and pretenders in a genre, rather than true pros and achievers.
In contrast, the real pros in other genres recognize and appreciate the accomplishments in "nature" photography, but don't put their own time into it. The comments of one in particular provided a good summary for me. To paraphrase, he feels that nature photography is a holdover from times past, while his world is dominated by contemporary culture and cutting edge technology/techniques. He doesn't put the effort into nature photography of his own because doing it well requires more time and effort than he's willing to rob from his current lifestyle, and in fact he's uncomfortable doing it because he's not in control of EVERYTHING in the shot, as is the case with his pro shooting. To quote him directly "It's too damn hard and time consuming, and the results are always uncertain."
That's quite different than the wannabe "spokesmen" for the various genre on that site, isn't it?