"Flawless" subjects required for nature photography?

I appreciate beautiful flowers and birds and animals, and I realize that a beautiful specimen of anything is a great subject for a photo. But other than in the commercial arena, is perfection in the subject required for nature photography to be considered good? Animals and birds will often have scars, flowers will often have blemishes -- is there a place for photographs of those animals and birds and flowers in good nature photography, or no? Thanks for your input.

Depends...

Are people with big scars, grimy hair, and disfigured limbs used for modeling sexy underwear? Nope...

But does a beautiful person with smooth skin, perfect proportions and clean clothing tell a story or evoke a strong emotion you can relate to? Probably not...

I guess what I'm saying is, it depends on what you want. If you want to tell a story, the imperfect may have a stronger impact if used properly. If you want to document a perfect specimen, well, then you're going to need a perfect specimen. IMO a good story beats a perfect specimen any day, but getting everything to come together in a synergistic way is the hard part. ie. a three legged moose in front of a spectacularly perfect mountain and sunset is not going to look quite right... put it in a different landscape and it could tell an incredibly strong and touching story.

I agree with what Floris has to say and will expand a little bit.

I think the subject often times dictates what perfections or imperfections are required. Big game (lions, tigers, sharks, bears, etc.) are often enhanced by big nasty scars. Injuries highlight the hard life these animals live and gives so much character to them. On the flip side, a baby deer/fox/bird etc. should like pure clean and innocent. A scar or disfigurement would take away from what the viewer expects (unless of course you are doing some environmental photojournalism.

As for plants, perfect subjects are great, but a withered plant can work in the right mood and setting.

Absolutely there is Barbara. Check out Angela McCain's "Molting Cardinal" posted yesterday in Avian. I really like that shot as do many others and he's certainly no "pretty boy".

And on a related note, personally I have a strong preference to not touch up "imperfections" in my subjects - things like broken feathers, sand or debris on the bill and such. I like seeing those little bits of reality, the way it really is "out there".

Of course imperfect subjects are fine in Nature Photography: for me the key word has always been natural.

In Flora, the targeted emotive effect dictates whether or not I clean up the leaf or flower blems. If I let them be...perhaps even boost them to higher prominance, it is because the blems contribute to the outcome. Generally, I have the goal for an enchantment effect...to lead the viewer into their secret desire to see a slice of the most lush wonderful Garden of Eden...which demands that I clean it up. But, conversely the opposite occurs too. One sample in my gallery that is a personal favorite is "Fall Art". The dead leaves and blems were essential to the composition. It's all in the eye of the artist....therefore, nothing is off limits.

I like Floris' response. I find beauty in all animals and don't see them as flawed so much as unique to their own. For flowers though, I'd rather photograph one that is alive and intact though. But if there is a pretty photo to be had from dead flowers then I'd be all for that too. Maybe a dead bouquet on someone's doorstep.

About the flowers, what I mean more than dead leaves and flowers is flowers with the tip of a petal broken off, or a hole in a petal from a bug/worm, so basically flowers that are not at all greenhouse flowers but are flowers that live among a whole bunch of other living things and basically pay the price, I guess you could say, for that -- flowers that are not in the airbrushed model category.

You've ruled out commercial use where perfection is usually the desired product but to answer your question, you need to define "good nature photography". What do you mean by that?...galleries? websites? books? magazines? something else?

What IS good nature photography? Without meaning to simply play on words, there is a difference between "nature photography" and "photography of nature". The former includes all subjects in all their wonderful imperfection. The second probably too, but maybe not so much. The former is as much about the maker as the image. The second is more about the image.

to me nature photography is as much about a feeling as about an image. In all the photo classes I teach, one fundamental point I always make is that ultimately there is only one viewer the image has to please and that's the maker. If the subject speaks to you, if you simply "like it", then it doesn't matter truly what "flaws" it may have. JR

For me, composition and light are more important than subject. A flawed subject doesn't necessarily mean a flawed photograph.

John, I really like your last paragraph. But photography is an art, I think, right? And artists do create work that they like, because otherwise they couldn't do it for very long or at least can't be happy doing it. But usually don't artists also want other random, unspecified people, someone anyway, to appreciate their work? Or maybe not?

To answer your first question, what I mean is do other nature photographers in general need perfection in the subject to consider a photograph good? So I don't mean in any specific presentation or media, but just one nature photographer to another. My brother-in-law is a really good nature photographer (who unfortunately just doesn't work with his pictures on a computer but prints them directly from his camera), and he brings pictures to show me, and prior to being here I've never considered whether the subject had any "flaws" in my reaction to it. Being here and seeing lots of pretty much perfect subjects has me really wondering whether I should be looking for that type of subject more than I am.

In my experience there has to be a reason or point for showing some types of "imperfections," and the market is more restricted. Many viewers are expecting perfect critters and see the problems before they see anything else in the image. I've got a beautiful "story telling" head shot of a bald eagle for example, with it's white head completely red and pink with blood. It had been sticking it's head into a road kill deer to feed and was quite a mess. Great for the story of the scavenger side of eagle lives, but I've never sold a print of it- even to eagle lovers. I've got no end of bear shots with bloody jowls caught in the act of eating fish. Same results. In fact, bears in pale, thick winter coats sell better than bears that have molted to their short, dark summer coats. If sales are your aim, "perfection" sells. If you're telling true stories rather than peddling fantasies, grit is part of the whole story and sells there, but not in prints.

I like John's response , too. But, I'll add my two cents in.....
I love imperfect flowers, mushrooms, seedpods, etc. A lot of them wind up just ugly on the computer....I delete them immediately.
But, some of my better shots are those I call "character shots". They give a mood to the photo BECAUSE of their imperfections...ie., flowers with one petal missing or torn in an interesting way makes the flower unique, unlike all the Hallmark card variety of perfect flowers.

I look for lots of "mood" shots, which I think of more as "art shots" than nature shots. They have a special 'flavor" to them, that no one else has captured. This is the thread running through all great art.

So, I suggest posting your perfect specimen shots in the flora gallery. And put the "flawed ones in the art section.....with one caveat! They MUST look like art, not just ugly flowers. This may mean "highlighting" their interesting imperfections by putting them on a more interesting background...like an imperfect flower against a perfect sky or one with a great silhouette or shadow....make them each your own piece of art. Otherwise, you are just taking snapshots with no talent required.

Lucy

I agree with Hank on the selling of prints. For the most part if people have a choice they will buy the perfect print. An exception to the rule is a print that a friend of mine has of two elk fighting in the Madison river with blood flowing off one of the Elks face into the river. It really emphasizes the intensity of the battle.

I think imperfections provide character - a sense of uniqueness. A good photograph is not about the perfection of the subject - it's about presentation. Any subject can be poorly presented. We've all seen shots of beautiful models in uninteresting poses... with poor lighting... or technical flaws. And we've all seen shots of the dirtiest child - unwashed and unwanted - and yet beautifully presented.

It's the photographer who makes the photo into art. Not the subject.

Here' s one of my favorites - a very simple portrait of an aging leaf. It was red and gold - absolutely beautiful in color - but the imperfections seemed even more beautiful to me.

Varina, thank you for including that photograph.

Being here and seeing lots of pretty much perfect subjects has me really wondering whether I should be looking for that type of subject more than I am.

What is vitally important is what the "nature photography' will be sold/used for. If fine art, then there are NO rules. If you're selling commercially, understand that you will be competing against all the other flawless images out there. That being said....

I'm not going to answer the question you asked and would like to instead address what I've quoted from you.

Spending time on forums like NPN can be both a blessing and curse. One can learn plenty, but one can also learn to produce homogeneous images that look just like every other photograph on NPN. There is indeed a certain 'photographic formula' (like perfection of subject; near/far wide angle images; and shooting only during the "golden hours") that many photographers find very easy to replicate. Problem is, non-conformists don't receive the same number of views and comments, leading the non-conformist to believe, like you, that their work may be somehow inferior. Please don't buy into this logic. Pursue the subjects and style of photography that you're called to, and resist others telling you what you should have done with your photograph(s).

There's a whole history of highly successful landscape photography and photographers that have utilized less than flawless subjects. Good thing those images never got posted on ESS....

Make your own path, Barbara.

Varina-
I'm adding you to my list of favorite quotes

"It's the photographer who makes the photo into art. Not the subject." - Varina Patel

Spending time on forums like NPN can be both a blessing and curse. One can learn plenty, but one can also learn to produce homogeneous images that look just like every other photograph on NPN. There is indeed a certain 'photographic formula' (like perfection of subject; near/far wide angle images; and shooting only during the "golden hours") that many photographers find very easy to replicate. Problem is, non-conformists don't receive the same number of views and comments, leading the non-conformist to believe, like you, that their work may be somehow inferior. Please don't buy into this logic. Pursue the subjects and style of photography that you're called to, and resist others telling you what you should have done with your photograph(s).

There's a whole history of highly successful landscape photography and photographers that have utilized less than flawless subjects. Good thing those images never got posted on ESS....

I agree w/Michael Gordon (he is always right somehow). Most of today's nature photography following a formula - but there are practitioner who are devoted to create art, not documentation or crowd-pleasing drama. Beauty is cliche and perfection is boring. "Make your own path"

This will help amplify Michael's great point. I posted it many years ago, and got more pans than a Corningware discount store. And I've never sold a print in the 20 years since I took it. But it always gets long looks in a portfolio, and locals that really know eagles always remember it and compliment me on it. They just don't want it on their walls.

Hank, I'm one of "those" people that has been to Alaska one time and it changed my inner self. This was three summers ago. One thing that made a deep impression on me was the reality of wild animals in the wild as opposed to the fantasy of wild animals in the wild. This eagle, to me, is absolutely Alaska and absolutely eagle, absolutely real and absolutely beautiful. Thank you for posting it.

"homogeneous images that look just like every other photograph on NPN"

Wow, I didn't know you could say stuff like that here.

As for your concern, Barbara: "wondering whether I should be looking for that type of subject," I asked myself the same question. For me, the answer was yes. I don't exclude everything else, but I found it eye-opening to realize I had not even thought of looking for a "perfect" specimen. A butterfly was a butterfly. Tattered wings? I was embarrassed that I'd never even thought about it.

Now I try to show my subject "at its best." I see it as a way to reflect the deep caring I have for my subjects. If I'm going to photograph a wildflower species, I'll look for the best example in the bunch. Ditto for butterflies, fungi, landscapes and any other subject where there's a choice. Not only will I try to find the best specimen or angle, but I'll bring the best of my abilities to bear on making the photograph. For me it's a progression from cataloging stuff to trying to become a more skilled nature photographer.

Wow, I didn't know you could say stuff like that here.

Perhaps it needs to be said more often, John

Right on, Michael. I like your straight-shooting style of getting the points across.

Hank - amazing shot. That is pretty jarring to see.

Brett Weston's favorite subjects we're what he called "elegant crap". The Japanese aesthetic known as Wabi-Sabi focuses on the beauty of things that are imperfect, flawed and common. These things should be embraced.