I've been trying for a year to find a snake to photograph. Actually, from the time I was a little kid I was always sticking pieces of grass in holes on hikes to see if a snake or anything else would grab them. So I saw a dusky pygmy rattlesnake Saturday, and I was really happy about that. But why is that better than an anole, for instance? Is it because anoles are everywhere here?
In wildlife many people are drawn to images of lions and tigers and bears -- you get it. In avian many people are drawn to raptors. In landscape many people are drawn to extreme landscapes. (All these are general comments, not referring to any specific person or group of people, and I realize that any given person here may not feel that way at all.) Is this a human thing or a photography thing?
If that's the case for the person on the street, should it be the case also for photographers? Does the subject play any part in a determination of image quality? If it does, is there a sound basis for that?
I hope you see what I'm saying and don't see something I'm not saying. If I need to clarify my question more, please say so and I'll try to do that.
I'd love to know your thoughts about this. Thanks. :)
Posted by Jim Bullard on August 23, 2011 at 8:43 AM
We all have things we are drawn to for different reasons. A psychologist could probably explain specific cases. I'm drawn to particular environments because of where I lived as a kid. I like mountains because they are impressive. I like plants I haven't seen before because they are different. I think it comes down to a combination of comfort and curiosity, what we are comfortable with vs what intrigues us. It is human nature to want both security (the familiar) and to explore (adventure).
Posted by Kent Staubus on August 23, 2011 at 9:29 AM
I like them both equally. The anole and the Pygmy Rattler are fascinating subjects. However, going nose to nose with a venomous rattlesnake will impress lots of non-photographers more than a lizard, all other factors being equal. On the other hand, the best shot counts for something, as Kent said. No pat answer. Some folks just don't like spiders and snakes. A lot of it is personal.
Posted by David Chauvin on August 24, 2011 at 9:03 AM
I think one of the things that draws us to images of predators is hard wired into our primitive brain. Bears, big cats, snakes, etc present physical dangers and set off alarms. Anoles, not so much. The same for extreme environments. We become more alert and aware when the adrenaline kicks in.
As for image quality, I would naturally prefer an artistically, technically sound image over a poorly executed one. But I wouldn't mind shooting a mediocre image, of say, an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Then I could retire in style!
Discussion
7 repliesIn wildlife many people are drawn to images of lions and tigers and bears -- you get it. In avian many people are drawn to raptors. In landscape many people are drawn to extreme landscapes. (All these are general comments, not referring to any specific person or group of people, and I realize that any given person here may not feel that way at all.) Is this a human thing or a photography thing?
If that's the case for the person on the street, should it be the case also for photographers? Does the subject play any part in a determination of image quality? If it does, is there a sound basis for that?
I hope you see what I'm saying and don't see something I'm not saying. If I need to clarify my question more, please say so and I'll try to do that.
I'd love to know your thoughts about this. Thanks. :)
Kent in SD
As for image quality, I would naturally prefer an artistically, technically sound image over a poorly executed one. But I wouldn't mind shooting a mediocre image, of say, an Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Then I could retire in style!