Just wanted to mention that I thoroughly enjoyed reading Guy's latest article - "The Essential Landscape Artists – Stand Up for Your Art!"
It is true that a lot of people see nature photography as being nothing more than a vehicle for scientific documentation or at best cheap decorative art that can only provide momentary pleasure. However true that might be, it surely cannot encompass the entire genre of nature photography. I believe that if we really love and enjoy nature (like most of us here claim to) then it should be possible to create meaningful art using our chosen medium. Of course, for that to happen we need to be true to ourselves and make images from our hearts (rather than try to immitate today's popular themes and techniques). The good thing is that many are already successful at this and its wonderful to see them grow as artists. The fact that a few of these people I speak of are members of NPN provides me with added incentive to work harder.
Great article, Guy! I think we should also start labeling every image as a TrustImage, whether it meets the criteria or not, thus making this label meaningless.
Guy, what a great article. I started photography as a documentary photgrapher and it took me years to realize that photography can be art. I agree about the arbitrary limits and designations we assign to images. I especially like your statement that an image stands or falls on its own merits. Great job!
I have read and reread Guy's article and would like to comment on some points.
I agree whole heartedly that Nature photography should go beyond documenting what is before the camera. There should be ulterior meaning of "emotion, of spirituality, of mystery, of personal interpretation".
To me art begins when a creative work goes beyond merely representing reality and enters the realm of personal expression. It is the use of tangible elements to create meaning beyond their literal portrayal. This seems to be the exact opposite of what many are attempting to enforce on nature photography these days.
There will always be those who would want to stiffle our creativity by imposing their own rules and standards. Such as limiting the work to in-camera. According to TrustImage (formerly FoundView) a photographer is prohibited from cloning out any thing in the image, nor is he permitted to stitch together two or more images to make a panoramic. If I clone out a distracting twig does that misrepresent the scene? As if anyone would notice that there is a twig missing in the image if he is looking at the actual scene that was photographed Distracting elements should be avoided. Sometimes they can't. So I clone them out with a clear conscience.
I believe there is a lack of trust. With today's computer technology photographers can almost literally move mountains. A TrustImage logo would assure the viewer that what he sees is real. This implies an image lacking a TrustImage logo is not trustworthy and subject to sceptism.
Why should we be limited to only in camera? PhotoShop is not about rescueing a muffed shot. And if I move a mountain, then I will let you know.
I read Guy's article then I just looked at the Trustimage.org site for the first time and perused a bit about what it had to say. At this point I don't know how trustimage is being implemented, by whom, for what purposes, and how it may have affected the photography community. As a new member of this site and the magazine, I am not familliar with the history or orientation of the magazine or community. However I don't have a problem with something that is trying to define a realm of nature or landscape photography that imposes rigid limits on image manipulation reflecting certain aspects of traditional photography. Every one to their own choices. If someone wants to impose such standards within their own community that then rejects the inputs of those who don't conform, fine. If others want to have complete freedom artistically to do what they want with their images within the greater public, that is fine too. Again, each with freedom to their own. From a quick look at the TI site, I'm guessing the fine art images I make though with some similar considerations, would not qualify.
I've imposed limits on my own chosen photography style because that is how I personally prefer my work and also in order to differentiate my work from others. However I don't reject or criticize the way others might create, process, and market their work regardless what they do. Pterodactyls flying in the sky, fine. I might have an opinion though. For instance regarding this subject, if I see two photographs of the same scene, one that was manipulated to some degree and looks more aesthetic and another that represents reasonable fidelity of the scene, I will prefer the latter. In doing so I don't dismiss the former but rather simply appreciate realistic as being more important to my personal likes than simply looking better. I understand that others can prefer the manipulated image and that is absolutely fine too. However in marketing one of my own images against someone else's that is manipulated, I might choose to promote the fact my image is more realistic than the other photographer's image, because I know people will more often prefer an image they feel is a reasonable reflection of a real scene rather than one that is not. For example, I might state I use film ie Provia with better color fidelity than their film Velvia.
Discussion
7 repliesIt is true that a lot of people see nature photography as being nothing more than a vehicle for scientific documentation or at best cheap decorative art that can only provide momentary pleasure. However true that might be, it surely cannot encompass the entire genre of nature photography. I believe that if we really love and enjoy nature (like most of us here claim to) then it should be possible to create meaningful art using our chosen medium. Of course, for that to happen we need to be true to ourselves and make images from our hearts (rather than try to immitate today's popular themes and techniques). The good thing is that many are already successful at this and its wonderful to see them grow as artists. The fact that a few of these people I speak of are members of NPN provides me with added incentive to work harder.
His last paragraph in that piece was the "slam dunk of all slam dunks" in my opinion!
So Guy, .................. "atta boy!"
Outstanding article!!
Guy
- Dan.
I agree whole heartedly that Nature photography should go beyond documenting what is before the camera. There should be ulterior meaning of "emotion, of spirituality, of mystery, of personal interpretation".
There will always be those who would want to stiffle our creativity by imposing their own rules and standards. Such as limiting the work to in-camera. According to TrustImage (formerly FoundView) a photographer is prohibited from cloning out any thing in the image, nor is he permitted to stitch together two or more images to make a panoramic. If I clone out a distracting twig does that misrepresent the scene? As if anyone would notice that there is a twig missing in the image if he is looking at the actual scene that was photographed
I believe there is a lack of trust. With today's computer technology photographers can almost literally move mountains. A TrustImage logo would assure the viewer that what he sees is real. This implies an image lacking a TrustImage logo is not trustworthy and subject to sceptism.
Why should we be limited to only in camera? PhotoShop is not about rescueing a muffed shot. And if I move a mountain, then I will let you know.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
I've imposed limits on my own chosen photography style because that is how I personally prefer my work and also in order to differentiate my work from others. However I don't reject or criticize the way others might create, process, and market their work regardless what they do. Pterodactyls flying in the sky, fine. I might have an opinion though. For instance regarding this subject, if I see two photographs of the same scene, one that was manipulated to some degree and looks more aesthetic and another that represents reasonable fidelity of the scene, I will prefer the latter. In doing so I don't dismiss the former but rather simply appreciate realistic as being more important to my personal likes than simply looking better. I understand that others can prefer the manipulated image and that is absolutely fine too. However in marketing one of my own images against someone else's that is manipulated, I might choose to promote the fact my image is more realistic than the other photographer's image, because I know people will more often prefer an image they feel is a reasonable reflection of a real scene rather than one that is not. For example, I might state I use film ie Provia with better color fidelity than their film Velvia.
...David