When I first thought about starting a photography magazine I had to consider what kind of subject matter it would cover. Sitting right next to the most visited National Park in the United States, it only made sense to have nature photography as a major component. That just moved the question one step further down the line. What is nature photography? There doesn’t seem to be an easy answer.
Researching information online showed that there were some strong feelings on the topic. One school of thought is that nature photography, particularly wildlife photography, should be documentary and should have little post capture work done to it. The other school looks at photography as art and allows for more freedom in the interpretation of the image. Individual photographers fall all along that continuum. A few don’t even sharpen wildlife images and a few pass off composites as wildlife, but most are somewhere in between.
The Audubon Society has an interesting posting of the poll result they received from thousands of people they questioned after they disqualified an image from their contest for being a composite image. Twenty-six present of the respondents thought that Ansel Adams’ images were not nature photography because he dodged and burned in the darkroom. Sixty-six percent thought that the National Geographic cover that moved the pyramids around was ethical or ethical if there was a disclaimer. Seventy-two present thought that baiting was either ok or ok if there was a disclosure of the use of bait. It was about half and half on whether game farm shots were nature photography.
Exploring my own feelings revealed that I believe both points of view are valid as long as the photographer makes it clear what was done to the image. Each individual can determine what he/she thinks is nature photography and what is art. There is a place in the world for both. We need scientific study of nature and journalist presentations of the results. We also need beautiful images to inspire people to commit to saving the environment as Ansel Adams’ work did.
Regardless of whether a particular image is journalistic or art, it needs to be captured in an ethical fashion. The North American Nature Photography Association and the American Birding Association each have a Code of Ethics that provide guidelines on how to act. The Park has regulations on how far to stay away from bears and elk (50 yards) and how to interact with other life in the fields. We all learn to leave nothing but footprints. No image is worth harming the subject.
Take a look at the humming bird image above. It is a composite. I took a shot of a hummingbird visiting one of our feeders and combined it with a flower from our neighbor’s yard that humming birds do visit. Is this a wildlife image? I don’t think so. I wouldn’t enter it in a wildlife contest. Is it an art image? I think it is ok as an art image as long as I don’t call it wildlife. Whether you like the actual composite image or not, what is your opinion of the concept. I’m guessing that opinions will be all across the spectrum.
It must be common practice to do this. I always wondered how these images were captured. I’ve been in awe of the skill and good fortune that I believed it took to do so. Now I know that post processing and combining images in Photoshop, I guess, is as important as learning to use your camera. I’m not at that level where I can create a photo and it does feel a little like cheating because you never know what’s real.
You are right, Pat, it is hard to know these days. It might be possible to get enough shutter speed to freeze the humming bird and get enough depth of field to get all the flower in focus and have a pleasing background, but it would be hard. A lot of pictures are post processed or captured in unique places were they are easier than in a normal wildlife situation. It leaves us with the question of whether it is sill OK as art if we are honest about the way the image was made.
I have to agree with the distinction between nature photography and art photography.
Do those take a nature shot and turn it into an art shot?
Difficult questions. For now, for me, a photo is less to be representational, and more inspirational. I’m not capturing a moment, I’m capturing and emotion.
No real solution… just thoughts.
This is not new to digital processing. Ansel Adams was a master at dodging and burning in the dark room. i have seen straight prints of his negatives as examples and they are not as remarkable as the image he created with his manipulations in the dark room. There are examples of replacing the sky in film images also. This didn’t just start with Photoshop. There is a place for journalism, but I think most people want beautiful art on their walls and not a field guide picture.
I can’t afford those programs and probably don’t have the patience to learn them. I am able to do the basics on iPhoto. I seldom print anything so my images I share online with friends. I’m not against those who Photoshop,Lightroom, or whatever. I just want to enjoy what is shared.We each have our own way of seeing,interpreting,and revealing the GSMNP to others. I do hope others like my “vision” and it is ego fulfilling to a point.
It is a big world with room for many different approaches. We can all enjoy photography in our own way.
I did a double-take when I first saw this photo. I thought the Cypress Vine flower was very large or the hummingbird was quite small! 🙂 Interesting effect.
I have always been a believer in getting a much “in the box” as possible. I learned Photoshop basic (CS3) so that I could adjust images that needed a little help – primarily from shooting under less than optimal conditions. It’s nice to know what you can do to “fix” an image. Normal enhancements (cropping, saturation, dark/light and sharpening) are a necessary fact of life with a digital camera’s limitations. I object when images are distorted or have major color shifts (sunrises/sunsets!). Composites are fun, but they’re not photography – closed to scrapbooking in my opinion). All tha said, a pleasing image is a pleasing image. If the photgrapher/artist owns up to what has been done, it’s fine. A lot of us are limited in the wilderness available to us. I like to shoot at zoos and I have entered the images in contest, with the disclaimer that it is a zoo shot.
I like to shoot backyard birds and critters. I don’t “bait” – but we do run feeders for the birds. Is a Thrasher or a Towhee in the bushes and beds of a backyard any less “wildlife” than a moose in the field?
Final thought is that whatever is fun for the shooter is probably OK, just tell folks what was done to capture the image if you want to pass it off.
Thanks for the forum _I have had the same debate over “macro” photography.
I agree. Truth is the important thing.
This is my first time reading feedback on photography. My conclusion is I have been so naive and have a lot to learn. Tyson, thank you very much for all your hard work and sharing it to everyone. Thank you everyone for your feedback.
My goodness; so much fuss over the distinction between “Nature Photography” and “Art Photography.” All of the really great nature photographs require tremendous personal sacrifice to be in the right place at the right time coupled with skillful manipulation of the best equipment, or blind fool’s luck to have been there by accident. I pray for the opportunity to be God’s photojournalist and am often rewarded with photo ops just for paying attention to His works. The beauty isn’t mine; it’s His creation. Should I not polish it up the best I can?
To enhance a photograph by whatever means the artist has mastered is by no means a crime. Post processing provides a much needed extention of the media’s inherent limitations. I say if you don’t engage in post processing you are only half an artist. The bone of contention arises when elements are added that weren’t there to begin with. Photojournalism requires compliance to strictly recording the scene fully intact; nothing added or subtracted. Just the truth of what was there at that instant.
Hey, photojournalism isn’t art! If a photographer wishes to be respected as an artist, manipulation of the final product is required. It is, in fact, the measure of his art. There are great technicians and great artists. So which do you want to be?