Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-24-2010, 12:26 AM - 7 Likes   #1
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
bkpix's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Creswell, Oregon
Photos: Albums
Posts: 568
Why is nature photography so boring?

The late David Joyce, an excellent and inventive photographer and artist in Oregon, used to have a cartoon taped to the door of his office. Titled Nature Photographer, it showed a guy with a big view camera and tripod, his head under the dark cloth. He was carefully focusing on the scene in front of him, which consisted entirely of an Ansel Adams calendar propped up on a chair.

This, sadly, is the state of most nature photography today, especially in the United States. Photographers of this school don’t actually photograph the world around them, even when they trek halfway around the globe to do so. Instead they photograph what a few bright minds have seen for them – this, and no more. When they travel to Yosemite they see Ansel Adams’ Yosemite. When they encounter a Sandhill Crane they see Arthur Morris’ version of a Sandhill Crane. When they look at fall leaves they see fall leaves according to John Shaw.

These photographers – who are often earnest and hard working and willing to spend a lot of money in this pursuit – buy books to tell them what pictures to take. They sign up for expensive seminars from famous photographers who show them what kind of lens and what kind of film to use to capture the world in just the same way as the famous photographer once did. They go online and trade advice about lens tests and film resolution and motor drive speeds, but rarely discuss anything beyond simple photographic technique – this f-stop, that exposure index. And then they sell pictures to magazines.

If they do discuss images, their criticism usually follows a seldom stated but unyielding set of rules, which say the photograph must be sharp, clear, classically composed and representational – basically, following the tenets established by the Photosecession movement a century ago. The irony, of course, is that the Photosecession was a revolt against the Pictorialist aesthetic then in vogue. Now, though, its vision represents a kind of 19th century French Academy, guarding the portals of photography against innovation.

You can sell a nature photograph to most magazine editors today only so long as it looks a lot like every other nature photograph published in the last 25 years. Any especially original photograph will be rejected — not, supposedly, because it’s original, but always because it’s too grainy, or too dark, or oddly composed, or otherwise violates the implicit rules of the game.

This kind of conservatism starts when you’re learning technique, and so beginners are often the most enthusiastic about enforcing its rules. It’s natural, while learning any skill, to seek to imitate past masters. Painters go to museums and paint copies of masterpieces. Good writers often memorize interesting passages of writing.

Photographers should emulate masterpieces, too. My complaint is that photographers, as a group, too frequently fail to move beyond this apprenticeship into mastery of their own. By setting their tripods in the footprints of masters, they limit themselves to a kind of visual stenography.

Obsession with technique and, especially, with technical rules is terribly prevalent in photography compared to other visual arts. (When photographers get together, they talk about lens tests. When painters get together, they talk about money.) For some photographers, indeed, photography is almost entirely about technique. While practicing technique can be a satisfying pastime, it rarely produces interesting art.

Today’s wildlife photography has a strong emphasis on producing clean, sharp images of healthy, charismatic animals shot on grainless film (now, noiseless digital files) with dramatic “golden hour” lighting. These certainly make marketable images in the contemporary market. But nature is bigger than this narrow representation. Animals, even more than humans, go through their lives injured and deformed. Few wild animals live in pristine wilderness areas; rather more of them contend with traffic on interstate highways on a daily basis than live in Eden.

Nature happens at noon, not just at sunrise and sunset. I’d love to see more nature photography that actually reflects the world outside, and not just the world according to nature calendars.

(I wrote this a few years ago on my blog, Bob Keefer Photography | Pictures of the American Northwest, and posted it here in a slightly updated form as I think it still applies.)

09-24-2010, 01:00 AM   #2
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gainesville
Posts: 347
I could not have possibly said this better myself. I am surely guilty of some of this too, but after reading this I will certainly try to be more conscious of exactly what I am taking a picture of and whether or not it is simply copying someone else's idea. It is always good to push boundaries when it comes to photography.
09-24-2010, 01:29 AM   #3
Veteran Member
wlachan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,625
As a loosely educated individual, I am in no position to critize others works, but I do know one thing - many can become masters given enough training, but very few are pioneers. Also, the majority of beings are too socially connected to be different.
09-24-2010, 04:41 AM   #4
Veteran Member
robjmitchell's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne Aus
Posts: 1,776
There is no beauty without contrast!
A good landscape photo is one that contrasts from the normal that we see most of the time.
The best photo opportunities often correspond to some of my most memorable moment in time.
A perfectly still dawn or vivid sunset that will never be seen again. The mood produced during golden hours or inclement weather adds character to a photo and draws you into the scene Stereotypical yes, boring no.
Learning technique and aspiring to mimic the greats is a good thing.
On the other hand if magazines ignore dramatic photos without their preconceived notion of preciseness then they should be ashamed.
Anyway enough talk, here is my latest hazy landscape that probably would offend editors sensibility.
Golden hour yes, properly focused no, accidentally had it switched to manual focus lol!



Last edited by Nass; 09-24-2010 at 06:31 AM. Reason: imgwide tags
09-24-2010, 05:03 AM   #5
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 11,694
QuoteOriginally posted by bkpix Quote
Obsession with technique and, especially, with technical rules is terribly prevalent in photography compared to other visual arts. (When photographers get together, they talk about lens tests. When painters get together, they talk about money.) For some photographers, indeed, photography is almost entirely about technique. While practicing technique can be a satisfying pastime, it rarely produces interesting art.
But without proper skills and technique the results from technically ignorant will never be regarded in the same league as the "old masters". There is a psychological phenomena which describes artists that try to repeat their earlier successes in order to obtain praise from colleagues. I do my best to avoid this and develop new concepts for my images. I know what good is, I would rather fall short of my goals than reduce myself to producing mediocre images that sate the appetite of the masses and claiming that they are "good"

QuoteOriginally posted by bkpix Quote
Today’s wildlife photography has a strong emphasis on producing clean, sharp images of healthy, charismatic animals shot on grainless film (now, noiseless digital files) with dramatic “golden hour” lighting. These certainly make marketable images in the contemporary market. But nature is bigger than this narrow representation.
What you are talking about is promoting more of a photojournalistic approach to wildlife photography, which has been done before for editorial purposes but it seldom goes any further than that.thought there are a few interesting artists that produce some interesting work: I suggest that you take a look at the work of Kate Breakey, she has a rather large following these days. She works with a Hasselblad V series and some magnification lenses to get close up photographs of her subjects, she does this hand-held. prints in the darkroom and hand colours her prints.

Last edited by Digitalis; 09-24-2010 at 05:12 AM.
09-24-2010, 05:37 AM   #6
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,868
There are a couple of points to be made here, and it should be noted that there is a concurrent thread about "faking" wild life shots by using trained animals, wild life farms, live bait, etc.

First, you need to draw a distinction between wildlife and landscape.

The cartoon referenced in the first shot is a landscape not wild life oriented cartoon.

Second, in what way is the photography boring, is it the activity, or the results.

I can't speek for landscape photographers, but nature and wild life photography is not boring. It requires in-depth knowledge of the subjects, their behavior, food, habitat, etc... to be done effectively, and it requires considerable skill to get close enough for a good shot. Much more skill than to kill them as a matter of fact. Yes you can wait a long time for a shot, and the wait may be boring if you do not have other things to keep you busy, but.....

I can understand most of the remainder of the thread quite well, virtually every shot that is taken has been taken before. There are very few new approaches or new exciting things to be learned, especially in wild life, therefore the shots need to be technically better than what was done before or they are perceived to be of little value. Here, there might be incremental improvements as high ISO becomes better and better quality, to get more natural shots in the evening or night, without artificial light.

In landscape, this might atually change more with the use of HDR. we do have a new tool that perhaps allows shots in a different lighting situation.
09-24-2010, 05:58 AM   #7
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Deventer, NL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 113
I agree with your point that too many photographers do nothing but reproduce what they've seen before, but I disagree that this is a problem really tied to photography. The problem, maybe, is rather that photographs are so easily made and distributed. A 'copying' painter makes only a few bad paintings a year, which will never reach a large audience. Thousands of copycat musical groups will never move past the local pub or myspace page that no-one listens to. But bad photographers can spam their images everywhere, so maybe it's more difficult to find the good photographs in the digital sea of crap? I can't comment on the supposedly boring imagery in magazines, as I don't read magazines, but to make the analogy: the radio usually does not make me happy either.

Breaking the rules is a great way to come up with some interesting shots sometimes, but I don't believe those rules are there for nothing. To take it to the extreme: you claim you're bored of shots of healthy animals in golden light and ask people to take shots at noon? Fine, but how about shots of nothing but pines in harsh sunlight and no animal in sight? that's realistic nature photography for you.

This month I participate in the 'single in september' challenge, taking a picture a day, and it's rather difficult to come up with something nice every day, even though each day consists of an endless stream of images reaching my eyes. Some things just work better than others, and the 'masters' probably have figured out rather well what works and what doesn't. That doesn't mean I like everything by 'acclaimed masters', but I think that generally, they've got more 'interestingness' than average.

But maybe I missed your point. If you're asking for 'realistic photography', I think a dramatic vista at dusk is about as realistic as a low-contrast shot of the mud of a trail. But if your point is that by now we've seen the dramatic vista and it's time for something different, I would agree. I like to describe photographs in two categories: there are photographs of beautiful things, and there are beautiful photographs. The latter category is what I would rather shoot, and I think the shot under 'galleries' on your website is a fine example of it.

09-24-2010, 06:42 AM   #8
Veteran Member
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,123
Hmmmm....The problem lies in the fact that most "Nature Photographers" do not take the time to learn the customs and language of their subjects. For example, you could visit my home and wooded lots to shoot a Handsome Squirrel, camp out for days and never even get more than a glimpse of one.

On the other hand, I can step outside say a few words in my very fluent Squirrel and have them falling all over each other to get in line to pose for the camera. Sure, it takes some time and dedication, but once you learn the language and provide a good supply of feed and treats (Imperative!) they will be most cooperative!
Best Regards!

Otis, stretch out for me on that branch and eat this apple slice.....
[IMG] [/IMG]
Festus, show us your nuts! Wow! Look at the size of that peanut!
[IMG] [/IMG]
Otis, step up to the podium and give us a lecture on photographing Squirrels.
[IMG] [/IMG]
Mama Festus....you don't have to perform...just look pretty for us!
[IMG] [/IMG]

Sound corny to you guys? May be? But it is tons of fun...once you learn the language!
Festus, can you say "corny"?
[IMG] [/IMG]

Best Regards!
09-24-2010, 06:51 AM   #9
Veteran Member
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,361
What's a thread about photography doing in a camera forum?



Good post. Thoughtful responses.
09-24-2010, 07:41 AM   #10
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Grand Rapids
Photos: Albums
Posts: 193
OP,

If i am understanding you correctly, are you saying: avoid reading books or taking photography lessons because we will start shooting pictures like everyone else does?
09-24-2010, 08:29 AM - 1 Like   #11
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: La Crescenta, CA
Posts: 7,450
An excerpt from White Noise, by Don DeLillo:

QuoteQuote:
Several days later Murray asked me about a tourist attraction known as the most photographed barn in America. We drove 22 miles into the country around Farmington. There were meadows and apple orchards. White fences trailed through the rolling fields. Soon the signs started appearing. THE MOST PHOTOGRAPHED BARN IN AMERICA. We counted five signs before we reached the site. There were 40 cars and a tour bus in the makeshift lot. We walked along a cowpath to the slightly elevated spot set aside for viewing and photographing. All the people had cameras; some had tripods, telephoto lenses, filter kits. A man in a booth sold postcards and slides -- pictures of the barn taken from the elevated spot. We stood near a grove of trees and watched the photographers. Murray maintained a prolonged silence, occasionally scrawling some notes in a little book.

"No one sees the barn," he said finally.

A long silence followed.

"Once you've seen the signs about the barn, it becomes impossible to see the barn."

He fell silent once more. People with cameras left the elevated site, replaced by others.

"We're not here to capture an image, we're here to maintain one. Every photograph reinforces the aura. Can you feel it, Jack? An accumulation of nameless energies."

There was an extended silence. The man in the booth sold postcards and slides.

"Being here is a kind of spiritual surrender. We see only what the others see. The thousands who were here in the past, those who will come in the future. We've agreed to be part of a collective perception. It literally colors our vision. A religious experience in a way, like all tourism."

Another silence ensued.

"They are taking pictures of taking pictures," he said.

He did not speak for a while. We listened to the incessant clicking of shutter release buttons, the rustling crank of levers that advanced the film.

"What was the barn like before it was photographed?" he said. "What did it look like, how was it different from the other barns, how was it similar to other barns?"

Last edited by deadwolfbones; 09-24-2010 at 09:21 AM.
09-24-2010, 08:51 AM   #12
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
bkpix's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Creswell, Oregon
Photos: Albums
Posts: 568
Original Poster
Deadwolfbones:

Love the DeLillo quote. That's it exactly: "No one sees the barn."

To answer an earlier point of confusion, no, I don't think the process of nature photography is boring -- in fact it's rather engaging, which is why so many people do it. It's the results, of course, that sometimes put me on edge.

Digitalis:

Thanks for the Kate Breakey cite. I'll look her up.

Rupert:

Where did you study to become so proficient in Squirrel? Nice shots. You've put you finger on another aspect of the problem, which is that so many nature photographers simply don't understand the natural world very well. Hence they keep failing to see the barn.

Buttons:

No, of course you should become proficient in technique. But that's only a starting point. You also need something to say.

Everyone:

This kind of forum is why I love Pentax.
09-24-2010, 08:55 AM   #13
Veteran Member
Nass's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The British Isles
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,402
Yes - it cuts both ways though. There are some photographers who do things "differently" and become blinded to the fact that their work just isn't terribly appealing. Like HDR I suppose - just because it's different, it neither makes it immediately awful nor immediately special.

It's much harder to be original, that's true =)
09-24-2010, 09:28 AM   #14
Veteran Member
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,123
QuoteOriginally posted by Nass Quote
Yes - it cuts both ways though. There are some photographers who do things "differently" and become blinded to the fact that their work just isn't terribly appealing. Like HDR I suppose - just because it's different, it neither makes it immediately awful nor immediately special.

It's much harder to be original, that's true =)

I agree with that......and a lot of my own Squirrels shots are nothing special, like this one at ISO 6400....but my Squirrels....they are always Special!

Isn't she a Cutie!
Name:  IMGP4917-700.jpg
Views: 14934
Size:  128.3 KB
09-24-2010, 09:52 AM   #15
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,574
Is this really a nature photography problem? Seems to me that regardless of what type of photography being discussed, a lot of the published pictures will have a familiar feel....sports, photojournalism, wedding, portraits, etc... Whether the results are boring or not really depends upon your point of view. This is true across all arts and crafts, I think. Quilts don't do much for me. One looks pretty much like the other, IMO. Yet millions of women LOVE quilting and quilt shows. They appreciate the subtle differences and hard work that go into producing quilts. My wife doesn't like jazz even though I love it. I listen to the interplay between the members of the band and how the lines they're playing relate to the chord changes. My wife just hears too many notes that make no apparent sense to her. So who's right about the value of nature photography, quilts, or jazz? Is it boring or captivating?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, film, images, lens, nature, photograph, photographers, photography, rules, technique, world
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Years Nature Photography jswillems Photographic Technique 4 11-24-2009 12:22 AM
Kookapoo: the dangers of nature photography Nesster General Talk 10 10-08-2009 06:21 PM
Aperture Nature Photography Workshop #2 jzamora Post Your Photos! 0 10-06-2008 03:28 PM
Question about overcast nature photography cbrfreak Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 17 05-28-2007 09:16 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:21 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top