Grading nature photography
David Hay Jones
I think there's a definite hierarchy of achievement in nature
photography. Behavioural shots of wild animals in their wild environments
are the peak of achievement. High speed flash and macro rate highly
on the achievement scale. Somewhere in the lower middle of the division
are shots of wildlife models. In this context, landscape photography is
minor league because it's readily available and fairly easy to master.
David
PBurian
>. In this context, landscape photography is
>minor league because it's readily available and fairly easy to master.
Yes, it is easy to take a photo of a landscape. And yet, the excellent
landscape photo is much more difficult. Having judged photo contests with
15,000+ entries, I saw more great wildlife photos than great landscapes.
Extraordinary light sure helps, but that is something that can be very elusive.
Peter Burian, Editor
Shutterbug's OUTDOOR & NATURE Photography
see also www.shutterbug.net/ONP/
wood...@hotmail.com
In article <35823...@d2o31.telia.com>,
David Hay Jones <trv....@okkmokk.mail.telia.com> wrote:
>
> I think there's a definite hierarchy of achievement in nature
> photography. Behavioural shots of wild animals in their wild environments
> are the peak of achievement. High speed flash and macro rate highly
> on the achievement scale. Somewhere in the lower middle of the division
> minor league because it's readily available and fairly easy to master.
>
What a foolish statement.
David, There is no hierarchy in nature photography or any other photography.
The difficulty in getting an image has nothing to do with the quality of the
final image. A photo that takes the photographer over a year to get out in
the wild is not inherently better than one taken at the local zoo. How long
it took and how difficult it was to shoot is relevant. To most, Photography
is about the final image and not the difficulty in producing it.
There are two types of photographers. Thoses interested in the actual
photography. They don't worry how or where a shot was taken. A great shot can
be made from the living room window. All that matters is what comes back from
the lab.
The other group are the trophy photographers such as David. They are hunters
with cameras. They want to go out and find rare or dificult animals and bring
back images of their success. To them the joy is the hunt and the image is the
prize. A good shot is not enough. It has to come with bragging rights. A shot
of the Cardinal that lives in the woods behind your house is not good enough
because you didn't have to hunt the animal down.
Are the "photo hunters" wrong? No. There is generally no wrong in
photography. What and how they choose to shoot is entirely up to them. What
is wrong is for an individual such as David to decide for everyone what types
of photography are better than others. His hierarchy is complete nonsense and
demonstrate that he doesn't understand the concept of individual expression.
By making this statement, he degrades anyone that has taken good landscape or
captive animal shots. His statement implies David Muench is in the minor
league of photography.
I suggest that David's hierarchy be ignored and people shoot as they please.
Woody
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
David Hay Jones
pbu...@aol.com (PBurian) skrivningar: > >. In this context, landscape photography is
>
> landscape photo is much more difficult.
I agree entirely.
David Hay Jones
wood...@hotmail.com wrote:
> David, There is no hierarchy in nature photography or any other photography.
> The difficulty in getting an image has nothing to do with the quality of the
> final image.
I am not saying there's a right and wrong to this, and I'm not trying to
push anyone in one or other photographic direction. I wouldn't call
myself a trophy photographer and I do, because I have to and want to,
photograph a lot of landscapes. But I still think that, all things
considered, photographing wild animals in a wild environment is the most
demanding, challenging, difficult branch of nature photography.
Here's an analogy. It's the Olympics: photography of wild animals is
the 100 meter sprint; landscape is long-distance walking. They are both
valid events; we can't say that one is better than the other but it's
probably a lot harder to be a great sprinter than a walker. Or how about,
wild animal photography is brain surgery and landscape photography is
nursing a cold. Both are valid activities and neither is better than
the other. But one of them certainly has a higher status than the other
whether we like it or not.
I don't expect you to share this view and thank goodness you don't.
Diversity is a lifeblood of photography.
David
RUSSELL B BARBER
David Hay Jones writes:
>>..., landscape photography is minor league because it's readily available
and fairly easy to master.
Woody replied:
>By making this statement, he degrades anyone that has taken good landscape
or
>captive animal shots. His statement implies David Muench is in the minor
>league of photography.
>
And here I always thought it wasn't so much the subject matter that made a
good photograph, but the creative eye, skill and experience of the
photographer that brought the spectacular where others see the merely
mundane. I'm sure many would see a "fence" in a particular Ansel Adams
photograph entitled Board and Thistles.
Oh well, I'm sure there's lots of interesting company down there in the
Photography Basement with David Muench, Ansel Adams and all the other
underachievers. :-)
Russell
Don Baccus
In article <35829...@d2o31.telia.com>,
David Hay Jones <trv....@okkmokk.mail.telia.com> wrote:
> Here's an analogy. It's the Olympics: photography of wild animals is
>the 100 meter sprint; landscape is long-distance walking. They are both
>valid events; we can't say that one is better than the other but it's
>probably a lot harder to be a great sprinter than a walker. Or how about,
>wild animal photography is brain surgery and landscape photography is
>nursing a cold. Both are valid activities and neither is better than
>the other. But one of them certainly has a higher status than the other
>whether we like it or not.
But in the art world, landscape photography has a higher status than
wildlife photography. For a handful of landscape photographers have been
adopted as "artists" by that world, whereas I can't really think of a
single wildlife photographer who's reached that status.
So if you wish to judge by status, rather than the expenditure of effort,
landscape photography wins.
Also, your estimate of the effort required to get high-quality landscape
photographs seems far too small. It is we wildlife shooters (for that is
what I primarily do) tend to be the ones found next to our car, for it
doesn't matter where are subject is. A griz in a field shot from the car
window is everybit as salable as a griz in a field miles from any road.
Yet, the unspoiled landscape photography which sells, shot in 4x5 format
most often, frequently requires long day-hikes or backpacking excursions
to reach. Kerry Thalman talks about reducing his load for backpacking,
Don Baccus talks about great places to shoot stuff that don't require me
to pack my 600/4 and its flotilla of auxillary gear more than a mile or
so from my car. Wildlife is mobile and often comes to us. Landscape
shooters must move to the mountain, it won't move to them (with rare
exceptions, and those exceptions usually involve catastrophic events
like Mt. St. Helens blowing up!)
So I believe you overestimate the amount of effort put in by wildlife
shooters, and underestimate the amount of effort put in by top
landscape photographers like David Meunch, who's shot most of his
4x5 stuff while living out of his backpack.
Not that I believe that the amount of physical exertion involved in
making a photo has anything to do with the quality of the image!
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dho...@pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
David Hay Jones
dho...@pacifier.com (Don Baccus) wrote:
> But in the art world, landscape photography has a higher status than
> wildlife photography. For a handful of landscape photographers have been
> adopted as "artists" by that world, whereas I can't really think of a
> single wildlife photographer who's reached that status.
That because wildlife photography is more difficult than landscape.
Niagara Falls doesn't move. Walk around a bit, compose your picture,
wait for the right light and you'll get something that's accepted as art
even if it's bucketing down and your frame's full of empty beer cans
and driftwood. Now try selling Middendorff's Grasshopper-Warbler as
art. It's hard enough filling the frame with the thing let alone giving
it the Mona Lisa treatment.
> Also, your estimate of the effort required to get high-quality landscape
> photographs seems far too small. It is we wildlife shooters (for that is
> what I primarily do) tend to be the ones found next to our car, for it
> doesn't matter where are subject is. A griz in a field shot from the car
> window is everybit as salable as a griz in a field miles from any road.
Wasn't that my point? Landscape photography is a long distance walk.
Wildlife shooting is a short burst from the truck :)
David
wood...@hotmail.com
> Here's an analogy. It's the Olympics: photography of wild animals is
> the 100 meter sprint; landscape is long-distance walking. They are both
> valid events; we can't say that one is better than the other but it's
> probably a lot harder to be a great sprinter than a walker. Or how about,
> wild animal photography is brain surgery and landscape photography is
> nursing a cold. Both are valid activities and neither is better than
> the other. But one of them certainly has a higher status than the other
> whether we like it or not.
The analogies aren't valid. The olympic events are about the challenge to get
to the finish. Photography is about the finish.
The brain surgery analogy over-emphesises the difficulty of wild animal
photography and under-emphesises the difficulty of landscape photography.
Wild animal photography may hold a higher status to you, but that doesn't make
it the accepted opinion. Some people view black & white photographers over
color photographers. Some view large format higher than 35mm. It is all
personal preference and no rule can or should be made.
> I don't expect you to share this view and thank goodness you don't.
I have no problem with your views. I generally agree with your other posts. I
disagree that there is an unavoidable unwritten rule that wild animal
photography is the most prestigious form of nature photography and landscape
photography is minor league. In "your world" it is a valid idea but it
shouldn't be therefore assumed that is is also valid in "the world".
> Diversity is a lifeblood of photography.
Yes it is and it could use a great deal more promotion on the net.
> David
PBurian
> I don't expect you to share this view and thank goodness you don't.
>Diversity is a lifeblood of photography.
>David
David:
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Peter
PBurian
>
>What a foolish statement.
Woody:
There are no foolish statements in anything David said. You may not agree with
them, but does that make them foolish??
Peter
David Hay Jones
wood...@hotmail.com skrivningar: > In article <35829...@d2o31.telia.com>,
> David Hay Jones <trv....@okkmokk.mail.telia.com> wrote:
> The analogies aren't valid. The olympic events are about the challenge to get
> to the finish. Photography is about the finish.
Yes that's true, but I think I was also talking about the time, effort
and planning that goes into taking photographs. If we want to photograph
wild big cats in the States, I don't think you're going to do that from
a truck window (though someone somewhere probably has).
> Wild animal photography may hold a higher status to you, but that doesn't make
> it the accepted opinion.
It is my perception that wild animal photography is considered of
high(er) status. That doesn't make it better than other types of
photography. It's different from landscape photography. Landscape
photography, because it deals with the commonplace, is extremely
challenging. As a photographer you're looking for a light or composition
or a mood that people might not usually see: they might walk past your
landscape everyday and not see what the creative photographer is able
to capture or depict.
I wasn't, I don't think, comparing photographic results but how the
photographs are taken. Why do I consider wild animal photographs harder
to take. Because in my own experience they are extremely difficult to
take. Using an American example (and I'm no authority on American
wildlife) one of the most difficult photographs to take in the States
must be genuinely wild photographs of pumas or cougars. Isn't that a
fact? And there's even an argument that we shouldn't photograph these
very rare and sensitive animals.
David
Don Baccus
In article <3582b...@d2o31.telia.com>,
David Hay Jones <trv....@okkmokk.mail.telia.com> wrote:
>dho...@pacifier.com (Don Baccus) wrote:
>> But in the art world, landscape photography has a higher status than
>> wildlife photography. For a handful of landscape photographers have been
>> adopted as "artists" by that world, whereas I can't really think of a
>> single wildlife photographer who's reached that status.
>That because wildlife photography is more difficult than landscape.
You're claiming that (some) landscape photography is considered art
by the arts community, while wildlife photography isn't, because
wildlife photography is more difficult?
This doesn't sound right to me...you wouldn't happen to have anything
other than your own opinion to back up this claim, would you? Say,
something written by a noted curator of art photography or something
else that might indicate that this view is actually held by the art
community?
I've certainly never heard such a statement.
>Niagara Falls doesn't move. Walk around a bit, compose your picture,
>wait for the right light and you'll get something that's accepted as art
>even if it's bucketing down and your frame's full of empty beer cans
>and driftwood. Now try selling Middendorff's Grasshopper-Warbler as
>art. It's hard enough filling the frame with the thing let alone giving
>it the Mona Lisa treatment.
Oh, I don't know. Many wildlife subjects are very cooperative. I
shoot wildlife and sell the results, as I pointed out earlier, and
though I only sell on a very limited, part-time basis I can assure
you that the vast majority of wildlife shooting isn't as difficult
as you make it out to be.
By your standards, then, the burrowing owl photo which graces the
head of my web guide to Harney County, OR must be art, because it
was exceedingly trivial to shoot. I just drove up to it and
popped it out the window. On the other hand, if I shoot an
ivory billed woodpecker, a very difficult task given the fact
that it's extinct, I'm practicing craft.
>> Also, your estimate of the effort required to get high-quality landscape
>> photographs seems far too small. It is we wildlife shooters (for that is
>> what I primarily do) tend to be the ones found next to our car, for it
>> doesn't matter where are subject is. A griz in a field shot from the car
>> window is everybit as salable as a griz in a field miles from any road.
>Wasn't that my point? Landscape photography is a long distance walk.
>Wildlife shooting is a short burst from the truck :)
You've claimed that wildlife shooting is much more difficult, and
it's simply not true in most cases. In many cases you can even
work to pose the subject - many birds respond to calls and whistles
("hey you, LOOK AT ME WHEN I'M SHOOTING YOU!" - I've never had a
landscape respond to such requests, but plenty of birds will).
>
>David
wood...@hotmail.com
In article <199806131848...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Peter,
The statement that there is a definite hierarchy where wild animal
photographers are at the top and landscape photographers are minor league is a
foolish one. You of all people should know that.
I am not saying it is foolish to think that or anything for that matter(well,
almost anything).
My whole point was that making generalized statements of opinion and wording
them as fact is not a good thing to do. People need to think, behave,
photograph, and enjoy things differently. Reading that their particular
interest area is considered minor league or that they need to photograph rare
animals in the wild to have any status is not needed.
David has since cleared up what he meant so now we can go back to complaining
about Shutterbug. :)
Don Baccus
In article <3582d...@d2o31.telia.com>,
David Hay Jones <trv....@okkmokk.mail.telia.com> wrote:
>It is my perception that wild animal photography is considered of
>high(er) status.
That's a misperception.
>That doesn't make it better than other types of
>photography. It's different from landscape photography. Landscape
>photography, because it deals with the commonplace, is extremely
>challenging. As a photographer you're looking for a light or composition
>or a mood that people might not usually see: they might walk past your
>landscape everyday and not see what the creative photographer is able
>to capture or depict.
And I think you greatly underestimate the standards that the best
markets for wildlife photography uphold. Occasionally, bad photos
of rare and hard to find species are salable, but those days are
gone for most species in most markets.
There are wildlife hacks (like me:) just as there are landscape
hacks. There are also wildlife shooters who bring great artistry
to play in their work, Frans Lanting, for instance, the only wildlife
shooter who consistently blows me away with his unique portrayal
of wildlife.
>Why do I consider wild animal photographs harder
>to take. Because in my own experience they are extremely difficult to
>take. Using an American example (and I'm no authority on American
>wildlife) one of the most difficult photographs to take in the States
>must be genuinely wild photographs of pumas or cougars. Isn't that a
>fact? And there's even an argument that we shouldn't photograph these
>very rare and sensitive animals.
And the results may be art, or the results may be craft, or for that
matter crap. So what's your point? You think crappy photos of
puma in the wild somehow annoint the photographer with higher status
than an excellent landscape shot by David Meunch? OK, here's a
quiz - name a single modern wildlife photographer who's made his
mark taking poor photos of hard-to-photograph species. I can't
think of a one who's reached the status, say, of David Meunch. I
can think of wildlife shooters like Frans Lanting who've built a
reputation around shooting exceptional photographs of mostly
fairly easy to shoot subjects (albeit involving significant
travel expense), but no one who's built a reputation or has
gained status based on the kind of shooting you describe.
Since you claim shooting such subjects does ordain high status
on such a shooter, please give us a few examples.
Mike Shipman
Don Baccus wrote:
<SNIP>
> But in the art world, landscape photography has a higher status than
> wildlife photography. For a handful of landscape photographers have been
> adopted as "artists" by that world, whereas I can't really think of a
> single wildlife photographer who's reached that status.
<SNIP>
You may be right, Don, but just sitting here reading your statement four
names come to mind: Brandenburg, Balog, Mangelson and Fielder, all of
whom I have seen exhibited in galleries or touted in the press or
magazines as "artists". Two others I will mention also -- Wolfe and
Lanting. I believe none of these photogs are "pure" wildlifers, however,
especially John Fielder, who shoots primarily landscapes.
One reason that landscape photography may be more "accepted" in the art
world is that landscape photography more parallels traditional artistic
endeavors (see historic landscape painters), while to get the same
impact out of a wildlife photograph (without manipulation), is extremely
diffucult. That is why wildlife art (paintings/scultpure) is more
popular than wildlife photographs (I don't recall seeing a Wildlife
Photographs magazine at my local bookstore, but there are at least two
Wildlife Art mags displaying various mediums of wildlife art besides
photography).
I, personally, believe wildlife photography is art. And, in a greater
sense, is more of an art than landscape photography because it entails
more than composition and lighting in the fact that the photog is
dealing with (more often than not) an uncooperative and intelligent
subject. Anyone can snap off a great landscape if they have a good eye
and technical skill, but it takes skill to pull off a great wildlife
shot. As a biologist who is in the field observing animals all the
time, I respect the person who dedicates themselves to producing
excellent wildlife images because I know the time and effort it takes to
be in the right place at the right time.
============================================================
Mike Shipman
Blue Planet Photography :: "Art From Earth" ::
http://www.webpak.net/~man/gallery/gallery.htm
The Northern Goshawk: From the Egg to the Air
http://www.webpak.net/~man/feature/gost.htm
============================================================
Don Baccus
>You may be right, Don, but just sitting here reading your statement four
>names come to mind: Brandenburg, Balog, Mangelson and Fielder, all of
>whom I have seen exhibited in galleries or touted in the press or
>magazines as "artists". Two others I will mention also -- Wolfe and
>Lanting. I believe none of these photogs are "pure" wildlifers, however,
>especially John Fielder, who shoots primarily landscapes.
I'm not speaking of acceptance in the gallery world, but of acceptance
by The Art Establishment. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the division
of art and craft as that world seems to define it. But the claim has been
made that wildlife photographers attain higher status than landscape
photographers and it simply ain't true. Ansel Adams, though, has received
at least some recognition by the Art Establishment, being collectible
and even presentable in some art museums. This, not merely gallery
representation, is what I'm thinking of when I speak of being accepted
as an artist.
BTW, Mangelson exhibits primarily in his own galleries, doesn't he?
That makes him (gasp) a businessman, not an artist :) :) :)
I too mentioned Frans Lanting, who I believe brings great artistry
to his wildlife work, and like many landscape shooters brings a
unique viewpoint and perspective to the photography of frequently
photographed subjects. Much more so than Art Wolfe, IMHO. I've
not seen Fielder's wildlife work, just some of his landscape work.
>One reason that landscape photography may be more "accepted" in the art
>world is that landscape photography more parallels traditional artistic
>endeavors (see historic landscape painters), while to get the same
>impact out of a wildlife photograph (without manipulation), is extremely
>diffucult. That is why wildlife art (paintings/scultpure) is more
>popular than wildlife photographs (I don't recall seeing a Wildlife
>Photographs magazine at my local bookstore, but there are at least two
>Wildlife Art mags displaying various mediums of wildlife art besides
>photography).
I must also say that the mainstream Art Establishment doesn't think
much of most wildlife art, either...though they obviously accept painted
landscapes as being part of Real Art. I think you've hit the nail
on the head when you speak of traditionalism. There's a landscape
tradition in art.
Of course, most of the photography which is accepted as Real Art
today is blurry, out-of-focus, poorly printed, Diana-fueled stuff :)
There's a pretentious little art photography magazine available, the
name escapes me at the moment, but they showcased photographs of
banded birds in the hand. I looked at these and decided they must
be Art Photography because a) they're in black and white and b) the
shooter used a backdrop with a slit in it, with the bird-handler's
hand sticking through it with the bird. Other than that, they were
just photographs of banded birds in the hand, like a bazillion taken
by researchers for their records the world over.
Perhaps I was missing something profound, by I kinda doubt it...
So I don't necessarily place any validity on the acceptance, or lack
of acceptance, of genre photography by the Art Establishment. Their
world is not my world.
>I, personally, believe wildlife photography is art.
I believe *some* is...
>is more of an art than landscape photography because it entails
>more than composition and lighting in the fact that the photog is
>dealing with (more often than not) an uncooperative and intelligent
>subject.
This, of course, is the argument used by some who claim painting is
more of an art than photography - painting requires a lot of training,
etc. I personally don't buy this argument, I measure art by the
impact of the final product, not the effort that goes into it.
Mike Shipman
Don Baccus wrote:
I agree with you in terms of the acceptance of wildlife photography by
the "art establishment". Since I try to stay away from the "Art Scene"
I'd forgotten about the "establishment".
> BTW, Mangelson exhibits primarily in his own galleries, doesn't he?
> That makes him (gasp) a businessman, not an artist :) :) :)
Mangelson shows his work in airports as well. Whether that counts as a
gallery or not I guess is up to interpretation. And, yes, I would
consider him a businessman, but then aren't all photographers who sell
their work a businessman/woman, at least to some degree?
> There's a pretentious little art photography magazine available, the
> name escapes me at the moment, but they showcased photographs of
> banded birds in the hand. I looked at these and decided they must
> be Art Photography because a) they're in black and white and b) the
> shooter used a backdrop with a slit in it, with the bird-handler's
> hand sticking through it with the bird. Other than that, they were
> just photographs of banded birds in the hand, like a bazillion taken
> by researchers for their records the world over.
I saw that. The images sucked. They are not anything like the photos
I've taken of banded birds in the hand and I am assuming the images were
not taken for scientific purposes. However, an interpretation of the
images could be that they represent (to someone) man's influence on
nature, and that by banding a bird it takes it out of it's element by
placing the "hand of man" on it (the band) and, therefore, the bird is
no longer natural, if you are of the thinking that man is not a natural
part of the environment. Thus, the lack of any reference to the bird's
environment, only the black cloth and the hand. It's a terrible
interpretation, and incorrect, since by banding we can learn so much
more about a bird's life than we could without banding and, thus, also
about its environment. So, it is then obvious that the photographer
does not have sufficient knowledge of the scientific process to make an
informed statement and is presenting false information. This makes my
job more difficult when people encounter this kind of thing then come to
me and tell me these falsehoods as truth.
Yeah, I didn't like them.
> >I, personally, believe wildlife photography is art.
>
> I believe *some* is...
>
> >is more of an art than landscape photography because it entails
> >more than composition and lighting in the fact that the photog is
> >dealing with (more often than not) an uncooperative and intelligent
> >subject.
>
> This, of course, is the argument used by some who claim painting is
> more of an art than photography - painting requires a lot of training,
> etc. I personally don't buy this argument, I measure art by the
> impact of the final product, not the effort that goes into it.
I don't believe that wildlife photography is *more* of an art than
landscape photography or painting. What I was getting at is that
creating an excellent wildlife photograph requires more "art" than an
excellent landscape photograph, "art" being used in a broad sense here,
as in the "art and science of wildlife management". There are techniques
and knowledge not strictly associated with photography that are required
to create decent wildlife photographs that are not for landscape. The
"artistic" application of this knowledge by the photographer is what
makes wildlife photography more difficult. The same goes for science.
Anyone with the right knowledge can do the work, but there is also an
"art" by which the person applies their own personal "vision" or outside
knowledge to the process to make it "elegant". It's a difficult concept
to put into words.
Mike Shipman
It's obvious that there are differing opinions on what is art in
wildlife photography and what is not. You would be having the same
argument about whether a certain author is a "writer" or not.
The same can be said about wildlife photographers who have been
"accepted" by the "art establishment". Acceptance by the art
establishment could be nothing more than confirmation of an excellent
marketing strategy by the photographer or their agent. Just take a
moment to reflect on the "acceptable" photographic crap that is out
there and the transparency of the art establishment will be clear.
The effort that goes into a particular image has NO relevance to the
artistic, commercial, scientific, cultural, historic, or esthetic
"value" of that image. I could spend a million $$s to get to
Antarctica, hike through raging blizzards, get frostbite and have to
chew off my own leg, get attacked by rabid penguins, and get bombarded
by meteors from Mars, and STILL come away with a crappy photograph.
But, I could walk out my front door and find something in the gutter
that would make a great image when exposed and composed correctly.
OK. I just realized I have contradicted my earlier post trying to
justify the "artistic" merit of wildlife vs landscape photography based
on the addiional knowledge, skill and "effort" required to create an
excellent wildlife photograph vs an excellent landscape photograph.
Please disregard any opinion I may have on this subject. ;)
David Hay Jones
dho...@pacifier.com (Don Baccus) skrivningar: > In article <3582d...@d2o31.telia.com>,
> David Hay Jones <trv....@okkmokk.mail.telia.com> wrote:
>
> >It is my perception that wild animal photography is considered of
> >high(er) status.
>
> That's a misperception.
>
>
> And I think you greatly underestimate the standards that the best
> markets for wildlife photography uphold. Occasionally, bad photos
> of rare and hard to find species are salable, but those days are
> gone for most species in most markets.
>
I'm wondering whether market standards has anything to do with my
post. But, ok, what markets are we talking about? Magazine markets?
Mass market magazines? If it's the latter, then I don't think their
standards are amazingly high. But then why should they be if they're
appealing to a mass audience and trying to tell everyone with a camera
that they can get out there and take great photographs.
> There are wildlife hacks (like me:) just as there are landscape
> hacks. There are also wildlife shooters who bring great artistry
> to play in their work, Frans Lanting, for instance, the only wildlife
> shooter who consistently blows me away with his unique portrayal
> of wildlife.
Well, I could hardly cover every aspect of the argument in the first
few posts. I was waiting for someone to argue that
the landscape photographer who skis single-handed to the Antarctic is
putting in a heck of a lot more effort than the person shooting herons
on Anhinga Trail. Of course they are. There are exceptions, nuances and
subtleties that go missing in these discussions and there's always a
hole in every argument. So, yes, there's a scale from amateur to hack
to artist/ innovator in every branch of photography.
> And the results may be art, or the results may be craft, or for that
> matter crap. So what's your point? You think crappy photos of
> puma in the wild somehow annoint the photographer with higher status
> than an excellent landscape shot by David Meunch? OK, here's a
> quiz - name a single modern wildlife photographer who's made his
> mark taking poor photos of hard-to-photograph species.
Someone else, Mike Shipman I think, has given a list of photographers
who've made names for themselves for taking great wildlife
photographs. I wouldn't defend, and cannot see the point in, digging up
a name of anyone who's earned a name for taking crappy photographs of
anything, whether it's endangered species or The Golden Gate headlands
from Lincoln Park.
I can't
> think of a one who's reached the status, say, of David Meunch.
Art status, which is nothing to do with my original post,
is achieved (partly) through mastering the elements of one's craft. I
would argue that a landscapist has greater control over the elements
that make up and contribute towards his or her photograph: camera, film, lens; can await
light; can position the tripod exactly where wanted; has time to
think, compose, create -- the list is huge.
Wildlifers, especially wildlifers who work in the field far from their
trucks and nature loops a la Bosque, do not have this measure of control
over their subject. So, in that sense wildlife photography is
primitive compared to landscape photography. We are still at the stage
where we are pleased to reproduce a more or less faithful rendition of
what we see and are pleased if the creature is fairly big in the frame,
correctly exposed and well framed. This makes much wildlife photography
conservative: it's dull and representational. Lanting seems to me to have
a freer treatment of wildlife, which has helped him to the art status
that others claim he's been given. I don't know whether Lanting is
an artist or not and quite frankly I don't care. But he's surely one
of the photographers who has advanced wildlife photography.
> Since you claim shooting such subjects does ordain high status
> on such a shooter, please give us a few examples.
> --
As someone else pointed out, we have to judge by results too. The word
you use, "shooting", suggests simply hiking out into the wilds, getting
any old shot of a puma and coming back as Mr High Status. I don't
see it that way. I would want the wild puma photograph to be every bit
as good as those taken of captives and better too because it's a shot of
a wild animal in the wilds. Were it possible to take such photographs
without endangering the animal, then I think the photographer, if able
to produce a body of such work, would achieve, high/ the highest status.
OK, that's conjecture. I think Mangelsen is on the way there, but perhaps
I'm wrong.
David
PBurian
Woody:
I often do not agree with opinions posted on forums, but they are just
opinions.
Peter
Don Baccus
In article <35835...@d2o31.telia.com>,
David Hay Jones <trv....@okkmokk.mail.telia.com> wrote:
>We can argue about that until the cows come home.
Name a wildlife photographer who's been accepted by the Art
Establishment in the same way, say, Ansel Adams has been.
>> There are wildlife hacks (like me:) just as there are landscape
>> hacks. There are also wildlife shooters who bring great artistry
>> to play in their work, Frans Lanting, for instance, the only wildlife
>> shooter who consistently blows me away with his unique portrayal
>> of wildlife.
>Well, I could hardly cover every aspect of the argument in the first
>few posts. I was waiting for someone to argue that
>the landscape photographer who skis single-handed to the Antarctic is
>putting in a heck of a lot more effort than the person shooting herons
>on Anhinga Trail.
And, again, what does effort have to do with it? Do porno actors
achieve higher status because they put more effort into their sex
scenes than actors performing simulated sex in straight movies?
You seem to equate "status" with "effort expended". That, to me,
is a bullshit theory.
>Of course they are. There are exceptions, nuances and
>subtleties that go missing in these discussions and there's always a
>hole in every argument.
Sometime's there's only a hole, not an argument...
>> And the results may be art, or the results may be craft, or for that
>> matter crap. So what's your point? You think crappy photos of
>> puma in the wild somehow annoint the photographer with higher status
>> than an excellent landscape shot by David Meunch? OK, here's a
>> quiz - name a single modern wildlife photographer who's made his
>> mark taking poor photos of hard-to-photograph species.
>Someone else, Mike Shipman I think, has given a list of photographers
>who've made names for themselves for taking great wildlife
>photographs.
Yes, but that's not the answer to my question. You claim that status is
related to effort expended. Shipman and I both mention Frans Lanting,
who approaches wildlife photography with great artistry. He often
photographs common, easy to find, species, though. And the wildlife
photographers who've reached the highest status in this field, the
Art Wolfes, John Shaws, etc, genverally shoot their cougar under
controlled, game farm conditions (there are strong ethical arguments
in favor of doing this).
Are you arguing that some unknown who takes lousy photographs of wild
cougar attain higher status in this field than folks like Shaw, Lanting,
Wolf, etc?
And at the same time telling us you can't think of the name of anyone
who's achieved this exalted, higher status while doing so?
>I wouldn't defend, and cannot see the point in, digging up
>a name of anyone who's earned a name for taking crappy photographs of
>anything, whether it's endangered species or The Golden Gate headlands
>from Lincoln Park.
In other words you can't think of anyone who's achieved this high status
you postulated in the manner you propose.
Just as I thought.
>
>I can't
>> think of a one who's reached the status, say, of David Meunch.
>Art status, which is nothing to do with my original post,
You said "status", without being specific. In the eyes of the Art
Establishment, landscape photogrpaphers have occasionally reached the
realm of being annointable as "artists". In the commercial world, I've
never detected anyone else claiming that wildlife shooters attain higher
status than landscape shooters.
You're the first and only person I've heard make this claim. It's a
bullshit claim.
>is achieved (partly) through mastering the elements of one's craft.
I'd say that many avant garde art shooters have NOT mastered the elements
of photography in this sense. That seems often to be the appeal.
>I
>would argue that a landscapist has greater control over the elements
>that make up and contribute towards his or her photograph: camera, film, lens; can await
>light; can position the tripod exactly where wanted; has time to
>think, compose, create -- the list is huge.
> Wildlifers, especially wildlifers who work in the field far from their
>trucks and nature loops a la Bosque, do not have this measure of control
>over their subject.
I often have more control than you might imagine.
>Lanting seems to me to have
>a freer treatment of wildlife, which has helped him to the art status
>that others claim he's been given.
Neither of us claim he's reached that status, but rather that in our opinion
he approaches the subject with great artistry (my own words, not the other
poster's, but I think he'll agree with them). Our personal opinion, in
other words, of his work is high. As far as I know, though, he's unknown
outside of the genre.
>> Since you claim shooting such subjects does ordain high status
>> on such a shooter, please give us a few examples.
>As someone else pointed out, we have to judge by results too.
I think the claim was we have to judge by results *only*.
>The word
>you use, "shooting", suggests simply hiking out into the wilds, getting
>any old shot of a puma and coming back as Mr High Status. I don't
>see it that way.
Well, that's pretty much how you've stated it. You said that the extra
effort alone annoints the shooter with higher status. Do you want me
to drag your original post on the subject out of Deja News and rub
your face in it? If that's not what you meant, you shouldn't've said
it.
As far as the choice of words, "shooting" is slang which means "photographing"
pure and simple, and does not have any connotation of carelessness or
casualness on its own. At least here in the States, ad folks talk about
putting together a "shoot" at least as often as a "photo session", and the
terms are used interchangably with no value implications at all.
>I would want the wild puma photograph to be every bit
>as good as those taken of captives and better too because it's a shot of
>a wild animal in the wilds. Were it possible to take such photographs
>without endangering the animal, then I think the photographer, if able
>to produce a body of such work, would achieve, high/ the highest status.
>OK, that's conjecture. I think Mangelsen is on the way there, but perhaps
>I'm wrong.
You mean the BBC photo of the year, the "bad boys of the Artic" polar bear
shot? Taken from a tundra buggy? Is that the kind of exceptional effort
and hard physical work you're speaking of?
David Hay Jones
dho...@pacifier.com (Don Baccus) wrote:
>
> Name a wildlife photographer who's been accepted by the Art
> Establishment in the same way, say, Ansel Adams has been.
Perhaps, Don, you're someone with a science/ technical background who
thinks that naming names proves your point and that's it's essential to
win arguments as though this is some sort of boxing match. We're talking
ideas and photography for goodness sake, not picking fights or
comparing the lengths of our dicks.
>
> >> There are wildlife hacks (like me:) just as there are landscape
> >> hacks.
Well, you said it. I think you also said you do most of your wildlife
photography in relative comfort and not too far from the truck. If that's
your area of expertise, I don't suppose you can argue with any kind of
authority on wildlife photograohs that are taken in other ways.
>
> And, again, what does effort have to do with it? Do porno actors
> achieve higher status because they put more effort into their sex
> scenes than actors performing simulated sex in straight movies?
Do you want to talk about photography or porno movies?
>
> You seem to equate "status" with "effort expended". That, to me,
> is a bullshit theory.
I wouldn't even call it a theory, it was an opinion, which you're
of course entitled to call bullshit.
>
> Yes, but that's not the answer to my question. You claim that status is
> related to effort expended.
I don't think I claimed any such thing. Perhaps you're deliberately
choosing to miss the point. I think I used the words "more difficult".
Shall we talk about what "more difficult" means.
>genverally shoot their cougar under
> controlled, game farm conditions (there are strong ethical arguments
> in favor of doing this).
laziness, convention and the need to get a quickish return on money
expended are also reasons.
>
> Are you arguing that some unknown who takes lousy photographs of wild
> cougar attain higher status in this field than folks like Shaw, Lanting,
> Wolf, etc?
No, what makes you think that I would claim something like that?
> And at the same time telling us you can't think of the name of anyone
> who's achieved this exalted, higher status while doing so?
I didn't say I couldn't think of a name. I don't think naming names is
the point of my post. What are you going to do with names?
> In other words you can't think of anyone who's achieved this high status
> you postulated in the manner you propose.
You've got names on the brain. And what does all this name-dropping tell
us? That you know more names that anyone else? Wow! You asked for a name
of someone who took crappy photographs. That's got to be the day's
most useless exercise. But ok, Fred Smith, my uncle's friend, has taken
hundreds of lousy shots of wild animals. Happy?
>
> >
> >I can't
> >> think of a one who's reached the status, say, of David Meunch.
>
> >Art status.
Perhaps that's because it's beyond what you know at present.
>
> You're the first and only person I've heard make this claim. It's a
> bullshit claim.
A bullshit claim? I'd prefer to call it a claim plain and simple.
David
David Hay Jones
>Don Baccus wrote:
Sorry, Don, I didn't answer all your questions. Here's the rest:
>I often have more control than you might imagine.
I imagine that you have a lot of control. I often don't. I've started to
treat my camera as a sketch pad and lots of the sketches are lousy but
I think the ideas are worth working on. I'm doing less and less work
from cars, by the road, etc and trekking into wilderness and waiting,
looking and waiting some more. Fortunately I can allow myself that
luxury and I hope it'll pay one day in the form of good images.
>Neither of us claim [Lanting] he's reached that status, but rather that in our opinion
he approaches the subject with great artistry (my own words, not the
other poster's, but I think he'll agree with them). Our personal
opinion, in other words, of his work is high. As far as I know, though,
he's unknown outside of the genre.
We all agree here, right?
>You said that the extra
effort alone annoints the shooter with higher status. Do you want me
to drag your original post on the subject out of Deja News and rub
your face in it?
Don, you can take me outside and shoot me if you like. And if it
adds to your pleasure you you can rub my face in it too. I plead guilty
to being imperfect and to speaking as I think, hoping to find answers
and ideas along the way. If we had to have a watertight case everytime
we opened our mouths, it'd be a very quiet newsgroup. So yes, I'm guilty,
guilty, guilty .... I contradict myself. I change my mind. And I'm
often wrong. But I have a passion for photography and wild places and
that's what drives me.
You mean the BBC photo of the year, the "bad boys of the Artic" polar
bear shot? Taken from a tundra buggy? Is that the kind of exceptional
effort and hard physical work you're speaking of
I'm looking at the Mangelsen polar bear (are there two? There seems to
be a little one there too) which won the 1994 BBC Wildlife Photographer
of the Year competition. No, I didn't mean that photograph. I much prefer
his "Bald eagle catching fish" which was runner-up in the Birds
Behaviour category of the 1997 competition. OK, now make us all happy
and say the shot was taken in Tom's backyard with a tame eagle.
Have a good Sunday,
David
Don Baccus
In article <35823...@d2o31.telia.com>,
David Hay Jones <trv....@okkmokk.mail.telia.com> wrote:
>I think there's a definite hierarchy of achievement in nature
>photography. Behavioural shots of wild animals in their wild environments
>are the peak of achievement. High speed flash and macro rate highly
>on the achievement scale. Somewhere in the lower middle of the division
>are shots of wildlife models. In this context, landscape photography is
>minor league because it's readily available and fairly easy to master.
You are entitled to your opinion.
However, you should also be aware that it is not one which is commonly
held.
In fact, you're the only person I've ever heard describe such a scale.
Don Baccus
>I agree with you in terms of the acceptance of wildlife photography by
>the "art establishment". Since I try to stay away from the "Art Scene"
>I'd forgotten about the "establishment".
OK. I do, too :) However, if we're going to talk about a hierarchy
of status in nature photography, one has to at least consider the
opinion of the Art Establishment unless one is simply talking about
one's on personal scale, as Hayes seems to be doing. Of course, in
the latter case one shouldn't argue that the scale is universal or
agreed upon by anyone else on the planet...
>> BTW, Mangelson exhibits primarily in his own galleries, doesn't he?
>> That makes him (gasp) a businessman, not an artist :) :) :)
>Mangelson shows his work in airports as well. Whether that counts as a
>gallery or not I guess is up to interpretation.
The space is for sale. You or I could buy space in airports, too.
There's no independent judgement going on, that's my point. I'm not
saying he's not good, only that buying one's own gallery space and
selling one's own work doesn't mean that one's been accepted by the
mainstream world of art and the gallery business that leaches off it.
In fact, it's probably more of a sign of NOT being able to break into
that world in a big way. Perhaps the success of Mangleson's gallery
chain will change the way the fine arts world looks at wildlife
photography.
>And, yes, I would
>consider him a businessman, but then aren't all photographers who sell
>their work a businessman/woman, at least to some degree?
Of course, that's why I put the smiley's after my comment! One has to
be good at running the business side of things if one has any hope at
making money as a nature photographer.
>> There's a pretentious little art photography magazine available, the
>> name escapes me at the moment, but they showcased photographs of
>> banded birds in the hand. I looked at these and decided they must
>> be Art Photography because a) they're in black and white and b) the
>> shooter used a backdrop with a slit in it, with the bird-handler's
>> hand sticking through it with the bird. Other than that, they were
>> just photographs of banded birds in the hand, like a bazillion taken
>> by researchers for their records the world over.
>I saw that. The images sucked.
Of course! They're ART! :) :)
>They are not anything like the photos
>I've taken of banded birds in the hand and I am assuming the images were
>not taken for scientific purposes. However, an interpretation of the
>images could be that they represent (to someone) man's influence on
>nature, and that by banding a bird it takes it out of it's element by
>placing the "hand of man" on it (the band) and, therefore, the bird is
>no longer natural, if you are of the thinking that man is not a natural
>part of the environment. Thus, the lack of any reference to the bird's
>environment, only the black cloth and the hand. It's a terrible
>interpretation, and incorrect, since by banding we can learn so much
>more about a bird's life than we could without banding and, thus, also
>about its environment. So, it is then obvious that the photographer
>does not have sufficient knowledge of the scientific process to make an
>informed statement and is presenting false information.
I tend to be more small-minded and presume the photographer simply fell
upon a schtick that would make his images acceptable to the Art World.
I personally find it hard to read any message into his images.
>> This, of course, is the argument used by some who claim painting is
>> more of an art than photography - painting requires a lot of training,
>> etc. I personally don't buy this argument, I measure art by the
>> impact of the final product, not the effort that goes into it.
>I don't believe that wildlife photography is *more* of an art than
>landscape photography or painting. What I was getting at is that
>creating an excellent wildlife photograph requires more "art" than an
>excellent landscape photograph, "art" being used in a broad sense here,
>as in the "art and science of wildlife management". There are techniques
>and knowledge not strictly associated with photography that are required
>to create decent wildlife photographs that are not for landscape.
I would describe this as the craft side of the "art", then, in that
additional sense of the word "art" you're employing. I can turn that
argument on its head, though, pointing out that there are techniques and
knowledge not strictly associated with photography that are required
to make decent landscape photographs that aren't required to create
decent wildlife photographs. For instance, Galen Rowell at times shoots
a style of landscape photography that requires world-class climbing
skills to execute (and in line with my mantra that the end result, not
the effort required to make the photo, should be judged, let me add that
I'm often unimpressed by Rowell's photography).
>The
>"artistic" application of this knowledge by the photographer is what
>makes wildlife photography more difficult.
The best landscape photography requires more work than either you or
David grant. And that work often requires specialized knowledged, i.e.
the ability to solo backpack for several days into, say, the China Wall
area of The Bob with 4x5 gear. Folk like Meunch do this kind of thing
routinely. In this example, it even helps to know a little about
animal behavior - grizzly, to be precise :)
And there's a great deal of luck involved in landscape photography as
well as wildlife photography, and a similar need to capture opportunities
which arise. The landscape photographer might be burdened by the need
to manipulate a 4x5 system, the wildlife photographer by the need to
set up a tripod or other support for the 'ole 600/4. Both need to
learn to deal with such situations quickly. The wildlife photographer
may arrive at an area and see no wildlife. The landscape shooter may
backpack into an area and find the weather makes the image he or she
has in impossible to make. Each had better be flexible and hard-working
enough to find other images to make if they want to succeed!
Don Baccus
>OK. I just realized I have contradicted my earlier post trying to
>justify the "artistic" merit of wildlife vs landscape photography based
>on the addiional knowledge, skill and "effort" required to create an
>excellent wildlife photograph vs an excellent landscape photograph.
Hey, I just realized this too! :)
>Please disregard any opinion I may have on this subject. ;)
Nah. At heart in this is I think we all admire the person who CAN go out
and do balls-to-the-wall hard labor in order to build unique and fascinating
images, such as Brandenburg.
I would simply claim there are two things to admire about Brandenburg: his
skill as an observer of wolves and as an outdoorsman, and his skill as a
photographer. I think we can admire these two things separately while still
being thankful they entertwine to provide us unique images of wolves.
It doesn't make him a better photographer than John Shaw, though. A better
outdoorsman? You bet.
Don Baccus
In article <3583d...@d2o31.telia.com>,
David Hay Jones <trv....@okkmokk.mail.telia.com> wrote:
>Perhaps, Don, you're someone with a science/ technical background who
>thinks that naming names proves your point and that's it's essential to
>win arguments as though this is some sort of boxing match.
You've made a claim. I'm simply asking you to back it up. You can't,
as your last couple of posts have made clear. Now you appear to be
trying to make a virtue of the fact that your claim is unsupportable.
>We're talking
>ideas and photography for goodness sake, not picking fights or
>comparing the lengths of our dicks.
You seem to be saying that David Hay Jones should be able to toss out
crazy ideas and have them accepted without challenge.
Why do you believe this to be true?
>> >> There are wildlife hacks (like me:) just as there are landscape
>> >> hacks.
>Well, you said it. I think you also said you do most of your wildlife
>photography in relative comfort and not too far from the truck.
MOST wildlife photographers don't shoot too far from their vehicle,
because there's no need and because the equipment involved is so
heavy in many cases. Why expend the effort when the need's not
there? You can make more images faster if you don't have to
drag everything five or six miles, and since this business is to
a large degree a numbers game, wildlife shooters who shoot for their
living are going to do everything they can to boost their efficiency.
>If that's
>your area of expertise, I don't suppose you can argue with any kind of
>authority on wildlife photograohs that are taken in other ways.
Now, I haven't said that ALL of my photographs are taken that way. After
all, I do spend a portion of each fall doing volunteer raptor banding
in a backpacking situation. I'm not afraid to get out to where there
are no roads.
My only point is that you seem to exalt wildlife photography over
landscape photography because you seem to think more work and effort
are involved. My personal experience and discussions with folks
in all sorts of nature genres leads me to believe that the typical
fine arts landscape photographer expends far more calories per photograph
in physical labor and hard work than your typical wildlife shooter,
that's all.
>> And, again, what does effort have to do with it? Do porno actors
>> achieve higher status because they put more effort into their sex
>> scenes than actors performing simulated sex in straight movies?
>Do you want to talk about photography or porno movies?
If art is to be measured by effort, not the end result, then the
principle should apply to moving photography as well as still
photography.
>> Yes, but that's not the answer to my question. You claim that status is
>> related to effort expended.
>I don't think I claimed any such thing. Perhaps you're deliberately
>choosing to miss the point. I think I used the words "more difficult".
>Shall we talk about what "more difficult" means.
OK. We can begin by agreeing that 4x5 cameras are more difficult to
use than modern 35mm systems.
>> Are you arguing that some unknown who takes lousy photographs of wild
>> cougar attain higher status in this field than folks like Shaw, Lanting,
>> Wolf, etc?
>No, what makes you think that I would claim something like that?
Because you've repeatedly made statements that status in nature photography
depends on the difficulty involved in making the image.
>> And at the same time telling us you can't think of the name of anyone
>> who's achieved this exalted, higher status while doing so?
>I didn't say I couldn't think of a name. I don't think naming names is
>the point of my post. What are you going to do with names?
It might provide an indication that your looney idea has at least a
shred of real-world data behind it.
>> In other words you can't think of anyone who's achieved this high status
>> you postulated in the manner you propose.
>You've got names on the brain. And what does all this name-dropping tell
>us? That you know more names that anyone else? Wow! You asked for a name
>of someone who took crappy photographs. That's got to be the day's
>most useless exercise. But ok, Fred Smith, my uncle's friend, has taken
>hundreds of lousy shots of wild animals. Happy?
No, because you're not answering the question I asked. I asked for the name
of a shooter who's attained the status you claim is the reward for taking
such shots. Fred Smith, besides most likely being a fictional character,
certainly hasn't attained any position of status in the nature photography
world.
David Hay Jones
dho...@pacifier.com (Don Baccus) wrote:
>
> You've made a claim. I'm simply asking you to back it up. You can't,
> as your last couple of posts have made clear. Now you appear to be
> trying to make a virtue of the fact that your claim is unsupportable.
>
Yes, I made a claim, an extreme claim I'll admit, the purpose of which
was to start a discussion on topics that interest me.
>
> You seem to be saying that David Hay Jones should be able to toss out
> crazy ideas and have them accepted without challenge.
>
Of course I should be able to toss out ideas and then we talk and, yes,
I expect to and want to be challenged. I'm not interested in trench
warfare where I stupidly defend an old or untenable position. Between
posts I might have shifted considerably from a previous position, helped
or infuriated by the comments of others including yourself. My purpose
is to learn and improve. I don't think I need to have a huge weight of
evidence behind me in order to exercise a right to make a claim,
outrageous or otherwise.
There is also a question of approach or style. I don't
think the willingness or ability to drop names is a mark of much else
but the ability to drop names. And we can all do that with differing
degrees of proficiency.
>Why expend the effort when the need's not
> there?
Because I like to expend that effort. It's my inclination. But if
the knife is at your throat and you have to produce money-making
results quickly then it's unnecessary or a luxury that few can afford.
>
> My only point is that you seem to exalt wildlife photography over
> landscape photography because you seem to think more work and effort
> are involved.
>
>
No, wildlife is my preference, it moves me in ways that landscape do not.
If I used the words hardship and effort, then I am talking about
the very long process that is involved in taking wild animal
photographs. I don't pretend to know how you and others do your shooting.
In my case, and in the cases of the photographers with which I am
familiar, I am talking about effort as part of the creative process,
the haul with equipment, food, tent, etc in order to set up for a
period's photography. The haul is necessary in order to photograph
certain species in their natural environments. So, the
planning, the carrying, the waiting, the disappointments, the rain,
the long haul back are part of a long creative trek which begins with
an idea and ends with a photograph. That long haul is very much part of
the photography and helps to shape, or at the very least flavor,
the result. And, none of us is a 100% purist, so I do blind work, feeder
shoots, squirrels in the garden, the lot.
>My personal experience and discussions with folks
> in all sorts of nature genres leads me to believe that the typical
> fine arts landscape photographer expends far more calories per photograph
> in physical labor and hard work than your typical wildlife shooter,
> that's all.
>
This I don't know but am prepared to take your word for it. A 600/4 or
a 400/2.8 are not light. In my case, I lug medium format with me too for,
yes, landscapes.
> If art is to be measured by effort, not the end result, then the
> principle should apply to moving photography as well as still
> photography.
>
I am not talking about effort alone but I've made that point already.
>
> OK. We can begin by agreeing that 4x5 cameras are more difficult to
> use than modern 35mm systems.
We can agree on this but we needn't. On a slightly different note,
I have a Fuji 6x9 which I love to use. It's very simple and therefore
easy to use but it's a pain in comparison with my EOS 5 or T90.
>
> >> And at the same time telling us you can't think of the name of anyone
> >> who's achieved this exalted, higher status while doing so?
I like Mangelsen and Lanting a lot. Haven't I said that already? They,
being in the business of taking photographs are going to do what they can
in order to produce images that sell. So I am fully aware that by naming
the names evidence can be produced that these photographers take short
cuts. I think we all do when they're offered and we can live with the
consquences.
As for what the art establishment thinks, they can think what they
like. I don't view photography as any sort of little brother to fine
art and the fact that the art establishment doesn't accept wildlifers
into its ranks proves nothing of any substance.
David
stud...@u.washington.edu
In article <3583d...@d2o31.telia.com>,
David Hay Jones <trv....@okkmokk.mail.telia.com> wrote:
>
>I don't think I claimed any such thing. Perhaps you're deliberately
>choosing to miss the point. I think I used the words "more difficult".
>Shall we talk about what "more difficult" means.
>
>
Okay, I'm an amateur. You put me side by side at a nature park with a
pro, and I guarantee I will put more effort into the photos and I will
have a much more difficult time than that experienced pro. I can also
guarantee that on average, the pro's photos will be higher quality than
mine.
Effort and difficulty have nothing to do with it. (Yah, you have to put
some effort into to, but that is not what makes your photos better.) It is
your skill.
I've got photos of cougars at a wildlife park. They're better than those
my friend took ( I have a telephoto lens, they do not). I also consider
them to be boring and not so great (except two which are not technically
that great, but show some play between two adults).
I also have some awesome photos of my cats (in my house and pretty darn
easy). They are not your typical pet photos (I have those as well), but
ones that I would consider awesome in a calendar. I had them made into
posters to hang on my wall.
I think they are awesome, not because of any effort or difficulty, but
because they jump out at me. They are close-ups, cropped in tightly around
the faces, with bright colors. One is of a gold orange cat wit two-tone
eyes. He was playing and rolling around on his back, so his head is upside
down. I have a fully body shot as well, but the cloe-up one has more
impact. The other is a grey cat that appears silver/blue due to
the lighting and background. In this one, the bright silver and blue make
the photo stand out. Both were extremely easy to take, but I am very
pleased with them.
When you review your own photos, I bet you'll find some easy photos mixed
in when the difficult ones you picked out as the best.
Also, what is easy for you may not be easy for somebody else. Our skills
and talents vary.
Meghan
Don Baccus
In article <35841...@d2o31.telia.com>,
David Hay Jones <trv....@okkmokk.mail.telia.com> wrote:
>Of course I should be able to toss out ideas and then we talk and, yes,
>I expect to and want to be challenged. I'm not interested in trench
>warfare where I stupidly defend an old or untenable position. Between
>posts I might have shifted considerably from a previous position, helped
>or infuriated by the comments of others including yourself.
Well, if you HAVE shifted considerably from your previous position, there's
no disgrace in being explicit about it. My intention's not to beat you up,
I just happen to strongly disagree with your premise.
Indeed, if I may be a bit bold here myself, one reason I concentrate on
wildlife photography to a greater extent than landscape photography is
precisely because I feel landscape photography is more difficult. I feel
like standards are MUCH higher.
>My purpose
>is to learn and improve. I don't think I need to have a huge weight of
>evidence behind me in order to exercise a right to make a claim,
>outrageous or otherwise.
Nope, nor I ask for a huge weight of evidence. A milligram or two would
be a start.
> There is also a question of approach or style. I don't
>think the willingness or ability to drop names is a mark of much else
>but the ability to drop names.
The phrase "name dropping" typically is used when an individual is
hinting at personal intimacy with the "name" in an attempt to bolster
their own status with the folks involved in the conversation.
That's not what I'm asking for, here. I don't care who you know or
don't know, and when I mention folks like Frans Lanting I in know way
imply that I know the dude. I don't know him.
You've made a claim, though, that wildlife photographers have greater
status than landscape photographers. So, I'm asking for some evidence,
some names of those wildlife photographers who have greater status than
say Ansel Adams (who I personally think is overrated - I'm offering
myself as flamebait over this icon, I'm sure!) or David Meunch.
>>Why expend the effort when the need's not
>> there?
>Because I like to expend that effort. It's my inclination.
So do I. But ... this has nothing to do with PHOTOGRAPHY, or with the
intrinsic photographic merit of the result of that effort.
It's simply a reflection of the fact that I prefer banging around
in the great outdoors rather than spending time in zoos.
>> My only point is that you seem to exalt wildlife photography over
>> landscape photography because you seem to think more work and effort
>> are involved.
>No, wildlife is my preference, it moves me in ways that landscape do not.
>If I used the words hardship and effort, then I am talking about
>the very long process that is involved in taking wild animal
>photographs. I don't pretend to know how you and others do your shooting.
>In my case, and in the cases of the photographers with which I am
>familiar, I am talking about effort as part of the creative process,
>the haul with equipment, food, tent, etc in order to set up for a
>period's photography. The haul is necessary in order to photograph
>certain species in their natural environments.
Of course, the same is true of much of the world's landscape. I just
don't see how you can differentiate the hauling of a telephoto from
the hauling of a large-format system. Do we need to get the scales
out? In this case, the Canon EOS or Nikon AF-S shooter must attain
higher status than the MF Nikkor or Canon FD shooter because these
modern auto-focus 600/4s weigh more than their manual counterparts.
>So, the
>planning, the carrying, the waiting, the disappointments, the rain,
>the long haul back are part of a long creative trek which begins with
>an idea and ends with a photograph.
Wow...written just like a backcountry landscape photographer! I think
this very paragraph exposes the fact that you're making a false
dichotomy.
>That long haul is very much part of
>the photography and helps to shape, or at the very least flavor,
>the result. And, none of us is a 100% purist, so I do blind work, feeder
>shoots, squirrels in the garden, the lot.
An interesting exercise might be for you to visit my web site and to
see if you can tell which shots I've had to work for, and which were
gimmes. With the exception of those I've made obvious (the lead
golden eagle, headshots of banded raptors, etc) I suspect you won't
be able to.
>> >> And at the same time telling us you can't think of the name of anyone
>> >> who's achieved this exalted, higher status while doing so?
>I like Mangelsen and Lanting a lot. Haven't I said that already?
But Lanting doesn't work harder than a landscape photographer. He likes
to shoot with wide-angle lenses a lot, which means getting close to big
things like wild african elephants, meaning there's some personal risk
involved. But he DRIVES there, then exposes himself. I know someone
who photographed dome-building events in the Mt. St. Helens crater
before it blew up, and he took great personal risks doing these
landscape-in-process photographs. Indeed, he was almost killed
in the explosion. On top of that, he biked on gravel roads for
20-30 miles with 80 lbs of climbing and photographic gear, then
climbed the 9,500 ft. peak on foot after reaching the trailhead (he
took his bike because the area was sealed to auto traffic for
safety reasons).
So, effort and risk...and Lanting often only takes risk, skipping
the physical effort :)
See why I find this discussion silly?
Now, I'd love Lanting's photos as much even if he weren't exposing himself
to risk as he did with his elephant series (and, of course, much or most
of his photography doesn't involve this risk nor necessarily much physical
effort and I love it regardless).
Mike Shipman
Don Baccus wrote:
> Nah. At heart in this is I think we all admire the person who CAN go out
> and do balls-to-the-wall hard labor in order to build unique and fascinating
> images, such as Brandenburg.
There's no disagreement there. But if the person still takes crappy
photos we can admire the labor but will label the entire enterprise a
waste of time, at least photographically. However, the photos may
contain very high sentimental value to the photographer, which doesn't
have a price.
> I would simply claim there are two things to admire about Brandenburg: his
> skill as an observer of wolves and as an outdoorsman, and his skill as a
> photographer. I think we can admire these two things separately while still
> being thankful they entertwine to provide us unique images of wolves.
>
> It doesn't make him a better photographer than John Shaw, though. A better
> outdoorsman? You bet.
It seems to me that we do admire those photogs who we perceive to have
"gone the extra mile" to produce outstanding images over those who shoot
the "grab shots" out the car window. Even though we may not know the
entire story, if the image "looks" like it took some effort to produce,
or it is of a subject or location we know to be rare or remote, we tend
to give it more "value", given that it is an excellent image (sometimes
the quality of the image is not so much in question, though). Granted,
someone who has to lug around 4x5 equipment (hopefully they can hire
some llamas or pack horses to help carry it all) does indeed incur extra
labor by default. But, that in itself does not make them a better
photographer than myself.
As for the "hierarchy" that has been hinted at, I don't think it exists
in any defineable form. Certainly, I look at photographs and say to
myself "that person has more experience than I do" or "They have a
better eye than I do". But every now and then the photographer I place
higher on the ladder than myself, based on perceived experience, turns
out to be a rank beginner who happens to have more "talent" or more
"time" to spend honing their skill. I've been shooting photographs
since I was about 12. Where does that place me?
PBurian
With these long posts and quotes, I have totally lost track of what this debate
is all about.
I'll bet everyone has.
Peter
David Hay Jones
pbu...@aol.com (PBurian) skrivningar: > With these long posts and quotes, I have totally lost track of what this debate
> is all about.
>
> I'll bet everyone has.
>
> Peter
You're not the only one and I started the darn thing. Don very sneekily
turned it into a debate about pounds and ounces. I of course am
completely innocent, apart from holding loony views (says Don) :)
David
Kerry Thalmann
David Hay Jones wrote:
> I am talking about effort as part of the creative process,
> the haul with equipment, food, tent, etc in order to set up for a
> period's photography. The haul is necessary in order to photograph
> certain species in their natural environments. So, the
> planning, the carrying, the waiting, the disappointments, the rain,
> the long haul back are part of a long creative trek which begins with
> an idea and ends with a photograph. That long haul is very much part of
> the photography and helps to shape, or at the very least flavor,
> the result.
Hi David,
Why then do you consider landscape photographers who expend the same, or
more effort (carrying a large format camera system along wit the food,
tent, etc.) to be "minor league"? Yet, the wildlife photographer who
does so achieves some god-like status placed atop the higest pedestal of
your proposed nature photography hierarchy. I personally believe in
jusdging the results independent of the process. Still, what you just
described sounds exactly what I go through time and time again with the
goal of creating beautiful landscape photographs.
Kerry (still waiting to be called up to the big league)
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature
A Few of My Images Online at: http://home.att.net/~k.thalmann/
PBurian
As I said here before, I don't consider your views "foolish" or "loony".
I don't agree with all of them, but they are not foolish.
Peter
PBurian
Mike:
I still struggle with the definition of "good" vs. "bad" or crappy photos.
Having judged many photo contests, including two with over 15,000 entries
(PHOTO LIFE magazine) I am still struggling. Yes, with some photos, the judges
agreed they should be "accepted" and with others they should not. Blurry,
out-of-focus, off-color pics are not "good".
Or are they "art"??
Yet, I still see a lot of work published that to my eye, is not "good". And
some of that is highly praised as art. (I wonder sometimes if we are in an
"Emperor's New Clothes" fable situation. A body of work is praised as art so we
all praise it, not wanting to be considered boors.)
How about the motion blur images of wildlife as in Art Wolfe's book? We
published one like that in the summer issue (by Heather Angel). The eyes are
not sharp. I have gotten letters saying this is a "bad" photo because of that.
And yet, the eyes are not sharp in most of Wolfe's motion photos either. So,
are they "bad" photos??
Peter Burian, Editor
Shutterbug's OUTDOOR & NATURE Photography
see aso www.shutterbug.net/ONP/
PBurian
See my note in the new topic "Good vs. Bad Photos"
Peter
stans...@mailexcite.com
> How about the motion blur images of wildlife as in Art Wolfe's book? We
> published one like that in the summer issue (by Heather Angel). The eyes are
> not sharp. I have gotten letters saying this is a "bad" photo because of that.
> And yet, the eyes are not sharp in most of Wolfe's motion photos either. So,
> are they "bad" photos??
I certainly won't put-down either Wolfe or Angel, but I will say that it is
not unusual in art and literature for famous people to get away with
producing junk that would not be accepted if most of us reading this message
produced the idential image. I have seen this in literature and the visual
arts. One also sees this in politics (why is a movie star's political
opinion more knowledgable than mine?). As long as we insist on making idols
of human beings we will be subjected to junk being labeled as art.
Mike Shipman
Peter,
"Art" is subjective, as we all know. Therefore, there really isn't a
concrete definition which delineates between "excellent" and "crappy"
images. My use of the word "crappy" is/was intended to refer to those
images not of the "standard excellent" grade, i.e., out of the league
for publication in most magazines, since that is my interpretation of
the meaning of "excellent" quality images in this discussion. Of
course, like you and others, including myself, have stated, classifying
the quality of an image depends on the eye of the beholder, and the
market to be reached.
To be more specific, as to blurry wildlife photos: A blurry image of an
animal running or engaging in some innate behavior which causes the
animal to move, is not poor photography. Animals do move and, thus,
images which portray animals in that way should not be "devalued",
regardless of what is or is not in focus. There is the question of
composition...if the image is poorly composed then no amount of faddish
or natural blurring will make it any better. And, an image which should
by all rights be in focus, but which is not, is a poor photograph in
anyone's book.
In your case, if the blurred image lent a sense of the animal, its
behavior, and its environment, then the technique was well used. I'd
bet not too many people can get the eyes sharp on any animal when it is
moving quickly, at least not without tossing a lot of mounts in the
garbage.
Motion is an integral part of nature, especially wildlife. If the
subject can move, showing it in motion is not a bad thing.
PBurian
>Hmmm...ever see the photograph of a Yellowstone griz sow with her
>three (as opposed to far more common two) cubs taken just moments
>before she killed the photographer?<
Don: I am aware of that tragic story but never saw the photo published. Where
was it?
Peter
Don Baccus
In article <199806170106...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Yes, it was tragic and my lighthearted mention of it shouldn't be interpreted
as being disrespectful of that aspect of the episode (I realize you're not
saying I was, but it struck me after posting that some might think I thought
it was a funny, rather than tragic, event).
As far as where it was published, unfortunately I forget. It was several years
ago and I could've run across it in any number of photo and non-photo magazines.
Eric Hocking
David Hay Jones wrote:
> Pinsharpness has become a fetish in wildlife photography,
I agree. I left a perfect shot of a tree with a blur of grey as a Hornbill
made a dash for it on my homepage, merely because I love the effect. Also,
the only shots I have of a cheetah kill are blurred. But strung together
comic-book style really bring across the sense of explosive speed of the
cats from a standing start.
Of course I would probably have been more delighted if just ONE of the
running shots were in focus, but low light, a hand-held f5.6/300mm with a
2xTC attached and the unexpected flushing of a hare between us and the
cheetah just weren't the right conditions.
--
Eric Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
== Melbourne, Australia ==
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ehocking
fr...@langben.com
In article <3582d...@d2o31.telia.com>,> Yes that's true, but I think I was also talking about the time, effort
> and planning that goes into taking photographs. If we want to photograph
> wild big cats in the States, I don't think you're going to do that from
> a truck window (though someone somewhere probably has). ...
>
> I wasn't, I don't think, comparing photographic results but how the
> photographs are taken. Why do I consider wild animal photographs harder
> to take. Because in my own experience they are extremely difficult to
> take. Using an American example (and I'm no authority on American
> wildlife) one of the most difficult photographs to take in the States
> must be genuinely wild photographs of pumas or cougars. Isn't that a
> fact? And there's even an argument that we shouldn't photograph these
> very rare and sensitive animals.
David, HOW the photographs are taken, and the suffering that led up to the
photographs, seems to be more relevant to the photographer than to the viewer.
Since you've been in East Africa, you know that most photographs there (aside
from licensed animal researchers) are taken by folks who did NOT pack their
own tents and food into the wilderness. But that doesn't mean the
photographs suffer.
Comments about not photographing some animals would apply especially to the
East African cheetah. Merely approaching these animals not only stresses
them, but alerts their prey and consistently spoils their successful stalk of
their prey. Some cheetahs are now hunting in the mid-day heat to avoid the
safari groups!
Someone mentioned Merlin Tuttle as a wildlife photographer. I respect (and
support) Dr. Tuttle and the Bat Conservation International
http://www.batcon.org/ group. While Dr. Tuttle does participate in studies
and trips all over the world, a number of his photos are of
temporarily-captured bats exhibiting natural behavior in studio! So those
may lose out on the "in the wild" scale, but he gets extra credit for time,
planning, patience and equipment?
IMO, yes, the subject is important. A photo of a wild lion is different than
a photo of a zoo lion because the subject is different. And while the
discomfort of the photographer may be respected, I don't think it's reflected
in the photograph. Photographic quality results from skill, talent,
equipment, and often planning.
Frank
David Hay Jones
fr...@langben.com wrote:
>
> Since you've been in East Africa, you know that most photographs there (aside
> from licensed animal researchers) are taken by folks who did NOT pack their
> own tents and food into the wilderness. But that doesn't mean the
> photographs suffer.
>
> Comments about not photographing some animals would apply especially to the
> East African cheetah. Merely approaching these animals not only stresses
> them,
I don't like group safari photography at all. In fact I don't like
shooting with other people. In some places, such as
Masai Mara, safari shooting is big business with more attention paid to
tourist bucks than the animal's welfare. I much preferred driving around in my own car in
Meru Mulika which at the time seemed a pretty rundown park with few
vistors, plenty of wildlife and a very relaxed atmosphere to the place.
David
RUSSELL B BARBER
>>I'm just curious - where do you think photographers of children, nudes,
>flowers or still lifes in their studio fall in your hierarchy?
>
>Russ: Nude photography??
>
>I did try that myself once, but I got so darned cold I had to put my
clothes
>back on. And don't ask me about the incident with the metal tripod.
>
>Peter
Thanks. That means I don't have to tell you what I had to use for a remote
shutter release. :-)
(And thanks for the laugh)
RUSSELL B BARBER
David Hay Jones wrote in message <35868...@d2o31.telia.com>...
>My ranking isn't a phd project backed up by tons of evidence. It's
>personal opinion based on personal experience. So, of all of the
>photography that I do I rate my wild animal stuff as the best and
>my landscapes as minor league, third rate, whatever you want. I then
>turned personal experience into a rule of the universe and
>started a debate. Where would I put photographing children? Ummm,
>probably at the top of Division Two but it depends how wild they are.
>David
My apologies if I misunderstood your initial post, I didn't realize it was
your personal opinion and was not meant to classify photographers per se. I
am not one to judge another's taste in art or esthetics and find it hard to
sit quietly while others do so. I realize you were not judging so I'll move
on now...
:-)
Eric Hocking
David Hay Jones wrote:
> I don't like group safari photography at all. In fact I don't like
> shooting with other people. In some places, such as
> Masai Mara, safari shooting is big business with more attention paid to
> tourist bucks than the animal's welfare.
David, this depends entirely on the operator's. We'd done the Masai Mara
gig for two weeks and this is where the less experienced in our group
learned to keep quiet.
We were sorely disappointed down in Botswana and Zimbabwe where day trippers
are the norm. Here the operators would nose up to a sleeping animal and if
it didn't do anything would bang the side of the car or start up and rev the
engine.
If this was our groups only exposure to wildlife observation I'm sure many
of them think this was OK. I'm glad to say the even the first timers were
shocked by these sorts of tactics to get an animal to pay attention to us.
I'd hate to think what self-drive and unsupervised tourists get up to in the
parks in that allow it such as in S.Africa.
David Hay Jones
Eric Hocking wrote:
> David, this depends entirely on the operator's. We'd done the Masai Mara
> gig for two weeks and this is where the less experienced in our group
> learned to keep quiet.
>
This is very true. It also depends on the photographers. Although most
of, ie the vast majority, have a love of wildlife there's a tiny minority
that appear willing to step over the mother's dead body for a good
picture. I've seen stone-throwing in an attempt to get groups of birds
to rise, saw that in Africa, America and here in Europe.
On another note, I've seen footage of "game farms" in Texas which
allow "hunters" to shoot (with a gun) lions and other exotic animals
just for the sport of it. Anyone know about those places. I'm surprised
they are legal, if indeed they are.
David
Eric Hocking
David Hay Jones wrote:
> This is very true. It also depends on the photographers.
Oh, how true is this. We had one each of our afternoon and morning session
ruined by some professional (won't say where we were or his nationality just
in case) that was out to get shots for stock. Calenders and such were his
forte. He was absolutely horrendous and ruined the whole experience for
everyone. Over sundowners the guests started a bitch fest about him and the
operators chimed in and apologised profusely for having our days ruined.
> On another note, I've seen footage of "game farms" in Texas
Don't know about them, and I don't hunt but half understand why someone
would, but in Kenya(?) there is a government scheme whereby the land owners
are given the bounty on something such as a cat when a tourist hunter comes
in. This compensates (supposedly) the landowner for any stock they may have
lost to the cat through the year. It effectively makes the cat worth
something to the landowner, who then attempts to protect it from poachers
until he can get a paying customer. It's called "Project Campfire" or
something like that.
Whilst an intriguing problem, it's off-topic here. We even discussed, while
we were there, the true worth of the tourist dollars balanced against the
problems and environment degradation that comes with such and invasion. A
really complicated matter and bound to inflame conversations.