Nature photography has been around since cameras were
invented, but in the past 20 years it has achieved
new-found credibility as an art form. Before that, it had
been largely relegated to the tourist industry, where
second-rate nature photography was mass marketed on
postcards and calendars. You certainly would not expect to
find nature photography featured in galleries and on the
walls of the well-heeled and tasteful.
Gradually postcards improved in quality, and serious nature
photographers with real talent began to produce their own
calendars. High quality posters of whales, wolves,
elephants and spectacular landscapes from around the world
were suddenly worthy of framing. Finally nature photography
galleries began to appear and, more importantly, turn a
profit.
When I opened my gallery in 1993, many people still felt
that you could not make a living selling photography; that
people would only buy paintings to hang on their walls.
These days, new galleries are opening everywhere; some
good, some not so good, and a few that have really hit the
big time.
All this activity in the world of nature photography has
inspired new generations of photographers to look at nature
photography as a hobby or possible profession. These new
arrivals come from a very different world than the one I
grew up in. Technology that was unimagined back then is now
commonplace, and new photographers have more power in their
hands than ever before. But what implications does all this
technology have for nature photography?
Photographers now have to make a personal decision about
how much they will allow technology to define their
photography. In earlier days, good nature photography
required a very simple approach; find a great subject, in
the best possible light, and use your skill with a camera
to capture what you saw. Today it is quite a different
story. A nature photographer can (if they choose) find a
decent subject, photograph it in whatever lighting
conditions they happen to find, then go home and completely
alter the colours, the contrast, and even the detail of the
picture. The result can be an image that owes more to the
marvels of technology than to the wonders of nature.
Each to his own. It is not for me to judge the creative
decisions of another photographer. But the question that is
in the back of your mind right now deserves to be asked; is
this nature photography?
Every photographer is entitled to pursue their craft any
way they choose. Nobody could argue that skills with a
computer are any less creative than traditional nature
photography skills. However, the person who views a
photograph deserves to know what they are looking at,
especially if that person is a customer prepared to part
with their hard-earned money.
I know many photographers get quite defensive on this
subject. Camera clubs around the world continue to wrestle
with the issue of judging natural photos alongside
manipulated photos. Some clubs have tried to divide
competition into separate categories, only to find people
sneaking their digitally altered photos into the unaltered
category for equal recognition. Understandably, 'software
photographers' want their talents to be recognised on the
same level as the 'in-camera photographers'. And so they
should, but not in a way that ignores the difference
between the two disciplines.
This is not an attempt to denigrate the skills of the
software photographers. It just seems to me that the
viewer, and in particular the paying customer, deserves to
know.
Increasingly the public is becoming suspicious of good
photography. Anything that is outstanding or unusual is now
assumed to have been altered or manipulated using computer
software. In many cases, it probably has. Unfortunately,
this suspicion gives little credit to the traditional
photographer (and there are still plenty of us out there)
who prefer to do the creative work in the field, before
they press the shutter, and reproduce what was captured on
the day.
You can't imagine, unless it has happened to you, how
frustrating it is to proudly display your best nature
photography, only to hear people say 'These days it's all
done with computers.'
For the record, my photography is as traditional as it can
be in the digital age. I am going through the long process
of scanning thousands of slides, and increasingly software
is becoming a necessity to my business. Not to alter a
photo, but to balance the colour and contrast to make sure
the printed photograph matches the original slide. It is
also an enormous benefit to finally be able to restore
images that have been scratched or otherwise damaged by age.
I recognise that the trend towards using software to
enhance and alter photos is not only inevitable, but just
as legitimate as old fashioned nature photography. However,
I continue to encourage people to learn true camera skills
as well, so that the use of software to manipulate images
is a creative choice, not a remedy for lack of ability.
Thankfully, the demand for my ebooks suggests that there
are plenty of people out there who feel the same way.
----------------------------------------------------
To see some Australian Nature Photography that is captured
in the field, and reproduced from the original image on
film, see Andrew Goodall's work at
http://www.naturesimage.com.au To learn the essential
skills of better photography, you can also find Andrew's
ebooks and subscribe to the online newsletter...it's free!
No comments:
Post a Comment