urban ku # 123 ~ what is true is most often beautiful
Friday, October 19, 2007 at 09:33AM 
An autumn view • click to embiggenI was visiting one of the online nature photography forums the other day (what's a day without exaggerated sunshine?) and I came across some pictures made in the Adirondacks.
The picture locations were very close to home. In fact, several pictures were of a location that I regularly pass by on my local travels. Now, understand that the online nature photography forums are in their annual full-blown over-the-top fall color extravaganza mode, but, even considering that, the pictures I encountered were so over the top as to be nearly unrecognizable color-wise - that is, relative to this year's rather subdued color display.
Even understanding that hue/saturation to-the-max is their primary 'thing' - as they say, "it's my 'artistic interpretation' ... ". Interestingly enough, there had been a discussion on the same site, just prior to the fall frenzy, regarding the over-saturation of many of the landscape picture posts and how those pictures inevitably drew the most attention and comments (all favorable). The conclusion seemed to that that was the way to get attention and, why not? - it's all about 'art' not documentation, right?
OK, but what really bugs me is the fact that the pictures are tacitly presented as 'real'. In this particular case, several comments were made about "how beautiful the color is this year ...", and, "we don't have color like that where we are ...". And this from one close-by commenter, "... the color is spectacular ... I'll have to get up there soon ...". The 'tacitly presented as real' part comes in with the response to these comments - no admission or discussion about the fact that the color is just 'artistic expression' and not 'real'.
It seems as though they just just to want to have it both ways.
Is any of this harmful? Is it just harmless fun? Or, is it, as I believe, eco-porn that does a disservice to conservation and environmental awareness?
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: Sean wrote; "... I'd like to ask when exactly it was that I, as a photographer, suddenly became a steward of, and an educator about the environment?"
my response: My answer is based on the assumption that when you are acting 'as a photographer', you are acting as 'yourself' - that there is no demonic multi-personality disorder in effect. Based on that, I would state emphatically that each and every "I" on the planet 'suddenly become[s] a steward of ... the environment' at the exact moment that they come shooting down the canal. The 'educator' thing is optional but I don't believe that living 'righteously', re: the environment, is.
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: Sean wrote; "... I hope that my comments have not offended you as that was not my intent -- I'm simply enjoying the discussion."
my response: No offense. I'm simply enjoying the discussion as well.
Sean also wrote; "...We may not share the same views of righteous living re: the environment. The personal maxim that I attempt to live by is... 'Even as you desire good treatment, so render it.'
my response: Ok ... so that begs the question - what kind of 'good treatment' do you render to the environment?
Reader Comments (9)
I share your concerns about this unsophisticated over-amplification going on in a lot of what passes for fine art nature photography these days. Things will come to an end when a picture contains only saturated primary colours, I guess.
In my mind, the way to go about this is to edit, reduce and abstract. That's one reason why I prefer to represent the landscape in black and white.
One of the other reasons: good colour aesthetics are really hard to achieve, you'd better be named Shore or Eggleston.
See ya!
Christoph
I think it may be harmful to creativity. It was just that they may have been misled by all of the written practitioners that have "educated" photographers in this day and age. They should have stated that the saturated colors are okay in the name of "decorative art". Images that get a wow for a brief second, without much as a second glance.
Maybe they were misled just as by your own admission, you misled in another life.
They all go on to say that it all comes down to "show me the money!" Success is defined as how well the images sell.
Glad I am not in it for the money or the fame.
Mark, My wife and I tried yesterday to "make' snapshots or do we take snapshots and "make pictures"? Like I said I get intimidated with this art.
Well anyway check my shots http://warrenwashingtoncountyobserver.blogspot.com/ and blast us with an honest comment.
Thanks Don
I've seen and made some over- and under saturated pictures that I enjoyed immensely simply because they were not what I see in the natural world. I don't think there's a thing theres a thing wrong with it. If they like making the pictures that way, fine. It's no different than B&W, which is also an interpretation of reality.
On the other hand, I think it's misleading to represent the photos as a record of how the scene looked to naked eye. The sky just isn't that deep a blue and the sunset that fiery red. My current favorite peeve is "but it's straight out of the camera that way," as if that means it must be faithfully representing reality.
"Or, is it, as I believe, eco-porn that does a disservice to conservation and environmental awareness?"
Since you're encouraging us to reject traditional rules of photography, I'd like to ask when exactly it was that I, as a photographer, suddenly became a steward of, and an educator about the environment? Did Kodak team up with Al Gore to release some new eco-friendly photography rule book that I'm not aware of? Will you be creating images for it?
"Glad I am not in it for the money or the fame."
Nor am I, but that doesn't stop me from Photoshopping the hell out of things that I feel like Photoshopping the hell out of. Being a former chef, I like the feeling of taking raw ingredients and preparing them in my kitchen. It's fun and relaxing for me. If other people like it, great. If they don't, well that's what the back button buit into everyone's Web browser is for. Use it.
But please don't try to force me into roles and additional responsibilities that I'm not interested in. I could honestly care less about how faithfully I represent the environment I photograph.
I'd say that my images are accurate representations of the emotions and wonder this area invokes in me, but that's where the similarity to real life ends.
And Sean, using your own words, "if other people like it, great. If they don't, well that's what the back button built into everyone's web browser is for. Use it.
Nobody is forcing you to do anything. Since when is someone's opinion the holy grail. I think that you must find what you are comfortable with.
Maybe you should take yourself up on your words of wisdom to hit the back button.
"My answer is based on the assumption that when you are acting 'as a photographer', you are acting as 'yourself' - that there is no demonic multi-personality disorder in effect."
MPD is an entirely separate illness from the affliction I live with, although the two are often confused, particularly by the media and entertainment industries.
What I do with my camera is "in spite of", not "because of".
"but I don't believe that living 'righteously', re: the environment, is."
We may not share the same views of righteous living re: the environment. The personal maxim that I attempt to live by is... 'Even as you desire good treatment, so render it.'
Sorry, but I thought it was ironic that in one post you apologize for possibly having helped to impose constraints on photographers and then in another post you introduce new -- albeit more fashionable -- constraints.
I've enough experience with strait jackets to realize that they all serve the same purpose whether they're the latest style or something more...retro.
I hope that my comments have not offended you as that was not my intent -- I'm simply enjoying the discussion.
"Nobody is forcing you to do anything. Since when is someone's opinion the holy grail. I think that you must find what you are comfortable with."
Jim, it's pretty hard to force me to do anything. If my mother was still around I'm pretty sure she'd attest to that. I'm obstreperous by nature.
The reason I come here is that I first got hooked on Marc's images, and then on his words. I think there is great value in seeking out people with different viewpoints and attempting to understand where they're coming from.
As to Marc's photography, I'm particularly intrigued by his imagery of the Adirondacks, which speaks to me of an extremely deep and mature relationship with his subject. Each image carries a powerful connection. I dare say that he could saturate and work them to death in Photoshop and they would be no less powerful.
Photoshop can't add a 'connection' to a photo where none exists, and it can't remove it from an image where it does.
My 2 cents -- your milage may vary. :-)
"Ok ... so that begs the question - what kind of 'good treatment' do you render to the environment?"
I'm cheap. That means that every dollar that goes into my gas tank or into conspicuous consumption is a dollar that can't go into my photography. I drive fuel-effiecient vehicles whenever possible because this maximizes my photography budget.
I switched to digital because it lets me shoot more while paying less. I still shoot film occasionally, but I dislike the expense and the amount of crap that finds its way back to the landfill and the water treatment plant.
I try to avoid overpackaged goods, not buy stuff for the sake of keeping up with neighbors, etc. Partly this is out of a respect for the environment. Mostly this is because I'm a frugal bastard.
Something bugs me about the assumption that shooting digital is better for the environment than film. I'm not saying it's film generates less waste, but has anyone really quantified the net impact of each?
On the film side, I assume your biggest waste is in plastic camera bodies and accessories, film, paper, and developing chemicals. On the digital side, you have the same use of plastic for bodies and gear, with no developing chemicals needed, and possibly less paper prints. Cleaner, right? Maybe, but you need to have computers to view the images, printers (with computers inside) for your prints, computers in the cameras, and of course computers in the LCD and CRT monitors.
Computer production is bad for the environment: high petrochemical consumption vs. weight of the end product. Plus there's no way to recycle most used electronics, while lead, cadmium, and mercury can leak from discarded computers.
Will the environmental impact of digital camera waste will soon outweigh the last 100 years of film photography?