data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/93321/9332125e75e105f4daa3afc5dd56f750eeceeebe" alt="brookrockssm.jpg brookrockssm.jpg"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/70b92/70b925b213b1aa829662cdab128040f5ee3ecb30" alt="1044757-1674733-thumbnail.jpg 1044757-1674733-thumbnail.jpg"
North Branch of the Boquet River • click to embiggenEvery now and then, for reasons I don't understand, I post a picture or 2 on an online nature photography forum. And, every now and then, there is a nugget of feedback that goes beyond the typical I would have ... stuff.
But, one thing that happens very regularly is very similar comments that help me understand more fully the notion that I have mentioned here before - the more you know, the more you can know. Or, to be more accurate in this case, the less you know, the less you can know.
Case in point - yesterday, I posted the above picture. It received the following 2 comments:
1) Wish the camera position was maybe a touch lower - I feel a little "crowded" by the fg on this one.
2) I would agree with ______, a lower look would help the view here. I also think its just a bit too dark as is.
Ignoring the wishful thinking, the thing that gets me, or, in fact, I should say, absolutely stuns me, is that both of these commenters actually "got" part of what I was trying to say. I just can't tell you how many times my pictures generate comments that demonstrate that the viewers actually see and feel what I am saying - they call out feeling that my pictures have incited - and then proceed to ignore the fact that what they see and feel is exactly what I was attempting to convey.
The only thing that I can figure is that they are more interested in what supposedly constitutes a "good" illustration to the point of ignoring the illuminative qualities of a picture - that which is beneath the surface of things.
Or, perhaps it is as simple as the fact that most people would rather revel in the idyllic than in the real.
In this case, and, to wit, the Adirondack natural world is a "crowded" place. The forest is densely packed. Bushwacking here does the word proud - virtually everywhere you go (off trail), you're gonna get wacked by a lot of "bushes". In the case of backwoods rivers, brooks, and streams, access to them is most often very limited because the dense forest and undergrowth goes right down to and overhangs the water's edge.data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bf49a/bf49a5a0ff853a6194a5cd1a3393cebe95768ee9" alt="1044757-1674932-thumbnail.jpg 1044757-1674932-thumbnail.jpg"
click to see what I mean
Therefore, while picturing this scene, it was my intent to illustrate the fact that the Adirondack forest is "crowded". There is a very real sense of being "cramped" and "hemmed in". Backcountry access to waterways is very often very limited to a bushwack through dense forested undergrowth, not to mention, over boulders and erratics. And, this should come as no surprise, under the densely packed Adirondack forest canopy, it is a bit dark, especially so on overcast days like the one pictured here. The sensation one has emerging from the forest to the water's edge is that of transitioning from the "dark" into the "light".
So, there you have it. The 2 commenters were actually able to see what I was saying, but, apparently, in their zeal to be good and helpful critics on the subject of "accepted" rules and regulations re: how - to - make - a - "good" - picture, they made suggestions that, if implemented, would have pretty much destroyed the feeling I was trying to (and apparently succeeding) convey.
I find this stunning. They both "got it". They were able to immediately understand my use of elements of the medium's visual vernacular. Nevertheless, they ignored what they seemed to intuitively "know" - some combination of their intellects and emotions told them that the pictured conveyed "crowded" and "dark" - and decided instead to convey to me what they had been told was a good picture.
This is why, for the most part (and in spite of those every now and then aberrations of thoughtful insight), I emphatically believe that online photo forums are harmful to the development of picturing what you see as opposed to picturing what you have been told is a good picture.
caveat - it should be understood that I am NOT impugning the intelligence and/or integrity of the aforementioned commenters. I am merely attempting to point out that the more you know about the medium's vernacular, as opposed to its technical aspects and "rules", the more you can know about the pictures you view. The more you know about metaphoric constructs and the metaphoric process as a connection between language (in this case, visual language) and life, the more you can know about the pictures you view. The more you know about the language of signs and symbols, the more you can know about the pictures you view.
And, guess what? The more you know about that stuff, the more you can know about making good pictures of what you see and feel.