Bears in landscape
I suppose it is only natural that one feels quite small when in some place with so many grand features as Alaska. You can get these feelings pretty much no matter where you are at however. Just look up into a star filled sky or even that large tree in the neighborhood. I think it is helpful that we have these reminders when we may be thinking of ourselves as masters of the universe. Nature has more than one way of keeping us humble. I think relationships of size also make for interesting studies in photography.
I pulled two images from my trip where size and relationships obviously play an important role in each. It is interesting how our minds begin to process the visual ques in each of them. We may often think of brown bears as being these large ferocious predators. In the context of a larger landscape, they appear quite small, and almost insignificant. The bears are a mother and a spring cub – obviously different in size between the two.
Wading moose
Alaska was the first time I have successfully photographed moose. We have them in the upper peninsula of Michigan, but I have never had much luck finding them. This is another animal that you don’t have much impression of how big they actually are until seeing one close. As I understand it, Alaska is home to some of the biggest moose, often standing over 7 feet tall at the shoulder. I didn’t get a chance to get a tape measure out for this big guy, but I would estimate him to be at least that tall. So contrary to the bears above, the moose fills the frame here obviously communicating something entirely different as far as size. The monster rack helps a bit. :-) Then again, I photographed this moose from a boat at eye level, and since a large part of his height is underwater – I thought it was an interesting play on height perception.
Dichotomies of size can be found all around us, and I find photography an extremely effective medium in exploring them.
Hey, Mark -
Nice images, with interesting size contrasts!
Photography has made me more aware of the role our attention and focus play in our perception of size – things that loom large in the landscape to our eyes end up tiny in the photograph, out of all proportion to the importance we attach to them. It always amazes me to realize how much filtering and processing takes place between the world and our minds…
Thanks for the thought-provoking post!
- Jack
Jack – thanks. So true – we fuss about physical camera filters and such – turns out the bigger filters that need the most attention are in our heads.
Beautiful images again. We have moose in our backyard through the winter, but I rarely get a good photo of them. They are adept at hiding behind the willows.
That must be nice Roberta. Of course, I am appreciative of just having some visiting deer. Thank you for your comment.
That was one of my early struggles with photography, when I was shooting 35mm film – I’d get the prints back from the lab & wonder where all the cool & beautiful “stuff” had gone… :^D
- Jack
In the absolute diversified wonder of nature, I, in the larger scheme of things, often feel small. Nature photography serves as a window to keep me aware of this relationship.
Two more wonderful images Mark!
The bears sure do seem small against that majestic background. It really is incredible seeing them in the landscape. Both are lovely images. I realized how big moose are when one chased me. That was a scary experience. And not MY fault. Someone got too close with a point and shoot…just another reminder of the importance of respecting wild animals and keeping a safe distance. lol
I am partial to moose and that moose image is superb, Mark. The detail is excellent, the water color looks inviting (is the word that comes to mind) and I like the moose against that background. The landscape image ain’t too shabby either. Very nice colors, nice s-curve to the water flow and love the layers I move farther into the image.
Nice shots, Mark. Showing size, for me, is somewhat difficult at times. I remember my first, and only, trip to Sequoia National Park. Talk about being humbled. Imagine staring up at 275 foot tall tree, General Sherman, having a base of 102 feet around, and trying to convey that! Nature can humble us if you stop to have a look.
Thinking about your moose. I couldn’t imagine a moose standing 7 feet tall at the shoulder! Lots of wonders to behold.
Paul – not sure if you have seen the National Geographic feature where they stitched 90 photographs together. Nick Nichols seems to agree with you on the difficulty. However, it seems you have some more equipment to buy…
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/video/player#/?titleID=nichols-redwoods-gatefold&catID=1
Beautiful images and good post again, Mark. Thinking about mooses/elks… they lived in our country (Czech Republic) some 50 years ago and some people from natural conservation faction want to naturalize them here again.
Red deers visit our garden almost daily; they foraged on our apples this autumn. I can’t imagine seeing or even meeting a moose here. No, not 7-feet tall!
Thanks folks.
@ Tomas, it isn’t much different here – many of these animals have been hunted to near extinction in the lower parts of the US. Fortunately some protection programs are helping many of them stage a comeback.
Beautiful images, as always, and an excellent lesson demonstrating the role size plays in good storytelling. On other notes, I love the way the river takes me to the bears and on to the mountins and sky. The colors and light really make the picture of the moose something special. The play of greens wrapping around the reds of the moose and the way the light skims the animal just so, bringing the coat to life, are reminders of the excellence in your work.
Anita – thanks so much. Yes, finding a river that has the compositionally desired s-curve, and then actually having the bears walk across it reminded me of something that happens staged in Hollywood, not real life.
We were very lucky.
Hey Mark,
Your last comment (above) actually expresses a conundrum on this kind of shoot – when you find a scene like that, do you sit and wait for the bear, or wander and find them where they’re at? I tend to do a lot of the former now that I’ve already got a number of closer, portrait style shots. It’s hard to do though, sit and wait, when you have great bears maybe just 100 yards down the river, but the minute you give up the location, you miss this kind of shot. Lots of factors play into it, of course, and I’ll often miss something really cool because I’m sitting by a gravel bar, or tree with fall color, waiting. Wildlife photographers spend 99% of their time wishing they were somewhere else, eh?
Cheers
Carl
Carl – Ain’t that the truth! Faced that dilemma many times!