Fall Colors, Highland Recreation Area, Michigan | Nikon D800, 80-400 VR, multiple exposure (x3)
I thought I would share a short, yet thought provoking story that happened to me recently. In a brief conversation I was having with someone (let’s name them “Sam” ) about how their vacation went. Sam was describing how they hiked to some remote area of the Appalachians. Eventually pictures from the trip came up and Sam remarked “Nature wasn’t meant to be photographed.” Sam didn’t know my background in nature photography, so I asked what was meant by that statement.
Sam went on to describe that you can’t photograph nature in a way that it doesn’t result in a big disappointment when compared to being there. At that point I revealed that I am a nature photographer and we got a bit of a laugh out of it.
At first I had a bit of a defensive reaction to it, but I understand what was meant. A photograph simply can’t capture the essence of being there. You only absorb a photograph with your eyes, but being out in the wilderness is a complete sensory experience from the smell of the air, the sound of the birds, the feel of the wind. I don’t think anyone could argue against that, not even nature photographers. Yet, I don’t think there can be a sound argument that the photograph and the experience are meant to be equivalents.
As long as that is understood, the photograph doesn’t need to be a disappointment. One should have no doubts though that it can collectively represent how a place made us feel.
You have so great pictures and stories, thank you.
Sam’s statement is true. But recently I had a completely oppositte experience. I was thinking for some time to take a few monochromatic shots of the simple forms in a forest near my home. So I wait an after-rain dry morning and I went. I choose to shot directly in de B&W mode to get that old fashioned feeling. Since I saw the first exposute testing shots I realize that the whole forest, instead of their minute design, produced so interesting pictures. It seemed to me that the camera was showing me to where she wanted to watch and frame. I agree with her and took a few more shots. When looking at the pics at home, I saw a completely new forest to me, that was revealed by the camera and by the photographic act. It gave birth to the ! So, since then, I think it´s true we can´t photo to represent the true and complete nature, but sometimes the photography show us a nature that is not there when whe are there with all of our senses.
I don’t think photography is meant to replicate the experience, but to illustrate your vision. It is true that it is limited in terms of copying, however it grows with a personal point of view.
It is usually the those who spend the most time in nature who say what “Sam” said. They are of course right most of the time. One reason “Sam” may have made the comments he did is that he had yet to be successful in making photographs that captured the intensity of his experience in nature. Those who are more into art than nature, or who are into both, might be able to cite a few rare instances where art does have just as much or more impact than the actual experience. It was Ansel Adams who first said what some mentioned above. His ultimate goal in photography was to invoke in the viewer the same “feeling” as his experience. This is a tall order to accomplish with only the sense of sight and two dimensions. Minor White and my father, Philip Hyde, taught Alfred Stieglitz’ similar concept of equivalents. The photograph, they said, was an equivalent, not necessarily better, or worse, but the goal was to make as strong an equivalent as possible. This presents an interesting challenge for nature photographers who want to take their work beyond merely making pretty postcards.
Thought provoking story, yes indeed. I use my photos to remind that I was there, that I did experience those feelings out there and now I can sit down with my photos and re-tell the story in. Light that words alone could not describe. Ivan Cordero WildAtPalmas.com
Paul expressed my thoughts.
Of course, a photo and actually being there are completely different experiences. But, if the photo captures the feel of the place, then it has succeeded. This exercise–of capturing the feeling of the place, or, how I felt at the place–is something I have not achieved in my photographs. I wish I could learn how to do it.
Thanks for sharing the photo and the story.
I think along the same lines as Paul’s comment above. If it evokes emotions, awe or a desire by the user to see more then it’s a success. Heck, it’s a big accomplishment to do that…which I find your nature photos consistenly do!
No. The experience and the photo are not equivalents, for sure. However, I think that the photograph can evoke emotions and give people a sense of awe and, perhaps, a desire to visit that place, or perhaps save/protect it.
Photographs certainly pale in comparison to the real thing and I agree that nature needs to be experienced.
Photographs are the dangling carrot that encourages us to visit nature for ourselves.
Great photo. Like you, I agree, but like you said only up to a point. It can’t entirely reproduce being there but yet, if done well, can certainly transmit a semblance of what it felt like to be there. At least good photos do!
Sort of like saying a studio album can’t tell you what it was like to have been at a concert. True, but we still listen to studio albums. They just transmit the experience differently.
That’s a good analogy with music Howard. I’ll have to remember that.
Totally agree. Love the image!
Thanks Monte.
I have had people say that to me also, but I think they meant it differently. 🙂
But I do know what he means and agree with his comments to a point . That said, nature photography does share with people who could not be there the experience to a certain degree. In a way it does a better job as we all see differently and often the photographer sees what others do not.
I think a great counter would be asking where the environmental movements would be with no pictures? Thanks for the comments Steve.