Arts

Nature Photography – Technology Or Art?

Nature photography has been in existence since cameras have been developed, but in the past twenty years it’s achieved new-found credibility as an art form. Before that, it had been mostly relegated to the tourist industry, where second-rate nature photography was mass marketed on calendars as well as postcards. You actually wouldn’t expect to uncover nature photography featured in galleries and also on the walls of the tasteful and well-heeled.

nature photography

Throughout the years, postcards and calendars began to improve in quality as nature photographers with true talent moved into the market. High quality posters of whales, wolves, elephants as well as stunning landscapes from around the world were suddenly deserving of framing. Lastly nature photography galleries began to appear and, more importantly, turn an income.

Selling photography

When I started my gallery in 1993, lots of people still felt you couldn’t make a living selling photography; that men and women would just purchase paintings to hang on the walls of theirs. Nowadays, new galleries are opening everywhere; some great, some not great, along with a few that have actually hit the huge time.

All of this activity in the world of nature photography has inspired brand new generations of photographers to look at nature photography as a leisure activity or potential profession . These brand new design photographers were raised in a really different world compared to the one I come from. Technology which was unimagined back then has become commonplace, and new photographers have more power in the hands of theirs than any other time. But what implications does all this technology have for nature photography?

Nature photographers must now decide how much they are going to allow the photography of theirs to be affected by technology. In earlier days, good nature photography required a simple approach; find a great subject, in the best possible light, and use the skill of yours with a camera to capture whatever you saw. Today it is actually a different story. A nature photographer can (if they choose) look for a decent subject, photograph it in what ever lighting conditions they happen to look for, then go to your house as well as completely modify the colours, the contrast, as well as the detail of the picture. The actual result can be an image that owes much more to the wonders of technology than with the wonders of nature.

Each to his own

It is not for me to judge the creative decisions of another photographer. however, the question that’s in the backside of your mind right now deserves to be asked; so is this nature photography?

Every photographer is entitled to pursue their craft any manner they pick. Of course abilities with computer software are equally inventive as regular nature photography skills. But, the individual which views a photograph deserves to know what they are considering, especially if that person is a client able to part with the hard earned cash of theirs.

I know numerous photographers get very defensive on this topic

Cam clubs all over the world continue to wrestle with the matter of judging organic pictures alongside manipulated photos. A number of clubs have attempted dividing competition into individual categories, just to uncover individuals sneaking their digitally altered pictures to the unaltered category for equal recognition. Understandably,’ software photographers’ want the skills of theirs being recognised on exactly the same degree as the’ in camera photographers’. And so they ought to, but not in a manner that ignores the difference between the two disciplines.

This is not an attempt to denigrate the abilities of the application photographers. It merely seems to me how the person, and particularly the paying customer, deserves to find out.

Increasingly the public is becoming suspicious of good photography

Just about anything that is outstanding or unusual has become assumed to have been altered or perhaps manipulated using computer application. In cases which are quite a few, it probably has. Unfortunately, this suspicion gives very little recognition to the traditional photographer (and there are still lots of us out there) who prefer to undertake the creative work in the area, before they press the shutter, and also recreate the thing that was taken on the morning.

You cannot imagine, unless it has taken place to you, precisely how frustrating it is to proudly show the best nature photography of yours, and then hear men and women say’ These days it is all completed with computers.’

For the record, my photography is as traditional as it can be in the digital age

Software is starting to be crucial to my work, as I go through the process of scanning thousands of slides from my years of traveling. Not to transform a photo, but to balance the colour as well as compare to make certain the printed photograph matches the first slide. It is also an enormous benefit to eventually be able to restore photos that have been scratched or even usually harmed by age.

I recognise the trend towards using software to enhance and alter photos isn’t just inevitable, but as legitimate as old fashioned nature photography. Nevertheless, I continue to motivate men and women to learn real camera skills too, so how the usage of software to manipulate pictures is a creative choice, not a treatment for lack of ability. Thankfully, the demand for the ebooks of mine suggests that there are many people out there who feel the same way.