Why do you photograph natural history subjects?

[Charles Glatzer]

I find it perplexing as to why so many strive for sterility in natural history images. I think we need to ask ourselves why we are taking natural history images and what it is we wish to illustrate with our images. For me it is about the story, as well as pretty subjects in good light. If I remove all the elements that depict the natural world the story becomes so much less. Offering the viewer an intimate glimpse into the life of my subject is paramount to my both my vision and purpose.

Warm Regards,

Chas

[Desmond Chan]

Hi Chas:


I find it perplexing as to why so many strive for sterility in natural history images.

Could you give an example? I'm...errr...not sure what you mean? :e3

You mean bird-on-a-stick with an empty background type of photos?


For me it is about the story, as well as pretty subjects in good light. If I remove all the elements that depict the natural world the story becomes so much less. Offering the viewer an intimate glimpse into the life of my subject is paramount to my both my vision and purpose.So, in your example, the story is that captured moment in the life of that subject?


Desmond

[Charles Glatzer]

We all strive for diversity in our images. And, I too love and shoot tight detailed images, as well as environmental "animalscape" types. And, of course there is no right or wrong answer. I am wondering what others see as their primary rational for taking natural history images. Showing the beauty of the natural world to others, illustrating behavior, etc, is all a part of it.

I see photog's getting stuck in a rut, they shoot the norm only trying to garner approval, instead of additionally seeking a higher passion within themselves.

Chas

[Ofer Levy]

Hi Chas - please explain what exactly is the question? Is it: "why so many strive for sterility in natural history images" or : "why we are taking natural history images" ?
Totally different questions and totally different answers...
Cheers, :w3

[Desmond Chan]

Go here:

http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=200395

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Am surprised that only two people have commented on this thread.

I photograph wildlife to document natural history and hopefully to save those wilderness areas. I have used the word "hopefully" because for every battle we win, there are a hundred battles lost.

I find a lot of wildlife photographers going for tight shots, cloning the vegetation, eye doctoring etc. The reason is two fold. First most of the photographers have very less knowledge of natural history. When a person can understand the complex relation between the subject and its environment, then he/she will compose accordingly.

The second reason is peer pressure. The concept of images with subject in focus and background well diffused has been taken to ridiculous extent by people. When a lion is roaring and its saliva is seen in the frame some people go to the extent of cloning it. Is that what you call sterile images Chas?

Cheers,
Sabyasachi