Natural photography has been popular since birth. In recent years, it has gained new respect as a form of art. Twenty years ago, nature photography was canceled on many postcards and questionable calendars. It certainly could not be found embedded in the gallery wall.
Over the years, postcards and calendars began to improve in quality as real, talented natural photographers entered the industry. High-quality planks of whales, wolves, elephants and beautiful landscapes from all over the world were suddenly suited to be framed. Eventually a natural photo gallery began to emerge and, most importantly, made a profit.
When I opened my gallery in 1993, many people already felt that you could not make a living by selling pictures; that people will only buy paintings that will hang on their walls. These days, new galleries are opening up everywhere; some are beautiful, some are not so beautiful, and a few have hit the big time.
All this work in the world of nature has inspired new generations of photographers to look at nature photography as a hobby or a career. These new nature photographers have grown up in a world very different from the one I came from. Unimaginable technology then is now commonplace, and new photographers have more power in their hands than ever before. But what effect does all this technology have on photography?
Natural photographers now have to decide how much they will allow their photography to be influenced by technology. In the old days, beautiful nature photography required a much simpler approach; get the best title, with the best light, and use your camera skills to capture what you see. Today is a very different story. A natural photographer (if he chooses) can find a dignified title, capture it in any light conditions he can find, and then go home and completely change the colors, contrasts, and details of the image. The result may be a picture caused by technological wonders rather than natural wonders.
Each one to his own. It is not for me to judge the creative decisions of another photographer. But the question that is on your mind right now is worth asking; is this a natural image?
Every photographer has the right to pursue their craft in whatever way they choose. No one can argue that computer skills are less intelligent than traditional photography skills. However, the person looking at the picture needs to know what he or she is looking at, especially if that person is a customer who is willing to part with his or her hard-earned money.
I know that many photographers are defending this issue. Camera clubs around the world continue to fight the problem of judging nature photos alongside deceptive images. Some clubs have tried to divide the competition into separate categories, only to find people stealing their digital-translated images and placing them in an unallocated category for equal recognition. Understandably, 'software photographers' want their talents to be recognized at the same level as 'camera photographers'. And it should, but not in a way that ignores the differences between the two directions.
This is not an attempt to undermine the skills of software photographers. To me, it seems that the viewer, especially the paying customer, should know.
The public is increasingly being accused of taking good pictures. Anything that is prominent or unusual is now thought to have been modified or adapted using computer software. In many cases, that is likely the case. Unfortunately, this suspicion gives little credit to the traditional photographer (and there are still many of us) who prefer to do creative work in the field, before pressing the lid, and reproducing what was filmed on the day.
You can't imagine, unless it has happened to you, how frustrating it is to proudly show off your beautiful nature photos, and then hear people say 'Nowadays it's all about computers.'
According to the record, my photography is as traditional as it can be in the digital age. Software becomes an integral part of my career, as I continue to process the process of scanning thousands of slides from my travel years. Not to change the image, but to adjust the color and brightness to make sure the printed image is the same as the original slide. And it is a great advantage that you are finally able to restore images that have been scratched or otherwise damaged for years.
I can see that the practice of using software to enhance and transform images is not only inevitable, but as legitimate as taking natural photographs. However, I continue to encourage people to also learn true camera skills, so that the use of software to manipulate images is a creative decision, not a solution to incompetence. Thankfully, the need
You must be logged in to post a comment.