5 of the Most Ridiculous Arguments in Nature PhotographyPosted by drfl on January 7th, 2010
#5 Film vs. Digital
Finally, it seems that this argument has lost much of its momentum. For a while individuals dedicated to film believed that the quality of digital would never match that of film. It seems that enough film hard cores have come to the realization that the day has finally arrived. Many digital people have also realized that there is still viable images and techniques that only film can produce. Digital photographers using film and film photographers using digital, I guess we can all be photographers once again!
#4 PC vs. Mac
The computer is a tool, simple as that. Some people like one brand, other’s like another. Mac people, get over yourselves, you are no better than the PC people. PC people, acknowledge that Macs are here to stay and will not be going anywhere.
#3 Photoshop vs. PhotoPaint (vs. PaintShopPro, etc.)
The program is a tool, simple as that. Photoshop has its pros and its cons as do the other programs. If someone is adamant about how great a program is, perhaps the initial image needs to be stronger.
#2 Nikon vs. Canon (vs. Pentax, Sony, Digital Backs, etc.)
The camera is a tool, simple as that. Nikon has some great gear and Canon has some great gear. They both get the job done beautifully (as do the others, as well).
#1 Digital Manipulators vs. Documentarians
This particular argument is perhaps the most hypertensive, knockdown, drag-out fight that has been fought in the nature photography communities. Countless soapbox speeches, different experiences, and various viewpoints have been espoused. I remember at one art show at which I exhibited there was a gal who looked at my photograph, “Someday We’ll Find It…” and commented cynically, “I’ve never seen a rainbow look like THAT before.” There is the old cliche that photographers must learn to “see” and it’s been my experience that many people just don’t “look”. For example, there have been 3 spectacular occurrences of sundogs this month. Of those, I have asked various people if they saw them, to which they universally replied they had not, even though I know that they were driving or otherwise outside. I met up with three individuals during one of these beautiful sundogs, pointed up to the sky and said, “What do you think?” All three replied, “Wow, I hadn’t realized that was happening!” even after they had been driving for a good 20 minutes during the show. My point here is that many people get caught up in their day to day lives and never realize the beauty that surrounds them. In a world of increased digital manipulation one can be forgiven if they do not realize what is real and what is not.
This leads me to my next point, what digital manipulation is “right”? In the article, “Photoshop and Nature Photography, how far is too far?” Darwin Wiggett takes Michael Freeman’s view that the visual arts, including photography, is a representation of real life and therefore is a manipulation by its very definition. Jim Goldstein concludes in his most recent post “Embracing the Imperfect Image” that perhaps we are over manipulated and an “imperfect image” should be embraced. Indeed, my post from July “The Imperfect Image” discusses my discovery of the beauty that lies within an image with “flaws”. Ultimately, after listening to one side and then the other, my view is that only an individual can decide for themselves what constitutes taking an image “too far” to become “perfect”. Which side is right? It’s up to you decide, just don’t clog the communities with the banter, it takes away from the real goal: creating great art.
Technical Details:
Canon 5d, 70-200 f/4l @ 200mm, f/18mm, 1/15 sec.
Long’s Peak, Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado
