People Photography Art
Nature photography as an art form has been around for a long time but recently found respect in the walls of the galleries to market. This is a big change from 20 years ago, when nature photography was only considered worthy of the second rate of postcards and calendars.
With the years, postcards and calendars began to improve in quality and nature photographers with real talent came into the industry. High-quality posters of whales, lions, elephants and spectacular landscapes around the world suddenly worthy of framing. Finally nature photography galleries began to appear and, more importantly, turn a profit.
When I opened my gallery in 1993, many people still felt he could not make a living selling photography, to the People only buy paintings to hang on their walls. These days, new galleries are opening up everywhere, some good, some not so good, and a few who have really hit the big time.
All of this activity in the world of nature photography has inspired new generations of photographers to view nature photography as a hobby or profession possible. These new nature photographers grew up in a very different world I come from. Technology that was unimaginable back then is now commonplace, and new photographers have more power in their hands than ever before. But what implications does all this technology have to nature photography?
Nature photographers must now decide how much to allow his photograph to be influenced by technology. In the early days, a good nature photography requires a very simple approach, finding a great subject, in the best light possible and use your skill with a camera to capture what he saw. Today is a very different story. A nature photographer may (if desired) to find a decent theme, photography than in any of the lighting conditions happen to find, then go home and completely alter the colors, the contrast and every detail of the image. The result may be an image that is more due to the wonders of technology to the wonders of nature.
Each to their own. Not for me to judge creative decisions of another photographer. But the question is on the back of your mind right now deserves to be asked, is this nature photography?
Each photographer has the right to ply their trade in any way they choose. Skills course with the software are as creative as photography techniques traditional nature. However, the person who views a photograph deserves to know what they are watching, especially if that person is a client willing to part their hard-earned money.
I know many photographers get very defensive on this issue. Camera clubs around the world continue to struggle with the question to judge natural photos along with pictures manipulated. Some clubs have chosen to divide the competition in different categories, only to find people sneaking across your photos digitally altered the natural category for the recognition of equality. Understandably, 'software photographers' want their talents to be recognized at the same level as the 'camera photographers. And rightly so, but not in a way that ignores the difference between the two disciplines.
This is not an attempt to denigrate the skills of software photographers. I just think the viewer, and in particular paying customer is entitled to know.
Increasingly the public is becoming suspicious of good photography. All that is exceptional or unusual is now assumed to have been altered or manipulated by software. In many cases, you may have. Unfortunately, this suspicion gives little credit to traditional photographers (and there are still many of us out there) who prefer do creative work in the field before you press the shutter, and reproduce what was captured on the day.
You can not imagine, unless it happened to you, how frustrating it is to proudly display your photo more natural, only to hear people say: "These days everything is done with computers."
For the record, my photography is as traditional as can be in the digital age. Software is becoming essential to my work as I thought the process go scanning thousands of slides of my years of travel. Not to alter a photo, but to balance the color and contrast to ensure that the printed photograph matches the original slide. It is also a huge benefit to finally be able to restore images that have been scratched or damaged by age.
I recognize that the trend of using software to enhance and modify photos is not only inevitable, but as legitimate as the old-fashioned nature photography. However, I continue to encourage people to learn skills as well as real camera, so that the use of software to manipulate images is a creative choice, not a remedy for the lack capacity. Fortunately, my ebooks demand suggests that there are plenty of people out there who feel the same way.
About the Author:
To see some Australian Nature Photography that is captured in the field, and reproduced from the original image on film, see Andrew Goodall’s work at http://www.naturesimage.com.au To learn the essential skills of better photography, you can also find Andrew’s ebooks and subscribe to the online newsletter…it’s free!
Article Source: ArticlesBase.com – Nature Photography: Art or Technology?
Jimmy Wales on Wikipedia Loves Art
Tags: art, blog, photo, Photography, photos