Good points ... allow me to respond interspersed. > [Original Message] > From: David Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm not well read in matters photographic, Nor am I > but you started me thinking. That's always good <LOL> > The way I see my photography is that I'm recording beauty. Of course, > there's the issue that beauty is subjective. To me, a fly's compound > eye, or a hairy caterpillar sitting on a stem, is beautiful, as well as > interesting - and when I photograph such a thing I try and capture this > beauty and the life as best I can. Hmmm ... I don't think I said that these critters were not beautiful. I love 'em, and enjoy that they are around, inhabiting the earth. My complaint, as it were, is that most of the photos I see here are sterile, technical tours de force, that, for me, don't really come across as art, and most are more of the same old stuff. Some are quite outstanding as photographs, but don't cross over to art as I view it, or, if they do, they are poor examples of art. And please don't ask me to define what art is. I know it when I see it. Now, I have seen some very interesting electron microscope shots of ants and a few other insects. These were made with a 'scope and a digital camera, utilizing a program that allowed for extreme depth of field. The entire critter was in focus, and quite sharp. To me, these photos are far more interesting, vibrant, exciting, and "alive" than the photos shown here. Those shots are tremendously appealing to me. They go to what may arguably be the highest quality of insect photography. And while they may not be art ((we can argue that ad infinitum), they possess so much more than the flat, two dimensional images that appear on my monitor. IOW, most of what I see here does nothing for me because I've seen it all hundreds of times. There's little new here. Little that's pushing the envelope and creating new visions. Little that goes beyond great focus, vibrant colors, and Photoshop adjustments. I suppose I want more from a photograph. > The result hopefully shows some of > these things that make me love my subjects (and if I was really good, I > might even be able to bring that love itself into my photographs). See above > I understand your explanation of the matter and am just confused, as > your points seemed valid, but yet I resisted. Is something beautiful > less valuable than something that, while it may or may not be pleasing, > has a message or depth, as you request? Yes and no ... there's no reason why beauty cannot stand on its own, yet I crave more. I want to see beauty with depth and meaning. That to me elevates a photograph to a higher plane, brings more to the image. I think there was a photo here of a bug eating another bug. That was great. It showed so much more than Rob's recent photo, which started this discussion. It gave the viewer a glimpse into how the creature behaves, a bit of its "personality," as it were. It made an ordinarily static subject come to life. Sure, taking a photo of that same bug just sitting on a branch may offer beauty in color and form, but, at the risk of repeating myself, so what. There are millions of similar photos out there. we've seen 'em all before. They are derivative. > As to your comment that you see no life or vibrancy in this sort of > photo, well this is possibly the heart of the matter, where a great rift > is revealed gaping between us. Perhaps my comments above have clarified why I find the photos here to be lacking in vibrancy. They are good photos, but tell me nothing, show me nothing, that I haven't been told and shown before. One of the comments heard frequently from those who use digital cameras is that they've shot thousands of frames. Why not? It's free, it's easy, it's efficient. So the photographer goes out in the garden and makes hundreds of bug pictures. Why not? It's free, it's easy, it's efficient. I'd rather that the photographer go out in the garden and spend some time with these critters and try to catch more interesting scenes, more of what this insect is all about. Maybe eating another bug, as mentioned, or carrying a twig or a leaf, or building a nest. Sure, that's more difficult to do, but, IMO, the results of one photo such as this far exceed the combined quality of all the others combined. And while I know I'm gonna get flack for what I'm about to say, I'm going to say it anyway. Too many photographers take the easy route, make photos that are "good enough," and never push their creative envelope past a certain point of mediocrity. There is a sameness to so many photos these days, and insect photography here is no different. I believe it was Rob who also posted a shot of a bee busy working in a flower, carrying pollen on its legs. Now that was a great shot, it combined all the elements I want to see in a photo, and offered the viewer far more than a close-up of a bee. It was "Bees at Work," which could be the start of a wonderful photo essay. > > Just one more point to tack on to the end in a confused way. Perhaps > you've never heard of Densey Clyne - she's a local 'naturalist' who has > written books (e.g. "The Garden Jungle", "Wildlife in the Suburbs") on > the behaviour and natural histories of various insects, other animals > and plants. The photography that accompanies these accounts is of a very > high standard, and the entire 'work', being the illustrated story, is in > my view admirable, giving you both a feel for the subject and the > dedication of the author. Perhaps you would appreciate this sort of > photography if you knew the story as well. The problem could be that > these photographs need the story, which people like me simply carry > around with them in their heads. Seeing only the object can't be satisfying. Now you've got my attention. I believe photographs can tell the story, but that few photographers use photographs in that way. Today they are more often used to illustrate a story, rather than telling it. That, perhaps is where we differ. I want the photo to tell the story. I believe that by trying to make the photo tell the story you get a better, more interesting photo. > > I've not used the A word yet (three letters, rhymes with heart). The > whole idea troubles me. > That's all I can think, for now. Looking forward to see what you think > of this. Now you know ;-)) Kind regards ... and thanks for 6your comments, Shel