I find I do agree with you in that interesting scenes would make these photos hugely more valuable, and I do aim for this. Some are satisfied with illustrations, but I'll endeavour to please those who want a story too. For this goal I'm sure I could learn a few tricks from street photographers, who create their images from the mundane and the (dare I say it) ugly. (note I did not describe the images themselves as ugly).
Well, it seems to have turned out that we aren't so different, if anything you are simply more demanding (a good thing). Maybe I am satisfied with an illustration, but it's that bit extra that separates the good from the great.
Perhaps this shot is getting more towards what you'd like to see:
http://davidavid.whatsbeef.net/robber.jpg
It's a robberfly consuming a honeybee that it's just caught, captured a couple of months ago in the garden.
David
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
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
