4 ms·

I'm talking about the two images near the beginning of the article with the warm light on monkey subject, not the one with iphone. The quote with those images

by 205guy 7y ago

I'm talking about the two images near the beginning of the article with the warm light on monkey subject, not the one with iphone. The quote with those images from the photographer says: "In order to create a series of snow monkey images that was different from what already existed, I decided to work with off-camera flash, knowing that it would give me a lot of creative lighting possibilities and total control over the look of the picture. In fact, some of those images won me the International Nature Photographer of the Year title at the International Photography Awards." In other words, the images that look like a snow monkey watching a winter sun rise or a winter sun set, and all the connotations of expectation or fading warmth that involves, are fake. The light of the sun is part of a natural scene; you can enhance it, push the saturation, but not outright add it when it is not there. To me those 2 images without the information that the warm off-camera light is artificially created are misleading. With that info, my opinion is that those images should not be eligible for nature photography awards, only creative lighting awards.

throwanem 7y ago
Spoken like someone unfamiliar with how thoroughly constructed the most striking nature photography typically is. From shooting in wildlife refuges and representing the result as taken wild, to freezing insects so they can be posed and otherwise manipulated in macro work, to cutting and arranging foliage to compose "garden" shots, there's a vast range of what you would call "fakery" that goes into creating those images, even before they come out of the camera into Capture One or Lightroom. For what it's worth, I'd call those techniques "fakery", too. I don't hold with them, and I don't buy the argument that they're what pros do and it's only from my privileged position as a dilettante hobbyist that I can afford to sneer. (1) But maybe it's worth saving your ire for that kind of nonsense, instead of aiming it at the manipulation of light that's absolutely central to every kind of photography. And, in any case, I see nothing in the article that suggests the photographer has tried to claim these are sunrise or sunset shots, or indeed anything other than what they actually are, i.e., made with the use of off-camera flash. The interpretation based on which you're calling them fake and misleading isn't his; it is yours. (1) Which is an argument I've actually heard before, and all I can say is, when I hear it from somebody who can outdo work of mine like https://aaron-m.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/DSC_9393.jpg https://aaron-m.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/DSC_9393.jpg - taken from a distance of six inches, and with that wasp's sisters buzzing around my head - maybe then I'll think about taking it seriously enough to explain why it's bullshit.
- 205guy 7y ago
  I probably am naive, but I like to think it's only in relation to the domain which has been corrupted with fakery. I use the word corrupted to mean that it's so competitive that everyone at the top is bending the rules or misrepresenting their work--and becoming disconnected from their audience. FWIW, this photographer fully documents that the golden light was an off-camera flash. But when the image gets published in magazines, I bet that detail is not included. I'm still curious if that information was included in the submission for the photo contests. Here are 2 images of his where it's clear he used artificial lighting: https://500px.com/photo/1053642/Full-Moon-Mesa-by-Marsel-van-Oosten https://500px.com/photo/1053642/Full-Moon-Mesa-by-Marsel-van... https://500px.com/photo/1053782/In-The-Dead-Of-The-Night-by-Marsel-van-Oosten https://500px.com/photo/1053782/In-The-Dead-Of-The-Night-by-... You see those pictures and you think "light painting." And then there's this one where you think "capturing the last glow of the sun in just the right place:" https://500px.com/photo/17176603/Double-Light-by-Marsel-van-Oosten https://500px.com/photo/17176603/Double-Light-by-Marsel-van-... But now that one also looks like artificial lighting. To me, adding sun-colored light that is otherwise absent no longer qualifies as "nature photography." It might make a nice image, but that it wins nature photographer prizes just makes me cynical of the whole industry. Seems like you're saying I should've been cynical all along, but there always comes a day when the realization happens.

by 205guy 7y ago

throwanem 7y ago

Spoken like someone unfamiliar with how thoroughly constructed the most striking nature photography typically is. From shooting in wildlife refuges and representing the result as taken wild, to freezing insects so they can be posed and otherwise manipulated in macro work, to cutting and arranging foliage to compose "garden" shots, there's a vast range of what you would call "fakery" that goes into creating those images, even before they come out of the camera into Capture One or Lightroom. For what it's worth, I'd call those techniques "fakery", too. I don't hold with them, and I don't buy the argument that they're what pros do and it's only from my privileged position as a dilettante hobbyist that I can afford to sneer. (1) But maybe it's worth saving your ire for that kind of nonsense, instead of aiming it at the manipulation of light that's absolutely central to every kind of photography. And, in any case, I see nothing in the article that suggests the photographer has tried to claim these are sunrise or sunset shots, or indeed anything other than what they actually are, i.e., made with the use of off-camera flash. The interpretation based on which you're calling them fake and misleading isn't his; it is yours. (1) Which is an argument I've actually heard before, and all I can say is, when I hear it from somebody who can outdo work of mine like https://aaron-m.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/DSC_9393.jpg https://aaron-m.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/DSC_9393.jpg - taken from a distance of six inches, and with that wasp's sisters buzzing around my head - maybe then I'll think about taking it seriously enough to explain why it's bullshit.

205guy 7y ago
I probably am naive, but I like to think it's only in relation to the domain which has been corrupted with fakery. I use the word corrupted to mean that it's so competitive that everyone at the top is bending the rules or misrepresenting their work--and becoming disconnected from their audience. FWIW, this photographer fully documents that the golden light was an off-camera flash. But when the image gets published in magazines, I bet that detail is not included. I'm still curious if that information was included in the submission for the photo contests. Here are 2 images of his where it's clear he used artificial lighting: https://500px.com/photo/1053642/Full-Moon-Mesa-by-Marsel-van-Oosten https://500px.com/photo/1053642/Full-Moon-Mesa-by-Marsel-van... https://500px.com/photo/1053782/In-The-Dead-Of-The-Night-by-Marsel-van-Oosten https://500px.com/photo/1053782/In-The-Dead-Of-The-Night-by-... You see those pictures and you think "light painting." And then there's this one where you think "capturing the last glow of the sun in just the right place:" https://500px.com/photo/17176603/Double-Light-by-Marsel-van-Oosten https://500px.com/photo/17176603/Double-Light-by-Marsel-van-... But now that one also looks like artificial lighting. To me, adding sun-colored light that is otherwise absent no longer qualifies as "nature photography." It might make a nice image, but that it wins nature photographer prizes just makes me cynical of the whole industry. Seems like you're saying I should've been cynical all along, but there always comes a day when the realization happens.