3 ms·
Spoken like someone unfamiliar with how thoroughly constructed the most striking nature photography typically is. From shooting in wildlife refuges and represen
by 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 agoI 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.