Time to play devils advocate... on the subject of nature photography. Is it as cheap as the platitudes its associated with? I mean, we have all seen the motivational images on postcards and posters... blah, blah, blah. Images of things like a meadow of trees or a long exposure shot of an ethereal babbling brook, or a waterfall. Images like these exist in abundance after all. So, what is the point of making more photographs of fall colors or spring colors for that matter? If you examine it purely for what it is, you begin to see that theres no apparent historical context, as in the case of editorial or street photography. Theres only perhaps a subtle, nonspecific emotive subtext and lastly, no personality. As I mentioned earlier, due to the sheer ubiquity of nature photography, barring a limited number of famous nature photographers, no real extrinsic value either. I agree, its a nice backdrop, but in the end its just dying plants. Literally anyone with a camera can make nature shots—I am willing to argue a step further and add that given the built in HDR option, my case that anyone can do it, gets even stronger.
Posted on: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 18:55:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015