Bob, There are several different themes in your question. If I might be so bold as to comment. First is the idea of "Rose Colored Glasses." Looking back in your memories one finds in their past that the snows were deeper, the winters were colder, the summers were hotter - everything was bigger, bolder, or more extreme. That is because these are the memories that stand out among the myriad of mundane events. The past really was not that much more wonderful than it is today. People talk about kids getting outside and playing sports and games with other kids while the youth of today sit an play video games. Perhaps there is a kernel of truth in that overall they were more active, got more exercise, and got outside more. But what is missing from the memories is the boredom that existed between these communal sport activities.
The point is that our memories of any place or event is filtered by these glasses, by our selective memory and are different from actuality. When you visit sites like Sugar Loaf, do you think or remember the average scenes or do you remember the extremes of good or bad? In a logical frame of thinking, the average is an equally valid subject for documentation, but I must ask you - Why? Why do you want to document the average, when it is the not average that has a lasting impact.? There was a brief movement in photographic "art" in which the photographers would just shoot photos at random in order to capture reality. These photos did not have any artistic perspective that was filtered by the mind of the photographer. Without that mental filter the point and shoot photographs, were pointless. That mental filter on the part of the photographer is needed in photography in order for the image to have meaning to the viewer. That is what you are doing in your photographic selections - providing meaning to the image for the viewer. In comparisons between human and chimpanzee DNA, 96% of the genetic code is the same. It is the 4% difference that makes us human. So the recording of human endeavors consists of just documenting the results of that 4% difference. There is a saying that 90% of everything is crap. That applies to books, art, music, television and to most human endeavors. I am not sure of the origin of the saying as it has several different attributions. I suppose to be fair it might really be saying that 90% of everything is not noteworthy, but is average, or mundane. What we search for in art, music, and literature are the 10% that we find to be inspirational or has some impact on us. The same can be said of an individual park. Most of what is there is not spectacular or memorable, but 10% might be. If you do not want to just document the 10% of the space that is spectacular, but to document the whole, what you need to find is the hidden essence that is within even the most average of scenes. Something is there, you need to find it. If you look at photographs of people, it is not the posed images of everyone dressed up in their finest suits and dresses that are the most compelling. It is the photos taken of people at work, or at play, or in unguarded moments. It is in these photos that serve to capture a portion of what makes these people individuals, a portion of what makes them human. It is not photos of these people going shopping, or general activities that have the impact. It is not the photos of these people formally dressed and stiff that have the impact. It is photos that in some way capture the essence of what makes them who they are that have an impact. It is these photos that need to be taken. So in terms of forest documentation I would take the portraits of what is great about the site. I would take photos of what is wrong at a site. What about photos of the average of the site? Unless this is part of a continuum and is presented as such in a series, or in a report, even if looked at without the context of what is good or bad, they will not be noticed or remembered. So why take them? What you need to do is to try to figure out what is the essence of the site. What makes this site interesting or unique? This is what you need to photograph. It might not be the most beautiful scene, or even the most perfect composition, but this is what is important about the site. Different people will find different aspects to photograph. That is the nature of things, but you need to find what speaks to you as the essence of the site. It is your mental filter that will provide a perspective to people viewing the image and hopefully give them a glimpse of the essence you are trying to capture. You probably know that already. Edward Forrest Frank In my opinion ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] This brings me to a point. I am trying to figure out how to photographically document the forests of places like Sugar Loaf to reflect as accurately as possible what is there and how it looks. For the most part, when we take photographs, we attempt to extract the best that a place has to offer. Filters, selective images, limited focus, etc. can make a place look better than it actually is, often far better. I want to learn how to document our forests in an ever more accurate depiction of what the eye sees mostly as well as capturing the dreamy scenes that may exist in only a few places. I have a long way to go and the advice of others is welcome. "To the attentive eye, each moment of the year has its own beauty, and in the same field, it beholds, every hour, a picture which was never seen before, and which shall never be seen again" - Ralph Waldo Emerson --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
