I guess it's my way of saying that only focusing on the most exceptional aspects of a site will not do the site justice, both are needed.
A good example I can think of is minute 5:15 in this video from the Graves Farm woods in Williamsburg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdY17vX8fHE it is literally the mud but it is something barely distinguishable (to the passerby) in the mud that informs the awareness of the site's quality. Or minute 0:54 - 1:24 of this cedar swamp walk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgcM7V39sZ0 It's fairly mundane content but it speaks to the feeling and qualities of the place. I believe strongly that the "average" or "mundane" is very much part of the soul of a place, but it takes a careful look to show that. I'm not saying the photographer should be seeking the mundane but they should keep an eye on it. And I'm not saying that this is a typical way of depicting nature in say a photography show. Sometimes nature photographers try too hard to capture beauty and end up dulling the viewer's senses, what is exceptional when all is exceptional? It's like good music and art, the silences and spaces in between are as important as the main melody or subject. -AJ Edward Frank wrote: > Andrew, > > You talk of the Devil in the Details. Say you were photographing > mud. Would you just photograph a field of plain brown mud, or would > you find some with some leaves lying atop the mud? Would you find > some with some tracks and trails through it? I don't think you would > do just plain mud. As I said initially 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. So in the sense of > documenting the mundane, perhaps you might be, but you would still be > editing or picking just the right image to capture what you are > calling mundane rather than the blandness or mediocrity of the > overall. Certainly if the photo of the average is part of a larger > matrix it has a place, but how often is larger matrix presented in a > report, or a photography show, or other venue? The mundane or average > may be present, but I don't thin that is the essence or the soul of a > place. I would still argue that is what you should be trying to > capture or document as opposed to the averageness of the site. we > don't go out and measure the average trees on a site, but the tall > one. We don't go out and climb the small trees, but the exceptional > ones. Why when photographically documenting a site should we focus on > the average more than in passing? > > Ed > > “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 > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Andrew Joslin <mailto:[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, September 17, 2009 4:27 PM > *Subject:* [ENTS] Re: Photo Documentation of Forest Sites - Back > to Bob > > > The devil is in the details, photograph > the mud, the leaf, and the massive trunk, do your best to bring it > all > in with images that look at the beautiful and the "mundane". The > mundane > is the matrix and medium that supports the exceptional, it all > needs to > be there to tell the story of a particular place. > -AJ > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
