When I'm in the woods, I photograph pine trees, the leaves on oak trees, and also wildflowers, ferns, mushrooms, fungus, lichens, and lots of other things. I also photograph butterflies, praying mantises, fences lizards, turkeys and deer, if and when I can. There is so much to see besides Pitch Pines. I love it. Maybe some might see redundancy in my pictures if they were able to see them all, but it's not, really. Barry
--- On Thu, 9/17/09, Andrew Joslin <[email protected]> wrote: From: Andrew Joslin <[email protected]> Subject: [ENTS] Re: Photo Documentation of Forest Sites - Back to Bob To: [email protected] Date: Thursday, September 17, 2009, 1:27 PM The challenge of the photograph is that it is a small frame that we look through, there is so much more beyond the frame that informs our experience of the forest. Wide angle lenses help to overcome the hemmed in frame but they introduce their own "look" with converging vertical lines (trees) and surreal sense of space. The smell of the forest, the excitement of discovery as you move forward in the woods or peer up through the understory at a barely visible high treetop, the humming insects, the pounding heart, the mud sucking at your feet, all work together. I think an honest photographic appraisal helps to capture all of this. 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 [email protected] wrote: > Ed, > > Your thoughts are most compelling. Thanks very much for sharing them. > You have tapped into something very, very important and as so often > happens, your sharp analysis will help me to focus on what > I really intend or intended. > > So, I hope we can keep this thread going. It is ENTS at the creative > cutting edge. I think your comments on my communication provide us > with the needed kernel for an expanded discussion of what we in ENTS > need to capture in the forest sites that we visit, be it through the > vehicle of photography, art, music, science, mythology, extended > numerical descriptions, or some combination of the above. With the > background music of Debussy's "The Girl With The Flaxen Hair" calling > forth nostalgic moments, I'll think through what I am trying to > capture with the extension of photography beyond the most memorable > and iconic and see if it makes sense to the rest of you. Maybe, you've > said it all, Ed, but there is still something rattling around in the > recesses of my aging brain that needs to be brought into the light, > even if to be disposed of. > > Thinking back to what you've so eloquently expressed, I would imagine > that my big friend Don Bertolette's mind is spinning right now. This > is the kind of discussion that he is meant to be involved in. Don? Others? > > > Bob > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Edward Frank" <[email protected]> > To: "ENTS Google" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 1:24:13 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: [ENTS] Photo Documentation of Forest Sites - Back to Bob > > 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] <about:blank> > ** > /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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
