Fine Art Photography | Nature | Creative & Artistic

For last few weeks I have been experimenting with “macro landscapes” or “micro landscapes” – essentially macro photography with an attempt to show the context around the main macro subject (often we forget that in macro photography). I have experimented with combination of extension tubes, close up filters, flashes, graduated ND filters etc to achieve some of these perspectievs. The traditional challenge of working distance gets amplified here with infinity measuring an inch or two and extreme narrow dept-of-field. Here are some of the perspectives from these experiments.

A few more here (click of these these above and below  images to see them larger, better)

Have you ever seen reaction of artistists (who paint) towards a beautiful image of a landscape or a bird or an animal ? a nature photograph in general ?

Often, at best it is a nice yawn ! (BTW, I write this from my own experience seeking a feed back from an artist). As medium of expression these two can’t be compared. Art revolves a lot around individual’s creativity, expression and visions while nature photography often revolves (unfortunately) around technology, right time in right place and faithful reproduction etc. I guess this latter attribute of “nature as is” makes it un-interesting for artists who want to see some uniqueness, creation and individuality which is a real challenge in nature photography thanks to the very medium of expression.

Have you ever seen reaction of biologists or naturalists towards a beautiful portrait of bird or an animal ?

Often it is “so what” kind of expressions, at best a “good one”. Simple portraits are boring to them who spend their life researching in jungles. They would love to see unique behaviours not observed earlier or discover/record new life forms, conservation issues etc – not yet another “beautiful portrait of a kingfisher”.

So most of the nature photography that we see today is neither accepted by artistists community as work of art or by naturalists or field biologists as something useful to the field of natural history or field biology. Where do most of the images of nature that we make belong then ? I think it belongs only to us as “nature photographers” !! Who is a nature photographer ? What is his purpose in life ? I am not talking about those who make living from it. Most of the nature photographers don’t make living out of it. Most of the them are passionate week end warriors who don’t mind spending $$$$ on 500mm/600mm F4 lenses and trips to exotic places to make images.

Can/Can’t the purpose of nature photography be just freezing some beautiful moments in nature ? Without having to offer something of our own ? Can/Can’t it be just “see, enjoy, share and probably get some kudos” ? Is it acceptable to us as nature photographers that most of our work neither belongs to world of art nor belong to the world of natural history ? Should we stop feeling good or proud if someone calls our work “artistic” ?

While each of these questions can be debated till death the question remains

Who are we ?

We are not artists, we not naturalists, we are not field biologists – probably a separate confused tribe named “nature photogaphers” ? May not be bad as is but worth realizing where we stand ? May be, may not be ? May be worth an introspection ?

Life has been hectic these days and never had time to process my Corbett National Park images. Here goes the second installment (first one being – Corbet in Monotones shared below.) Nothing can do justice to natural beauty of Corbett (Dhikala to be specific). Here is an attempt at seeing this magical place and some panoramas. Hope you will enjoy seeing some of these below –

Panoramas – Corbett National Park, India