A question that has been going around my subconscious for some time - Just what makes a good natural history photograph? I know this is an impossible thing to answer but I feel I need to put something down to try and help me work though some ideas. The first place to start is to look at what the rules of competitions/groups say. In essence they are incredibly conservative. There seems to be some serious concerns about a 'true record' - as if there is ever any such thing when dealing with photography. A clear example of this is the recent outcry about the winner of last years Wild Life Photographer of the Year. The image must have integrity and an accuracy that few other disciplines demand. Does this make then great photographs?
I am really uncertain about this. One of the reasons is that I have a passing interest in how animals were recorded/painted before photography. The truth is not very well. Well not very well you apply the 'true record' criteria. However, when looked at as a work of art then a different criteria is applied and they become 'good'.
The two photographs on this posting are another case in point. The first, a wood pigeon in snow, has a charm to it. To me this bird appears to be enjoying the sensation of standing in falling snow. In short I am anthropomorphising the bird - I am projecting my feelings and experiences onto the bird. It is unlikely that the bird ever had any of those feelings at all and this is just a fluke of the camera shutter. The second is a composite shot of a bird feeding station. It was taken over about 20 minutes and shows the activity going. In truth, it portrays the frantic activity the birds go through just feed in the depths of the winter. However, it could never be entered to a wildlife photographic competition whereas the first one could - yet both say something about the experience of being a bird in winter
So what is the point of this rambling? I guess I am getting disillusioned with the restrictions of natural history photography - interesting these restrictions are not placed on the documentary film making world. In a recent Life episode a whole hill side was replicated in a studio to recreate the change in the seasons. A fantastic invocation of the passing season but totally false - yet it told so much more about the whole process of passage of time on the creatures on that hill than any amount of stills or 'normal' film making would have. Could it be that I am just frustrated that I cannot get my work accepted and so are striking out at the rules? I hope not but you can never totally sure on this matter.
In the end a great photograph is just that, whether it meets the rules of the game is another matter. I guess the view taken is that natural history photography is a branch of photojournalism and so should be authentic - a true record. I just don't feel that few are - when you take into account hides, cropping and the impact of the technology.
