The honesty of wilderness photography

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[Buddy]

Apropos the original concept i.e. the honesty of wilderness photography, I wish some people would be honest with Tasmanian light. Too often I see images that have been pumped up with too much saturation or colours introduced that are not experienced in Tassie. If an image cannot stand up without being "overtweaked" then maybe it should be deleted. If I can see that an image has been Photoshopped then I consider it a failure. Subtlety should be the keynote. Overly altered imagery is not an honest representation of Tasmania, nor is it being honest with what you saw. I aim this controversy at no-one in particular, I hasten to add, but I'll probably cop a flogging nonetheless!

[tasadam]

Apropos the original concept i.e. the honesty of wilderness photography, I wish some people would be honest with Tasmanian light. Too often I see images that have been pumped up with too much saturation or colours introduced that are not experienced in Tassie. If an image cannot stand up without being "overtweaked" then maybe it should be deleted. If I can see that an image has been Photoshopped then I consider it a failure. Subtlety should be the keynote. Overly altered imagery is not an honest representation of Tasmania, nor is it being honest with what you saw. I aim this controversy at no-one in particular, I hasten to add, but I'll probably cop a flogging nonetheless!

HOORAY!

So it's not just me...
I've just spent the last number of days updating my "about me" page on my web site, here's the draft I am working on, this link will become dead when I finish the live version.
EDIT - no draft, real version is finished and up at http://www.tasadam.com/about.htm
No flogging from me Buddy...

I strive to achieve the most natural, detailed image possible, and, as post-processing of the image is minimal, the focus is on reproducing a subject as I saw it when taking the photograph.

[Drifting]

Ha- I have the same thing on my website! You all are not alone.

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[Buddy]

My post stated that " I wish some people would be honest with Tasmanian light". I accept what Brett says with regard to ND filters and time/light balance but stick with my original statement. How often do you see imagery that has a sky entirely alien to Tasmanian colour? Or vegetation pumped to a degree almost painful to look at? Too often. Those that spend considerable time in our bush will know immediately when a colour is wrong but often seem unwilling to say so. Tassie light is stunning and does not need to be altered to the point where it is untrue. Balancing exposure with ND filters or a programme is a different matter.I guess it is a question of degree; at what point does an image become an untruthful representation of what was originally captured? I have seen an image that was a composite of 14 shots and purported to be a representative image of a threatened forest coupe--nonsense. How does the photographer justify him/herself when an a viewer says"Wow, that's amazing, can you take me there?"
You say ' the brain then blends this into one image'. Correct. And the brain also enjoys the trip from ultra-close foreground through to infinity captured with an ultrawide angle lens. The lens has done the processing normally done by the eyes.
I prefer to believe that the concept of pristine wilderness is not illusionary. It is what inspires my photography. Could rant on all night on this one, but that will do for now.

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[WarrenH]

The honesty of wilderness photography harps back to the honesty of what is a wilderness.

There are conventions for wilderness. UNESCO's 'Man and the Biosphere' and 'Sustainable Environments' have definitions of wilderness ... which rules out anywhere in NSW and the ACT and I guess in Tasmania?

A UNESCO wilderness has a core area of totally unspoilt habitat, surrounded by a larger buffer zone of minimal human disturbance and then a secondary protective zone of acceptable/essential minimal disturbance. No where in NSW and the ACT has even a core area of wilderness that meets UNESCO's criteria for non disturbance or the minimum size for the core. Australia is a signatory to both of these conventions, now being impemented strategies and programmes ... and becoming a new Biosphere near you?

Here in the ACT and NSW there are many very small wilderness regions. Only experiencing 'Relative Wilderness', is not a joke.

Here a wilderness can change its original name and size frequently and can be named differently on each side of a dirt road or the State border (the original Bimberi Wilderness in the northern Alps in particular). Yet, we can not travel in any direction here where we will not run into a road or fire trail greater than 16 kilometres between the tracks. I think that there is one area in NSW that is about 25 kilometres between roads not counting fire trails. Just the width of a dirt road is all it takes ... the Hernani Road criminality (through New England or is it through Guy Fawkes or through neither?), does no longer just one wilderness make.

If I sit on a mountain in a wild place and I can see jet trails ... am I still in a wilderness?

If I walk for days only to find a park sign or a boardwalk or an elevated sleeping platform ... am I still in a wilderness?

If I look across a valley and see walkers in brightly coloured clothing dressing unsympathetic to my thoughts of the ethics of being in a wild place ... am I still in a wilderness?

If government regulations and park rules dumb-down and change the spirit of being in a wild place ... am I still in a wilderness?

If a wild place isn't called a wilderness by legislation ... am I still in a wilderness?

If I can walk across a wild place in a day ... have I traversed a wilderness?

If I can kid myself that I'm a wilderness photographer, well it shouldn't be too hard to kid the home viewer reading the book either? ... until they go into the wilderness and then they cant find it.

I don't think wilderness exists in the SE on the Mainland, except in the name.

Warren.

PS, One of the American tour companies advertises a coach trip from Sydney to Canberra, travelling on the Hume Hwy only, as a wilderness experience. I wonder if the trip is called 'A Relative Wilderness Experience'? Relative to doing most of the journey, travelling on the Pacific Hwy!

[johnw]

Hmm, there is some very interesting and thought-provoking discussion here. Particularly recent posts by Brett, Warren H and others. I'm struggling to make up my mind about much of this. Though I do think that wilderness need not exclude humans. We mostly live in an artificial world of our own creation and have done so for a very long time. Before that surely we were all creatures of the "wilderness", whatever that definition may be, and so belong there (at least in theory)? I know that when I escape the rat race to the bush I feel much more comfortable and relaxed than when poking around a city. Even though many (non-bushwalkers) would argue that I'm tempting fate in a dangerous and inhospitable environment that people were never meant to enter?

[iandsmith]

As someone once said about music, may I transpose it into photography - There are only two types of photographs, good photographs and bad photographs.

[WarrenH]

The Bicentennial National Trail is the world's longest trail system. I'm a big fan of the BNT. The BNT has every known type of track surface imaginable, at some stage of a journey, thanks to the 4 seasons. I like the BNT for both walking and mountain biking and for the BNT's main charm, the BNT can be extremely remote in places. Travelling through some of the Great Divide's remotest regions.

I was just reading an article this evening on the BNT and the author wrote, "When you look at the track in detail, you find most of the campsites are 30 to 40km apart and the trail was sited to provide good grass and plenty of water (stated in the guide books). It also avoids Wilderness Areas, follows a lot of roads and has many days of 30 to 40km in length."

"It also avoids Wilderness Areas" ... what, well Hello? I don't think so! I've spent much time on the BNT.

Just because National Parks calls an area a wilderness, areas outside of park boundaries that are just as well preserved and equally as primitive ... are these areas not (still) in a wilderness?

It isn't just the photographic truth that might need a rethink ... honestly! National Parks does not have the mortgage on what is wilderness and what they and legislation have designated as being wilderness, although they appear to think that they do ... and have brainwashed Wally World into thinking that.

Warren.

[stoogest]

Strong words, however I think National Parks are simply trying to protect those parts of the outback that are more sensitive than others. If this means giving them a 'title' then so be it. I'm also sure that they would like to have more tracts of land classed as 'wilderness than is currently the case, however this obviously quite difficult in some locations.

[Nuts]

Your second post seems a bit at odds with the first. Acknowledging that there may in fact be No wilderness left (I think there is but not what they call it around your area there) but then getting a bit upset? at the classifications... (thats how it seems to read anyhow?)

Personally I see photography as an 'art-form', film (&sensors) dont see what they eye does, three dimensions are made two. It is far removed from what is actually seen without the use of filters or manipulation. It seems a bit silly to think that there is any such thing as a 'natural' image. If fact, seems to me, I'd agree with those who say they are attempting to make an image look more what they were seeing (perhaps in their minds eye) than that being recorded through an unfiltered lens.


(?)