Svar från John Hyde
Hejsan, här kommer ett svar från John Hyde, fotografen många har trashat och visat dålig respekt till här i tråden. Jag tog mig friheten och kontaktade honom för att höra lite om hur han tänker när han fotar. osv
Greetings Martin,
Thank you for your comments.
We always appreciate hearing from folks. regardless.
As a photographer, and one who has been at it for over 30 years, I enjoy having my work critiqued.
It is a great means discover what others enjoy and to find your own way or style, if you have the strength to NOT be influenced too much by the opinions of others.
I don't understand why some people "trash" other artists work, it just doesn't make sense.
If everyone did everything the same way, then the world would be a very boring place, yes?
Perhaps its some aspect of insecurity....like they feel threatened by what is different than theirs, or by something that is different than what they are doing?
All I know is that it isn't worth my time or energy to "trash" another persons work- whether or not I find it attractive.
I believe the only productive time to be critical of another nature photographer is when the methods they use to obtain
their images threaten the subjects or the environment.
On the subject of "manipulation".
Less than 5% of the images of eagles and whales have been composited and only one of the wolf images is a composite.
The rest are single exposures.
Many that some folks think must be composites are not.
Over the past 25 years I've learned when and where to go to get the best chance for the type of image I'm hoping for. Many of these locations are within 50 miles of my home so I know them in all seasons and the animals that live there
as well.
When I go out to make a photograph I go to a specific place at a specific time because I know what the light will be like and where the animals or birds will be feeding, resting, whatever.
Luck still plays a role but not as much as it did before I had intimate knowledge of these areas and the creatures that live there.
Obviously, I do not subscribe to the philosophy that an image is no good if it isn't captured with one opening of the shutter.
Personally, I enjoy the challenge and satisfaction I get from making an image either way.
I always strive to get the image I'm after with one exposure if that is possible, not because of any philosophical ideals, but because I enjoy the challenge and because if you can achieve that, then you've got it.
No extra work afterwards.
I'd rather spend my time out taking photos than siting at a computer.
That's why I started in nature photography in the first place, so I could spend time outdoors with wild animals in wild places!
I view the camera as a tool, just like any painter does their brushes or a sculptor their chisel.
It's a tool, and end to a means.
I don't look at my nature photography in a strictly documentary sense.
If were shooting newsworthy events, war or politics, weddings, events or subjects such as those, where documentation is the primary goal (and especially if I were trying to elevate that beyond mere documentation to something that makes additional statements about the human condition, whatever), then I wouldn't consider compositing an image because it would be a false interpretation of an event.
But to me, nature photography isn't merely about documentation.
It is more about creating images that express my personal interpretation of the natural world.
And since it is exactly that- expression of MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATION- then if I find that I can achieve that goal by using more than one photograph, then so be it.
I do not believe that it is disrespectful to nature to composite an image.
It is not false, because those places and subjects all exist in nature, they had to have or I couldn't have used a camera
to record their existence.
I also never present any subject in a way that is not respectful to it's integrity or the realistic interpretation of its existence.
I can't, because I've lived those experiences, that's where the incentive for the vision comes from!
So, Martin, I hope that helps to answer at least some of your questions.
I know that in Sweden many nature photographers adhere to a strictly documentary style, and I respect that.
But I don't let other peoples opinions determine my own personal style, and never will.
I need to be my own person to be happy with myself.
If everyone who ever decided to try to communicate through visual means stuck to the same format, style, philosophy,
technique, medium, etc. then the human vision would never have evolved as it has over the ages.
All the most famous and respected names in the art world never would have come to be.
One must follow their own path to evolve, THAT is my philosophy.
Thank you for extending your appreciation for the work that I do and please feel free to contact us anytime.
Warmest Regards,
John
PS: you may post this reply on your photo forum if you think it will be of interest to others.
###
))
