st andrew’s cathedral



i've recently been introduced to this (i think) newly-coined photographic term "eco-porn", which famous nature photographer Galen Rowell describes as "saccharine, overly idealized (and manipulated) commercial scenics that were not representative of the natural world they supposedly depicted" … these photographs are “glamour shots that in some way debase the natural world…. flash-filled, colour-filtered, posed, stagnant photography in certain calendars, greeting cards, posters, advertisements, and on television. These images serve to distance people from nature."

nature photography, in his opinion, has reached a “plateau” in its development, in contrast to other fields such as fashion and journalistic photography, where new styles and approaches were still constantly developed. nature photographs were clichéd, postcard-pretty, with little thought put into them except to take that “perfect-looking picture”

This set me thinking.. Indeed, I’ve been guilty, myself, of having taken hundreds of pictures in the past just because they are “oh so pretty!”.. Rowell's approach to capturing a "wow" photograph is certainly worth learning from:
"When something struck his eye, he wanted to understand that attraction more fully. He would look at that object of interest from every angle and distance possible. And the final "keeper" photo may well have been very different from his original instinct because he examined the situation with an open and inquiring mind, and a methodical approach to exploiting the opportunity. "

personally, of late, i've realized the importance of reinventing my approach in order to improve my own photography, as well as, more importantly, to bring my enthusiasm and passion for this love of mine to a higher level.. To share my newly-discovered approach, it is this: More than just making sure the picture is sharp or well-exposed, it is more critical to first understand the "mood" and "story", or the so-called "experience" i want to communicate via the image – be it humour, awe, mystery etc before deciding if the photograph is worth taking after all.. I’ve realized that photography is about communicating a personal unique view of the world at a specific moment at a specific place.. if there is no "story" to tell, the photograph may be "pretty" but "uninteresting"..

In the same way that Elie Wiesel, who survived the Holocaust and later won the Nobel Peace Prize said, "Not to transmit an experience is to betray it", this approach is certainly not as easy as just spotting a potential photograph and snapping it in the prettiest way possible, but I believe something like that will surely be hugely rewarding for any photographer.

Just some thoughts and a bit of a ramble. this discourse is, of course, a bit shallow at the moment, I must admit.. i'll give it a little more thought and see if i can make it more "concrete" and meaningful...