There is a little story that I love. Unfortunately, I can’t find an actual documented source for it, so its validity is questionable. One thing that I can say for certain is that at its core lies a very important nugget of truth. The tale goes something like this: A budding ornithologist found himself in an engaging discussion late one evening with Roger Tory Peterson – the man credited for inventing the modern field guide and popularizing birding for the masses. “Mr. Peterson,” the student confessed, “with all of the successful ornithologists in the world I am at a loss as to which species to focus on if I am to make a name for myself.” Without hesitation, the brilliant naturalist responded: “Focus on the robin. We all know a great deal about tropical birds but very little about those which are the most familiar to us.” The student walked away cursing the old man under his breath because he had already purchased plane tickets to South America and was immediately creamed by a bus (creative license at work).
So why don’t most nature photographers find local species as engaging as those that they must cross ocean and mountain to feast their eyes upon? My guess is that most of us –myself included– are constantly stricken with a case of (and craving for) visual puppy love. Experience tells us that most people have a strong desire for the “new” and that this fleeting glow is also tragically equated with better. Even sadder, it is often misinterpreted as meaning more important. It reminds me of the story that Freeman Patterson shares in his book Photography and the Art of Seeing about a friend in South Africa who desperately attempts to grow dandelions in her garden while ignoring the beautiful native daisies thriving in abundance nearby. What was it that Andrew Mason said about dandelions? We all seem to want what we can’t have.
In a recent post on the Art for Conservation blog, I proposed this question: What if every major nature photography “star” around the world decided to focus their cameras on their own “backyards” for an entire year? Can you imagine just how much amazing insight into the natural might be revealed? Andrew Parkinson’s brilliant coverage of the Common Moorhen shows just how much rich imagery waits to be mined by a photographer who is passionate about pursuing the familiar.
It seems like we all want to claim the mantle of the conservation photographer these days, but are sadly unable to see that some of the greatest conservation opportunities to be had literally lie right before our own eyes. Wouldn’t it be more noble for the greater portion of us to spend time working to protect and promote an awareness of the species which are commonly found in our world today rather than daydreaming about red-eyed tree frogs and tigers, tigers burning bright? This is all fine and good if you happen to live in Central America or Southeast Asia but for the rest of us, well…I’m not so sure.
Hi Clay,
We have exchanged ideas and comments on this very topic for the last year and you have made the case for the ‘close to home’ eloquently. I have been beating the drum for this on the PIXIQ blog as well as on the one we share: too many retain the idea of the “Great White Hunter’ as Nature Photographer. A few notables (who could do more for the approach you suggest) still anachronistically laud the peripatetic approach and say nothing about the conservation aspect. For them the natural world is the cash cow. But we must not give up…if there are consciences they must be pricked (and where there are pr**ks they must be ‘consciened’)
The main reason I zealously push the close-up approach (as a part of a wider photographic armoury) is that there is always something new even in the commonplace as revealed by a ‘macro’ lens. It is a much greater challenge to do as Andy did with moorhen and use light…the subjects are everywhere for those who can get over wanting the ‘easy fix’.
Keep up the fight.
Paul
An interesting viewpoint and one I can back-up from experience. In my early days I was a picture editor at what was then NHPA, a wildlife picture library – before they were bought by Photoshot. The wants list was something that was compiled or added to when requests came in for subjects that we didn’t have good coverage for. This list was then sent to photographers periodically so they could try and fulfil some of the requirements.
The interesting part about it? Apart from the seriously obscure creatures, a large percentage of ‘wants’ was made up of domestic species that could be described as commonplace in the UK – pigeons for example!
It seems photographers (and I include myself in this guilty batch) are not as concerned with what is happening in their own country and are always looking for something new, something they don’t see everyday – and crucially something others in their circle don’t see everyday. Yep, the requirement for validation from peers who themselves have not seen the ‘exotics’ and will be more easily drawn into “Oooos and Ahhhhs” over the unfamiliar.
Photography is no different to any other aspect of life – familiarity breeds contempt….or at the very least boredom and lack of interest.
Dave
I find much to agree with wholeheartedly in this posting, perhaps unsurprisingly. Whilst there’s absolutely no denying the awe felt by just about anyone on seeing, say, tigers in Bengal, or lemurs in Madagascar, there is also much wonder to be found just within the UK.
Perhaps I can highlight my particular favorite resident of the UK, amongst many other locales: Oryctolagus cuniculus, the European rabbit. Doesn’t get much less exotic than that! Yet, if you take the time to simply watch them for a period of time, the subtleties of their societal structure come to light; as do their individual preferences, even. Everyone knows rabbits are agile, yet, to have seen a sight quite as (briefly!) acrobatic as this still leaves me in admiration of these humble sorts: http://www.flickr.com/photos/porsupah/4505722852/
Moreover, when considering local species, there are so many more direct routes to helping conservation efforts, and the promotion of the appreciation of local wildlife, be they people like Wildlife Aid, the RSPB, et al.
Overall, in thinking of wildlife, we ought to be global in mindset – aware of the wonders of wildlife exotic /and/ local, and be mindful of the practical ways in which we can assist both, familiar or exotic.
Hi Clay,
and Hi Paul,
Indeed this is a recurring theme in the conversations of nature photographers who still have a certain distance (or some awareness!) on the business of nature photography.
Of course, as I have already said here, we are frequently subjected to certain pressures of return from pictures banks or magazines, which they urge us to ever more exotic or extraordinary. If you want to sell our photographs and be able to eat at the end of the month, that price is here!
However, and as you pointed out, we must continue to fight for local species. For my part, I’m never going to do photographs of tiger, orang utan or to other alligators. Not that I do not want to, but from a professional standpoint I restraint to France and a small part of Europe. There’s already so much to do in terms of conservation.
At our doorstep it is also necessary to preserve species and faster. Environments change so rapidly under human pressure.
Of course, sometimes the end of months are hard or very hard. But I am conscious of having served a just cause when I bring back photographs of a small French salamander (Salamandra Lanzai) ranked at the top of the IUCN Red List, and when a national magazine are agrees to print a small story on the subject. This is an excellent way to raise awareness of people. For me, conservation will only be understand by awareness and educate people. And obviously, we can only be able to protect what we know. And to knowledge and know, photography is a great tool.
However, if I were offered to accompany scientists or participate in conservation programs on certain species or habitats far from home, I would accept with pleasure. Let’s be honest and recognize that the novelty is also an excellent creative engine. If in addition, that’s a real cause in terms of advanced scientific or conservation, I would not hesitate one second.
In my area I was on the board of directors of an nature conservation’s NGO. We deal every day some cases to goal is to establish protection zone for a particular species, to meet with mayors and industrialist director to raise awareness of the small orchid that lives on the prairie where they decide to build or expand their factory etc … This Nature close to each of us deserves much more than deny of some notable of our image world.
Note that if we arrive at our level has to explain to mayors, industrialists, and populations, the importance of small orchid growing on their grassland and small beetle that comes on her to feed, then all hopes are for us, nature photographers , to able to live of our art while continuing to protect and raise awareness of this backyards Nature that we hold so dear.
I think this is the real Conservation Photography!
Hoping not to have been too long and not too damaged the Shakespeare language!
Regards.
Denis
Hello all and thanks for your comments! I always appreciate this type of thoughtful feedback and discourse. After all, I am not writing these posts for my own entertainment! Keep them coming! Please forgive the typos: I am writing this after a very long day.
Paul,
We see eye-to-eye on this for certain! As I wrote in the post on the Art for Conservation blog regarding the importance of the macro lens:
“Considering humankind’s obsession with discovery, it surprises me that more photographers aren’t as obsessed with macro photography as I am. What other discipline of nature photography offers so much in terms of an opportunity to make fresh new imagery, which may in fact, also represent behaviors and species completely new to science?”
There is really so, so much to see and we only slow down and look more closely to find it!
––––––
Hello David,
So true that, as the saying goes “Familiarity breeds…” Like you, I am not immune to this either. I have to really work hard, try different techniques and continue to push myself to rework areas that I “think” I know so well. Sometimes I am reminded of the quote by John Burroughs, “To learn something new, take the path that you took yesterday.” There is so much truth to that; both in a broader sense and also on individual photography outings. You also make an excellent point about the validation from peers regarding exotics. I want to be clear that I am not always able to slough off these pressures any better than the next person. I guess that I have just been fortunate enough to find that, through macro photography in particular, there are so many bizarre and wonderful things moving about that I get my fix and then some!
_________
Thanks for visiting Porsupah,
Your experiences with the European Rabbit is a perfect example of the kind of species that everyone assumes they know, when in fact, they really know nothing at all. I remember being blown away the first time I saw Manfred Dannegar’s incredible photographs of sparring hares. Who knew “bunny rabbits” could be so tough! I applaud your efforts and, looking through your images on Flickr am very impressed by the time that you are obviously spending in the field. Loved your photo entitled “Sky Diving!”
_________
Bonjour Denis!
As always, you comments are most welcome here! Thanks for the thoughtful response.
First, I need (I MUST) be very transparent and say that I have photographed abroad, will certainly do it again, and also support my photography with a mix of different skills such as graphic design, which allow me to be the specialist that I am. I have two boys that I have to feed and I completely understand that sometimes one has to do things to put food on the table.
What I’m talking about here is more in terms of looking a photographer’s mission, and overall body of work. Do they mainly spend their time chasing species around the globe, or do they take a trip or two now and then for various reason (supporting a scientific expedition, for example)? My intention is not to “guilt” photographers into staying at home, but rather to consider the possibility that working close-to-home is a worthwhile and viable alternative to the “jet-setting” image that nature photographers have acquired over the past several years. It is true that this sort of persona may attract attention to certain causes, but for the vast majority of us (and let’s face it there are a lot of us), this model simply isn’t economically or environmentally feasible or sustainable.
It is hard explaining to business people why it is important to protect an orchid, which has a symbiotic relationship with a beetle, and the beetle with a parasite, etc. but there is no one better to do this in my estimation that someone who is a part of the community in which it lives. That person speaks the language, looks the part and knows the land an intimate way that an outsider simply cannot.
Let’s continue this dialogue. I am certainly learning a lot from your feedback!!
My best,
Clay
Most of what has been said here reflects my opinion. I have been working as a full time professional for a decade now and never saw the necessity to leave Ireland and work abroad. There is more than enough subject matter here. What I experienced however is that this local approach limits career opportunities (and hence the chance to make a decent living): It is simply easier to get published, get assignments and sell images if you have the “exotic stuff”.
What I also like to add is this and I take my chances to step on someone’s toes here: Why is one of the current biggest photographic conservation projects, The Wild Wonders of Europe, based on the principle of sending photographers abroad when there are experienced and talented photographers in every European country who know there backyard better than everybody else? Maybe something to wonder about…
Hi Clay,
This is a really interesting discussion – namely because it seems like a no brainer. At least to me anyway.
Arriving relatively recently to these conversations, the one thread I have picked up on more than anything is that pictures of tigers, eagles and just don’t translate into income anymore. (Indeed Niall explained this well the other night.) Leaving aside the conservation aspect for a minute, even if I had the money to spend on travelling to different regions it would have to be very very well arranged so that when I return I was able to make the most of the images rather than wandering around aimlessly by myself.
Two points stand out straight away:
1. I can’t afford to travel – which I don’t feel unhappy about mainly because:
2. Without spending a decent amount of time “there” you can only hope to glean the smallest understanding of that environment or species.
Perhaps there is an advantage to this, although it seems veiled in irony. With the blue-ship species covered and recovered, my wallet and I are better off staying at home. I get to spend much more time working locally and looking and relooking at things I think I’m familiar with. Yet the working time-scale from initiation to finished result is much longer and everyone’s budget is being stretched.
So when seeking a bite of positivity and motivation my thoughts go along these lines.
Britons are very good at being self-deprecating. We look at our country in terms of wildlife and think it’s “alright”, “nothing special”. Compared to the vast savannahs of Africa and the immense rain forests of Sumatra and Brazil that harbour big cats, snakes and a gazillion colourful insects, our little Dunnock seems pretty uninspiring.
Yet the very same processes that gave rise to the size and colour of these exotic animals are working here, in our back gardens. The size that our largest predator can grow to, the colours of our insects and plants. They are all governed by the same universal processes and restrictions. They are also subject to the same pressures humans are exerting on some of the world’s most talked about species but almost always receive less coverage on the mainstream channels.
In order to understand what makes people stand up for a species that lives thousands of miles away that they have never, and probably will never see, when a similarly threatened species lives on their street, it seems we need to find out what makes the foreign species so appealing. I remember reading something similar when Stephen J. Gould asked a colleague to explain the appeal of dinosaurs during the “Dino-mania” that followed the release of Jurassic Park. His colleague replied something like: “Big, scary and extinct.” Perhaps not all of those attributes apply to all concerned species but one certainly might do soon.
So can we turn a sparrow into an albatross or a wildcat into a snow leopard?
Translating this to a lay audience can be tricky but can have some valuable rewards, especially when appealing to heritage and people’s nostalgia. (I can’t count the number of times I’ve been told “We used to have loads of Starlings in our garden.”)
It’s exciting to think that with some thought, some effort and a slice of creativity staying at home is the best thing you can do.
Best wishes,
Chris
Hello Carsten,
The same thoughts have crossed my mind more than once. I know that the argument is for bringing ‘new eyes’ and inherent in that is the need to travel. However, I would humbly contend that the eyes of someone attuned to a particular place and in love with it are far from ‘tired’ and that they are the ones attuned to a place.
This is central to the importance I see in photographing close to home and knowing your patch. There are ‘failed missions’ with Wild Wonders of Europe where species have simply not turned up or perhaps homework has not been done as well as it might and the things that make a place unique might have been overlooked. I know some exceptional Italian photographers, unknown and working on their own patch who could have brought more to the Gargano, for example. Others will not agree but…
Paul
Carsten,
I am sure that there are photographers who haven’t had the same experience as we’ve had in regards to working locally, but I have found it to be a very satisfying experience. I applaud you for your efforts in Ireland and it sounds as if your contacts and prospects for new work continues to grow. If a photographer can find a niche for themselves in their own region, it doesn’t take long for them to become the “go to” person for the kind of work that they do. This should be very encouraging to budding photographers in my opinion.
Regarding Wild Wonders: there are others who read this blog who would most likely be better suited to offer an opinion on what has and hasn’t work worked. However, I tend to agree with you and Paul in regards the positive outcomes that could have been received if local photographers had been used. Each and every part of the world just has so many nuances and secrets. I simply don’t believe that it is possible for a stranger to tap into that in just a matter of days.
______
Hello Chris,
Thank you for this eloquent comment. I agree that sometimes it is hard not to be swayed by the treasures of the tropics. And I would also agree with Paul’s earlier comment that macro photography definitely makes presenting something new so much easier in areas that are not pulsing with Jaguars and Macaws.
I personally find great satisfaction in making images which reveal species to people that they were completely unaware of beforehand. I recall a group of folks looking at one of my native tree frog images once and one of them immediately asked if it was taken in the rain forest. They didn’t realize that we have several species here in South Carolina. One of the best outcomes of this type of situation is when a sense of pride is nurtured in a viewer for their community’s natural treasures. On their own, bog turtles may not be that exciting, but when a farmer is told that his land harbors a very rare species of turtle that none his neighbors share, well…that’s something to talk about!