Is Your Wildlife Photography Art, Science, a Combination of the Two, or Something Else?

Thought this would be an interesting poll. Hope I can list it on the Wildlife Talk forum too.

If you don't see a choice that describes you, just let us know.
It doesn't cost to play.

.

Let me first say that I think this is a really great topic, and I am quite glad that you introduced it.

Larry Johnson wrote in post #17423606
If you don't see a choice that describes you, just let us know.

Ok, the most obvious choice would be the one that describes me.......yet, it is not here!

That choice would be:

I consider my wildlife/bird photography to put an equal emphasis on producing artful images and on documenting physical characteristics and behavior of my wild subjects.

I don't put more emphasis on the art, nor do I put more emphasis on the science. They are equal to me. And what I really love to do is to combine both in one image! Opportunities to do so are rare, but it sure is special when it happens!

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17426928
I consider my wildlife/bird photography to put an equal emphasis on producing artful images and on documenting physical characteristics and behavior of my wild subjects.

I picked the closest choice available from the list but I have to agree with Tom and how he approaches wildlife photography.

I do separate my backyard and in the field though...my backyard is more of a practice area but out in the field I keep things natural without using bait, lures or perches. I bought a long lens for this reason because my subjects are more at ease when a camera isn't shoved in their face so to speak.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17426928
.


I consider my wildlife/bird photography to put an equal emphasis on producing artful images and on documenting physical characteristics and behavior of my wild subjects.

I don't put more emphasis on the art, nor do I put more emphasis on the science. They are equal to me. And what I really love to do is to combine both in one image! Opportunities to do so are rare, but it sure is special when it happens!

Duane N wrote in post #17429845
I picked the closest choice available from the list but I have to agree with Tom and how he approaches wildlife photography.

Well, I think then that both of you are in category 2 like myself and all the other responders thus far. It wasn't my intent to categorize us, but just to try and understand how the photographers on this forum view their photography. Honestly, just a few days prior to creating this pole, I stated that I consider mine more science than art, but I chose number 2 instead of number 3. I have a science and limited hunting background, and I certainly don't consider myself an artist, but maybe that's what I'm becoming. I also have to admit that, from time to time, it does seem just like hunting, but I dno't believe that's why I pursue it.

I grew up in Montana and Wyoming.... in a culture of hunting and fishing. My dad had to hunt and fish for food when he was growing up so he hated both. As a result, I was able to teach myself to fish but not to hunt.

Perhaps, photography is my latent hunting gene coming out, I don't know. I do know, I love wildlife photography. I enjoy being out in nature and I like the observation process, i.e., learning the habits of the birds. So far, I've concentrated on bird photography because that's what's near me. Well, I've photographed gators, but they don't count. They just lie around during the day.

I try to make my photographs pleasing to my eyes and to convey the beauty of the birds, etc. I agree with Tom: if I'm there at the right time, I get to capture the action.