Since the beginning …
Since the beginning of my “pro” digital photography life (back in 2009) , I wanted to get some outside confirmation that my photography was any good. So I chose to compete in the local camera club competitions.
The camera club only allowed nature photographs. The club defined a nature photograph as a photograph of nature that did not have evidence of hand of man, as defined below. So, I have looked mostly to create nature images, eliminating such hand of man images from my own artistic consideration.
“Nature photography is restricted to the use of the photographic process to depict observations from all branches of natural history, except anthropology and archaeology, in such a fashion that a well informed person will be able to identify the subject material and to certify as to its honest presentation. The story telling value of a photograph must be weighed more than the pictorial quality. Human elements shall not be present, except on the rare occasion where those human elements enhance the nature story. The presence of scientific bands on wild animals is acceptable. Photographs of artificially produced hybrid plants or animals, mounted specimens, or obviously set arrangements, are ineligible, as is any form of manipulation, manual or digital, that alters the truth of the photographic statement.”
— The Hand of Man as defined by the Photographic Society of America
What changed my mind? In the voting for my top photographs of 2017, the image above was in the top four, and, there were two people (that I know of) who liked this image the best. Is there a problem? Yes, the fire on the beach is definitely hand of man!
I have essentially been keeping most of my hand of man images unpublished.
So now, I am going to go through my hard drive inventory of nature type images that contain hand of man, and I will share that collection with you.
Thank you for you support over the years, and for the voting for a campfire that has given me a new thought.
I hope you will enjoy whatever comes next! 🙂