In this chapter from one of Freeman Patterson's books on photography, two main approaches to nature photography are compared. One is documentary, and the other is interpretive. Patterson explains that there is no solid line separating these two approaches, and a photographer should create their own ideas on them. I'm glad I picked this chapter to read, because it gave me lots of new information. I was especially interested in the documentary approach, because most of what we learned in class was about drawing meaning and emotion from a photo, which falls in the interpretive category. Documentary sounds to me like photographing things in their natural habitat, capturing their characteristics - how an animal lives, or in what environment a certain plant usually grows. It seems like it'd be a nice break from having to deduce a meaning from a picture, as it's more scientific. Personally, I like both types of nature photography (not that I'm experienced or anything, just from what I've seen). Something that surprised me is that Patterson didn't seem to have a preference. No opinions came across in the chapter. He was simply educating the reader, leaving them to form their own opinions and try each approach with an open mind.
Patterson, Freeman. Photography of Natural Things. Toronto: Key Porter, 1982.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I thought the distinction between documentary photos and interpretive photos was really helpful in thinking about and viewing photos. Sometimes, you see photos that truly do not seem to have a statement attached to them--they are simply documenting something, and it is a relief to know that these photos are just as legitimate as interpretive photos, and are simply a different type of photograph. Also, I think it's good to be able to distinguish the difference between a documentary photo and an interpretive photo, so that you don't try to read meaning into a documentary photo that was taken without a particular meaning in mind.
I like how this opens up a new area of photography besides what we have done in class. I think I personally like both. I believe that you need a balence between those two different styles of photo. I have a question, does this only apply to nature?
Carolyn-
Well, the book was about nature photography, but I think it could apply to other things too. For example, you could do a documentary photo of a classroom that would show how it functions, and students at work. But then you could also do an interpretive one, that shows an emotion within the room.
I agree with you Lida. It kind of sounds like you could take a picture of anything in it's "natural habitat", not just nature. I really like how the two different types are so drasticaly different, but are both so cool. They both apply to human senses so well. One is deep and emotional while the other is more on the surface but just as important and cool. I think the two options open a lot of doors. Some things need to be deep and emotional with meaning that needs to be interpreted, others don't. I love your post Lida! i really learned a lot!
Post a Comment