I interviewed Dave Wilson, a local photographer in Phoenix, Arizona.
1) How did you get involved with Nature and Landscape Photography tradition/art?
As a teen I used to hike a lot. I was also kind of a loner, so I’d head into the wilderness by myself. I would regularly see deer, elk, javelina and other wildlife. Later, when I would tell people what I saw they would muster up just enough enthusiasm to make me happy. “Hmm, neat,” they would say in an apathetic tone. I figured if I took pictures of wildlife and showed them to people, it would have more impact. So I began doing that. My first wildlife photos were absolutely terrible, but I learned quickly and when I started producing higher-quality images I began getting the responses I was looking for. “Holy cow!” people would say. “Where did you find that bighorn sheep? Is that near Tucson? How did you get so close?” I knew I was on to something.
Although my wildlife photos were very good, I would not say they were professional quality. It wasn’t until I graduated from the U of A and began working in Public Relations that I learned to shoot like a pro. During my 20 years in PR I photographed products, special events, buildings for lease/sale, and every type of business you can imagine, from law firms and doctor’s offices to car dealers and antique stores. That experience, combined with reading a ton of books on photography and taking an occasional class/workshop, is how I really learned to shoot.
I should also mention that switching from film to digital, which I did while in PR, also helped enormously. When you can immediately see what you just shot it’s easier to tell what did right or wrong, so the learning curve is steeper. Also, with film I was afraid to try new techniques because if I screwed up I’d have to call the client back days later, after the prints were developed, and request a re-shoot. Not acceptable. However, with a digital camera I’d experiment with tricky things like bouncing a flash off the ceiling or time exposures. If I screwed up I would know immediately, so I could immediately make an adjustment and re-take the photo properly. In short, going digital made me fearless.
Then, in 2005, I returned to the outdoors with my camera (digital by then). This time, however, it wasn’t to shoot wildlife, but rather landscapes. Unlike wildlife, which I basically approached as a hunter with a camera, I approached landscapes as an artist. The emphasis wasn’t on getting close enough for a “trophy shot”; it was on being creative and interesting enough to produce something that could rightly be called “art”.
So, in short, my enthusiasm for photography began with wildlife, my technical skills were acquired in PR, and my creativity was developed with nature/landscapes. All three of those things combined to make me the photographer I am today.
2) What are the most important things about Nature and Landscape Photography that you would want someone who is new to it to know?
Three things…
First, since the digital revolution the popularity of photography has skyrocketed. This is true of all types of photography, but none more than nature and landscapes. The biggest problem I see is that everyone shoots the same places in the same way. The real challenge, therefore, is being original. The world doesn’t need any more photos of Antelope Canyon, Horseshoe Bend or The Wave at Coyote Buttes. Go someplace else. Get off the beaten path. When doing so, keep in mind that it is not necessary to find places with big, glamorous scenery. A real nature photographer can wander into any landscape and come away with something spectacular. With hard work and a creative eye, a true artist can hike into even the most seemingly mundane environments and find something worth shooting. It may be as simple as a few flowers in quirky light, or a rock formation from a weird angle, but there is always something out there worth photographing. If you do go to the popular places (and everyone, myself included, does that at least some of the time), then at least find a different way of looking at them. Nobody will care about your photo of the Mitten Buttes at Monument Valley unless you find a perspective on them that no one else has seen.
Another huge issue is light. Many nature photographers don’t pay enough attention to it. They show up at some place at whatever time they happen to show up and take their shots at that time. Great nature photography isn’t about being at the right place. It’s about being at the right place at the right time. And the right time, of course, is when both the quality and direction of the light is good. Most days that means shooting at either dawn or sunset (the light will be soft and diffuse in either case, but the direction will be different in the morning than in the afternoon). Even people who acknowledge all of this often don’t acknowledge it enough. Get extreme about light. Realize that there is no such thing as the so-called “Golden Hour”. The last hour of the day, when the light starts to soften, should be called the “Silver Hour” because the light becomes good. If you want great light, shoot during the “Golden 10 Minutes” before dark, or at the crack of dawn, when the light is truly spectacular. Twilight is also an awesome time to shoot, and of course certain weather conditions like hazy or scattered clouds may produce great light at any time of day. Shooting in only great light may severely limit the number of shots you’ll get on any given day. That doesn’t matter. One spectacular shot as the sun is just barely touching the horizon is more valuable than 50 mediocre shots taken all throughout the day. That doesn’t mean you can’t be outside all day. You can. Use the middle of the day for exploration; to hike all over the place and find the very best spot for a photo. You can return to that spot later when the light is better.
Finally, it’s important to simplify. Too many photographers cram too many things into a single shot, resulting in cluttered compositions. You don’t always need big scenery with all sorts of stuff going on. Every photo should be about one thing, and one thing only. If a waterfall is the most spectacular thing in a landscape, then focus only on that. If the snow-capped peaks in the distance and amazing rock formation off to the right are equally spectacular, you might get better results if you shoot them all separately. That way you’ll end up with three great shots instead of one overly-busy shot. Of course, there are many times when two or more things in a landscape work together, or play off each other. For example, if you see a tree reflecting on a glassy-smooth lake, you’ll probably want to shoot both the tree and water. But even then, the tree and water come together to create one idea or concept (in this case, the single idea of “reflection”).
3) What are the most important examples of Nature and Landscape Photography? What are your favorites? Why?
This is a tough question for me because I don’t pay much attention to names. I notice great nature photographs all the time in shops, galleries, exhibitions and online, but I always forget who took them. That’s probably because any nature photo that is executed with great technical skill and is also highly original and interesting is important. It doesn’t matter who took it. If Caroline Lindsay has any photos with those qualities, then they are as important as any image by anyone else and may serve as an equally powerful inspiration to others. Really. My inspiration comes from unknown beginners and amateurs as much as from famous professionals. Everyone’s got at least one truly great shot, right? Greatness is in the photograph, not the signature down in the corner.
1) How did you get involved with Nature and Landscape Photography tradition/art?
As a teen I used to hike a lot. I was also kind of a loner, so I’d head into the wilderness by myself. I would regularly see deer, elk, javelina and other wildlife. Later, when I would tell people what I saw they would muster up just enough enthusiasm to make me happy. “Hmm, neat,” they would say in an apathetic tone. I figured if I took pictures of wildlife and showed them to people, it would have more impact. So I began doing that. My first wildlife photos were absolutely terrible, but I learned quickly and when I started producing higher-quality images I began getting the responses I was looking for. “Holy cow!” people would say. “Where did you find that bighorn sheep? Is that near Tucson? How did you get so close?” I knew I was on to something.
Although my wildlife photos were very good, I would not say they were professional quality. It wasn’t until I graduated from the U of A and began working in Public Relations that I learned to shoot like a pro. During my 20 years in PR I photographed products, special events, buildings for lease/sale, and every type of business you can imagine, from law firms and doctor’s offices to car dealers and antique stores. That experience, combined with reading a ton of books on photography and taking an occasional class/workshop, is how I really learned to shoot.
I should also mention that switching from film to digital, which I did while in PR, also helped enormously. When you can immediately see what you just shot it’s easier to tell what did right or wrong, so the learning curve is steeper. Also, with film I was afraid to try new techniques because if I screwed up I’d have to call the client back days later, after the prints were developed, and request a re-shoot. Not acceptable. However, with a digital camera I’d experiment with tricky things like bouncing a flash off the ceiling or time exposures. If I screwed up I would know immediately, so I could immediately make an adjustment and re-take the photo properly. In short, going digital made me fearless.
Then, in 2005, I returned to the outdoors with my camera (digital by then). This time, however, it wasn’t to shoot wildlife, but rather landscapes. Unlike wildlife, which I basically approached as a hunter with a camera, I approached landscapes as an artist. The emphasis wasn’t on getting close enough for a “trophy shot”; it was on being creative and interesting enough to produce something that could rightly be called “art”.
So, in short, my enthusiasm for photography began with wildlife, my technical skills were acquired in PR, and my creativity was developed with nature/landscapes. All three of those things combined to make me the photographer I am today.
2) What are the most important things about Nature and Landscape Photography that you would want someone who is new to it to know?
Three things…
First, since the digital revolution the popularity of photography has skyrocketed. This is true of all types of photography, but none more than nature and landscapes. The biggest problem I see is that everyone shoots the same places in the same way. The real challenge, therefore, is being original. The world doesn’t need any more photos of Antelope Canyon, Horseshoe Bend or The Wave at Coyote Buttes. Go someplace else. Get off the beaten path. When doing so, keep in mind that it is not necessary to find places with big, glamorous scenery. A real nature photographer can wander into any landscape and come away with something spectacular. With hard work and a creative eye, a true artist can hike into even the most seemingly mundane environments and find something worth shooting. It may be as simple as a few flowers in quirky light, or a rock formation from a weird angle, but there is always something out there worth photographing. If you do go to the popular places (and everyone, myself included, does that at least some of the time), then at least find a different way of looking at them. Nobody will care about your photo of the Mitten Buttes at Monument Valley unless you find a perspective on them that no one else has seen.
Another huge issue is light. Many nature photographers don’t pay enough attention to it. They show up at some place at whatever time they happen to show up and take their shots at that time. Great nature photography isn’t about being at the right place. It’s about being at the right place at the right time. And the right time, of course, is when both the quality and direction of the light is good. Most days that means shooting at either dawn or sunset (the light will be soft and diffuse in either case, but the direction will be different in the morning than in the afternoon). Even people who acknowledge all of this often don’t acknowledge it enough. Get extreme about light. Realize that there is no such thing as the so-called “Golden Hour”. The last hour of the day, when the light starts to soften, should be called the “Silver Hour” because the light becomes good. If you want great light, shoot during the “Golden 10 Minutes” before dark, or at the crack of dawn, when the light is truly spectacular. Twilight is also an awesome time to shoot, and of course certain weather conditions like hazy or scattered clouds may produce great light at any time of day. Shooting in only great light may severely limit the number of shots you’ll get on any given day. That doesn’t matter. One spectacular shot as the sun is just barely touching the horizon is more valuable than 50 mediocre shots taken all throughout the day. That doesn’t mean you can’t be outside all day. You can. Use the middle of the day for exploration; to hike all over the place and find the very best spot for a photo. You can return to that spot later when the light is better.
Finally, it’s important to simplify. Too many photographers cram too many things into a single shot, resulting in cluttered compositions. You don’t always need big scenery with all sorts of stuff going on. Every photo should be about one thing, and one thing only. If a waterfall is the most spectacular thing in a landscape, then focus only on that. If the snow-capped peaks in the distance and amazing rock formation off to the right are equally spectacular, you might get better results if you shoot them all separately. That way you’ll end up with three great shots instead of one overly-busy shot. Of course, there are many times when two or more things in a landscape work together, or play off each other. For example, if you see a tree reflecting on a glassy-smooth lake, you’ll probably want to shoot both the tree and water. But even then, the tree and water come together to create one idea or concept (in this case, the single idea of “reflection”).
3) What are the most important examples of Nature and Landscape Photography? What are your favorites? Why?
This is a tough question for me because I don’t pay much attention to names. I notice great nature photographs all the time in shops, galleries, exhibitions and online, but I always forget who took them. That’s probably because any nature photo that is executed with great technical skill and is also highly original and interesting is important. It doesn’t matter who took it. If Caroline Lindsay has any photos with those qualities, then they are as important as any image by anyone else and may serve as an equally powerful inspiration to others. Really. My inspiration comes from unknown beginners and amateurs as much as from famous professionals. Everyone’s got at least one truly great shot, right? Greatness is in the photograph, not the signature down in the corner.