A Purist Viewpoint on Nature Photography

    Nature photography, as defined by the Photographic Society of America (PSA) rules, requires that there be no evidence of the hands of man. This prohibition has been much debated among photographers and the public alike. Usually the debate arises as a result of the contention that man is part of the natural world; and, therefore, man and his creations should be included in nature photography. From that assertion, it is not uncommon for the debate to splinter off into the philosophical argument of the origin of man. But the origin of man is irrelevant for the purpose of classification of photographs. Classification of anything depends upon a line drawn for inclusion or exclusion. The more narrow the definition line is drawn, the easier the task of classification. When classification is defined too broadly, then what is included and excluded becomes arbitrary and unreasonable.

    To draw a line that includes man in the definition of nature photography would also by definition include the hands of man. Of course, it is precisely the exclusion of the hands of man which many people find troublesome.  They feel that cultivated plants, such as hybrid roses, are as much a part of nature as a wildflower; a domesticated dog is as much a part of nature as an African wild dog, and so forth.  But what they do not contemplate is that such an inclusion would be too broad a definition.  For if man were included, then any photograph taken outdoors would be within the nature category: travel, adventure, environmental portraiture and even architecture.

    Most people would find it difficult to place Mount Rushmore in the same category as El Capitan. Yet both are stone and both are outdoors. And even more difficult for most people would be to place a swimsuit model on the beach in the same category as a crocodile sunning on the beach.  But under the more broadly defined "nature" category,  to exclude the Mount Rushmore and the swimsuit model photographs would be arbitrary and unreasonable. Under PSA rules, Mount Rushmore and the swimsuit model are both excluded from nature photography because both violate the hands of man prohibition..

    The line drawn by the PSA excludes man and/or manmade objects in the classification of nature photography with a few, narrow exceptions. Those narrow exceptions are for a wild animal (as a species) who has become so habituated to man’s world as to become associated with it. The sterling example is the Barn Owl which is photographed inside a barn. This exception would not extend, however, to a photograph of a Barn Owl on the handrail of a diving board, for the Barn Owl is not habituated to diving boards. Another exception is animals which are tagged, and collared in the wild but which otherwise remain free.

    The prohibition of the hands of man in the definition of a nature photograph makes it easier to classify photographs and makes for greater fairness in competitions. But the same definition should apply whether the photograph is in an exhibition or a competition. When people refer to any soft drink as a coke or any photocopy as a Xerox, confusion will necessarily follow. The same is true in nature photography.

                                                                                                            --Chris Varner