I returned from the NANPA Show in Portland on Sunday and am rather surprised, considering the number of landscape shooters in the forum, that there has been no mention of the show or the seminars or event at NANPA.
Does this mean that there are no participants here that attended the show? Or does this mean that no one who attended found anything worth passing on?
I am a former NANPA member and attended the Summit a couple years ago in Las Vegas. Even though I live in the Portland area, I chose not to attend this year. Since I attended the Summit in Vegas, I have had a major career change. I have returned to working as a full time engineer and let my NANPA membership lapse. I did consider attending this year's Summit, but did not see anything on the program that really jumped out at me as something I shouldn't miss. With increased demands on my time (job, family, etc.), I really have to choose when and where I participate. This is a direct reflection on my personal circumstances and not meant as a condemnation of NANPA. I enjoyed the Summit in Las Vegas and was glad I went. I will condiser going again in the future, if my schedule permits and the location and programs appeal to me.
I know that Tuan attended part of the Summit. I had lunch with him last Wednesday. I also know he was headed to Yellowstone and the Tetons immediately after NANPA. Perhaps he'll share his thoughts when he returns from his trip.
What was you'll general impression of the Summit? I know you've been attending these for years. Any idea how the attendance compared to past years? It is unfortunate that they chose the month of January to hold the conference in Oregon. That is absolutely the worst time of year for weather around here. I know several workshops were scheduled before and after the conference. I hope the weather didn't spoil it for some. While I applaud NANPA's effort to try new venues, I think a conference in Oregon would be much better received if it was held in May or September than in January. January is the height of our legendary rainy season. Combine that with the short days, the lack of blooming plants and fall colors and it is far from the optimal time for landscape photography in NW Oregon. Not that it's impossible to get good shots at this time of year (my best selling Oregon image was taken in January), just that the odds are not favorable.
As I am interested in attending future NANPA events, I would like to hear from anyone who attended this years conference. What were your general impressions of the Summit? Was it worthwhile? What did you like? What could be improved?
I only saw the trade show part so I can't comment on the other events. Except for slow mornings the trade show part was pretty busy. I have not heard the final head count. There did seem to be a larger number of new members and one day visiters. Especially one day passes on Friday and Saturday.
Well, I'll bite. I've been a large-format (and landscape) photographer for over twenty years, on the net for five, and have never heard of NANPA before. Can someone explain who they are and what they do?
> NANPA North American Nature Photography Association. They are out of > CO. www.nanpa.org Primarily landscape and wildlife and nature >photographers
It has never been clear to me why landscape photography should automatically come under the scope of 'Nature Photography'. For example I would think that Bruce Barnbaum or Michael A. Smith would not consider themselves to be nature photographers, even thought they make photographs of the natural environment.
I know I'm probably spliting hairs here but I feel like that conceptually, photographers that consider themselves to be be nature photographers that photograph the landscape are motivated to so so for different reasons than say a photographer that categorizes their work as fine art photography. Edward Weston comes to mind as a photographer that probably wouldn't have considered their work as nature photography.
Often I think that nature photographers are motivated to make a 'pretty photography' and fine art workers have other internalized or abstracted reasons for depicting the natural landscape.
I apologize if I'm trying to make the nature photographers work sound trite, that is not my intent, but many times I think it is interpreted that way.
Having said all of the above I think is very difficult for any photographer to make landscape photographs that add to the genre and receive only passing glances by seasoned viewers.
"It has never been clear to me why landscape photography should automatically come under the scope of 'Nature Photography'. For example I would think that Bruce Barnbaum or Michael A. Smith would not consider themselves to be nature photographers, even thought they make photographs of the natural environment."
Also, nature photographers and groups such as NANPA have "codes of ethics" to do with manipulation of a photograph (either before or after exposure), whether you were photographing a stuffed or "domesticated" wild animal and so on.
All very good, but things that just aren't an issue to lots of landscape photographers - if that ugly garbage can is in the way, move it (or conversely, if it's not in the right place and you want it, move it front and centre...). You thought you had got rid of that power line- darn, it's still there - then Photoshop it out. Or perhaps persuade that guy with the front loader to move it just into frame. The (perhaps apocryphal) story of Picker and his chainsaw comes to mind.
The point being that in some ways nature photographers often see themselves coming out of a documentary/nature journalism background, where serious manipulation is seen as fraud. Many landscape photographers come from - lets say - an arts/creative background and though they may work in a "documentary style" they aren't documentary photographers. They are trying to convey something, but not necessarily the facts. If they were painting or sketching the same landscape, they would add, move or leave things out at will. They bring a similar approach with their camera. In that sense, they often don't fit with the nature photography crowd.
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
I attended only on Thursday. Although I did pick up a bit of information and made a few useful connections, in general I did not learn much. Based on my experience in participating very actively in a different community before (the computer vision research community), I could see that the more you attend, know people, and get involved (for instance by giving presentations instead of just attending), the more interesting such meetings would be. Otherwise there are just too many participants with disparate interests and skills.
The admission price was fairly high (3x the View Camera Conference). In general, the benefits of joining NANPA are fairly limited. However, there is a decent equipment insurance program, and the Fedex discount available to members has more than paid for my membership.
PS. Bob, I saw your name on the exhibitor's list and stopped by to say hello, but at that time someone else was manning your booth.
My reason for not going to the Summit (and belonging to NANPA)? I'm a partial landowner (from my in-law's side) and that land is used for ranching and farming. Items 4, 7 and 8 listed in NANPA's Environmental Statement(http://www.nanpa.org/docs/EnvironmentalStatement.pdf) are at odds with this fact. I've been documenting via LF photography for a personal project the remaining artifacts of the culture that has existed on this land for 100+ years. Old buildings, machinery, landforms, etc. Not sure how much longer it will exist in its current use. I do not feel compelled to contribute to that demise with my money.
The only trouble with doin' nothing is you can't tell when you get caught up
The only trouble with doin' nothing is you can't tell when you get caught up
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks