Hmmm, I think to tell "their" part of the story is what the world wants to see through our images. Again, I would say when we create abstracts, it is us or me which gets portrayed in the image, knowingly or unknowingly. Documenting with aesthetics and reasons may be an approach to show " their " part of the story and not ours. I tried that in Corbett series but again with my interpretations. I think even when Steve McCurry narrates " their " story in his images, it has his interpretations somewhere in the images. Every character a writer creates is based on his imagination. He regulates them according to his desires or purpose. Myself , Debi and Abhisek spent an evening seeing Nirvair's recent images he created in SriLanka while he was on this National Geographic show. Some unbelievable images showing his deep connections to portray those he visualized. The portraits for example, not only showing them as they are but also how he saw them, or how he wants the world to see them. I guess, while making human images, it is so important for a photographer to become a part of the subject himself, get into the same groove as the subjects and then shoot. If the subject portrays something else and the photographer shows something else, then the creation dies there only. In nature, while we create abstracts we certainly do the opposite. We imagine so much, we stretch our imaginations just so much....at times I feel, is it logical to do it ? Our writings, our interpretations, our aesthetics begin to rule the image than what is actually happening in nature. Nature becomes the second class citizen at times . But again we do not want documentary images, and animals express through behaviors which can be understood by documenting only.... Are some of our images like the haircut people try on their dogs and cats ?? Are we not too altering what nature wants us to understand ? If cutting down a tree or poaching is a crime or insensitivity shown by people in nature, altering nature's character in our images too might be a similar felony ??
I guess am beginning to understand that even creativity should be limited to a stage till where it serves the purpose. What is my role in this structure ? Me, my vision, or nature ??

Yes, there are more questions than the answers there. I was trying to get back to Neelu's questions about 'self copy' and single look and feel. Summary being, I think, being able to create only one type of mood isn't effective at all. May be that is what our core strength is but then who would want to see 100 similar looking images ? Quickly it will be boring. Sure, one can create as many images for personal consumption then the message becomes weaker - ya, you told that so many times, so what? - after some time. That is why I think just autobiographies aren't good enough. Looking at Steve's works there are as many sad images as happy ones, basically images that convey different moods. Can't we do that in our genre still retaining qualities of art in our creations ?

"Can't we do that in our genre still retaining qualities of art in our creations ?"....... we have to learn to do that Ganshi.We can not hide behind discussions on tones and grains and nice light or good composition. Those are inherent things which should accompany every image....aesthetics. The various moods and emotions and purpose that you are speaking of has to be the core area of competency. The images should show the purpose...and we must learn to create them while retaining every bit of aesthetics and artistic approach.
I told you that I was not feeling sure in Bharatpur about what I want....the cloud is clearing up Ganesh, I wish to be back to Bharatpur again now .

I guess, while making human images, it is so important for a photographer to become a part of the subject himself, get into the same groove as the subjects and then shoot. If the subject portrays something else and the photographer shows something else, then the creation dies there only. In nature, while we create abstracts we certainly do the opposite. We imagine so much, we stretch our imaginations just so much....at times I feel, is it logical to do it ? Our writings, our interpretations, our aesthetics begin to rule the image than what is actually happening in nature. Nature becomes the second class citizen at times . But again we do not want documentary images, and animals express through behaviors which can be understood by documenting only.... Are some of our images like the haircut people try on their dogs and cats ?? Are we not too altering what nature wants us to understand ? If cutting down a tree or poaching is a crime or insensitivity shown by people in nature, altering nature's character in our images too might be a similar felony ??

Bravo. this is what i have been trying to ask on the Radha's image thread with very little success in articulation
thanks Nilanjan da. And i know what i have to do going forward too.

superb discussions, for me at least. thanks all!
A

PS: Just one thing on steve mccurry. i used to be a big fan of his. HUGE fan. until i learned he stages some of his photos. he makes his subjects do certain things until he "gets" the shot. i even met someone who thought all photographers were that insensitive. ever since, unfortunately, i can never look at his pictures in the same way.

This discussion and also the other thread Arati shared in her earlier comment in this chain has really been very evocative...I shud personally thank Neelu for bringing up the topic here..

My wife had been complaining that she doesn't like any of those "same" gloomy images that I have been making...but being the typical hubby (no offense meant to any of the hubbies here ) and probably being a bit narcissistic, I have been brushing those complaints aside...but looking back I am not sure if making images as i felt is a good enough reason...I think we do have a responsibility towards our viewers and need to have a diverse offering to hold on to the interest of the viewer to this genre of Nature photography...

But that apart...bigger question probably is whether ascribing or coloring a particular incidence happening in front of us with our perceptions is acceptable or not? I was very happy earlier making this image :
gallery/image_page.php?album_id=1&image_id=6914

But no longer now
I think I need to find a more grounded reason towards making any image...am sure all these discussions will help shape that vision...Thanks everybody for sharing their views...

I think there are two aspects in style/signature.
1. physical/ visual aesthetics part- like composition, colour or monochrome, how much hues and saturation, blurred or sharp or shaken etc.
This carries more weight while recognising a style.
2. emotional/ content part- It is what artist wants to say through his/her work. From the choice of subject like birds or mammals or macro to love/ affection towards his/her subject shown in the images artists senses differ from individual to individual.
When the latter part is ignored a style becomes self copy. When one masters a technique it becomes relatively easy to make images with that technique (which is called style). But when the emotional content which was the essential part of the initial images is absent in the images image becomes a self copy with no artistic value.