It is not always easy to distinguish clearly between a photographic category and another one: often the interpretation is not in the ability to identify the real subject of the photography, but in photographer’s intention.
It is the case of distinction between nature and landscape photography (about which I already talked here). The boundary between nature and landscape photography is so evanescent that, in someone’s opinion, the second one is included in the first one’s field, together with macrophotography. Summarizing, nature photography has the primary purpose of documenting flora and fauna in their natural environment; in landscape photography, instead, the place is the protagonist in its whole totality and complexity.
Often the favourite subjects of nature photographs are wild animals. To photograph them, however, long posts and a lot of patience could not be enough, so one resorts to the so called “photo-traps”, little photographic infrared stations, not invasive, that permit to photograph animals entering in the sensor’s range. The traps for photographers are so much useful to make sure of the presence of local species that otherwise would be almost impossible to observe them.
In general, there where the development of a phenomenon or the presence of animals in their habitat is documented, one speaks about nature photography. About nature photography, what are your experiences?