| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/31/2006 08:44:47 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
I've had the good fortune to be able to shoot at Pug-Mark Park twice now, and have come away with several images that I'm very proud of (for me, anyway). I put a couple on a different website that I visit occasionally, mostly to get feedback and for the picture to compete in their daily photo contests. One of the pictures I posted was this one:
which I've titled (both here and at the other site) "Mmmm...Photographer...My Favorite!" I titled it that purely as a humor attempt because of him licking his chops.
Imagine my surprise when I find this comment on my picture this morning:
"Good clarity and color in this image. A bit too center-middle. But, overall a good image. Unfortunately, the image is wrecked by the accompanying text. You may have already figured out my dislike for zoo animal images presented as if they were captured in the wild. Makes it ten times worse when the photographer claims imminent danger and risk from capturing the shot. Truth be told, the animal in danger and fear here is the tiger. Since you have not told us this image was captured in an accredited facility, we don't know if the level of care offered to this confined animal met humane veterinary standards."
I replied to him so he could know exactly where the image was taken...this is my reply, verbatim:
"This image (as well as my other tiger images) was captured at a rescue facility in McKinney TX (Pug-Mark Park; //jazzdiver.com/pugmarkpark/index.htm and the animals there are treated with the utmost care. I can assure you that he is not in danger (nor are the other two tigers in care at the facility) and my choice of title was simply a humorous choice, being that I was really close to the tiger and he was licking his chops after just waking up and getting a drink of water. I am not aware of your dislike of zoo animal images presented as if they were captured in the wild, and I did not intend for this image offend anyone. I, unfortunately, do not have the opportunity to photograph animals like this in the wild so I do the best I can with what I have."
[COLOR="Magenta"]
He replied again with:[/COLOR]
"First of all, I love wildlife photos from zoos and aquariums, if the hosting facility is given credit for providing the opportunity to the photographer. It is not too cool to present an image as if it was captured in the wild... denying the hosting facility the credit it is due. There are a lot of very fine zoos and aquariums in this country and there are some horrible menageries. Here is a list of accredited facilities in TX. //www.aza.org/FindZooAquarium/index.cfm?page=zoostate&st=TX
I don't see McKinney,TX listed as having a zoo with accreditation. Please let me know if you have information indicating this is a good place for animals."
So...I can't understand what the problem is, but I've obviously offended his delicate sensibilities. I don't know this guy from Adam, though linking to his website I see that he's a landscape and wildlife photographer (of the real kind, not zoos, obviously). I guess he feels I should know who he is and more about the protocol and etiquette of posting wildlife shots.
My question is this... did I do something wrong? Are we breaking some weird unwritten photographer's code by trying to capture images of these cats in a facility that might not be accredited, and by capturing images of them appearing to be in the wild instead of in a cage? Am I being overly sensitive? I just don't understand what the problem could be...or maybe it's just PMS and I'm overly emotional right now. ;) |
What more do you expect from liberals? |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:41:53 PM · #27 |
OK, I feel better now I think. I didn't enjoy being called out like that but I guess there's always "one" in every online forum.
Except for here, of course! ;)
Thanks for the support. I just wanted to know I wasn't crazy.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 10:05:44 PM · #28 |
i have hidden posts in this thread that name the commenter in question. this user was not being "called out" and has no reason to have his or her name posted.
i remind EVERYONE that personal attacks of any kind are not permitted on this site. if a user is being antagonized, report the post. do not try to add fuel to the fire.
Message edited by author 2006-07-31 22:06:15. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 10:12:27 PM · #29 |
The San Antonio Zoo has AZA accreditation. They keep their snow leopards in a concrete and wire cage, not much bigger than my master suite, outside in the Texas heat. This is approved containment, per the AZA. I personally think it is less than humane. AZA certification is not the end-all, be-all of proper animal care, though they do make a good start. There are many small, very well run facilities that prefer to invest their time, energy and money into making life better for the animals, rather than pursue AZA accreditation, which can be a lengthy and political process.
Message edited by author 2006-07-31 22:13:58. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 10:12:37 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Thanks for the support. I just wanted to know I wasn't crazy. |
While the latter is debatable* I do stand by the former.
The fellow is a nut, imo you went above and beyond by replying to him - you should also reply as a comment on your image so others can see the reply.
* :P
I'm teasing, laurie is not crazy :)
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 10:15:56 PM · #31 |
I am all for the humane treatment of animals and photographers so I am torn on this one.
It would be cool though to go to a zoo and they had a film photogrpaher as a "endangered species" exibit. The quote on the sign could say "Many attempts at breading in captivity have failed. Our conservation efforts include natural habitats full of nude posing models, still life fruit, dead bugs and flowers. Nothing however has resulted in successful reproduction. Green M&M's and grants from Fuji and Kodak have begun to yield promising results."
Message edited by author 2006-07-31 22:18:53. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:09:20 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
My question is this... did I do something wrong? ... Am I being overly sensitive? I just don't understand what the problem could be...or maybe it's just PMS and I'm overly emotional right now. ;) |
You're not the one who'se overly emotional about the issue. It may just be the other person envy's your photographic ability (I wish I could do as well as you did).
I like feeling of the picture, you went beyond just getting all the technical details right--you did a great job of capturing the tiger's personality (if personality is the right word).
Message edited by author 2006-07-31 23:09:43. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:16:50 PM · #33 |
Taken at an AZA accreditated facility:
 
:P
Message edited by author 2006-07-31 23:17:26. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:36:57 PM · #34 |
Change your photo comments to:
"I was out just driving around in my Suburban cuz I had nothing better to do when I saw this animal through the fence along the road in the corner of the wildlife park. I pulled off the road across some lame flower garden to get a closer look, snapped this photo, then reached in the back seat and pulled out my trusty Mini-14 assault rifle and fired about 30 rounds right into its ass! You shoulda seen the look on his face! I swear it was the most fun I had all week!"
I suspect he would die of a stroke or coronary before he got a chance to comment.
Feel free to cut & paste. ;-) |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:42:55 PM · #35 |
| I agree with NOVA....... "he's a nutcase". Don't waste your time with people like this who have nothing better to do then pick a fight for some moronic reason. Do reply to emails, etc. There are all types out here, and this guy sounds like one of them. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:45:33 PM · #36 |
Just remove the title/comments - they have no case to begin with except their assumptions then :)
or
rename it to "Uncle Toby" and let them guess ;) |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:48:08 PM · #37 |
6 Letters...2 words for this guy:
BITE ME!
Ignore him. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:49:16 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by slickchik:
6 Letters...2 words for this guy:
BITE ME!
Ignore him. |
Yeah. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:51:33 PM · #39 |
screw him and forget about it.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:56:57 PM · #40 |
I'd just send him this...
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:57:01 PM · #41 |
He's just jealous that you took a GORGEOUS photo!!! I think he has a stick up his A$$... If he doesnt like it, he doesnt have to look at it and it shows poor form and professionalism for him to degrade you in that way.... 3 points off for him!
By the way... again.... GORGEOUS shot!!
And another thing.... LOVE the title!
Message edited by author 2006-08-01 00:01:50.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2006 12:00:46 AM · #42 |
| i'd tell him, "good luck having that stick removed from your ass." and never worry about him again. |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 12:03:22 AM · #43 |
| Blow it off.....its a beautiful photo. I am a University of Memphis Tigers fan. I have tried many times to get some good shots of our tigers at the zoo, but I have never taken one as beautiful as that. |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 12:08:26 AM · #44 |
Well, after a long abscence from this site...I am back. LOL
I love your photo. I think that any "normal" person would realize from your title of the image that it was meant to be humour, and when you mention standing back from the fence, it is obvious you are not portraying it as being in the wild.
Don't worry about it. Keep posting and doing what you normally do. For the one person who may not agree with you, there are thousands that do. :)
Ernie
//www.bassphotographics.com |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 07:53:24 AM · #45 |
Did I overlook something in this thread, or was it not brought up? Is it possible that part of this guy's problem was that the image was not identifiable as an image of a "captured" animal vs one in the wild?
I'm not trying to stick up for him across the board, he could have presented himself quite differently, as has been pointed out.
A couple of things come to mind. I remember reading a photography book by Galen Rowell and he discussed at one point, a general disdain toward "wildlife" images taken and presented as true "wildlife" photos when they were actually taken at an animal park or other controlled areas (but not disclosed as such). I point this out only because he's a fairly well known professional going back some time. Could be a mindset of his generation of outdoor photographers. I think he still writes a column for Outdoor Photography magazine.
Also, do any of you remember the rather heated discussions about wildlife vs zoo images for a recent challenge?
Again, not trying to be this guy's defender - however, I do think there is an "ethical" ingredient that persists in the world of outdoor/wildlife photography; right or wrong.
BTW, I don't consider myself a "liberal" (as anyone who knows me will attest), but there are other sides/viewpoints to situations in many cases. This may be one. JMO. |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 08:06:40 AM · #46 |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 08:06:43 AM · #47 |
Your image is wonderful and no one would have known it was taken at a zoo unless you truthful said it was. When I post a photo I have taken from a zoo I always note that it was taken under control situations. That way the elitist wildlife photographers don't go crazy. :)
|
|
|
|
08/01/2006 08:07:48 AM · #48 |
He needs a hug... from a tree! :-)
Don't worry over it, it's a great photo and one you should be proud of. |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 08:14:58 AM · #49 |
I think it depends on where you post. Someplace like here people expect photographs of animals like tigers or lions or elephants are going to be from a controlled environment like a zoo. It goes unsaid. Some other sites the photographers very well may have access to 'real' wild animals. As glad2 mentioned, there are some wildlife photographers that demand an image be labeled as a captive animal. I guess if you have two pictures of a tiger, one from the wild and one from a zoo (or similar), presented together then some may say they would be unfairly judged because one involved danger and 'real' photography and the other didnt. Silly to some, but I guess to others it's taking the impact of what they do away.
Of course the person seems to have based their initial comment on their own personal opinion of zoos and the like. That to me just seems outdated. Zoos have changed a lot from the days of being concrete cages and a sideshow carnival. Not all zoos have updated, but they are in the process of doing so. There are also some amazing zoos out there. People get too concerned with the welfare of the animal and think being in a cage and gawked at is terrible and they should all be free in the wild... free in the wild to become an endangered species because of environmental destruction and man killing them for numerous reasons. Yes, I'm a liberal. If someone is so against zoos I encourage them to do something about the state of the world so that animals dont need zoos (or similar) in order to survive.
If the place you posted has rules (written or otherwise) that state you should label such shots as captive then that isnt a big deal. If they dont and you dont want to then just chalk up the person's comment as personal opinion and disregard what you dont particularly care for.
PS to glad2 - Galen Rowell died in 2002.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2006 08:17:05 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by TrynityRose:
... PS to glad2 - Galen Rowell died in 2002. |
Thanks for the update. Guess he's not writing for Outdoor Photography anymore then. :(
edit to add the following link: Mountain Light Photography: About Galen Rowell
Message edited by author 2006-08-01 08:33:48. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/21/2025 03:50:19 AM EDT.
