| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/01/2006 08:24:17 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
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. ;-) |
LOL, would love to here that guy's response if this was sent :D |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 08:31:45 AM · #52 |
I've heard of this as well. I've read in several places that zoo animals "should" be labelled as such when presented. I highlight the word should because you are not a professional wildlife photographer and would have no way of knowing an unspoken "rule".
Originally posted by glad2badad:
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. |
Message edited by author 2006-08-01 08:32:18. |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 02:01:40 PM · #53 |
If I may go OT and ask a photography question :-)
Laurie, The notes say that you uses a 75-300 IS at f/5.6. How close were you? (A lot of reviews say that that lens is soft above 200mm). |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 02:12:22 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by hankk:
If I may go OT and ask a photography question :-)
Laurie, The notes say that you uses a 75-300 IS at f/5.6. How close were you? (A lot of reviews say that that lens is soft above 200mm). |
I was probably 15-20 feet away on that shot...some were closer than others. I'm a horrible judge of distance. I just know was just almost too close for comfort. ;)
I rarely have problems with softness above 200mm in good light. I think the lens gets a bad rap, personally, and love using it. Nearly all the animal shots in my portfolio were with that lens. :)
|
|
|
|
08/01/2006 02:24:52 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
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. |
To be honest this type of mindset seems kind of snobish (not yours, the photographer you are refering to and the one that commented on the OPs photo) I can understand if someone was saying they were in the wild but wern't but the idea that a shot like the one here has to be qualified is silly. I tend to be a bit of a jerk, but the OP responeded to that tool alot better than I would have. so do wildlife photographers that drive around in a jeep have to qualify thier photos because they could have jumped in a drove away as opposed to the crazy photog that hiked 3 days with no outsdie contact and only shot with a 50mm lens to get his close up shots. (BTW I love to read about these type of psycho photogs)
Message edited by author 2006-08-01 14:25:39. |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 02:27:45 PM · #56 |
I'm late the party, but agree you did nothing wrong. It's just a picture of a tiger, and I don't see anywhere that you were trying to pass it off as taken in the wild, at a zoo or from a box of Frosted Flakes. Tell him the tiger later choked on a lobster tail at an approved facility, and you made a camera bag from its pelt. ;-)
Message edited by author 2006-08-01 14:30:21. |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 02:42:30 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by specialk0783:
What more do you expect from liberals? |
This is prejudiced and completely uncalled-for -- what do your politcal biases have to do with the issue at hand?
Please remember that name-calling and thread-hijacking both violate the forum and site rules. |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 02:49:57 PM · #58 |
IMO, the photographer raised legitimate issues in a less-than-tactful way. Not much point in arguing it anymore, if you believe the animals are well-off.
The photographer has a legitimate personal financial concern as a professional wildlife photographer, since misrepresented non-wild photos as wild (even if by inference or omisssion) could undermine a source of income, should those pictures find their way into the stock (photography) market. |
|
|
|
08/01/2006 02:51:23 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'm late the party, but agree you did nothing wrong. It's just a picture of a tiger, and I don't see anywhere that you were trying to pass it off as taken in the wild, at a zoo or from a box of Frosted Flakes. |
Laurie, see if whoever makes Frosted Flakes wants to buy your photo :-)
Message edited by author 2006-08-01 14:52:42. |
|
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 02:01:04 AM EDT.
