| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/05/2010 08:35:03 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Hmm...I must be losing it, as I read your post as if you were saying that photographing in a wildlife preserve is considered the same as photographing in a zoo. I apologize if that is not what you were saying. |
Here's what I said:
"And, interestingly enough, for many these "safari shots" from vehicles..."
I have followed this debate from the sidelines for a couple years now, nothing to do with DPC. I'm aware that the "purists" (I am not one of them) don't think these "photo safaris" qualify as wildlife photography either. And I find/found that interesting. It is not, however, my own position, and I thought my statement made that clear.
If I were expressing my own position, I'd just come right out and say "As far as I'm concerned..." I don't waste my time hiding behind circumlocutions.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2010 09:02:09 AM · #27 |
Not sure what the arguement is for safaris not being truely wildlife photography! Please clarify!
|
|
|
|
08/05/2010 09:11:45 AM · #28 |
There are two different perspectives on this matter, I think.
I think from the perspective of someone that makes a living selling animal photos to publications, all that matters is getting a shot that sells. You do what works and keeps food on the table.
To the non-professional, that probably seems like cheating. To them, it is the same thing as for someone who hunts with a gun. It is for the thrill of the hunt. A deer hunter would get no satisfaction from shooting a deer in captivity that was brought out to a pen for him to shoot. I see a lot of similarities between wildlife photography and hunting. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 09:21:48 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Not sure what the arguement is for safaris not being truely wildlife photography! Please clarify! |
I don't know, I did not make the argument. I'm sorry I ever mentioned it. I think the "purists" are anti-anything-that-doesn't-require-you-to-hide-in-a-stifling-blind-for-hours-on-end-then-hike-13-miles-through-pestilential-swamps-or-impenetrable-brambles-to-return-to-your-camp or something :-)
African photo safaris in the huge wildlife national parks and such are just fine by me :-) I wish I could take one...
R.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2010 09:32:16 AM · #30 |
| This might step on toes around here, but how is this different that shooting models in the studio. A photo studio is no closer to a natural habitat than a zoo. A beautiful image has more to do with the person taking it than where it is taken. Some of these responses show why people are reluctant to tell you where a picture is taken. Get out of that studio, get on the street and take pictures of live people in their natural habitat -- or don't throw stones about where people "find" animals in this century. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 09:33:32 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by browda1:
This might step on toes around here, but how is this different that shooting models in the studio. A photo studio is no closer to a natural habitat than a zoo. A beautiful image has more to do with the person taking it than where it is taken. Some of these responses show why people are reluctant to tell you where a picture is taken. Get out of that studio, get on the street and take pictures of live people in their natural habitat -- or don't throw stones about where people "find" animals in this century. |
Bravo!
R.
|
|
|
|
08/05/2010 09:34:00 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by browda1:
This might step on toes around here, but how is this different that shooting models in the studio. A photo studio is no closer to a natural habitat than a zoo. A beautiful image has more to do with the person taking it than where it is taken. Some of these responses show why people are reluctant to tell you where a picture is taken. Get out of that studio, get on the street and take pictures of live people in their natural habitat -- or don't throw stones about where people "find" animals in this century. |
Well, for one, humans are capable of giving informed consent to being photographed.
And for another, human photographic models tend not to be euthanized on the grounds of being "dangerous." |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 09:48:59 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by mycelium:
Originally posted by browda1:
This might step on toes around here, but how is this different that shooting models in the studio. A photo studio is no closer to a natural habitat than a zoo. A beautiful image has more to do with the person taking it than where it is taken. Some of these responses show why people are reluctant to tell you where a picture is taken. Get out of that studio, get on the street and take pictures of live people in their natural habitat -- or don't throw stones about where people "find" animals in this century. |
Well, for one, humans are capable of giving informed consent to being photographed.
And for another, human photographic models tend not to be euthanized on the grounds of being "dangerous." |
This could be a topic for another discussion. By the way, how often do people on the street get asked for informed consent when they get in a photograph?
I work in the medical field where informed consent is considered very important -- unfortunetly, alot of people don't understand the implications of what they are consenting to, Thus the creation of Lawyers.
Message edited by author 2010-08-05 09:54:35. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 09:50:02 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Not sure what the arguement is for safaris not being truely wildlife photography! Please clarify! |
I don't know, I did not make the argument. I'm sorry I ever mentioned it. I think the "purists" are anti-anything-that-doesn't-require-you-to-hide-in-a-stifling-blind-for-hours-on-end-then-hike-13-miles-through-pestilential-swamps-or-impenetrable-brambles-to-return-to-your-camp or something :-)
African photo safaris in the huge wildlife national parks and such are just fine by me :-) I wish I could take one...
R. |
Thanks, Bear! Understand what they are saying and have some sympathy for that view.
IMO as long as the animals are in THEIR natural habitat and free to roam unrestricted wherever they wish, then it is wildlife! As our guide said as we watched the beginning of the wilderbeest migration through Kenya and Tanzania, " The animals don't understand borders." No fences kept the game to a certain area, only the Masai villagers building fences of thorns around their homes to keep the animals out. Also seeing a zebra with its stomach ripped open, brought home that no "nice" animal charity or vet was about to rush in to save it.
Can also see the difference between pro photography shots to sell and amateur shots for personal pleasure. Think this site has room for both but perhaps there should be some differentiation and saying where something was shot would have an impact on judging.
Rambling here - think I'll shut up!!! :)
|
|
|
|
08/05/2010 10:04:47 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by browda1:
Originally posted by mycelium:
Originally posted by browda1:
This might step on toes around here, but how is this different that shooting models in the studio. A photo studio is no closer to a natural habitat than a zoo. A beautiful image has more to do with the person taking it than where it is taken. Some of these responses show why people are reluctant to tell you where a picture is taken. Get out of that studio, get on the street and take pictures of live people in their natural habitat -- or don't throw stones about where people "find" animals in this century. |
Well, for one, humans are capable of giving informed consent to being photographed.
And for another, human photographic models tend not to be euthanized on the grounds of being "dangerous." |
This could be a topic for another discussion. By the way, how often do people on the street get asked for informed consent when they get in a photograph? |
I thought we were talking about studio models, i.e., paid models.
There's also a hugely important distinction in terms of how the photos are presented. If you look at a poster for Twilight, you don't think, "Wow, what a gorgeous wild Edward Cullen!" -- but the average person, seeing a shot of a snow leopard in a natural environment, will think they're seeing wildlife, not a miserable pen-kept creature with barely enough energy to play with a ball.
Photographs of human models don't pretend to be anything other than studio shots, which makes them honest in a way that photos of captive animals, passed off as photos of wild animals, just aren't.
There's a point to be made about airbrushing and rearranging features on human models with tools like PS's Liquify, but that's a separate issue from studio vs. wildlife. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 10:15:46 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by mycelium:
" There's also a hugely important distinction in terms of how the photos are presented. If you look at a poster for Twilight, you don't think, "Wow, what a gorgeous wild Edward Cullen!" -- but the average person, seeing a shot of a snow leopard in a natural environment, will think they're seeing wildlife, not a miserable pen-kept creature with barely enough energy to play with a ball."
Point taken, I think I was referring more to the section on "hiring" animals to be models. Most of the time, people can tell the difference between zoo animals and wild. I have some photos of urban wildlife -- deer and squirrels, but am not ashamed to admit that they were in my front yard. The line is where people take defeated zoo animals and try to pass them off as wild with photoshop. Like I said, an image can be good regardless of where it is taken, photographers need to stop being holier than thou and just say they went to the zoo or safari park and not Africa or South America. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 10:18:37 AM · #37 |
I don't understand why is it very important to take photos of lions for example, at Africa in a Jeep or in a wildlife zoo... or renting a lion that matter? Isn't it like shooting a model on a runway during a show vs. hiring a model and taking their photos. Or taking a tomato photo in a farm field vs. on a dish at your kitchen?
I don't think it's that important. Not everyone can afford to go to the wild life environment in Africa, and what matters is the photo itself, which is taken by you and using your camera.
If you can afford to go to safari and take photos of wild animals which preserved in "protected areas", that's fine and dandy. Zoo is a place where wild animals live in a smaller "protected areas"... maybe we should call them "poor man's safari" or something. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 10:20:55 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by browda1:
The line is where people take defeated zoo animals and try to pass them off as wild with photoshop. Like I said, an image can be good regardless of where it is taken, photographers need to stop being holier than thou and just say they went to the zoo or safari park and not Africa or South America. |
Definitely agree with you here. As a general matter, I'm inclined to think that where or how an image was produced is unimportant, provided (i) animals, if captive, are treated well, and (ii) there is full disclosure about what we're seeing (actually wild, in a zoo, or what have you).
ETA missing words without which this post made no sense
Message edited by author 2010-08-05 12:52:35. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 10:35:16 AM · #39 |
edit to remove...that might have shown disrespect or offended some. Sorry...go about your discussion.
Message edited by author 2010-08-05 11:05:09. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 12:45:28 PM · #40 |
This argument always goes sideways with hard liners or animal rights or whatever. I believe the issue for most people is not in where the "wildlife" photo was taken but in how it is represented. Although I predominately shoot wildlife in the wild I have no problem with shots from zoos or preserves, or rented animals for that matter. The real issue is that as photographers we should represent our images with honesty. National Geographic, after having been burned a few times, requires original images and background to assure they are representing the image correctly. They do use images from game farms but always disclose the fact.
Anyway, bottom line for me is it is just so rewarding to get out there and try to capture an animal in it's native environment. That does not mean I will not shoot at a zoo, reserve or on safari. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 01:05:02 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Judi:
Alright Bear...I understand what you are saying...but...here in Australia, the kangaroos come right into town...they are not fed by humans, nor do they allow humans near them....but they are still wild and are within meters of houses. Would you consider them wild....here is such an example...taken one morning in the horse paddocks. |
Hey, don't get me wrong. I have no problem with it. I've photographed bears at garbage dumps, fish in aquariums, birds in raptor shows, elephants in wild animal parks and zoos both. I was just observing that many of the same people who think photographing in preserves isn't dealing with "wildlife" consider the African parks more of the same.
But not ME! No way. I know people who've been, it's hard work to get good shots.
I'm not one of the folks that think there's something "immoral" or "deceitful" about other-than-truly-wild animal photography. Hell no!
R. |
Hmm...I must be losing it, as I read your post as if you were saying that photographing in a wildlife preserve is considered the same as photographing in a zoo. I apologize if that is not what you were saying.
We have many wildlife visit our houses...heck we have blue kingfishers in our front yard....snakes around the base of our toilet or on the kitchen floor, large lizards living in our sheds, white geckos living on our walls and ceilings. They are all wild...yet they live within the constraints of human existence. |
Seriously, it sounds as though you might want to consider investing in some weather-sealing for your home :) |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 01:07:55 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Anyway, bottom line for me is it is just so rewarding to get out there and try to capture an animal in it's native environment. That does not mean I will not shoot at a zoo, reserve or on safari. |
OK I'm getting anal! You imply that on a safari the animals would not be in their natural environment. Why?
|
|
|
|
08/05/2010 01:11:09 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
There are two different perspectives on this matter, I think.
I think from the perspective of someone that makes a living selling animal photos to publications, all that matters is getting a shot that sells. You do what works and keeps food on the table.
To the non-professional, that probably seems like cheating. To them, it is the same thing as for someone who hunts with a gun. It is for the thrill of the hunt. A deer hunter would get no satisfaction from shooting a deer in captivity that was brought out to a pen for him to shoot. I see a lot of similarities between wildlife photography and hunting. |
I hunted from the time I was a small child until I was somewhere around 18??... I still hunt today, the only difference is that I find this more pleasing, and the animal gets to continue living... (I will still hunt for food occasionally, but it's really pretty rare these days, as I haven't shot anything but a tin-can for several years now..)
So, yeah, I think that's a very valid statement Spiff, as a matter of a fact, I feel that the stalking skills imparted to my through years of bow-hunting prairie dogs (Very difficult to stalk, farmers within city limits will pay for their removal, and guns are not legal within city limits... mind you this was a couple of decades ago...) has provided for me greatly in being able to get close enough to most subjects to get a relatively good quality photograph. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 01:14:43 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Anyway, bottom line for me is it is just so rewarding to get out there and try to capture an animal in it's native environment. That does not mean I will not shoot at a zoo, reserve or on safari. |
OK I'm getting anal! You imply that on a safari the animals would not be in their natural environment. Why? |
I think all he's saying is the animals on a safari are used to seeing humans driving around in jeeps, and most of them don't spook and run off when they are approached, therefore it's easy to go take photo's of them. That said.. they are still dangerous, wild animals. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 01:19:55 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Intelli:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Anyway, bottom line for me is it is just so rewarding to get out there and try to capture an animal in it's native environment. That does not mean I will not shoot at a zoo, reserve or on safari. |
OK I'm getting anal! You imply that on a safari the animals would not be in their natural environment. Why? |
I think all he's saying is the animals on a safari are used to seeing humans driving around in jeeps, and most of them don't spook and run off when they are approached, therefore it's easy to go take photo's of them. That said.. they are still dangerous, wild animals. |
fine, agree it is easier, although it depends on the animals - some are spooked by anything!
going back into my den !!!
|
|
|
|
08/05/2010 01:28:44 PM · #46 |
pet gators
|
|
|
|
08/05/2010 02:58:35 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Anyway, bottom line for me is it is just so rewarding to get out there and try to capture an animal in it's native environment. That does not mean I will not shoot at a zoo, reserve or on safari. |
OK I'm getting anal! You imply that on a safari the animals would not be in their natural environment. Why? |
That is not what I meant to imply nor do I believe that. I would say that anyone saying that needs to get out of the vehicle and walk around freely for awhile. |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 03:54:29 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Anyway, bottom line for me is it is just so rewarding to get out there and try to capture an animal in it's native environment. That does not mean I will not shoot at a zoo, reserve or on safari. |
OK I'm getting anal! You imply that on a safari the animals would not be in their natural environment. Why? |
That is not what I meant to imply nor do I believe that. I would say that anyone saying that needs to get out of the vehicle and walk around freely for awhile. |
OK ! Agree better to be on foot or for me on horseback but unfortunately not possible always on safari. In England, there is no problem but then agsin we don't have anything bigger than a badger around!!!! Definite disadvantage to dramatic wildlife photography living here!
|
|
|
|
08/05/2010 03:57:32 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by browda1:
This might step on toes around here, but how is this different that shooting models in the studio. A photo studio is no closer to a natural habitat than a zoo. A beautiful image has more to do with the person taking it than where it is taken. Some of these responses show why people are reluctant to tell you where a picture is taken. Get out of that studio, get on the street and take pictures of live people in their natural habitat -- or don't throw stones about where people "find" animals in this century. |
How many humans do you know that live in the wild and are in fact wild humans? Animals are pre-disposed to being wild, not humans. If you shoot an Eagle and do not put into the EXIF that it was shot in a zoo, then your image, to me, is a fraud because some will in fact take it as a nature shot that was taken in the wild.
Zoo photography is not natural wildlife photography. Period! |
|
|
|
08/05/2010 04:00:09 PM · #50 |
Pet American Badger, Taxidea taxus. (It's all wild in my neighborhood.)
 |
|
