Phony wildlife photography - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

08/05/2010 04:08:37 PM · #51

Originally posted by mycelium:

....And for another, human photographic models tend not to be euthanized on the grounds of being "dangerous."

Ooh I dunno...give Naomi Campbell enough rope (not to mention a cellphone) and I'm sure she'd be the first...

Tully

Canon EOS-20D

08/05/2010 06:19:31 PM · #52

Originally posted by Jac:

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!

On the other side of this argument, if you did find a wild human and shot a picture of it and did NOT state that is was in fact wild in your EXIF data, would that also be considered fraud, as most people would assume that it was NOT a wild human?

I do agree that zoo photography is not natural wildlife photography, but you cannot deny that zoo photography is still animal photography even if these animals are pre-disposed to being wild.

Abra

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/05/2010 07:40:32 PM · #53

Originally posted by Tully:

Originally posted by Jac:

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!

On the other side of this argument, if you did find a wild human and shot a picture of it and did NOT state that is was in fact wild in your EXIF data, would that also be considered fraud, as most people would assume that it was NOT a wild human?

I do agree that zoo photography is not natural wildlife photography, but you cannot deny that zoo photography is still animal photography even if these animals are pre-disposed to being wild.

Now I'm confused! I've seen several photo's of Grog but there has been no disclosure if he is wild or just pretending. This needs to be clarified!

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

08/05/2010 07:43:49 PM · #54

Originally posted by Abra:

Originally posted by Tully:

Originally posted by Jac:

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!

On the other side of this argument, if you did find a wild human and shot a picture of it and did NOT state that is was in fact wild in your EXIF data, would that also be considered fraud, as most people would assume that it was NOT a wild human?

I do agree that zoo photography is not natural wildlife photography, but you cannot deny that zoo photography is still animal photography even if these animals are pre-disposed to being wild.

Now I'm confused! I've seen several photo's of Grog but there has been no disclosure if he is wild or just pretending. This needs to be clarified!

He's as tame as any paleolithic person can be expected to be....

Pentax DA L 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL

08/05/2010 07:57:55 PM · #55

Hmmm....just feel like stirring the pot a little....

I have a bird feeder. *waiting for gasps of horror to subside* I am now getting adult birds from this past year, teaching their young that my feeder is, ta-daa! a source of food. Which was part of my nefarious plan, muwahahahaaaa...but the birds are not confined, they come and go as they please, and many remain quite skittish. So imho they are still wild birds, but also smart, opportunistic ones.

There are local zoos, but they are expensive to get into. And once in, their critters are stuck in pens with first of all a perimeter fence so the humans can't get any closer, then either chain-link or pigwire fencing. Getting a clean shot through that crap is next to impossible. At least one of these zoos will not allow photos of the animals sans fencing, saying they retain a photog for such reasons. Also, as zoo animals must be handled on a regular basis to be treated by vets and handlers, how truly wild are they allowed to act?

Finally there is a farm nearby where I can, and have, shot the red deer, elk and caribou. They are handled a lot less but still given feed on a daily basis; I got many great shots after the owner tossed corn on the ground.

And every so often a big, wild but acclimatized-to-humans-out-of-necessity whitetail doe will trot across the road in front of me, one or two fawns still with their speckles on trailing behind her. In these cases I tend to forget that I have a camera and suitable lens on the passenger seat, and content myself with watching them.

Ditto flocks of wild turkeys, which were re-introduced to the area some years ago. So, as the turkeys were re-introduced by man, are they wild?

However, I did not and never will 'rent-a-critter' like, say, an Iberian wolf trained to jump a fence like a dog in an agility class.

And as for Grog...well, Grog is Grog. What more can be said?

Message edited by author 2010-08-05 19:59:25.

mgsmith53

Pentax K-R

08/05/2010 08:13:56 PM · #56

But would you rent-a-critter to make a paycheck? And if you did, in what way would it be "bad" or "misleading", and whose business would it be but yours? This a a milder restatement of what I wrote and deleted earlier. Who makes such judgments, and what qualifies such a person to make such a judgment? To me this is all whistling into the wind.

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/05/2010 08:16:32 PM · #57

100% natural...(go ahead, click the image)

go large, or don't go at all ;-)

Message edited by author 2010-08-05 20:17:04.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/05/2010 08:24:35 PM · #58

99% Fake ... ;-)

Tamron AF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical for Nikon

08/05/2010 08:25:09 PM · #59

Originally posted by farfel53:

Let's assume that we're talking about commercial work here, not artistic, as I worked in advertising for several years as a copywriter.. First of all, if renting a critter were necessary, I'd ensure the client did the renting, not me. I wouldn't publicize that we rented a critter, esp if said critter is in an ad for client. I go and shoot critter for ad, that's it.

But would I rent a critter and then try to enter a wildlife competition with it and pass it off as wild? Hell no. And thanks to the whole incident with Ossian the Iberian Wolf whom I referred to, who was found out to be a rented zoo critter after the fact; had the photog simply stated that he was essentially using a rented critter, when he should have done so, things may have been different.

Now if I were shooting for stock and had a rent-a-critter, I'd use the word 'wild' or 'wildlife' in my keywords. But for artistic work, representing myself only, I would probably make no secret that it was a rented critter.

So to sum up, yes, it is my business and only my business. However it is also my conscience and I have to live with that. No, I am not saying using rented critters means photogs of same are conscienceless scum. But the context in which the shots were taken, imho, is what matters most. If it's for a client, it's for client to disclose; if for competition, stock or myself, it would be beholden to me to disclose.

sfalice

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

08/05/2010 08:55:11 PM · #60

Originally posted by Skip:

100% natural...(go ahead, click the image)
...
go large, or don't go at all ;-)

WOW,

Skip, it was worth reading this whole thread to get to your post. Incredible pictures in there.

vtruan

Nikon D5100

08/05/2010 10:15:26 PM · #61

fake It was taken at Denver Museum of Natural History (stuffed fox and fake snow)

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

08/05/2010 10:24:24 PM · #62

Originally posted by sfalice:

Originally posted by Skip:
100% natural...(go ahead, click the image)
...
go large, or don't go at all ;-)

WOW, Skip, it was worth reading this whole thread to get to your post. Incredible pictures in there.

I think I'll skip the whole worms, parasites, malaria, and closeness to death and just continue to take my shots at the zoo. Here's my 2 cents... zoo animals may be used to humans, but it doesn't mean they aren't still wild enough to eat you if you were to somehow end up in their enclosure. I think it may just be easier to stand all alone on the tundra with your long lens and get a great shot of a polar bear with nothing but pristine beauty behind for a backdrop as opposed to standing in front of a glass enclosure with a hundred people crowded around you and elbowing you & getting their flashes popping off & casting shadows in the glass, oh and stepping on your foot while their precious child spills their drink box all down your leg.