| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/01/2009 01:32:47 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
01/01/2009 01:51:24 PM · #2 |
This is kind of like the debate about digital editing vs. pure darkroom. All semantics and opinion, and not much substance. A photograph is a photograph.
The real point (beyond sheer enjoyment) most often in wildlife photography is to support naturalist or environmental aspects, or to raise awareness of a species. Often the best way to do that is to use a captive subject. Other times the ONLY way to do it is to get one in the wild, as there are none in captivity. I think the Central American Quetzal might be an example of the latter.
To me, this is a matter of pragmatism, where the article somewhat treats photography as a sport. One, or some photographers are upset that their "pure" wildlife images are being one-upped by "non-wild" photographs. IMO, this is not the best way to look at things. |
|
|
|
01/01/2009 01:54:29 PM · #3 |
| The only counter-point offered is that photographing captive wildlife is safer for the animal and the photographer, but this does not directly address whether or not those photographs should be considered "wildlife photography" or not... I think that the photographer has a obligation to disclose the conditions under which the photograph was taken, though I realize it may not be in their best interest. |
|
|
|
01/01/2009 01:58:14 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
This is kind of like the debate about digital editing vs. pure darkroom. All semantics and opinion, and not much substance. A photograph is a photograph.
|
I think its more like the debate between staged/studio shots vs. candid/documentary photography... one is more "real", and for me at least that has more value because I'm more interested in the world as it naturally exists |
|
|
|
01/01/2009 02:04:14 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
This is kind of like the debate about digital editing vs. pure darkroom. All semantics and opinion, and not much substance. A photograph is a photograph.
The real point (beyond sheer enjoyment) most often in wildlife photography is to support naturalist or environmental aspects, or to raise awareness of a species. Often the best way to do that is to use a captive subject. Other times the ONLY way to do it is to get one in the wild, as there are none in captivity. I think the Central American Quetzal might be an example of the latter.
To me, this is a matter of pragmatism, where the article somewhat treats photography as a sport. One, or some photographers are upset that their "pure" wildlife images are being one-upped by "non-wild" photographs. IMO, this is not the best way to look at things. |
It seems to me that the issue they are exploring basically comes down to this: is it "moral" for the photographer to shoot captive, or bait wildlife, and then pass the images off as truly "wild"? I don't see anyone especially having a problem with the various acts of shooting as much as they are with how the photographer represents his image. And THAT's the issue that impacts DPC; we have a wildlife challenge and people go to the zoo... I can sympathize with those who feel this makes a mockery of the challenge.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2009 02:23:46 PM · #6 |
I tend to agree that if a 'wildlife' shot is one taken of a captive animal, then it should be labelled as such. The subject is still a wild animal, only not in its natural environment. For rarer species or dangerous animals, then the only option normally available is that of a captive specimen. Can you call such a photographer a 'Wildlife' photographer is a different matter.
To me, a true Wildlife photographer knows and learns the habits and habitats of his 'prey'. He is very much the hunter, the tracker, possessing a wide knowledge of his environment and how to act in there. For someone who has no understanding of, or knowledge of the dangers and pitfalls of actually pursueing an animal in its own landscape and surroundings is foolhardy.
Most of the time when photographing wildlife is spent observing the area, watching the routine of the animal or bird, knowing its feeding and drinking habits. You have to slowly introduce your equipment and self in the habitat and blend in causing minimal disturbance and disruption.
In the end it is one of those debates that cannot have a right or wrong answer, it is for every Wildlife photographer to do what he or she feels right with. Do I say how I got the shot and where? Or do I just let others try to work out how I got the shot? |
|
|
|
01/01/2009 02:44:33 PM · #7 |
I think people get bent way too far out of shape sometimes and need to learn to re-freaking-lax a little.
Unless your livelihood is being threatened, there's absolutely no reason to care. IMO. |
|
|
|
01/01/2009 02:49:16 PM · #8 |
| Everyone has an opinion on this, and no two opinions are exactly alike. In my opinion, wildlife refers to the animal. Can the animal be domesticated? If the answer is no, it's wildlife. You can raise a lion from kitten-hood, but it could still kill or seriously injure you at any given moment (just ask ROY HORN), because you cannot domesticate a truly wild animal. It doesn't matter what environment it's shot in, if it's wildlife, it's wildlife. Should it be disclosed whether it's a captive shot or not depends entirely on the circumstances. |
|
|
|
01/01/2009 02:56:05 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by SteveJ:
I tend to agree that if a 'wildlife' shot is one taken of a captive animal, then it should be labelled as such. |
So where is the line, what about a wildlife preserve? I agree with  kelli, wildlife is the animal not the habitat. |
|
|
|
01/01/2009 03:05:11 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Originally posted by SteveJ:
I tend to agree that if a 'wildlife' shot is one taken of a captive animal, then it should be labelled as such. |
So where is the line, what about a wildlife preserve? I agree with kelli, wildlife is the animal not the habitat. |
I did actually state that a wild animal is still wild even when in captivity. My main point is the claim of a photographer who says he/she is a 'Wildlife' photographer as opposed to a photographer of animals and birds. It is a matter of how you feel comfortable with your own description.
If I take a photo of an animal in a zoo, wildlife preserve or safari park, then I would class myself as a photographer of animals and birds. If I actually go into a natural habitat and spend time watching and tracking that animal, only to take photos at a later stage, then I would class myself as a 'Wildlife Photographer'. But, that's my opinion:) |
|
|
|
01/01/2009 03:06:32 PM · #11 |
what about this place, in Montana? They pose animals for you.
//www.animalsofmontana.com/ |
|
|
|
01/01/2009 04:28:59 PM · #12 |
this is something ive wanted to do, since im in the same state. i cant even look at sites like that cause i ent up drooling and crying over the price. |
|
|
|
01/01/2009 04:29:23 PM · #13 |
It's a matter of personal preference. I don't care how the image is arrived at, if it's a beautiful rendition of an animal, great. If the animal is in the wild or captivity, it matters not. Some shots are obvious.......a lion dragging a gazelle into the bushes to chew on it is definitly going to be hard to fake, as is an osprey coming up out of the river with a fish in its talons. The "Portrait shot" where you just have the animal's head, or semi-posed wherever it happens matters not one whit to me.
I just love beautiful, well-rendered critter pictures no matter how they're gotten.
I have cats......tell me the suckers are easy to get good images of 'cause they're domestic house pets.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2009 04:33:33 PM · #14 |
In my view, do as you like or see fit, but, please,
be honest and disclose the location.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2009 04:49:07 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
In my view, do as you like or see fit, but, please,
be honest and disclose the location. |
Exactly :) It is that simple. |
|
|
|
01/01/2009 05:01:59 PM · #16 |
| i guess i dont really care where its located, if i wolf wants to look pretty for me ill take his picture for sure:) |
|
|
|
01/01/2009 05:14:50 PM · #17 |
Beyond a professional setting (submitting to actual publications etc.) I fail to understand the relevance of requiring a photographer to disclose the location of his photo.
I honestly just don't see the need. |
|
|
|
01/01/2009 05:19:45 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Beyond a professional setting (submitting to actual publications etc.) I fail to understand the relevance of requiring a photographer to disclose the location of his photo.
I honestly just don't see the need. |
so that jealous others can hunt down your secret spots. duh. lol |
|
|
|
01/01/2009 05:22:06 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by JDubsgirl:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Beyond a professional setting (submitting to actual publications etc.) I fail to understand the relevance of requiring a photographer to disclose the location of his photo.
I honestly just don't see the need. |
so that jealous others can hunt down your secret spots. duh. lol |
hehe. My theory is it's because people have no ability to enjoy a photo without ascribing things silly things like 'difficulty factor' to it, and then get all bent out of shape when they love a photo then find out it was taken in a zoo and have a conniption fit over some misguided sense of being fooled. |
|
|
|
01/01/2009 05:32:09 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
My theory is it's because people have no ability to enjoy a photo without ascribing things silly things like 'difficulty factor' to it, and then get all bent out of shape when they love a photo then find out it was taken in a zoo and have a conniption fit over some misguided sense of being fooled. |
I know the feeling. |
|
|
|
01/01/2009 05:36:17 PM · #21 |
Wildlife photography is its own reward. Animals free to run away have their spirit and soul intact. I would simply refer you to the Anthony Hopkins movie, "Instinct". //www.netflix.com/Movie/Instinct/21304061?trkid=222336&lnkctr=srchrd-sr&strkid=1442534907_0_0
The movie was an epiphany for me. I don't care if you watch it, or not. I don't care if you like wildlife images, or prefer zoo images which pretend to be wildlife images. The wilderness is vanishing before our eyes. Wildlife photographers worth their salt care little about images of confined animals. The soul and spirit of the wild animal is a quantum leap different. |
|
|
|
01/01/2009 05:38:42 PM · #22 |
The single most common, and usually the first, question I am asked about ANY image (tree, rock, whatever) is "Where was that taken?"
Someday we may all just be naming our images with the gps coordinates and compass heading.
On this particular topic, the Use of the image plays into this question: if a zoo image is submitted to a wildlife challenge at DPC, probably not a big deal. If the image is submitted to National Geographic or for an article on endangered wildlife in the Arctic, a bigger deal. |
|
|
|
01/01/2009 05:45:53 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Beyond a professional setting (submitting to actual publications etc.) I fail to understand the relevance of requiring a photographer to disclose the location of his photo. I honestly just don't see the need. |
Exactly - If you are submitting to Natures Best Photography magazine (or other) and not disclosing that it a captive shot, that's one thing. I really don't understand why a DPC'er would be screaming "fraud" because a captive animal is entered in a wildlife challenge. I'm not going to go on an African safari just to shoot an entry... and a photo of a squirrel isn't likely going to do well against a tiger or lion. |
|
|
|
01/01/2009 05:48:56 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by fldave:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Beyond a professional setting (submitting to actual publications etc.) I fail to understand the relevance of requiring a photographer to disclose the location of his photo. I honestly just don't see the need. |
Exactly - If you are submitting to Natures Best Photography magazine (or other) and not disclosing that it a captive shot, that's one thing. I really don't understand why a DPC'er would be screaming "fraud" because a captive animal is entered in a wildlife challenge. I'm not going to go on an African safari just to shoot an entry... and a photo of a squirrel isn't likely going to do well against a tiger or lion. |
But nobody mentioned DPC, it was a general question about Wildlife photography, whether National Geo or similar. DPC voters like a good photo, regardless of origins. |
|
|
|
01/01/2009 05:51:28 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by SteveJ:
Originally posted by fldave:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Beyond a professional setting (submitting to actual publications etc.) I fail to understand the relevance of requiring a photographer to disclose the location of his photo. I honestly just don't see the need. |
Exactly - If you are submitting to Natures Best Photography magazine (or other) and not disclosing that it a captive shot, that's one thing. I really don't understand why a DPC'er would be screaming "fraud" because a captive animal is entered in a wildlife challenge. I'm not going to go on an African safari just to shoot an entry... and a photo of a squirrel isn't likely going to do well against a tiger or lion. |
But nobody mentioned DPC, it was a general question about Wildlife photography, whether National Geo or similar. DPC voters like a good photo, regardless of origins. |
The original post mentioned it might be of interest to "this community". Which is DPC.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/06/2026 01:07:36 PM EDT.
