DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Phony wildlife photography
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 63, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/04/2010 03:04:20 PM · #1
Ran across this interesting article describing how many commercial wildlife photographs are done using animals kept in captivity for this purpose.
Phony wildlife photography
08/04/2010 04:03:02 PM · #2
They should all be named and put on a list.
08/04/2010 04:14:05 PM · #3
It really bothers me ... I have falcons I shot with a falconer so ..not difficult except when they are diving at 200+ miles per hour .. then I have falcons I shot in the wild .. I don't say one is wild if it isn't .. same as bobcats, white fox, moose etc ... any wildlife refuge usually has some or all of them.

I get marked down in challenges (I choose to believe that anyway LOL) because ppl think I am at a zoo or aquarium) .. when I am I will say it or it will be very apparent ... sheesh, rent an animal as a model.
08/04/2010 04:17:45 PM · #4
interesting article thanks for posting
08/04/2010 04:23:12 PM · #5
Animal refuges and wildlife parks are the only access most have to rarer species. How, for so called pros to hire 'wild' animals for photo shoots and then pass them off as real 'wild animals' is despicable and cheating. This thread reminds me of the wolf jumping over a gate, a photo that caused many accolades at first, then many calls of 'cheat'.

I admit I will take photos of animals and birds in captivity, or those that are so used to human contact that they can no longer be classed as wild. But, I will always hold my hands up to this fact and never attempt to deceive anyone that they are anything close to being wild.

Message edited by author 2010-08-04 16:24:13.
08/04/2010 04:31:39 PM · #6
One of my local "competitors" has a "NATURE" gallery on his website.

I was impressed until I recognized the bears, deer, and wolves from the local nature center.

blech.
08/04/2010 04:49:21 PM · #7
Putting the ethical treatment of animals issues aside, I'm not really sure one should care if a photo of an animal was shot in the wilderness, or on a 'rent an animal by the hour' ranch, or in the zoo, or in the backyard of a taxidermist... it's still just an image, and as the photographer - well, the experience of getting a shot of a wild animal in its natural surrounding, well that's the reward, not how great the shot is (necessarily)...

I live now in Berlin, for example, and four years ago when I arrived in Germany two things were all over the news... Knut, the baby polar bear was born in the Berlin zoo and over 10,000 people a day came to see him and take his picture. At the same time, the only wild bear that has been in Germany for time immemorable (and it had only wandered in from Poland or Russia) was shot dead for fear of it being wild... While a sad story, this made me chuckle because I see these poor brown and black bears now in the zoo and think, 'back in Canada (where I am from), if you wanted to see a bear in the wild, you just had to drive down to the dump one evening where half a dozen other locals were, and you could see the bears rummaging through the garbage!'... Now THAT'S wildlife!

I suppose my point is, these animals are beautiful and is it the beauty of the animal, as expressed in a good photo that makes a stirring image, or is it more the fact that the photographer had to go through some extraordinary hardship to aquire this photo.... i.e. any idiot can select a good aperature/shutter speed combo, it takes a REAL idiot to sit in a lean-to for three weeks in the rain to get a REAL picture!
08/04/2010 04:51:52 PM · #8
I'm wild....so does that mean my Self Portraits are classed as wild animal photography....muuuuwwwwaaahhhhhhh!!!!!
08/04/2010 04:54:01 PM · #9
Originally posted by Judi:

I'm wild....so does that mean my Self Portraits are classed as wild animal photography....muuuuwwwwaaahhhhhhh!!!!!


I can tell... people are trying to "hunt" you down ;)
08/04/2010 04:57:21 PM · #10
Originally posted by Tully:

i.e. any idiot can select a good aperature/shutter speed combo, it takes a REAL idiot to sit in a lean-to for three weeks in the rain to get a REAL picture!


That could be me, I'll hold my hands up to sitting for hours to get a photo...of a squirrel:))
08/04/2010 05:32:22 PM · #11
Originally posted by Judi:

I'm wild....so does that mean my Self Portraits are classed as wild animal photography....muuuuwwwwaaahhhhhhh!!!!!


i take photos only to wild animals, tell me where you live so i can take a photo of you (for the september FS!) ;-)
08/04/2010 05:35:32 PM · #12
Originally posted by GiorgioBaruffi:

Originally posted by Judi:

I'm wild....so does that mean my Self Portraits are classed as wild animal photography....muuuuwwwwaaahhhhhhh!!!!!


i take photos only to wild animals, tell me where you live so i can take a photo of you (for the september FS!) ;-)


Hahahaha...I live in the wild!!!
08/04/2010 05:37:10 PM · #13
Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by GiorgioBaruffi:

Originally posted by Judi:

I'm wild....so does that mean my Self Portraits are classed as wild animal photography....muuuuwwwwaaahhhhhhh!!!!!


i take photos only to wild animals, tell me where you live so i can take a photo of you (for the september FS!) ;-)


Hahahaha...I live in the wild!!!


well, i'll catch you! ;-)
08/04/2010 07:28:09 PM · #14
Nothing phony about my wildlife, it's all out in the middle of nowhere, frankly, I'm able to get much closer than you would expect, simply due to the fact that I seek out areas where people just don't usually go. Nothing pleases me more than areas with no people and wildlife that really has no idea what to make of me....

I can't even begin to tell you how much I like the new 100-400mm, it really works well for wildlife at near to medium-far distances (at least on a crop frame, I suspect it would be more of a medium distance wildlife lens on a full-frame body)..

This entry was one of the more interesting pictures I've captured with it recently..

Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_899091.jpg

And I didn't touch a thing in the outtake for shallow DOF either...

Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_899099.jpg

Both are absolutely real, natural and wild.... :)

08/04/2010 07:31:39 PM · #15
That's why some require GPS information in the original file :)
08/05/2010 02:53:26 AM · #16
Originally posted by FocusPoint:

That's why some require GPS information in the original file :)


haha... that's a good idea....

and as Cory can probably attest, it is far more rewarding to be in the middle of nowhere as a full experience than to have some animal posed by their trainer to get a shot.... I hate fishing but I suppose it's the difference between shooting fish in a barrel and dropping a line into a lake or river North of 60.
08/05/2010 03:55:31 AM · #17
It doesn't get any realer than this.
08/05/2010 07:28:27 AM · #18
Most published mountain lion shots are from pet lions or parks that have tame ones. It has been happening for many years. Now with PS, zoos are more popular than before.
08/05/2010 07:35:49 AM · #19
Originally posted by vtruan:

Most published mountain lion shots are from pet lions or parks that have tame ones. It has been happening for many years. Now with PS, zoos are more popular than before.


Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_809223.gif
08/05/2010 07:44:40 AM · #20
Interesting topic for me as we have just returned from a safari in Kenya where, as you can imagine, we took quite a few wildlife shots! The difference between visiting zoos etc and shooting in the wild is so different and therefore it should be taken into account when judging the quality of the shot. We didn't know what would be around the corner from one moment to the next; lions on the track, a cheetah on a rock or a secretary bird highstepping through the grass! Elephants and giraffes usually could be spotted a little in advance! No chance often to set up for a shot, changing lenses was chancing losing the opportunity, the vehicle was often rocking over rough ground in an effort to get into position and we were unable to get out because of the danger of becoming lunch for something! So, yes, I could have got some "better" shots at the wildlife park in England - but which would be the most valued or real?
08/05/2010 08:07:17 AM · #21
Originally posted by Riponlady:

Interesting topic for me as we have just returned from a safari in Kenya where, as you can imagine, we took quite a few wildlife shots! The difference between visiting zoos etc and shooting in the wild is so different and therefore it should be taken into account when judging the quality of the shot. We didn't know what would be around the corner from one moment to the next; lions on the track, a cheetah on a rock or a secretary bird highstepping through the grass! Elephants and giraffes usually could be spotted a little in advance! No chance often to set up for a shot, changing lenses was chancing losing the opportunity, the vehicle was often rocking over rough ground in an effort to get into position and we were unable to get out because of the danger of becoming lunch for something! So, yes, I could have got some "better" shots at the wildlife park in England - but which would be the most valued or real?


And, interestingly enough, for many these "safari shots" from vehicles criss-crossing one of Africa's huge wildlife preserves no more qualify as "wild" than shots made in the English wildlife park.

R.
08/05/2010 08:10:44 AM · #22
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Riponlady:

Interesting topic for me as we have just returned from a safari in Kenya where, as you can imagine, we took quite a few wildlife shots! The difference between visiting zoos etc and shooting in the wild is so different and therefore it should be taken into account when judging the quality of the shot. We didn't know what would be around the corner from one moment to the next; lions on the track, a cheetah on a rock or a secretary bird highstepping through the grass! Elephants and giraffes usually could be spotted a little in advance! No chance often to set up for a shot, changing lenses was chancing losing the opportunity, the vehicle was often rocking over rough ground in an effort to get into position and we were unable to get out because of the danger of becoming lunch for something! So, yes, I could have got some "better" shots at the wildlife park in England - but which would be the most valued or real?


And, interestingly enough, for many these "safari shots" from vehicles criss-crossing one of Africa's huge wildlife preserves no more qualify as "wild" than shots made in the English wildlife park.

R.


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.

Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_732201.jpg
08/05/2010 08:18:12 AM · #23
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.
08/05/2010 08:28:40 AM · #24
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.
08/05/2010 08:34:49 AM · #25
Interesting article, thanks for posting the link.

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 02/17/2019 03:37:06 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 02/17/2019 03:37:06 AM EST.