Is "real" Nature photography art for art sakes?

Reading the nature forum lately I've found two generally accepted

notions that just aren't meshing well:

<p>

1. Photographing animals in animal farms is bad because it doesn't

show the animals in their natural environment. It also takes the

challenege out of wildlife photography.</p>

<p>

<b>AND</b></p>

<p>

2. When taking a wildlife photograph it does not matter how long you

waited for the bird/bear etc.. to get in the perfect pose, it does

not matter the work you put into the photograph, all that matters

are the results. If the picture turns out good- it's a good

photograph- otherwise it's bad.

</p>

So according to #2 why does it matter if the photograph was taken in

an animal farm or not? Of course you can always say animal farms are

bad because they mistreat the animal etc.. but artistically speaking

doesn't this mean that shooting real Nature is art for art sakes? Do

we really expect our audience to say well this animal farm picture

is really good.. but I think I'll buy/choose this one because it

comes from a real environment even though it's not as quite as good.

<p>

I don't mean to raise a firestorm here, I'd just like to hear an

honest discussion on why we photograph "real" Nature (besides the

fact that it's fun) and how we present to our audience that "real"

photograph are more valuable than "fake" ones.</p>

Eric, I very much agree with you. Only the result counts, at the end. No matter where it was done, Game Farm or 'out in the wild'.

I guess this is much more an ethics question as it is a business-question.

Wildlife - the word has it in: WILD. For this, taking Pics on a Game Farm isn't Wildlife-Photography, it is ... I don't know? Animal-Photography?

To speak for myself, I do not have any problem with Images taken on Game Farms. The result is ok, so it is fine. I just would have problems if the photographer would tell all sorts of adventurous storys about his work, while sitting in a rocking chair and shooting from the porch of a game-farm. But even this wouldn't turn a good Image into a bad Image, it is just the ethics ....

I do not understand the last part. What is 'real' and what is 'fake'?

For me, fake is not the right word. It is just different. I much more see a difference between Nature-Photography ( all sorts, incl. Game-farms, etc) and art-photography (Studio-work, Manipulations like Photoshop, digital works etc.).

Again to speak for myself, I am very much specialized on Wildlife and Nature, and I cannot find too much on set-ups, studio photography and art-work. But I respect the guys doing this and their skills, even it is not 'my thing'.

On my very begin at photo.net, I wished they would have 2 categorys (art-photos and nature photos, or so ...) but meanwhile I am happy as it is, it is a fine competition between very different 'photographers-worlds', which lot of benefits. Last but not least everybody can 'messure' his work with all other kinds of photography, and this is really great.

Eric, from my standpoint, you describe two different schools of thought on

nature (or, more specifically, animal) photography that don't necessarily

overlap depending on individual taste.

 

I can understand both sides: on the one hand I can appreciate, for argument's

sake, a nice image of a horse backlit by warm sunlight.

 

But, for me personally, for an image to carry real power, it helps if there is a

story surrounding it or the impression that it was a challenge to capture, be it

explicit or implied.

 

I try to apply that philosophy to my own photography. Nowadays I will eschew

a close-up shot of deer in Yosemite who will walk right up to you because of

their regular contact with humans in favor of something that requires a little

more patience, work and maybe a nice slice of luck!

 

It's not always apparent from an image how difficult a particular scene was to

capture but, very often, the types of images I am drawn to are self-explanatory

in that respect.

Well, shooting wild animals means that they are not domestic. I agree that the important is to take pictures of it, no matter the ambient, although you will want a beautiful scene surrounding the animal.

 

Of course that you won't be able to shoot a bear in chicago, so you will really need to go to the wild, but most of my heron picture are taken in my city, and nobody see's this fact (a lot of green in my city, and a heron is indeed a wild animal).

 

I don't really know what animal farms are supposed to be, but it seems ok, if I understood it right. It's like shooting african animals in a park (the park is only a bigger closed place). Isn't it?

 

The only thing that can't be considered wildlife photography is shooting a cow. Domestic animals are not very exciting :)

 

Cheers

Here is an example of what I am talking about<BR><BR>

 

 

<BR><BR>

It was shot in my university lake, but if it was in the Amazon forest, it would look the same. <BR><BR>

 

So what is the point of going to Amazon to take this shot?<div></div>

The point is that wildlife photography is a sport, and people go to Amazon to photograph the heron for the experience of being there, not to "get the shot". Getting the shot is really just like reaching the summit of a mountain ... a highlight, but not all of the experience of being there and trying.

I think there is also a bit of over-simplification. I'll generalize also - many game farms have been known to mistreat their animals. It can also be dangerous for the shooter with a stressed-out grizzly coming back at you from the wrong end of the viewfinder.

 

Why should we, as ethical/concerned humans, want to support something like that by patronizing them? In many ways, THAT'S why it's wrong. Along with the fact that many LIE about how a photo was taken to pass themselves off as something they're not. It's just as bad with zoo photos. I had one vendor at a small art fair try to convince me his pic of a wild dog laying in a pile of pine mulch was taken while on safari.

 

And if you're going to bring this up, you should probably lump baiting in there with #1 also. Not much difference between the two in the long run. Part of it is ethics and part of it is the explosion of interest in photography that everyone thinks they can be a pro nature shooter (and some urban legend that they make a fortune and live a glamorous life) since it's so easy.

 

But I can talk that way since the only nature shooting I do is for myself or maybe for a gift for a family member/friend. I don't have to put food on the table or pay rent with my nature shooting. Those that do, well, that's a heck of a lot of pressure. Yo can justify almost anything looking at it that way.

It's bad when it's a lie, which it usually is. If you present a game-farm image to people who you know are likely to assume it's a wild animal, you are lying to them. It's not exactly rocket science.

I don't have any problems with people taking pictures at a zoo or game farm, as long as it is labled that way. Whether it is a good idea to support (by doing business with) those farms that might mistreat animals is another issue. They seem to be so expensive that I can't afford to visit them anyway.

 

However, I don't believe that only the result counts. Do you think it is ok to become an Olympic champion by taking banned performance-enhancing drugs?

It is much better (and more marketable to the general public) to

have shot it in the wild rather than at some game farm. Even the

game farm crowd knows this to be true because of the lies that

are told to sell their photos. I often talk with "wildlife"

photographers when I see them at art festivals. Not a single one

has ever admitted to me that this was a trained animal

photographed under controlled conditions. They do one of three

things. a) They are very evasive and try to steer the conversation

in a different direction without answering the question. (This is

the most rare of the three) b) They talk about the "dumb luck" of

getting so close to a wolf (or whatever) and how the wolf (or

whatever) wasn't alarmed by their presence and stayed around

for enough time to shoot of several rolls of film, or they start to

talk about their wilderness savy and their tracking and stalking

skills. Never once, (and I've spoken with at least 100 over the

years) has anyone alluded to the fact that they hired the trained

animal to pose for them in an enclosure in a natural setting.

 

Honesty like this would reduce their sales significantly, and they

would probably end up having to look for a real job.

 

I shot at a game farm once...it was a very sad experience for me.

I would never consider supporting that industry in any manner in

the future. The animals were well fed and groomed (so that they

would photograph well) but the quality of life was upsetting. They

were kept in small cages and then prostituted out for hundreds

and even thousands of dollars to perform for the paying

customers.

 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that this is not what the

creator intended when he made these magnificent creatures.

 

The general public is very naive about these matters and the

game farm photographers (who sell their work as wall art) take

full advantage of the unknowing customers. (I see it happen

over and over again.)

<p>Things seem a little clearer to me now-</p>

It seems I should add to point #1 that a major reason photographing animal farms is wrong is because people usually don't label animal farm pictures as such. Which is clearly misleading to the audience in most cases.

<p>Also, it seems results are not the only thing that matters for a picture, the process can matter too. As one poster pointed out Olympic atheletes are expected to follow guidelines for achieving results in competition. Seems to make a lot more sense now. I'm still skeptical a lot of people would care if they found out a picture they were buying were taken at an animal farm-- but there's not much we can too about that. </p>

I also try to make my pictures the most beautiful I can, so I don't care where I take them.

 

I agree that the experience of going to the Amazon is better than to get a shot in my city, but it's good because of the experience, not exactly because of the 'shot in the amazon'. If someone wants an experience on the Amazon, he doesn't even need a camera.

 

Taking a picture of a wild animal in a place that is not so wild is not a lie. If it were a lie, the animal simply wouldn't be where it is.

 

Many like the experience of shooting wildlife better than the photos itself (a thread of some time ago?) but I don't see anything wrong in taking the picture for itself. Something like 'art for art' (sorry, can't translate that from portuguese)

From my limited experience, I don't think we need to market the wild shots at all, quite the opposite.

 

My few "in the wild" shots always elicit questions and interest, e.g., "was that bear ON THE ROAD?" , "you mean a wild turkey came up to your car?", "those eagles are just 30 miles from here?", and the viewers have a number of questions about weather, place, how the animal acted, etc.

 

Whereas a much better "captive" shot (eagles at the Carolina Raptor Center, bear at Granfather Mtn. Habitat, for example) usually call forth an "oh, that's real nice".

 

As to why we go out there, well, bubba, the shot I worked for is MY shot, not just A shot, that's all the philosophical I can work up right now

Why even bother to go to the game farm folks, that costs money. Just go search on the web for "image tiger", find then copy paste an image, into Photoshop of your shot of you holding a pocket knife posing for battle on the brink of the Grand Canyon. You against Tony the Tiger in a great scenic locale. Whoopee, gotta be a great seller! :-> David

The mountain analogy is good. If you get to the top of Everest by climbing it, is it just the same as getting to the top by helicopter (yes, I know helicopters don't go that high...)? After all the result is the same right? You get the same view no matter how you got there (and you get the same pictures).

 

Fishing is fishing right? What does it matter if you catch a trout with a fly in a stream in Montana or out of a tank in New Jersey with a net? The result is the same, you get the fish. If you sell it to a restaurant, nobody will know the difference. You could even sell the NJ trout as "wild Montana trout". Who'd know the difference.

 

I like my wildlife images WILD. If you shoot at a game farm, you might as well just buy postcards.

 

Those who want to helicopter to the top of Everest and catch their trout in a net from a tank in NJ probably enjoy taking pictures at game farms. Each to his/her own I guess.

Well, I love to take photographs. Here is one. Can you guess where it was taken? Why?

Different people have different motivations for photographing. If you're a professional photographer selling the images, most people won't care too much where those images came from, and the game farm may be great- keeps you from molesting "real" wildlife, keeps one more person out of the wilderness, saves gasoline, money, and time; etc. My motivation for photographing is partly to document what I've seen- so it's more important to me to have a fuzzy picture of the bunny that I saw than it is to have a great picture of a grizzly that I didn't see.

Bill, the fence in the background is a dead giveaway . . .

Bill O'Neill, I think you can do better than giving a link to a 1M bitmap image file. For forum discussions, we prefer a smaller JPEG file within 50K and certainly not exceeding 100K.

I have a number of photo's in folders on photo.net, and my Owl pictures are of wild, naturally existing birds who live on county owned 'forgotten' land on the outskirts of a large-ish city (Milwaukee Wi).

 

Many of the shots i get are through densely wooded area's, and get comments in the folder like "that leaf is distracting" or "that branch shouldn't be there".

 

Yea, their right... but what they don't see are the two great big tree's or branches and leaves i am shooting through to get certain shots. I could get a clear shot at times of a birds back with it looking a different direction with a pleasing background, but i can just hear the comments then !

 

You work with what is before you and try to improve. All i hope for is to keep getting better.

 

For what it's worth, i don't at all consider myself an artist. I'm mostly trying to get good pictures I can learn things from when i study them later, not to make sales (though i am surprised at how many prints i sell without really trying) or win awards. Maybe i need to change how i approach that, but i have a lot of fun anyhow.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=296755

I couldn't disagree more with Stephen H. Most people do care

about how a picture was obtained and that is why there are so

many who just lie through their teeth about how images of these

captive animals were shot. Many publications require the image

to be labeled "Controlled Conditions" if indeed it was...many

photographers still don't label the images as required. (again

the lies...) Why? Because the image certainly has an advantage

(for a sale ) if it is thought to be shot in the wild...that is why there

are so many who are outright dishonest about the origins of the

image.

 

You and your images are much more saleable if you are

percieved as a real wildlife photographer that goes out into the

wild and photographs wild animals. That is why no game farm

photographer has ever admitted to me that "I went to Montana

and hired this trained wolf and asked the trainer to have it peer

out from behind a tree so that I could try to duplicate Jim

Brandenbergs famous shot. After I shot about three rolls of the

wolf peering out from behind the tree the trainer gave it some

meat and then I asked him to make the wolf howl up on a ridge.

The wolf was a marvelously cooperative model and he got some

more meat after his performance. I wasn't sure that I had the

shot after three rolls of that senario, so I shot a couple of more

rolls for insurance. For my close-ups, we ended up having to

tether the wolf with a chain which I was able to easily crop out of

the shot. I'm sure the wolf did not mind being chained...in fact it

looked to me like he probably enjoyed being tethered with a

chain I really don't see this as animal cruelty since the wolf

appeared to enjoy it ...The experience of being in this 3 acre

enclosure with a wolf who was trained to do whatever I asked it

to do in return for some meat from a trainer (who was always

close by) was absolutely exhilarating...probably very much like

having a real wolf encounter in the real wild without a fence and

without a chain....I was able to do this for less than a thousand

dollars and less than a half day of my time."

 

You just don't hear that kind of honest dialog from a game farm

shooter...because it will hurt sales. So I contend that yes, it does

matter to the photo buyers how the image was obtained. If it

didn't matter ... you would hear this type of honest dialog all the

time.

 

Finally, these animals are not captive for educational purposes,

or to save the environment from too many people going out into

the wild to photograph/see them. (There are already enough

photographs of these animals to educate the masses until the

end of time.) These animals are being held captive for the sole

purpose of revenue. They are a source of income for many

people (the game farm operators, still photographers, the movie

industry...) When there is money to be made ... many become

blind to the injustices that are occurring for the purposes of their

own financial gain. And many more see the injustices and don't

care as long as they are getting their piece of the pie.

C Terry,

>>> get comments in the folder like "that leaf is distracting"...

 

What they are saying...

"if I took that shot, later in Photoshop, I would remove the out of focus near leaf, and of course remove that cigaret butt on the ground next to the bird, and remove that ugly fallen branch there in the corner, and and and why yes doesn't that bright red indian paintbrush I pasted in go much better there with especially with +13 saturation increase! Now what an image I have taken. Yippee!

Bob, so you are on of those who would go to the Amazon to have the experience, and not necessarily good pictures?

 

You would go out to see wild animal in the WILD but leave your camera at home?

 

It's like having the experience of climbing the mountain. Why would you need a camera there? You had the experience.

Human nature sucks. Modern North American society gives us reasons/excuses like "How I got the shot doesn't matter - getting the shot matters" and "the ends justify the means" and "if I can make a sale it's worth it".

 

What ever happened to honesty and integrity?

 

I view people who shoot at game farms as too lazy to go get the shot with their own efforts in the wild. Game farms are a short cut to "success", just as are steriods and helicopters as previously mentioned.

 

Maybe some people don't care, but most nature photographers (those with a soul at least) do and therefore won't misrepresent their images. But I wonder, are those of us with this philosophy not full time pros because we are missing out on sales because of our ethics? Nature photography is very competitive, and human nature is weak, and consumerism is unforgiving.

 

Enough ramblings for a friday afternoon, I'm going home to look for more dragonflies. Maybe if I put glue on the brances they perch on I'll get better shots, then I'll be a rich and famous 'nature' photographer!

 

CB

 

www.chrisbrownephotography.com

Just got back from Ecuador after two weeks of bird photography in the montaine rain forest elevations. I chose to photograph in this area for several reasons, with these 2 as primary.

 

1) I love it

 

2) Despite the fact that Ecuador is one of the most species rich bird environs on earth, it's forest denizens have historically not been photographed much or well. I went there to accurately record their existance, beauty and habits. Hopefully there may be some benefit in regards to education and habitat preservation. Only time will tell.

 

Anyway, this is why I photograph 'real' nature.