Zoo Photography - considered nature or wildlife photography?

And the photographers who do shoot their stuff in zoo's, should they be

considered wildlife and/or nature photographers?

 

A bit of a poll from a newby. Just curious thats all!

Good answer!

Caged animal and bird photography would be more appropriate.

 

Not very different than pet photography.

Zoos are the only places where some very rare species can be observed and photographed by average person who hold an interest. Say Great Panda as an example. To me it is a crime if anybody could go and harass those animals in wild. Also many people have no resources for intensive travel to remote parts of our planet. I sometimes wish to have more time to make visit to zoos more frequently - last time I visited one was maybe 2-3 years ago. As an example I find that more interesting than sitting around feeders (were animals hardly show 'natural' behaviors) and photograph common species perching around. How many bird on the stick cardinals can we take? Or how many 'posing' dear? Specimens in zoo can be a great place to get a portrait study of some interesting but hard to get photos from wild. If labeled correctly (as zoo specimen) they have a place in documentation nature photography. And those animals are part of nature, which we humans took out of their natural habitat and put in cage. Separate subject.

<P>

Also, is a city park, backyard, ditch along road, sewer pond near the plant, picnic area or scenic view parking lot etc part of the nature? Sure it is. Or better said what left from it. Is it a 'wild place'? Hardly but many so called wildlife photography is done in places like that.

<P>

We also have to take under the consideration what kind animal is observed. Insects can be observed and photographed in the backyard and they will behave natural. Hardly a set up for a deer to observe their behavior.

<P>

Because many people have different opinion at this subject finding an universal definition is quite hard.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Guardian/gallery/image/0,8543,-11304775870,00.html

 

Is this nature or wildlife photograph? And if subject is isolated from surrounding how much better it is from a zoo shot?

Yes, animal portraits.

 

I wouldn't consider a polar bear, tiger or other large carnivores as pets.

 

Zoos offer their own challenges, such as trying to get a pleasing image without chain link fencing as a backdrop, or someone's head in the foreground.

 

In a way, getting a photograph of a lion in a zoo is no more manufactured that getting a lion when you're one of eight people in a jeep and one jeep from a line of ten.

 

My 2p

 

Pete

There was a time when a zoo was something of a "freak show" but nowadays many have consevation at the forefront of what they do. With the way this planet and the flora and fauna thereon is being treated the role of a ( genuine ) zoo will become ever more beneficial.

 

If they help to persuade the young of the importance and the beauty of wild creatures then they are achieving something and I have stopped "knocking" them. In addition they offer so many of us the opportunity to see animals that we will probably never get the chance to see - I have been lucky in my life to see a lot of the big and, for that matter, the little game of Africa and of my home country but will I ever get to see wild tiger or gorillas, probably not, but I would like to see them.

 

Rant over !

 

If the photographer is honest enough to say that they are zoo shots then take them for what they are.

After a chance visit to the Berlin zoo (one of the oldest) and having seen the condition the Tigers are kept in there, any zoo makes me feel angry. Some may be less of a jail than the others.

 

An Elephant has a 500 sq km habitat, normally. What sort of zoo would provide an accomodation for them?

 

All zoos should be shut down for the good of the animals. No need to educate anyone and create some false satisfaction of having "preserved" a few examples of a species. If anything is going to go to extinct, they will if the conditions are such. What happened to the Buffalos in Europe?

 

In this money driven global economy, the luxury of human beings comes first. This unfortunately includes pets and zoos.

Vivek I do not think any zoo in Germany will make any money. A typical zoo needs exta money from outside source such as city or coun®ty funding. It is not the run for profit it is a wrong and outdated idea of keeping animals for the curiosity of city people. This is camouflaged by false pretenses to keep the biodiversity and breed endangered species. If one wanted to breed and protect animals one would keep them as far away from any zoo at all cost ^^.

 

The alternative is not much better: "Individual" tourism to carry planeloads of people into the last preserved habitats of rare plant and animal life.

 

Sorry for my grim view today.

To focus on the thread:

 

".. should they be considered wildlife and/or nature photographers?"

 

I would call them "domesticated photographers" :-P

Vivek - I have rarely ( from memory ) disagreed with anything you have said but this time I am greatly at odds with you.

 

To dismiss all zoos on the basis of one that has upset you is not a realistic overall view.

 

To dismiss the breeding programmes which have maintained a number of species in the wild is to denigrate a considerable amount of genuine effort.

 

To dismiss the efforts of conservation organisations worldwide as a waste of time is an attitude of defeatism that I have not reached even in my bleakest moments.

 

It is of course your right to believe as you wish and mine to do the same.

Peter, Where is the spirit that led to the closure of (almost) all the Whale shows? That is what I am looking for. If my rant is counter productive, i just have to amuse myself at the existing hypocracy.

<i>To dismiss the efforts of conservation organisations worldwide as a waste of time is an attitude of defeatism that I have not reached even in my bleakest moments.</i>

<p>

Bill, I think I did not say anything against conservation organisations.

A zoo has nothing to do with any real conservation, IMO.

Answering the original question, it's neither nature nor wildlife photography. I'll call it zoo

animal photography.

Heated discussion, same like many before on this subject.

 

Wildlife photography is a part of nature photography - hope nobody have problem in this statement. Nature photography has a natural subjects shown in the frame. Landscapes, rocks, plants and of course animals. They are often photographed out of 'wild' scenario as visitors including cities, human made habitats like backyard or gardens etc, or 'prisoners' in zoos, rehab centers, botanic gardens, etc.

 

Most captive subject living in artificial habitats scenarios are already grouped in divisions with names when it comes to competitions in nature photography. Zoos, garden, backyard are most popular so often included as separate categories. From practical point many less popular snick around and often are placed in not appropriate category. Example. Rehab centers are visited by photographers and because of it purpose are treated 'above' the zoo in status when in fact as far as photograph goes there is no difference (except less difficulties in keeping human made object out of frame). Again from practical stand point we do not have names for all this places as a categories but rather living a judgment to photographer and his/her ethics.

 

Pets, domestic and farm animals are usually excluded from nature photos competitions. But I noticed that many people frequently refer their horse photos as nature. Which is wrong. Pets, if one has a tiger pet (cats or dogs are obvious) is more difficult because tiger in private captivity has status similar to zoo or exotic farm. But many contests to avoid problems are just banning entering those king of photographs allowing at the best photos only from accredited zoos who are part of accepted programs by animal protection organizations. Photos from exotic farms are usually banned everywhere but sometimes hard to catch as they look most 'natural'.

 

Again with so many different personal opinions and feelings it is much better to adopt definition from one of the leading nature photo contests and start from there. It still will have a few weak points opening small doors for extra discussion but we all will have similar start in debate and avoid creating many extra names which have no use outside the author mind.

<p>Generally, images taken of zoo animals is considered "captive" photography, and for truth in disclosures many photographers, including me, label the images as such. This also pertains to other captive subjects, such as game farms and rehab birds or animals. I've done quite a bit of work with rehab birds and label these images as captive subjects, or with a © following the title if there's not enough room where I'm posting it. <a href=http://www.agpix.com/results.php?agid=heatherforcier><u>See my AGPix portfolio for rehab bird captioning.</u></a></p>

 

<p>Captives are a tiny fraction of the wildlife I photograph. If someone photographed at zoos exclusively, perhaps they would be a zoo photographer.</p>

Vivek - sorry to respond so late but have been pretty busy. May I suggest you go to - www.biodiversity.org.uk - the role of zoos in conservation. The role of the best zoos has changed dramatically in the last few years and I believe they now have something to offer in the field of conservation - my view of them has also changed. Sadly not all zoos match up but the good ones do.

 

If they take the punters money to fund their conservation projects then I think that is acceptable.

The fact is that great images of elusive species in the wild, made in a responsible manner

that doesn't pressure the animals will always have more merit as photographs compared

to the best photos of captive animals. I think of zoo or game farm images as documents of

the appearance of a captive or controlled individual of a species, but not wildlife

photography. Why? Because it is implied that wildlife photographs depict animals' behavior

under wild circumstances.

 

I am sick of photos of fill-flashed overweight mountain lions licking their lips after eating

a treat, or wolves shot with an 80-200 zoom from fifteen feet away and passed off as

"wild." Pictures like these purely serve the egos of the people who make them, and miss

the point of photographing animals that by their very nature avoid contact with humans.

For me, wildlife photography and nature photography are two types of photography that

sometimes intersect and sometimes don't.

 

In my view, any photograph taken of a wild (non-domesticated) animal is wildlife

photography. But if the photograph is taken in a captive environment like a zoo, then IT'S

NOT nature photography. On the other hand, a photo taken of a wild animal in its natural

habitat is both nature photography and wildlife photography.

 

As others do, I value photographs taken of wild animals in their natural habitats much

more highly than photographs taken of wild animals in a captive environment. But I still

regard both types of photos as wildlife photography.

Justin and Peter - much merit in what you say but please remember that not everyone is able to see the animals in their natural habitat and that they and their habitat are under constant and increasing pressure.

 

I spent a very long time in East Africa and was lucky and privileged enough to see a great deal of the wildlife and was disparaging about zoos - sadly due to the circumstances wildlife finds itself in I have changed my mind.

 

As I said before, if the photographer is honest enough to say they are zoo/captive shots then just take them for what they are - it is the fakers and manipulators that I cannot abide.

Well...not nature because they are not free in the nature. They are in a human-created, artificial ambient in a urban area. Nothing 'natural' about that.

 

Not wildlife either because...well...for the same reasons; they are not in the wild. They are captive.

 

I guess it would be more like pet/domestical animal photography.

 

I still prefer the animals free than in the zoo.

Wild (non-domesticated) animals are still wild, regardless if they are roaming free in

nature, or held captive in a zoo. So if you take a photo of a wild animal, that's wildlife

photography, regardless of where the wild animal happened to be. But as I said before,

itﾒs not nature photography if it was taken in a man-made environment like a zoo.