Wildlife or "almost" wildlife photography .. which is the real thing?

[jacques c pelletier]

<p>This is my very first time posting in this section. I spend most of my time posting in the Pentax sub-forum here.<br>

I have a dilemma, or perhaps you would call that a suspicion, and it may open a can of worms.<br>

What is REAL wild life photography? When I know that a great photograph of, let's say, a very-hard-to-get bird such as a peregrine falcon, has been taken while the bird is in captivity, it stops being "wildlife photography" for me. How would I know? Because sometimes I can see a faint, albeit blurred, background showing un-natural settings: cage bars, perhaps in a zoo; the shadow of a person most obviously hadling the animal, and so on.<br>

Yes, I am picky for when it comes to "wildlife" shots. Is a zoo a natural setting? Not in my books. Is a fox being taken care of at a wildlife refuge because it was injured still considered a wildlife subject, in its natural surroundings? The animal may still be a wild specimen but it has lost its habitat, for the time being anyway.<br>

So, I would assume that a honest photographer would mention any such anomalies while presenting "wildlife" photos.<br>

Comments welcome!<br>

JP</p>

 

[bob_flood1]

<p>It may seem like a cop-out to answer "some do, some don't," but that's the reality these days. I judge an animal photograph as a portrait, and a good shot is a good shot, whether captive or wild. But I wish all photographers would identify wild or captive - that piece of information tells me something about the uniqueness of the shooting opportunity and effort involve in the shot.<br>

And while not all will identify captive shots, it's way more prevalent than it was 10 years ago. There's a rather famous story of Nat Geo being embarassed to find out that poster they'd been selling of a polar bear on floating ice turned out to be a fake - the shot of the bear in a domestic zoo was merged with a shot of floating ice to create the published image. It was a great image, but it was the act of concealing the true nature of the image that caused so much angst.</p>

[jacques c pelletier]

<p>Hi Bob, and thank for the reply.<br>

I realize that you may judge such a photo as a "portrait" and that a good shot is a good shot, point taken. However, that is not the issue: I have seen such great animal photography, some even astonishingly and almost impossibly real, that it makes you wonder. Yes, some photographers are real pro's and yes they will more often than not shock you with their skills.<br>

But let's be honest: let the photographers mention that they were taking this superb picture of a Golden Eagle at very close range, under controlled settings while the bird was held in captivity, whether at a zoo or otherwise not-naturally occurring.<br>

When I look at a picture of anything "wildlife", I sure would like to know if indeed it was taken in the "wild", otherwise, it is not wildlife anymore.<br>

JP</p>

 

[SCL]

<p>To me it's the subject, not the environment. Yes, it may be important in some circumstances to know whether a shot is in an animal's or plant's natural environment, but for the most part, as long as other aspects of the environment don't intrude on the subject in the photograph, I could give a hoot whether it is shot in a wildlife preserve, zoo, the plains or the mountains. I'm just not interested in the photographer's stalking skills...merely their photographic skills.</p>

[tonybynum]

I strictly am a wild, wildlife photographer, meaning that my subjects are photographed in their natural or native habitat and free to come and go as they please without the restriction of fences; often the presence of predators is used as a factor of "wild." If there is a natural predator pray relationship, the subject is almost certainly wild. I always assume a "wildlife" images means it's wild. If it is a "captive" it is not wild, but in some cases it still is a wildlife image, it's just not truly a wild specimen, instead it's a captive and lives in a controlled space. If an image is of a captive subject, it should say so. . .

 

I can most often spot captives based on the species, angles, lighting, environment, and the animals physical conditioning.

 

Captive mammals are almost always obvious, they often are over weight, show or carry weight on the "wrong" places and at the wrong densities, and may be too perfect for a truly wild image. Captive animals also lack the truly wild look and often when you couple conditioning, angles, background, and species type you can spot a captive even if it's not labeled properly. Cougars or mountain lions often are shot captive due to their elusive habits. There are rare wild cougar images, but often they are treed cats.

[jautey]

 

<p>While I may personally and firmly belong to the camp that believes that wildlife photography doesn't include captive or even semi captive environments, there is a lot of room for disagreement and there is certainly a lot of grey area between my camp and the other camp(s). It's you're own choices that matter, not other photographers. I would never pass off a photo of a snow leopard as a wildlife shot (having not been to the Himalayas) and so any photos I have of one would have to be in a captive setting. I would be forthright in that information and not try to deceive editors or others to the contrary. Other photographers may try to deceive, but in the end they will be discovered and any reputation they had damaged. </p>

<p>A quick, off the top of my head, example of the gray areas that can arise are the famous bald eagles in Homer, Alaska. Are they truly wild, having been conditioned for several decades and now generations to feeding by the "Eagles lady"(and yes I know she has pass on)? I don't truly have an answer for that, there are argument that cut both ways.</p>

<p>And what about back yard critters? Squirrels, birds, rabbits. Wild sure, but just how wild. I have feral rabbits in my backyard that will eat from your hand if you're slow and non-threatening. Does not living in a cage or a even a pasture make them wild? Don't know myself. I am interested in others opinions </p>

 

 

[sean corley]

<p>A hard question. Do you judge a photgraph purely on it's merits or is the story behind it important? If I hike for 4 days up a mountain sit in a hide for a couple of days to get a great shot of a mountain lion. Is that a better shot than a similar one taken by someone who has lived on the same mountain all their life and to who's presence the lion is accustomed?</p>

[tonybynum]

I dont think the poster was judging image quality based on the location of the subject, i think he was trying to figure out how or when to differentiate between captives and wild animals. I cant speak for him, but he seems to appreciate a good image, he's just trying to figure out whole captive vs non captive issue with wildlife photography. I never got the impression that he was judging as much as he was interested in learning more about the issues. . .

[stemked]

<p>I have a little experience with this topic from a slightly different direction. While in Minnesota I belong to the Nature Photography club there where they strictly followed the rules setup nationally by an American Nature photography body (sorry, I don't know the name of the US organization). The rules clearly state no 'hand of man' should be involved in the photo. I saw positively magnificent photos disqualified because there was a fence post or even a tree obviously cut down by man in the image .<br>

In European judging salons I understand the rules are quite different. Certainly I have seen this in the British publication "Wildlife Photographer of the Year" contests. where it not uncommon to see birds on fences which would not be allowed in US conests.<br>

Therefore getting back to your original question, I for one have beautiful portraits of a Golden Eagle that I took at the Minnesota Raptor center. I have personally never entered it into any nature photography salons because I feel it would be dishonest of me to do so even though there is no obvious sign of 'hand of man' in the image. I would personally represent the photo as a captured animal image and I'm pretty sure that would disqualify the image.</p>

[michaeljlawson]

<p>I separate my portfolio by location and note if a location is a zoo, park, my yard, etc. I do my best to make the zoo shots as natural looking as possible, but would never claim they were "in the wild " shots. The photos taken at my favorite place my my home (Fermilab) are all truly wild, free roaming critters. To actually answer your question "What is REAL wild life photography" is difficult, but if you want to know "What is REAL HARDCORE wild life photography", watch the behind the scenes stuff from the Planet Earth series. What they do for a shot is often unbelievable.</p>

[sandysocks]

<p>Mixed feelings. Wildlife will fare best if left alone by hunters, biologists, and photographers, so certainly captive images should be more desireable. But it isn't so cut and dried. Most wildlife photography originates with animals that have become habituated to people in parks and the like. These animals are actually tame, but can be called wild. So, I would say, don't stress yourself or the wildlife.</p>

[mats nilson photography]

<p>I agree that a good photo is a good photo, regardless of how it was achieved. But I also aknowledge my audience's right to know whether it was taken under controlled circumstances or in the wild. But to me this is all rather academic. Instead, I think it's the wellfare of the subject that matters! If an animal is kept in a zoo for reasons of preserving a gene pool or something, then I can't see how photographing could hurt - if done sensibly. Likewise, an animal in a rehabilitation center may provide opportunities for close-ups that are simply not possible in the wild. But it's bad enough for a wild animal to be kept in captivity - even for its own good - not to harrass it by sticking a lens up its nose. Animal welfare first! Then there are those american wildlife farms specifically set up for photography, notably of large carnivores. Those I find utterly appalling and a disgrace to wildlife photography!</p>

<p>I think of wildlife photography in terms of 'fair trade'. I don't go out disturbing animals at their nests, since that disturbs them while only providing me with a photo opportunity. On the other hand, I might set up a hide someplace and bate animals to go there so that I can photograph them. Then they can choose to do so (or not) and get a food reward while I get my pictures. Photographing a bird singing on a fence post through my car window doesn't disturb it - or it'd fly away - so I consider that fair too.</p>

<p>Not including any man-made objects sounds downright silly, since that would exclude photographing all the animals that are specifically adapted to man-made habitats (e.g. farm land) and which would be taken out of context if not shown in their 'natural' habitat.</p>

[tonybynum]

"Wildlife will fare best if left alone by hunters, biologists, and photographers. . ." Mr. Potts

 

I want to stay on the point of the thread, but this statement is a bit confusing to me. Please clarify, with some citations if you have them. . .

[greg s]

<p>The primary reason I care if a photo is correctly ID'd as being of a truly wild subject or captive animal is due to the documentary value. If someone posts a photo of a California Condor taken at the San Diego Wild Animal Park, it is a nice portrait. If they take a photo of a condor out in the wide open spaces either nesting or eating or whatever its behavior, then it has a different documentary value... for me anyway. Regarding Mr. Potts statement, that can always be taken to any nth degree level of assumption and generalization including just viewing/witnessing wildlife or being in their habitat is potentially detrimental. It's a judgement call and can be taken to any extreme of debate. -g-</p>

[jacques c pelletier]

<p>Stephen: You answered:<br>

<em>I'm just not interested in the photographer's stalking skills...merely their photographic skills.</em><br>

I got your point and I respect your view.<br>

Tony: your comments do reflect exactly what I am trying to present: wild-wildlife vs. wildlife "controlled scenes". I know this thread will stir some interesting arguments and this is why I started it in the first place.<br>

I too am interested in the photographer's skills, as Stepen said; isn't that the real goal of photography: great skills make great photos? For the purpose of this thread, however, I think we are on the right track as to commenting on "real" wildlife photography.<br>

Eric: thanks for the comments. Yes indeed you have all sorts of wild critters just around your backyard ... conditioned, or tame, as they are to come and feed or retreat in a "non-wild" environment. Indeed it is a very grey area and one which requires full disclosure from the photographer, as you well mentioned.<br>

Sean: that is one good question. In answer to that I would add that I am unable to respond to it. Just my own opinion ... they are both wild animals, photographed in the wild but the latter mountain lion has been accustomed to human presence inspite of its wild nature. Does that mean that the lion is not a wildlife subject anymore? I think not but again, I am a purist and this lion does not fit my view of "wildlife".<br>

I know of this fellow wildlife photographer near my town who uses bait to attract a specific species of hawk, which is fine by me as long as it does not hurt the bird(s) but I never used this tecnique myself. Do I intend to? Most likely not. His photos are simply superb but not once has he mentioned the fact that the birds were baited so the approach could be done in a much easier manner. Is this wildlife photography? Depends on everyone's point of you, which I respect. Believe me, I certainly can appreciate a great wildlife photo when I see one. <br>

Douglas: T.Y. for the response. The way I see it, the Minnesota Nature Club you are mentioning could be regarded as rather extremist but I can see the point they are trying to make, and I couldn't agree more. Which also means that nearly 90% of all of my "nature shots" would be immediately disqualified because there is always some sort of human "touch" somewhere, as insignificant as it may seem: a distant and century-old fence picket, an abandoned and crumbled barn from the pionners' days, etc ... The other 10% would be considered "wild". But, as I also see it, the "true", undisturbed wildlife environment is shrinking and this came to me as a reminder that "the simple fact of observing a subject has already changed the outcome of the study".<br>

Not looking for trouble here, just stating the facts and trying to get a fair idea from all of you photographers! :)<br>

Michael: Timely reply as I just did watch a T.V. series, and also a movie that has been made from the same journey, by Jean Lemire, on the Sedna IV ... that is "hard core" enough ... here's a sample:<br>

<a href="http://www.usherbrooke.ca/udes/uploads/Shared_Uploads//RTEmagicLarge_lemire_16.jpg">http://www.usherbrooke.ca/udes/uploads/Shared_Uploads//RTEmagicLarge_lemire_16.jpg</a></p>

<p>RL ... no stress ... just common sense.</p>

<p>Mats: great comments too. Thanks for the input.<br>

As I mentioned earlier, it is becoming nearly impossible not to encounter human presence, even in the wildest of places.</p>

<p>So, having started a debate on what is wildlife photography, I will only add, this far, that I only want some input from all of you who have a passion for wildlife photography. Let us please keep this a fair arena for discussion.<br>

Cheers to all and looking forward to more comments.<br>

JP</p>

<p> </p>

[SCL]

<p>Hopefully Doug Herr, the noted aviary photographer, will weigh in with some interesting commentary on your question.</p>

[nodpete]

I think "wildlife" is any untamed bird-animal-fish, etc. I have a series of 8 or so shots of 2 bull moose challenging each other in Denali National Park, Alaska. It took about 15 minutes to take them. They didn't seem to know we were there, the young bull had a cow with him and wanted to chase the old guy away. In the end the old bull threw the young bull back. Then they all went on their way. I also have a family of squirrels in my yard that give me a lot of entertainment and some good shots. I can get fairly close to the squirrels but they are still "wild life".

[ds_meador]

<p>Is this wildlife? Not the best photo, but enough to ask the question. It was in my yard on Thursday. The house I rent has fields in front and back and forest on both sides. Ten years ago, it was all fields. So, this critter crossed my yard from one field to forest. Does the fact that I shot it in my yard make it any less wildlife? I would like to hear peoples' opinion of this concrete situation as opposed to hypothetical situations.<br>

Thanks - DS Meador</p><div></div>

[stemked]

<p>Here's something from a previous post I did several years ago:<br>

This is from the Standards on the Photographic Society of America. What follows was clipped from the PSA site on this subject:<br>

All images used in recognized PSA Nature Division competitions must meet the PSA Nature Definition of Nature Photography as follows:<br>

"Nature photography is restricted to the use of the photographic process to depict observations from all branches of natural history, except anthropology and archeology, in such a fashion that a well informed person will be able to identify the subject material and to certify as to its honest presentation. The story telling value of a photograph must be weighed more than the pictorial quality. Human elements shall not be present, except on the rare occasion where those human elements enhance the nature story. The presence of scientific bands on wild animals is acceptable. Photographs of artificially produced hybrid plants or animals, mounted specimens, or obviously set arrangements, are ineligible, as is any form of manipulation, manual or digital, that alters the truth of the photographic statement."<br>

All images used in recognized PSA Nature Division competitions for Wildlife images must meet the additional PSA Definition for Nature Wildlife Photography as follows:<br>

"Authentic Wildlife is defined as one or more organisms living free and unrestrained in a natural or adopted habitat." Therefore, photographs of zoo animals or photographs of game farm animals regardless of the game farm?s use of wildlife terminology are not considered wildlife images<br>

All digital images used in PSA Nature Division approved competitions or for competitions or for competitions governed by PSA Nature Division rules must be considered "Digital Realism".<br>

"Makers may perform any enhancements and modifications that improve the presentation of the image that could have been done at the time the image was taken but that does not change the truth of the original nature story. Cropping and horizontal flipping (equivalent to reversing a slide) are acceptable modifications. Addition of elements, removal of elements other than by cropping, combining elements from separate images, rearranging elements or cloning elements are not acceptable.</p>

[sandysocks]

<p>Tony, I cannot adequately cover this here, and I should not anyway, as this is the wrong kind of forum. You surely know about the many forms of death by lead poisoning that come from hunting. Less obvious is that there is a ton of spurious research. Photographers frighten, tire, and interupt feeding and breeding activities. Human scent long after leaving the scene leads predators in or repels various species. Nests and young are eaten or abandoned. This is not news to most wildlife photographers who tend to be well-informed as a group. If parks, zoos, and game farms take human pressure off natural ecosystems, then more power to them.</p>

[tonybynum]

thanks Potts, but today if you take away hunters, photographers and biologists, you'll take away the wildlife that you say would do better without them. In many cases particularly in the west with "sensitive" species, hunters, bio's bird watchers, and photographers are the one's funding the programs that protect the species, imagine what our duck populaton would be like without ducks unlimited and farmers. We cant go back in time to where there were no people. So, to tell us that the people who actually make possible good numbers of wildlife for us all to see are the cause of species declien or their demise in any significant numbers, fails to accept history, and escapes the reality that we must live and share together our limited space . . . In many cases animals actually do better with human presence, the list is long . . . .

[walk the wilderness]

<p>My humble 2 cents to this discussion : "Whether a image is wildlife or not ?" hings on whether the animal/ bird is in anyways constrainted unnaturally (human intervention) when you take the image.<br>

If you apply the above thinking then anything shot in zoo is not wildlife photography. Anything shot in your garden is wildlife ONLY if you have not lured that wildlife by using setups like feeders etc.<br>

There are lots of birds and animals you find in the cities that are not constrainted in anyway. Some examples : Falcon perched on a building waiting for unwary some pigeon, A fox that comes into your backyard looking for some waste.<br>

I hope I got my point across.</p>

<p> </p>

[sandysocks]

<p>Tony, have you somehow overlooked the decline in songbird populations over the last 40 years?</p>

[marta_cajiao]

<p>Wildlife. Wild Life. Wildlife should be considered any animal which is free to come and go as it pleases with ni restrictions imposed by mankind and almost wildlife refer to zoos or such places where the animal is restricted and has a human contact. Ds,your spider friend is 'wildlife' If you live on a mountain and take a photo of the cougar living there also it's wildlife unless the animal is your pet. Wildlife=freedom while 'almost' wildlife=some human intervention/restraint/captivity. I wouldn't consider a zoo animal 'wildlife' in the sense that it isn't free but I wouldn't want to go over to the tiger pen and pet the it. maybe,I'm oversimplifying the answer. Beautiful tralantula by the way--I have one and 'her' name is Claudia--she eats crickets and spins a pretty web and the molting process is fascinating to watch--my other pet is a ball python named baby he eats baby white mice...these are my 'almost' wildlife friends...and while they tolrate me,sometimes their wild side takes over and if aggravated they do bite--it's their way of letting me know that while they have adopted me as their 'friend' they aren't totally tame and can revert to their wild side at any given moment.</p>

[tonybynum]

Mr Potts, I have not over looked that. I think this is was you posted, "Wildlife will fare best if left alone by hunters, biologists, and photographers. . . " I asked you to be more clear, and to cite sources so that I and other's would know more exactly what you were talking about. So maybe if you meant song birds you could have mentioned that, "song birds will fare best if left along. . . " Had you said that I likely would have asked the same qustion, as I dont think any of those user groups you listed influence, directly, the song bird populations as a whole. Can you tell us where youre getting your information . . . ?