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

[sean corley]

<p>I suppose "wildlife" is up to the individual. Are photograps polar bears at Churchill from snow buses true wildlife even though the bears have been attracted by human habitation and are use to human presence. The same goes for African game park safaris. Drive up park the vehicle next to a pride of lions used to this routine, get your shots move on to the herd of elephants. Same thing tomorrow morning. In my post about the mountain lion. To me it is truely wild but the same animal to the local could be viewed otherwise.</p>

[funkag]

<p>For me, it's a bigger deal in my own photography than when I'm looking at someone else's pictures - as long as they're not trying to deceive the viewer (me), as pretty picture is a pretty picture regardless of its location.</p>

<p>I've found myself less and less satisfied with photographing at the zoo or the flower conservatory (unless the pictures are of my daughter) - I enjoy the thrill of the hunt (mostly for wildflowers) too much. Anything man-made (including the numerous CCC "fake lakes" around the area) just doesn't feel as authentic to me anymore.</p>

[funkag]

<p>For me, it's a bigger deal in my own photography than when I'm looking at someone else's pictures - as long as they're not trying to deceive the viewer (me), a pretty picture is a pretty picture regardless of its location.</p>

<p>I've found myself less and less satisfied with photographing at the zoo or the flower conservatory (unless the pictures are of my daughter) - I enjoy the thrill of the hunt (mostly for wildflowers) too much. Anything man-made (including the numerous CCC "fake lakes" around the area) just doesn't feel as authentic to me anymore.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>With 6 billion or so people on this earth it may be impossible for animals to not have any contact with humans or human items, either food or structures. IMHO human impact is far and wide. For me wild means free only not free of human contact. Still nature evolves to the changes, some to take advantage of our impact and some species will cease. Personally I appreciate a good wildlife photo if it looks natural and when I shoot I try not to add anything more than my presentence, fence posts and rock walls included.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>The "real thing" is being honest about the circumstance of the shot. Did one bait the bird or animal in? Is that worse than keeping captive animals? Is planting a plant known to be attractive to certain birds or butterflies, etc., worse than an artificial feeder? Is a live specimen less or more "real" than a stuffed dead item collected in the field? Would an animal photographed on a naturalized foreign plant of some sort be "hand of man?"</p>

<p>It's a historic and pretty much universal practive to return from adventures with samples from the location visited. Others have sent samples of local material to others as gifts or bribes. However, unless there is some intentional deception going on, most of us shoot the subjects we want under circumstances appropriate to our hobbies or businesses and there isn't much of an ethical issue. </p>

[jwallphoto]

<p>It's the real thing if you feel like it's real when you're doing it.</p>

[jussi_vakkala1]

<blockquote>

<p>The animal may still be a wild specimen but it has lost its habitat</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Another point of view is that even more specimens will lost their habitat in future if people are ready to pay for photographing them in captivity. 95% of population in western countries has very little or no clue of importance of habitats. And that is including a majority of politicians too.<br>

Photographing wildlife in wild _may_ help some of us to understand better what is going on in general terms.</p>