Pictures of Captive Animals / Birds

[amir_ayalon]

<p>I many times see a picture of a captive animal/bird receives a lots of good critiques and rating, and i don't understand, how can you post an image of a captive animal without strictly mention that the image was shot in captivity!?<br>

<br /> How can you seriously critique a picture if you don't know were it was shot ?<br>

<br /> Are we comparing Wildlife photography to zoo photography ?<br>

<br /> I think that pictures of captive animal/birds should <strong>Not be allowed at all</strong>. Nature and Wildlife should be about nature or wildlife, not zoo, captive birds and raptor workshops.<br /> But if this is going too far, the very least one could do is mention when a shot is taken in captivity. (And i think it should be mandatory)</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>Appreciate your thoughts about this subject.</p>

[stemked]

<p>Amir,<br>

You are completely correct. There is an official body of Nature Photographers in the US (sorry, I can't recall the body) that stipulate that official nature photos should not be of animals that are in captivity. They also stipulate that there should be no 'hand-of-man' evident in the image (this second rule is different in European nature photography salons). Animals should be listed as being in captivity when present. Same thing is true of gardens IMHO, but at least there are other categories to consider. When I used to teach Nature Photography at Hanover College, I made that VERY clear to my students. I still got an occasional photo of a cow (I am in Indiana, after all).<br>

However, for better or for worse there isn't a category for captive or zoo animals here at photo.net. There is a 'pet' section, but that's as close as it comes. I do think however OUTSTANDING photographic images are taken of captive animals and they should be recognized for the art they are. In fact it is argued that animals photographed in these places (notably wolf, bear, and other mammals) take the pressure off photographers from disturbing them in their native habitat.<br>

Unfortunately they probably can only be posted in the 'Nature' section here but should be classified as 'captive'. I used to note that to posters here at photo.net , but it only got people's blood boiling.</p>

[kerry_grim]

<p>I recall probably 40 years ago (as I was just getting into nature and photography) seeing a slide program on birds. The guy was praised for being such a fine photographer. Yes, they were excellent images. But it seems I was the only person to realize they were captured birds. He never disclosed they were captured birds. I don't have a problem for biologists capturing and banding birds for study, but to do so for pictures is totally unethical in my mind. I have no idea if he had a permit or not but I consider this person lower than scum.</p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with zoo photography so long as you pass it off as a captive animal. I could probably go to a zoo and take fine photographs of a bear. But I won't. But I would go out in the wild where I have a very slim chance of seeing a bear, yet get a picture. Going to a zoo and taking photos of wildlife does not make a wildlife photographer.</p>

<p>I strongly believe it is more important to enjoy the outdoors FIRST, before photography. Those who would travel the outdoors just for the pictures alone are missing the point.</p>

<p> </p>

[naturegirl99]

<p>Having participated in a couple of workshops--one with rescued and rehabbed captive mammals and birds, and one a raptor conservancy--I consider them more as a learning tool, or a rehearsal, for the real thing. I, too, believe that photographers who publish these photos must label them as captive animals. You can still create art from a portrait of a captive wolf or bald eagle--but it should be clarified as such. <br>

I also find it much more personally satisfying to create a good image of a wild bird or mammal in its natural habitat. </p>

[Two23]

<p>Some of you are forgetting that many people live in cities and just don't have much access to wild places. Why shouldn't they be able to photo critters where ever they find them? I live in fairly rural area and daily travel through some great spots for wildlife, but I certainly don't hold it against those who don't.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[naturegirl99]

<p>Perhaps I should mention that I'm one of those people who live in a large urban centre and on top of that, I don't drive, and I can't afford to jump on a plane to some remote wildlife area. It can be very limiting, and as I mentioned above, I certainly don't see any problem with visiting zoos (we have an excellent one) or captive wildlife centres. <br>

I completely disagree, however, with Amir's statement that "captive animal/bird photos should not be allowed at all". I think a gentle disclaimer somewhere in the image's description is quite sufficient. What's next? Disallowing manipulated images (eg. a wolf howling in front of a huge moon)? I think we have quite enough rules to abide by without adding more. There's a reason it's called "artistic expression".</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>Amir,</p>

<p>I am afraid that I would have to disagree with you for the most part. However, I do agree that one should probably note that the bird/animal was captive or in the Zoo.</p>

<p>If I agreed 100% with your post, then "wouldn't those who take Hummingbird photos need to categorize their photos as captive also"<br>

I don't know of many that are getting those shots without being around a "feeder" of some sort, or at least a "planted/baited" flower bed.</p>

 

[amir_ayalon]

<p> Thanks Douglas for your thoughts,

<p>Anyone who tried to photograph wildlife in the wild know how difficult it is, how can you compare it to a mammal workshop? Or birds workshop?<br>

I'm not saying that these workshops are bad. (That's open for another discussion), I'm just saying that this mix in the same forum without proper disclosure where an image was taken, makes it unfair to the true wildlife images.</p>

</p>

[amir_ayalon]

<p> Kerry, I agree with you completely.

<p>Enjoying the outdoors is part of the experience, failing is part of the experience, frustration is part of the experience. Capturing wildlife pictures in controlled environment - in addition to all the other obvious problems, makes it much less of a thrill, much less satisfying from the photographer point of view.</p>

</p>

[amir_ayalon]

<p> Hi Kent.<br>

I also live in a big city.<br>

It’s also not easy for me to find wildlife and birds, and as I said, I'm not against seeing and photographing wild animals in controlled environment – but doing it for fun, going for such a place is great for educational reasons, or just quality time with the family. But taking pictures in such a place does not make you a nature photographer.<br>

Also, everybody can critique any picture. I'm not saying we should not rate or critique such pictures, just let the viewer know where the image was taken.</p>

 

[amir_ayalon]

<p>

<p >

<p >Hi James,</p>

<br /></p>

<p >A note if the animal was captive or even a "C" is great!</p>

<p >As long as we would be able to know how and where the image was taken.</p>

<p >As for feeder shots, you are of course right. In a perfect world it also would be great to know if a picture was taken with a setup,but.. it's not a perfect world. (I do know however some excellent photographers who do note if an image was taken in a feeder) </p>

</p>

[amir_ayalon]

<p>

<p>Nancy, you have a good point, however I suspect a lot of people will get used to shot the easy way, and will not do the real thing - Don’t think it’s a bad thing – less pressure on the wildlife, and that's fine, as long that there is a proper disclosure.<br>

As for my statement.. maybe I took it too far, but as I said that's only my opinion.<br>

A disclaimer somewhere in the image's description is a great solution and I wish someday that would be the standard.</p>

</p>

[amir_ayalon]

<p>

<p >One last remark, </p>

<p >Not only I think It's important for the viewer to know where the image was taken (in order to properly and fairly rate an image), but also, there were times were <strong>image of the week</strong> was an image that was shot in captivity..!, and that's, without proper disclosure, in very frustrating to all the other wildlife photographers.. </p>

</p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>Well then - it'd be interesting to hear what you all think of this lot: </p>

<p>http://www.metro.co.uk/news/826116-incredible-pictures-of-big-cats-up-close</p>

[amir_ayalon]

<p>Hi John.<br /> No doubt Amazing pictures can be taken in captivity, what makes it all more of a challenge to take amazing wildlife images in the wild..<br>

look at this<br /> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1253935/Photographer-captures-amazing-images-lions-watering-hole-submerging-months.html</p>

[don_webb]

<p>Let the picture speak for itself. If I shoot a wild animal in the wild I don't want to shoot a "head and shoulders" shot with little or no background. Doing so will lead most viewers to assume that it is a photo of a zoo or captive animal. <br>

When I do shoot in the wild, I try to include as much of the background as possible. That way, it is pretty evident that the photo was taken out of doors in the wild.</p>

[gary_c4]

<p>I am somewhat confused, I live in an urban environment in LA where I have planted my garden (no feeders) with the specific intention to attract Hummingbirds, which I do almost all day throughout the day. I have photographed them extensively and am now wondering what I should place on the photo? </p>

[bob_flood1]

<p>To a large degree, the importance of disclosing the shooting location depends on the viewing audience. Folks like us who inhabit wilderness areas to photograph the wildlife will care about the taking of the image along with the resulting image itself. But people who are not into photography but see our images probably will never wonder or even care where the image was shot - the image will be judged solely on the merits of the finished photo. But that judgment has value, doesn't it?</p>

<p>Let me also add something to those who pointed out the necessary limitations of living in the city. Disabled people like me would love to be trekking deep into Yellowstone in search of an exceptional shot in the critter's own environment, but the reality is I'll never do that - I'll get to shoot what's available not far from the roads, which makes a preserve like the Grizzly & Wolf Discovery Center in West Yellowstone, MT a great place to shoot subjects I'll not see any other way.</p>

<p>Having said that, I agree that artistic honesty dictates that images of captives should be labelled as such when shown to people for whom that aspect is relevant, which will always include nature photographers.</p>

[avery1]

<p>I think one issue here is about the photographer being transparent and honest. I've seen pictures of birds that are at a feeder that are still amazing shots. And to be honest, the most exciting shot I've ever taken was of a tiger in the wild...but it wasn't like I was trekking through the jungle...I was in a jeep on a safari to see tigers. I think the second real issue is really committing to the "leave no trace" philosophy. I was pretty annoyed by a recent article in Popular Photography about wildlife shooting that included a number of recommendations that I would find unethical under the leave no trace philosophy (bringing bear spray for so protect yourself when you get too close to a bear and make him angry, releasing live bait to attract animals/birds, and photographing trained animals are three examples I remember).</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>Please help me understand you.</p>

<p>A photograph is a means to deliver an expression, and if it moves my heart, does it matter how/where it was shot?<br /> For example, http://www.photo.net/featured-member/2009/september/marina-cano-wildlife-photographer<br /> Her work touches my heart, and they are mostly shot in Zoos.</p>

<p>Personally, my photo-junk on photo.net and my blog are titled in folders indicating where they were shot, and for ppl who cannot drive like me, I put in my blog directions how to get to zoos and such.</p>

<p>As for the difficulty in getting wildlife shots. You are sorely mistaken if getting Zoo shots are simple.</p>

<p>Case in point. I spent 4 hours in the rain (granted not long by wildlife standards) but yes, I stood at one spot, cold and wet for hours just for a short session where a Corsac fox wandered out, nibbled some food then went into its den. This was at hammerton zoo. I've also blown up gear in the rain in order to get the shot. It is also very challenging to get natural looking shots without man made obstructions. The challenges are there, but different. Do you also consider Inner Farnes, Kangaroo Island, Donna Nook etc not wildlife due to their ease of photography?</p>

<p>Inner Farnes: <a href="http://wolfbrother.blogspot.com/2010/06/farne-islands-2010-puffin-season.html">Puffins and terns are flying above the whole day; and their nest holes are like meters away</a>. I get shots even with my 16-85. No challenge == not wildlife?<br /> Kangaroo Island: Nuff said. Macropods of all sorts come up to you at night in the wild. Penguins come ashore at night (a techincal challenge with no flash). The seals are easily shot using a 55-200 I had back in the day. No challenge == not wildlife?<br /> Donna Nook - worse, the seals seem even closer than KI! Plus it's a bombing range. Not wild enough perhaps?</p>

<p>Sorry, for me it's about the emotion behind the shot. Marina and several other photographers are the embodiment of what I hope to achieve one day.</p>

<p>I consider myself a wildlife photographer, but now you give me pause. Perhaps I should just call myself a person who enjoys the company of critters and photographing them. *shrugs*</p>

<p>Regards,<br /> Alvin</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>double post</p>

[stemked]

<p>Hi All.<br>

I also shoot in zoos and even wild animal rehabilitation locals. I like the shots, when they are done well. Zoos have their own challenges, getting a natural looking shot while having to avoid wires, fences, glass reflections, etc. I consider them artistic and merit all the bravado that any good image gets. But they are NOT nature shots. My separate hats as a Naturalist, Professional Biologist, and hobbiest Nature Photographer all concur on this separation.<br>

The definitive professional call on this in the US (and the rest of North America) is the North American Nature Photography Association. I think it is very helpful. Their definitions are formulated as 'suggestions' to 'maintaining the integrity and trust among nature photographers' and not mandates or laws. What follows was cut and pasted from their web site titled "NANPA Truth in Captioning":<br>

Suggested Wording:<br />NANPA offers the following categories to assist in maintaining the integrity and trust among nature photographers, photo users and the public. These suggested categories, words and abbreviations are not intended as laws or mandates; they are merely suggestions. Consistent use of them is entirely up to the individual's professional or informed choice. Such<br />choices would include identifying organisms whose status is obvious, such as bacteria and domestic animals. In fulfilling its stated goals, NANPA realizes its responsibility and seeks to provide guidance consistent with truth and integrity for informed individual choice.<br>

WILD<br />As "Wild," this term, or no wording to indicate otherwise, would identify any creature having the<br />freedom to go anywhere and to disregard artificially set boundaries, with the exception of tracts established to protect the creature for its own sake, and where it lives in a natural state.<br />CAPTIVE<br />Abbreviated "Capt," this term applies to any living creature in a zoo, game farm, cage, net, trap, or in drugged or tethered conditions.<br>

The full page can be found here:<br>

http://www.nanpa.org/docs/truth_caption.pdf</p>

 

[justinblack]

<p>The International League of Conservation Photographers has established ethical guidelines for photography of nature and animals, published here:<br>

http://www.ilcp.com/?cid=58<br>

You have to keep in mind that these principles were developed for the purposes of professional editorial photographers, though many of them should apply to everyone. </p>

 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="1000">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>

 

<p ><strong>iLCP ETHICAL STANDARDS</strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong>Statement of Principles:</strong> <br /><br />As Fellows and Associates of the iLCP, we commit ourselves to maintaining the highest ethical standards in both our business practices and our behavior in the field. We pledge to advance ethical behavior throughout the photographic community by setting an example of integrity and professionalism. <br /><br />In doing so, we have adopted the following set of principles:<br /><br />* Integrity : The effectiveness of our work in furthering conservation is directly tied to its being accepted as authentic, accurate and honest. In this we cannot compromise.<br /><br />* Respect : We believe in respectful and professional behavior toward our subjects, human or wild, as well as the people with whom we come in contact.<br /><br />* Professionalism : Our behavior as individuals reflects on the image and integrity of every other ILCP Fellow and influences the impact and credibility of the organization as a whole. Those who consistently violate these principles will be asked to relinquish their Fellowship.<br /><br /><br />Guided by these principles, we adopt the following policies: <br /><br /><strong>FIELD PRACTICES</strong><br /><br />ILCP Fellows pledge to minimize our impact on the areas and subjects we photograph.<br /><br />1. We always place the welfare of our subjects above all else. Special care must be afforded breeding animals to avoid having a negative impact on reproductive success or add to the risk of predation. Key to this is the maintenance of safe, informed and responsible working distances.<br /><br />3. Minimize our impact on the landscape by following the “Leave No Trace - Pack It In, Pack it Out” ethic that maintains the integrity and character of the places we work. <br /><br />4. Be aware of and follow all regulations and customs that might impact our behavior in the field. <br /><br />5. Treat our partners in conservation - scientists, landowners, guides, and government officials - with respect and professionalism. <br /><br />6. When working with indigenous people, we will make every effort to respect and accurately represent the cultural values and traditions of our subjects. When appropriate, we will seek the necessary permissions from government agencies and indigenous leadership.<br /><strong><br /><br />USE OF CAPTIVE ANIMALS</strong><br /><br /><br />In some cases, photographing captive animals can be a valuable source of rare imagery that can be valuable for specific conservation goals. However, the use of captive animals must be governed by the same ethical considerations as elsewhere:<br /><br />1. The welfare of the animal should be paramount.<br /><br />2. Any institution that exploits animals solely for profit should not be utilized or supported. <br /><br />3. Images of captive animals will be honestly and accurately captioned and never represented as wild. <br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>DIGITAL MANIPULATION</strong><br /><br /><br />The documentary power of a photograph is directly linked to its value as a record of real events. Yet, with the advent of digital technology, the manipulation of images has become both easier and more widespread and can undermine public confidence in photography as a factual record.<br /><br />For this reason, we believe that image manipulation must never alter essential content in such a way that it either misrepresents actual events, or deceives the intended audience, in any context in which the truth of the image is assumed. Creative manipulation, when performed, must be fully disclosed to the end user.</p>

<p ><br /><strong>iLCP photographer Francisco Marquez speaks out about ethics and photography - download pdf here<br /></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong>TRUTH IN CAPTIONING</strong><br /><br /><br />Photographs deliver information, which should be both accurate and honest. Inaccurate or dishonest captioning reduces the effectiveness of the image as a tool for conservation, subverts its message and undermines public trust. </p>

 

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

[amir_ayalon]

<p>Thanks Alvin for your perspective.<br>

I'm not saying photographing in zoo is easy, yes, I'm sure there are many challenges,<br>

Also i'm not saying that photographs taken there can't be amazing, <strong>i'm sure they can be!</strong><br>

but how much more difficult it is to achieve the same image in the wild ?<br>

maybe you are right, and for the viewer it doen't matter where the picture was taken - just the end result.<br>

But we also critique the picture, and rate it, and for me at least, it is important to understand how a picture was taken, how difficult it was, what was the effort involved.<br>

If there will be a proper disclosure, we could all enjoy the Artistic beauty of a picture (wherever it was taken), and for those who care about those things, also how "wild" a picture is.<br>

I can tell you that as one who have spend many many days in the field, sometimes weeks, sometimes without any results, i saw here pictures that puzzled me for days on how the hell could someone take such pictures ? only to realize at the end that it was not took in the wild..</p>

 

[joseph_smith3]

<p>Amir, I disagree with you for many reasons. Many wild and migrating birds will mix in with local birds at a zoo's lake or pond. Are you going to photograph just the migrating ones? Are they tainted because they stopped at a zoo's pond ?<br />Are lions and cheetahs in the Serengeti National Park in a zoo setting? Some would say yes, because they cannot be hunted there and get used to Land Rovers driving around and looking at them. Others say no, because it is not a zoo and the animals are not restrained. Is a bird still wild if you attract it with bird food?<br />The simple answer is that there is no way to draw a line. One organization that does is the Photographic Society of America and they usually have to classes of Nature. One allows images taken at zoos; the other class does not allow zoo shots. Both classes do not allow the hand of man.<br />Joe Smith</p>