Which is harder: Shooting People or Shooting Wildlife

[luis_g]

<p>Often they're one and the same. Not seriously, people are easier, because paying for and carrying 600mm.4 lenses and supporting hardware through hill and dale to photograph something that's not vain, won't give permission and is terminally lens-shy is an XXL drag.</p>

[the celt 2]

<p>Wild life will rarely sue you, but it is harder to get the model release signed. </p>

[rossb]

<p> I don't know. I guess each has it's challenges and possibilities. I would rather take a picture of my son to have then to have a picture of a deer or some critter. I suppose the picture would depend on what person and what critter and what they are doing. Yesterday I was within 15 feet of a Doe on the campus of UCSC (Santa Cruz) and I did not shoot a frame. I took a few book pictures however as one day we will not have books around much. I took one shot in particular that I liked because it was borrowed from the Vatican library. I wish I could have browsed it for a while. I was with my daughter and I took a few shots of her. She will be attending next year as a Junior. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm enjoying the perspectives, and even learning about UFC fighters. Do they walk upright? (humor)</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Not funny. Very much not funny. Stereotyping a group of people you a) don't know and b) hadn't even heard of until shortly before the comment is repulsive.<br>

<br />At least two of the fighters I have photographed are Stanford grads. More importantly, many of them invest heavily in working with trouble youth and abused animals. In addition, fight culture is based on respect. I've never shot any group of people that were more appreciative of what I do.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>I'm with Jeff on that one. A lot of these fighters are "strong mind, healthy body" types. You would be surprised how many of them have advanced degrees. A friend of mine is an amateur MMA fighter and is currently breezing through a BS RN at a hard school. She intends to go all the way up to Ph.D. RN for a specialty field like nurse practitioner.</p>

<p>Rosi Sexton is my young friend's role model. She's regaled me with enough Sexton storied that I can repeat some. ;) Dr. Sexton has a 1st Class Mathematics degree from Cambridge University, a PhD in Theoretical Computer Science from Manchester University, and an unspecified medical degree, and was once the world's number one ranked fighter in the women's 115 pound class and later in the 125 pound class. She dropped rank a bit after a knockout in 2010, but is climbing back up.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I think shooting people will get you a life sentence in prison whereas you can shoot wildlife and at most be fined. ;-)</p>

[beezartdms-wildlife]

<p>Jeff S and Joseph W</p>

<p>My apologies. You are correct to chastise me for my stereotyping comment. I beg your pardon.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>On a more serious note, any photography if it is compared against the best of its type in the world, is difficult. It's best to choose subjects that interest you most, so that at least you're keen to spend the enormous amount of time on the subject to get you to the top. If you're judging difficulty against "acceptable image" i.e. the bird or person is recognizable and well composed then obviously that's a very low standard to compare against. Only technical skill and ability to get close to the subject are required for that. But to make an image stand out above all images of similar subject matter ever made, the subject doesn't matter - it's all going to be very difficult. </p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>Figuring out for most wildlife what they're likely to do next takes between a few minutes and a few months worth of observation. People on the other hand still leave me flummoxed after half a century and counting.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>The hardest seems to be interesting photography, regardless of subject matter.</p>

<p>Whether people or wildlife are more difficult has got a lot to do with the photographer and his interests. There is no answer to that question.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>I think Avedon would have had a hard time making good wildlife photographs. Many of the top photographers shooting wildlife, a la National Geographic, are not only good photographers but also have to have other specialties too, in regard to the environment they're in, rockclimbing, diving, etc..<br /> But like Wouter says, it's just what comes naturally for some and not for others. A photographer shooting for months in some remote jungle might find it more difficult and not fun to photograph and deal directly with people, and the one shooting people might not survive "out there" for a day.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Taking a shot of bigfoot is also pretty difficult, depending of course on how creative your're willing to get.</p>

[frank uhlig]

<p>Shooting people - when caught - gets you in SERIOUS trouble, shooting wildlife - without a permit - does so, too, but to a lesser degree.</p>

<p>Which is harder? I cannot tell, having done neither.</p>

<p>What did you have in mind here, eh?</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I would pesonally rather shoot wildlife. The photographic challenges of wildlife may be more difficult, but the only person you have to satisfy is yourself; the animal doesn't care if you catch its good side. But with people you have to satisfy the person you are taking a photo of, which can be much harder to do that to get a good wildlife shot. I know I'd rather be under the relatively low pressure of wildlife photography than the higher pressure of portrait photography. And kids, that's a whole other ballgame; they don't cooperate and you have to satisfy their parents. So for me, all in all, wildlife is 'easier.'</p>

[dangoldman]

<p>some people shoot you back, so i'd say shooting people is harder...</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Larry, that was most gracious of you. Apology accepted.</p>

<p>Philo, Sasquatch are much easier to photograph if you either play a flute or take a flutist with you. The don't like high pitched sounds, so I've found the alto flutes work best. If you can get them to take you to one of their camps, their own flute playing is amazing. They make a notch-blown flute similar to an Andean Qenna or a Japanese Shakuhachi, but very long, maybe 5-6 feet. They play sitting, leaning back: the flutes have 3 holes worked by one hand, 2 holes by the other hand, and 2 holes that are worked with toes.</p>

<p>Frank, Dan, and a few others, believe it or not, here in South East Michigan it is not uncommon for people to get into more legal trouble (larger fines, longer sentences) for taking a gun to an animal than to another person.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Shooting animals is harder. If you shoot an animal, you are normally expected to gut it, hang it, dress it, tie it to your truck and drive it to a processing location.</p>

<p>If you shoot a person, you almost never do this. You usually just run.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Larry, that was most gracious of you. Apology accepted.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>I have figured out what the very most difficult sort of photography is...</p>

<p><strong>Food!</strong></p>

<p>I have been working on this damned shortbread cookie shoot for 2 days now. I have eaten at least 20 of the cookies so far. They are really quite good, but I am having difficulty trying to get their buttery, crumbly goodness into the shots.</p>

<p>I even took a Dremel tool, cut hollows into the bottom of one of the cookies and installed white LEDs so that the cookie would have an "internal glow", and I just can't get it. I've used two projector spots with slit apertures that could graze the top of the cookie with a "layer of light" to bring out as much texture as possible.</p>

<p>Did I mention that I've eaten at least 20 of the cookies so far. They're heavy, rich things.</p>

<p>I also asked the baker to make a batch of them with a reduced amount of butter, so we could brush more butter on the tops of the cookies and have cookies with the proper, legal amount of butter, but added translucency.</p>

[delane_gonzales]

<p>I believe that wildlife can be very interesting at times to take shots of. It depends on your qualities in photography, many people can be good at some things but others not so well. If you are surrounded by an intriguing wildlife then obviously the photos you take will be of wildlife. And if surrounded by interesting people then take that to your advantage. In my opinion i would rather take shots of wildlife.</p>

<p>Delane Gonzales</p>

[markci]

<p>It depends on the photographer.</p>