Is wildlife photography boring (to the viewer)?

[bobatkins]

This weekend I vistied a Wildlife Art show and sale. I won't say

which one...

 

There was the usual mixure of sculpture, painting and photography

represented. Technically, some of the photography was excellent, some

wasn't, but there were really no images that grabbed me. If I go to a

photo gallery in NYC (non-nature, non-wildlife) there's usually a few

images that are really impressive and that seem to say something. I

didn't find that with the wildlife images. Mostly they said "here's an animal". Sometimes they said "here's an animal in a tree" or "here's an animal in a field".

 

Now I'm a wildlife photographer so I'm a little puzzled by this! I'm

wondering if I enjoy the photography more than I enjoy the images.

Being outdoors, watching the wildlife, taking the challenge of

getting that great "shot". I do find that the images I hang on my

walls tend to be B&W non-nature shots (though I do have some of my

wildlife work displayed).

 

So are most wildlife images pretty boring? I know that 90% of

everyting is boring of course, but is it intrinsicaly more difficult to make an interesting wildlife shot? Is the subject matter just "there" and all you can do is make a literal image that's OK but not capable of saying more than "here I am, look at me"?

 

The other question I have, aimed at those who exhibit at wildlife art

shows, is do you ever actually sell anything? I assume you must or

you wouldn't be there, but I didn't see anyone actually making sales

of their wildlife images.

[nate_merz1]

I may get chewed out for saying this, but I think that 99% of wildlife photography is boring, for me at least. Its one of the funnest to shoot, but I never REALLY like the photos.

[syd]

G'day Bob,

Good question. For me, unless the wildlife images are really exceptional they'll barely get 1/30th of a second of my attention span. I don't feel too attracted to animal shots in general, I have no idea why because I love animals and nature in general, but as I said, unless the capture is incredible, forget it.

 

Curiously though I can look at all kinds of landscape images which range from below average to incredible and give all kinds of time to that without the same yawn factor. Perhaps this is because I am an outdoor landscape photographer, by and large, and my eye is attracted naturally to those things which interest me most.

 

I don't care for portraits much either and I tend to treat wildlife photography the same way as I do portraiture. If I see an amazing portrait or wildlife image then I go *wow* like anything else, but it seems my tolerance for these kinds of images is far lower.

 

Whats interesting to note is that I don't think allot of people would really put wildlife or portraiture of other people on their walls, whereas the landscape image is for some reason far more suitable for this purpose. The reason for this may be that like music at a dinner party you always choose something which sits in the background without intruding on the moment. Music that is loud or that demands more attention doesn't quite fit the bill. Portraiture, unless it is family stuff, and wildlife unless it is incidental, might require a bit too much of the human eye in passing to go happily up on the wall, whereas the landscape shot seems appropriately unspecific enough to just hang...

 

0.2c's

 

Best, Simon<div></div>

[greg s]

Perhaps a person's interest in viewing wildlife photography is directly proportional to their 'actual' true interest in wildlife in general. I have met very few people in my life who have what I would consider to be a deep appreciation of wildlife and wild ecosystems. Most have a more surface level interest/affinity/relationship with nature and will probably extend that to their interest in viewing photography of it.

 

Rather bluntly stated, but that's pretty what I've witnessed from the human race. (Helps to explain the state of affairs with the environment, the actual value placed on nature as nature for its own sake.)

[tom_walker1]

Bob:

 

Interesting question. I sold my first wildlife shot in 1971 and now make a living at it. But, I, too, find most wildlife photography boring - including most of my own, ESPECIALLY my own. I think it is because so much of it has been done to death. A deer in the woods, a moose in a pond, etc.

 

At art shows, people regularly stop and look at photos of common animals and remark: "That's nice but I'll get my own." (As if owning a camera guarantees a good picture.) I do think photography in general doesn't enjoy the same status as say, oil painting, because EVERYBODY has a camera and can make a picture.

 

Johnny Johnson - the Alaska master - and Tom Mangelsen both tell me that the images that sell the best and get the most commentary are those of animals small in a dynamic landscape. Animals as part of a larger world. (See Mangelsen's BBC winner a few years ago for an example, or Brandenberg's wolf on an iceberg.) And, when I think of it, those are precisely the kinds of pictures of my own that I do like.

 

Lastly, wildlife photography is not so boring to me when it shows dynamic action and behavior. Rarely seen moments captured on film arrest even the most jaded viewers. (Example - Daniel J. Cox's image of a polar bear and cub presiding over a dying cub is HIS best seller by far.) Every year the BBC competition seems to have the obligatory lion-killing-something- picture. Overdone subject, but not boring.

 

I could say that the plethora of game farm animal pictures have cheapened the whole aspect of wildlife photography but won't...

 

 

Tom Walker

[ilkka_nissila]

I don't think wildlife photography is at all boring. It is technically more difficult to do than other types of photography since 1) it's by nature action photography, and 2) wildlife is less accessible to people than other types of action which involves usually people. It's a popular activity though, and that should compensate for the difficulty (somebody's got to be able to be able to do it well ....). For a wildlife photograph to be visually interesting, you'd have to get so many factors together in a rare event that ... few can.

 

Some of you probably have the BG/BBC Wildlife photographer of the year book (portfolio 12). I find it has several photos that would easily make it to my wall: Tim Laman's rhinoceros hornbill on p. 33, Bernd Römmelt's Goosander & chicks (p. 36,awesome, maybe too bright colours), Kelvin Aitken's crocodile (p. 57), Peter Lilja's fairy slipper orchids (p. 65), Mike Hill's panorama from Wistman's wood (p. 80-81), Mark Hamblin's red deer (p. 85), and Claudio Contreras Koob's military macaws (p. 118-9). The rest of them, mmm. well, they are good pictures of animals, plants or places, but *visually* there's something that bothers me about them. If 7 pictures out of 18500 entries get my unreserved adorance, I guess that tells that the odds are pretty bad for selling work in this field to me! :-)

 

But I love to look at wildlife photographs. I think at their best they can have a lot more emotional content than any photo of a landscape.

 

If you want to make wildlife photography more competitive as art, I would assume that more attention should be put to the light and form of the picture, as opposed to getting close and a sharp portrait of some species. So read Gloria's articles carefully!

[syd]

Greg,

In my case I can't agree. I grew up in a David Attenborough household and spent much of my youth and childhood years living within the bounds of National Parks and in country side where I was a great student of bird life, stream creatures, ocean life, and flora and fauna in general. This was the case with my trudging across the fields where I grew up in County Essex in the U.K during winters, catching the sight of blood and spore in the white snow from a freshly a killed rabbit. I fished freshwaters streams and dug for worms along the riverbanks. I spotted badgers and foxes among the brush. I could name all the small brid life including the Coal Tits, Chaffinches and Wrens not to mention birds of the migration that would bounce in and out of our garden where we watched from our back window as they fed on the food we left each day.

 

In Australia I grew up right on Sydney's harbour foreshore which is national parkland on the waters edge. Summers were spent playing among the cungi, making them squirt, observing the bodies of washed up shellfish, rock crabs, mud crabs and puffer fish as well as the odd wobegong and sting ray which were all around us when we swam and snorkelled. I spent hours climbing tree's collecting and naming all the different types of Cicadas; Gins, Whiskeys, Black Princes and Green Grocers as well as climbing the highest branches with empty ice cream containers to collect huge spitfire caterpillars! All of which I released later. I coudn't even begin to express to others my lifes apreciation and understanding of Wildlife, Flora and Fauna generally, but at the end of the day my apreciation for these things in reality have absolutely *NO* bearing on my apreciation of Wildlife photography... none whatsoever at all. The two are simply not connected.

[dan_fromm1]

Um, Bob, a little over ten years ago a colleague of mine wanted to sell photos to drag racing magazines. He wanted to specialize beyond that into car portaits, not shots of cars accelerating, and he wanted to sell car and bike portraits to owners as well as to magazines. His stuff had, up to then, got nothing but rejections.

 

So I had him show me a couple of issues of a couple of his target publications. All of them contained just three car portraits. Lotsa different cars, of course, but only three pictures. After a little prodding, Matt saw what I'd seen and figured out how to do the three basic car shots. His acceptance rate went way up.

 

I think its much the same with portaits of wildlife. There's a few basic ones, and then the photographer does 'em again. And again. And again.

 

Certainly this is why I've really slacked off shooting fish in aquaria. I don't care if they please others, my fish pictures bore me. Different fish, same shot.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[miles_hecker]

People like and buy artwork or photos that they can relate to on a personal level. This is the nature of art. A large majority of the US and European population lives in an intensely urban environement. They are, as a result very homocentric. Mankind to them is the center of creation and the universe. As a result they find it hard to relate to any form of art, photo or not that is not centered or at least has a foot in the human realm. To them the, majority of nature photos are irrelevent and boring.

 

Tom Mangelson who lives not too far from me is arguably the worlds most economically successful wildlife photographer. He has 7 galleries at last count scattered throughout the US. His shots that are the most popular and fastest selling have a 'human angle'. The polar bear or mountain lion cubs playing just like human kids. The eagle mom feeding her young. I've listened to people talk about shots as they walk through his Jackson,WY gallery. They are inevitably drawn to shots that evoke human fraternal emotions.

 

On another note, I sell landscape photos at a local gallery as a side to my usual job of teaching photography. The people that are drawn to my landscapes more than the wildlife shots tend to be of rural origin. They live near or within a days drive of the mountains I shoot or ones like them. Many visitors from large cities don't give the landscapes or wildlifes a 2d look. They are looking for art that contains people. The cowboys driving cattle on the range. The buffalo charging the cowboy on horseback.

[bill_proud]

Bob,

 

My feeling is, yes, 90% or more of wildlife photography images are boring, including mine. I went to Florida this year wanting to get something different. Out of 1000 images, I whittled it down to maybe 5 or 6 photographs which please "me". I don't know what they would do for others but I'll post one that I liked as food for thought. It still isn't exactly what I'd pre-envisioned, but close. Will it sell? I haven't tried it out yet. Do I have other images that sell? Yes, and they are behavioral images not portraits.

 

It seems to me that to get behavior images you may have to give up crisp focus sometimes, or the exact composition you were intending. Then you get criticized for that.

 

Anyway, great topic.<div></div>

[ken_dunn1]

Bob, you hit on something there that I have been asking myself a lot lately-do I like taking photographs or do I like photograpy. I love going out and shooting and sell quite a lot of images to calendar publishers, magazines, etc, but I have gotten to the point where I don't care to look at my pictures anymore, just love being out taking them (I don't shoot a lot of wildlife, mostly landscapes). I have switched to a 4x5 the last few days and it has helped add a bit of challenge to it. The worst part is that good things are really starting to happen for me. One of my goals was to get the contract for the Browntrout Wild and Scenic KY calendar and just did for 2004, and I am not really interested in my pictures anymore. Very tired of shooting 10 rolls of film and getting basically the same picture on every frame. At least with the 4x5 now I have to budget my film as you are very limited as to how much you can take with you so you try and make every shot count. I just love the composition part of photography and pressing that shutter, but don't really care anymore to look at anything. I think that part of the problem is that I want my work to keep getting better, not just every year but every time out, and that is hard to do, impossible even. Maybe this is what drives so many artists mad!

[bobatkins]

OK, I'm glad it's not just me!

 

What about the second part of the question. Does anyone actually sell anything at the "Wildlife Art Shows" that may artists/photographers seem to go to every weekend, or is it more of a social club where the artists get together and chat and are happy to break even by selling one image to cover their costs? Maybe paintings sell better? At the show I was at the photography stalls seemed pretty dead, with boxes of 8x10 prints that nobody was even looking through, as well as the larger display prints that nobody seemed to be buying either!

 

BTW very nice egret shot. Different, unusual and striking.

[keith_laban]

Bob

 

I don't know about prints, but here in the UK wildlife stock photographs sell better than landscape and general nature stock.

[markci]

I think it's not that interesting as art, because it isn't art. Mostly it's done by people who are naturalists first, and artists second. This background is actually what you want if you're illustrating a story. Photojournalism. But for something to hang on the wall, something that stands on its own, you want real art by a real artist.

[greg_barnett]

I tend to agree with it being somewhat boring. Not from a lack of love for nature though. I have a good friend who is a pro landscape and nature photographer. I love looking at his landscape work because it truly shows his style. His nature shots, although beautiful, and very well executed don't really show his "style" or much that is personal to him. I think in capturing these nature shots there is less of a decision to capture something that the photographer finds trully beautiful, and more of a decision to just capture and image of this wildlife because its there.

 

really interesting discussion, thanks Bob.

[c_terry]

Hmmm, I was kind of thinking the other way around.

 

I am by no means a pro, and don't want to become one. I sell prints grudgingly for the most part.

 

I have had some shots lately that i have been willing to show people, and for me it was more of a personal thing.

I got a lot of stuff on vacation in Florida, but it was a case of "I'm going to Ft Myers in March. There will be a lot of birds, so i am going to haul my camera gear so i can mess around with camera's on vacation... I might even get a decent picture or two".

 

I started showing them to people when i was there, and after i got home and the orders came pouring in. I was taken off guard. I don't like selling pictures really, it takes the "hobby" out of it for me. However, sales of one particular print paid for my whole vacation (!)

 

Anyhow, there are some owls near my home. I have been out watching and photographing them most every day, partly to mess around with my camera, and also because the Owls interest me and i am trying to learn about their behavior by watching, reading, and photographing.

 

The pictures have been selling like mad. I am way behind on printing (partly because i want to watch Owls, not hawk prints out of the back of my car), and i have still sold over 75 prints in the last two weeks (and it's NOT like i'm giving them away).

 

Some of the difference is that i am selling directly to people who are seeing the same things i am, but not getting anywhere near the same view of it as what the CCD sensor deep under all that glass is getting.

They see decent, colorfull 8x11 prints with tons of detail and they start standing in line.

I know for a fact many of my prints are on peoples living room walls and in their summer homes, because i have seen them there.

 

Bill Proud wrote: "It seems to me that to get behavior images you may have to give up crisp focus sometimes, or the exact composition you were intending. Then you get criticized for that. " And i had to smile, because i know exactly what you mean.

I got some shots i like of animals being themselve's and entertaining themselve's, but focus is soft or the light is terrible (hey, my lens is my spotting scope).

Someone who was buying a number of prints this afternoon was asking me "which one is yor favorite" and i said "i have never even bothered printing most of my favorites". I didn't go into detail, but it is like Bill has said.

 

Included is one i like a lot. The three shots before it have much better focus, though the Owls eyes are closed in them. A dog bumped into my tripod about the time i took this one, but i like it...<div></div>

[markci]

On a related note, I tend to agree with a statement I read by Sam Abell that said it's very difficult to make a color image that you're going to be able to live with on your wall for a long time. Black and white is much easier. And of course, nearly all wildlife work is in color.

[ryan_taylor1]

I'll echo the sentiments of Bill Proud and Michael Spinak. Due to the proliferation of nature photos, I think people have lost interest due to a lack of novelty. If you look at the major nature publications and calenders you largely see the same landscapes and charismatic megafauna over and over... sunsets, wading birds, hummingbirds, lions, tigers, and bears, oh my, eagles, dolphins, and wildflowers. NOTICE: before anyone flames me for the last statement notice I said LARGELY.

 

 

At any rate, show someone something really novel and I'll bet that you will indeed capture their attention. Along these lines, I've been thinking hard about my photography recently and I have been striving to shoot novel subjects and capture behavior and life cycles. Indeed when shooting behavior, espeically interactions among animals, the shots are often not as well composed or sharp as a static animal portrait. However, I think these kinds of images do a much better job of engaging the viewer than a beautifully lit, well composed image of some animal that has been published a million times before. Take a look at the images in National Geographic. Articles involving a particular animal often contain images that are grainy, blurred, and are not composed accordign to the rules of composition. However, I find these images to be much more emotionally engaging than 99% of the technically perfect nature images I see.

 

Finally, there is indeed something alluring about the process of nature photography itself. You can't control your subject or lighting to the same degree as other types of photography so I think the challenge is part of it. To photograph some calling frogs this past weekend, I drove 5 hours round trip, drug my camera through dense briars, shredded my arms and waders, endured hundreds of mosquito and fly bites, slid down an ebankment, got soaked to my chest standing in the pond, and endured tremendous frustration as the frogs hopped away after setting up a shot. But hey, it was fun!

 

And even though I've ranted agasint charismatic megafauna, beautiful image Bill!<div></div>

[ryan_taylor1]

In my previous post, I realized that I didn't really answer the question. Yes, I also find a lot of wildlife photography boring. Some images do really garner my attention, but they are relatively rare. In order for an image to "grab" me, it must be something novel. I think that nature photographers can do much more than make an image that says "here I am, look at me." It is just requires a lot of time and effort learning natural history and spending time in the field.

[melissa_eiselein]

Yeah, I'm often bored by nature shots. The ones I like the best are where the critters are looking at the camera, creating a sort of a connection between the animal and the viewer.

<p>Ironically, some of the photos that have been "done to death" are animals that I've seen many times in pictures, a few times in zoos, but never in person. A moose on a glossy page or computer screen doesn't do much for me, but I'd be thrilled to see a real, live moose in the woods--as opposed to a fake or dead one :-).

<p>As boring as I sometimes think wildlife pics are, I'm trying to make friends with a neighborhood (common place) squirrel that lives near the parking lot at work. I hope to one day get him to pose for a nice portrait. I guess much of the fun of photography is being there, seeing it (whatever it is) in person.

<p>The photography that really attracts my attention is architecture. Especially architecture with a play of lights that makes the building unlike anything I've seen in real life--or at least unlike anything I see on a regular basis in real life.

[art_haykin]

With the relentless saturation of media and images of the past several decades, it is inevitable that many of us have become sated and even jaded with familiar images, especially stills. The better nature and wildlife shows have more to offer, in my view, with brilliant footage, and it's hard to compete with these experts. They will stalk a given animal for days...even weeks...to show many aspects of their lives, and often come up with firsts that have never been successfully recorded before.Documenting wildlife from a scientific approach is one thing, and as static beauty is another. The big guys definitely seem to have the advantage, as they get both.

[bill_proud]

Art,

 

I agree with you and part of the problem, is that sometimes we all get pushed into shooting what is considered an acceptable image; one must follow the framing rules, it must be a certain size in the frame, looking to the right, etc., etc., and we know if we don't the image will get trashed by the community.

 

Ryan, I'm loading a shot that was recently under consideration by National Geo for the July issue on Sexual Selection, after making it through the first two cuts, it ultimately was not used. But I was encouraged as I thought it was different. It didn't make the first cut in my camera club slide competition a few years back because the animal on the right was facing backwards, a big no no for them.

 

Unfortunately for all of us, the truly remarkable images are very rare. Maybe that's why we see the same outstanding ones all the time.

 

I think to keep growing as nature shooters we have to keep reaching for "better". Okay, now we,ve taken a great posing Bald Eagle shot, and I never have yet, what's next?

[guytal]

I don't know if this is specific to wildlife. I would go as far as to say that 90% of photography in general is pretty generic (I won't say boring) - repeated takes on the same general ideas.<br>

Is Delicate Arch beautiful? You bet! Is it boring? Heck no! But I can't stand to look at yet another image of it, no matter how wonderful the light or the view is.<br>

I never understood the need to get "yet another" or "just like" images other than for personal records and learning.<br>

Guy<br>

<a href="http://scenicwild.com">Scenic Wild</a>

[j._scott_schrader]

I think because we are photographers that this question would

have significantly different answers in some kind of

non-photographic open forum. I believe that we find most

wildlife photographs boring because we see them every day of

our lives. For people who don't see them that often they are still

intrigued with good wildlife images. I'd say somewhere in the

neighborhood of 98% of the wildlife images out there are less

than remarkable. There is however still a market for good

images. Mangelsen ( who now has 15 galleries in the US) sells

out of editions of 3500 in less than 12 months. So there are

definitely people out there willing to spend on wildlife

photography.

 

I am primarily a wildlife shooter, I do about 15 shows per year.

My wildlife images sell better than my landscapes. I did a small

show this weekend and had $3500.00 in sales. I average in the

neighborhood of about $3300 at most shows, and usually three

or four shows per year fall in the $7000.00 - $9000.00 range ...

occassionally one will break $10,000.00. Granted a lot of it is

marketing. I have a well established mailing list of over 3000

names of people who have actually purchased photographs

from me... over 50% of those have purchased more than one

image (so now I see them as collectors of my work) I target

those folks with my marketing.

 

Anyone who purchases a limited edition photograph from me

recieves a hand written postcard of one of my images (within a

week of their purchase) thanking them for their interest in my

work and offering them a 10% discount on any purchase made

in the next 60 days if they are considering adding to their

collection.

 

I also send post cards to my entire list when I release a new

image, and I mail to those who live in the area where I will be

showing my work a couple of weeks before the show. No one

on my list recieves less than three mailings from me over 12

months. (this is what it takes to get forwarding addresses of

those who have moved/relocated.) The cost of these mailings is

not insignificant, but I have found that it does pay dividends.

 

Yesterday a long time customer of mine stopped by. He has a

significant collection of 14 of my photographs hanging in both

his home and his office. His life situation had recently changed.

(He got married) He was really intrigued with one of my newer

pieces that he hadn't yet seen...I could see that he really wanted

to add it to his collection but now he felt obligated to discuss the

purchase with his new wife before doing it. He said that he

might be ordering it off my web-site in the next couple of days.

He walked away from my display, I put the image in a bag

chased him down and gave him his wedding gift. (You would

have thought I just gave him a sack of Gold Bullion.) It was a

small price for me to pay and I now know that this guy will be a

customer for the rest of his life. (I am sure that the next time I

see him he will be adding to his collection.)

 

So this longwinded answer to your questions boils down to this.

Yes there are people out there buying wildlife photography. Yes,

it is boring to us (nature photographers) but not to people who

don't travel in the same circles as we do. In my opinion if your

work rises above the ordinary, and you are visible (having a web

page doesn't count as being visible) and you have a viable

marketing plan that you stick to ... you will be able to find those

wildlife photography buyers who are lurking out there.

[jeff nadler]

I've recently been doing digital slide shows of birds and wildlife to Audubon / birder groups. People oohed and ahhed at the images but did not care to buy one matted photo. Not one! My wife commented that even birders do not want photos of birds on their walls. Likewise for wildlife. So, perhaps wildlife photos are more interesting when projected but not so in a matted print?