Is wildlife photography boring (to the viewer)?

[vegasllew]

Great topic, Bob. I'm very surprised that there has been little reference to context of images in relation to public impact and acceptance. For example, someone with at least minimal writing skills and some naturalist leanings (or a friend or spouse with them) can create the storyline necessary for an image to be more than a "hey, look at me" animal/flower shot. And this is not new. Nearly 40 years ago, a fellow ecology grad student told me that if I wanted to have any of my slides "go commercial", I had better be prepared to create the context in the form of good surrounding text. Good slides were dime a dozen; good stories illustrated with good slides were not.

 

Has that really changed?

[lawrence_palumbo]

great thread bob. really interesting read.

 

i have just humbly started selling a few prints out of local shops. when deciding which prints would sell, i am always attracted to my better wildlife images and figured the response by people would be the same, but when i observe potential customers looking at my work, most find the landscape/scenic types more interesting. i think its because they can relate more to it. it may be a scene that they have seen or something similar to what they see on a regular basis, whereas, most people dont spend much time near or around wild animals, and dont have that relation to it.

 

who knows for sure? i have learned to tone down my enthusiasm for wildlife when considering what may sell.

 

id love to hear more about how well people sell at shows. i was considering trying to get involved in those type venues.

[markci]

Well, there have now been three consecutive threads on this forum starting with something along the lines of "where can I go in XXXX during the month of YYYY" to take pictures. I can't imagine there are a lot of posts in artists' forums asking where the good painting or sculpting opportunities are.

 

Not that I'm any different myself, but I think it has some bearing on the problem.

[qtluong]

I am not sure it is because we've seen more wildlife than

landscape photos. I've seen a lot of landscape images, and

the good ones still interest me to an extent that almost no

wildlife image does. Many wildlife images look a bit similar,

with the focus on the main subject and the rest of the image

somewhat out of focus. In this type of composition, the visual

content of the image is much less than that of a landscape (esp.

one shot on LF) where everything is in focus, where you can have

a strong composition that leads the eye in the picture.

The images that

I personally find more interesting are those which show several

animals (like a colony of Emperor Penguins) or an animal in a landscape. Those are more similar to landscape photos in terms of information content. By the way, my wife is not a photographer,

and after an initial reaction of "cute !" she is also bored by

wildlife images. By the way, why does a website count as "exposure",

if you have enough traffic ?

Tuan <a href = "http:/www.terragalleria.com">Terra Galleria</a>.

[sliu]

Most life photographs taken with tele-lens usually have very nice details but lack of context.

<p>

To get interesting shots, I think what Robert Capa said,

<p>

<i>

"If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough,"

</i>

<p>

should also apply to wildlife photography. But it is <b>much much harder</b> than in street photography, for obvious reason.

<p>

<img src="/bboard/image?bboard_upload_id=12405184">

<p>

This one was shot at very close distance with a zoom lens at the focal length of 13.7mm (35mm film equiv 70mm) on a digital camera. I could get better shot if I use a film camera with Provia, but that is another issue.

<p>

[hique]

I usually see normal landscapes shots, but some are really impressive (great clouds, light, thunderstorms). And it's hard to get those impressive shots (you must depend on the weather, season, time of day)

 

I usually see normal wildlife shots, and a few are really impressive (great action captured, funny poses, different pictures). And it's even harder to get these impressive shots (catch different actions in the right brief moment of wild animals that usually fear us).

 

I think it is just harder to make impressive wildlife pictures.

[chiranjeeb]

I second what Liu has to say : getting close is the key whether you are doing animal or human portraits. IMO Frans Lanting is the best wildlife photographer that is out there and his images shine because, (i) he gets close enough and (ii) he has a great sense of lighting. In his book on Okavango, it is amazing to see what he can do even with manual flash. The question of getting close enough has been recently discussed in another thread --I do not know enought about animals or Lanting to make a judgement whether his close approach is foolhardy or inspired.

[jeet_sukumaran]

Boring to the viewer?

 

No!

 

Well, sometimes ...

 

I personally think that a photograph that serves as a proxy to reality (i.e no shift in perspective, essentially delivering the "if you were there, you would see this" angle) gets old fast. In this day and age of Discovery, NG, APL etc. we are bombarded by thousands of images (usually enhanced by lots of sound, f/x, and dynamic MTV-like cuts and edits) that it is simply not enough to convey the user to an exotic location and focus his gaze on an exotic animal ... simply because so little is truly "exotic" anymore

 

... that is from the conventional perspective, i.e. standing between 4-6 feet high. And the vast majority of wildlife shots, including many by some very good photographers, offer this perspective.

 

... then there are images that stand out. I think these are those that serve as a *complement* to reality (rather than a proxy), adding something to the subject by providing perspective on it that is simply not available in the real world. Macro shots, in my opinion do this without even much effort on the photographer's part ... after all, how often - in the real world - do we get down on our hands and knees and look really close at a dragonfly that has just alighted on a stem?

 

Have a look at the images on this website (not mine):

 

http://zoltantakacs.com/zt/pw/sn/index.shtml

 

I find them mesmerizing. Close-ups of some of the most fascinating animals on the planet, that capture and re-express their beauty and grace without compromising their essential alienness and dignity (i.e. does not elicit saccharine "cute" or "cuddly" comments in response). Of course, as one might guess, I have a distinct herpetological bias ... but the same holds for a number of different wildlife categories. Insects also reign strong in the "fascinating perspective" category - especially those super close-ups where you can see exquisite detail like the setae etc. ... on this site, have a look at Plonsky's portfolio (Plonsky - if you are reading this ... FANTASTIC work!).

 

Unfortunately - and I don't mean to offend those multitudes, including all the biggest names in nature photography - what I, personally, find does not hold my attention for very long are those many, many, many Big Mammal or Bird images. This is not through any lack of skill, effort etc. on the photographer's part, nor even any lack of appeal on the subject ... but rather, due to what Gould would call the "Spread of Excellence" ... this class of images have simply seen the greatest amount of contributors and contributions ... so all the conventional perspectives have been hashed and rehashed so many times, that the bar is so much higher

 

... Go out to your pond, find a frog, get down to eye-level and shoot him. Don't even need to get too creative ... stick to rule of thirds, off center your subject, fill the frame with subject etc. ... chances are you will get a decent shot that is going to make at least a good portion of your audience go "Wow!"

 

... Go out to the Serengeti, find a lion, do the same as above ... and you are lucky if any of audience will linger for longer than it takes their minds to classify - "Lion in savanah (yet another)" - and move on. We have been deluged with Big Game in Africa images since the beginning of nature documentaries, and it takes a whole lot to make such an image rise above the ambient soup of once-spectacular images.

 

... same applies to a lot of bird photography. I find now that - with both Big Mammals and Birds, unless the photograph offers something beyond an image (i.e. a plain, anonymous portrait), I don't really register it. If it cannot offer a different perspective (and, admittedly, your "perspective" options are limited when dealing with wild animals in the field), then it has to at least tell a story. A crowing carrying a coat-hanger while flying over suburbia would hold my attention for longer than a close-up of a Bald-headed Eagle's head. Similarly, I would spend a lot more time looking at an image of two gulls squabbling over "fishing rights" (just saw that somewhere on one of the posts here ... cannot remember where) then a technically-perfect well-composed portrait of the same bird.

 

Of course, at the end of the day, while a positive audience reaction is always welcome, except for those who make a living from it (and I am glad that I don't), I suppose most of us shoot because we love to shoot. Maybe it is the hunting instinct re-expressed, maybe because we are so awed by the beauty of the natural world that we jealously seek to capture it for ourselves, or maybe ... who knows? I know that, for myself, the audience does not play to large a role in my shooting, for better or for worse. It is difficult enough to persuade the <a href="http://frogweb.org/photography/photography_eye_to_vision.html">camera's eye to express our vision</a> ... I cannot even begin to consider using the camera to capture any given hypothetical audience's vision!

 

 

[jeet_sukumaran]

<p><i><b>Note to moderator:</b> Formatting got ommitted from the post, so I am resubmitting it with a little structure thrown in. If possible, maybe we can delete the previous amorphous post?</i></p>

 

<p>Boring to the viewer?</p>

 

<p>No!</p>

 

<p>Well, sometimes ... I personally think that a photograph that serves as a proxy to reality (i.e no shift in perspective, essentially delivering the "if you were there, you would see this" angle) gets old fast. In this day and age of Discovery, NG, APL etc. we are bombarded by thousands of images (usually enhanced by lots of sound, f/x, and dynamic MTV-like cuts and edits) that it is simply not enough to convey the user to an exotic location and focus his gaze on an exotic animal ... simply because so little is truly "exotic" anymore. ... that is from the conventional perspective, i.e. standing between 4-6 feet high. And the vast majority of wildlife shots, including many by some very good photographers, offer this perspective.</p>

 

<p>... then there are images that stand out. I think these are those that serve as a *complement* to reality (rather than a proxy), adding something to the subject by providing perspective on it that is simply not available in the real world. Macro shots, in my opinion do this without even much effort on the photographer's part ... after all, how often - in the real world - do we get down on our hands and knees and look really close at a dragonfly that has just alighted on a stem? Have a look at the images on this website (not mine):</p>

 

<p><a href="http://zoltantakacs.com/zt/pw/sn/index.shtml">http://zoltantakacs.com/zt/pw/sn/index.shtml</a></p>

 

<p>I find them mesmerizing.Close-ups of some of the most fascinating animals on the planet, that capture and re-express their beauty and grace without compromising their essential alienness and dignity (i.e. does not elicit saccharine "cute" or "cuddly" comments in response). Of course, as one might guess, I have a distinct herpetological bias ... but the same holds for a number of different wildlife categories. Insects also reign strong in the "fascinating perspective" category - especially those super close-ups where you can see exquisite detail like the setae etc. ... on this site, have a look at Plonsky's portfolio (Plonsky - if you are reading this ... FANTASTIC work!).</p>

 

<p>Unfortunately - and I don't mean to offend those multitudes, including all the biggest names in nature photography - what I, personally, find does not hold my attention for very long are those many, many, many Big Mammal or Bird images. This is not through any lack of skill, effort etc. on the photographer's part, nor even any lack of appeal on the subject ... but rather, due to what Gould would call the "Spread of Excellence" ... this class of images have simply seen the greatest amount of contributors and contributions ... so all the conventional perspectives have been hashed and rehashed so many times, that the bar is so much higher ...</p>

 

<p>Go out to your pond, find a frog, get down to eye-level and shoot him. Don't even need to get too creative ... stick to rule of thirds, off center your subject, fill the frame with subject etc. ... chances are you will get a decent shot that is going to make at least a good portion of your audience go "Wow!" ...</p>

 

<p>Go out to the Serengeti, find a lion, do the same as above ... and you are lucky if any of audience will linger for longer than it takes their minds to classify - "Lion in savanah (yet another)" - and move on. We have been deluged with Big Game in Africa images since the beginning of nature documentaries, and it takes a whole lot to make such an image rise above the ambient soup of once-spectacular images. ... same applies to a lot of bird photography. I find now that - with both Big Mammals and Birds, unless the photograph offers something beyond an image (i.e. a plain, anonymous portrait), I don't really register it. If it cannot offer a different perspective (and, admittedly, your "perspective" options are limited when dealing with wild animals in the field), then it has to at least tell a story. A crowing carrying a coat-hanger while flying over suburbia would hold my attention for longer than a close-up of a Bald-headed Eagle's head. Similarly, I would spend a lot more time looking at an image of two gulls squabbling over "fishing rights" (just saw that somewhere on one of the posts here ... cannot remember where) then a technically-perfect well-composed portrait of the same bird.</p>

 

<p>Of course, at the end of the day, while a positive audience reaction is always welcome, except for those who make a living from it (and I am glad that I don't), I suppose most of us shoot because we love to shoot. Maybe it is the hunting instinct re-expressed, maybe because we are so awed by the beauty of the natural world that we jealously seek to capture it for ourselves, or maybe ... who knows? I know that, for myself, the audience does not play to large a role in my shooting, for better or for worse. It is difficult enough to persuade the <a href="http://frogweb.org/photography/photography_eye_to_vision.html">camera's eye to express our vision</a> ... I cannot even begin to consider using the camera to capture any given hypothetical audience's vision! </p>

 

 

[alan_woolnough]

I dont find it boring at all {maybe a little bit},

 

Since i got my computer and am able to see images from around the world instantly, ive become more aware of the differences in approach to wildlife photography.

 

As someone who knows full well the frustration and difficulties of getting even a very basic image of a bird etc, i will often look a bit deeper at an image than the face value of it.

 

Since being on Photo Net, i have never seen so many images of egrets in my life, as they are relatively scarce in the UK. Even though they appear to be fairly common in Florida and have been photographed to death, i can fully appreciate the skill and difficulty in getting an image that will stand out from the crowd {such as Bills}. Having said that, i would also find a "boring" shot of an egret interesting, if i knew that the photographer had spent days of hard work tracking down the subject and possibly ending up with only a couple of minutes photography in less than ideal light.

 

I usually judge my own images partly on the effort that i have made to get the shot, and would get more satisfaction out of looking at a "boring" shot of a scarce/timid bird, than an interesting shot of a common bird that is accustomed to people. However, i would be more likely to hang the interesting shot on my wall.

 

I take great interest in looking at the images on this site from all over the world, and just because some of the bird images are pure record shots of very common birds in some countries, does not make them boring to me, as there is often a lot more to them than meets the eye.

 

I dont envy the pros one bit, as the general public probably dont care about the time and effort involved in getting an image of a creature with a mind of its own {which will often refuse to do anything interesting}.

 

Anyway, these are just my views.

[edward_burlew]

Do not confuse boring with peaceful

[j._scott_schrader]

Quang,

 

I don't believe that a website counts as exposure because the

viewer can't get the impact an image really has unless they are

seeing the real thing. I say this based on my experience with my

clients. Many, many times people tell me that they have seen

this shot or that shot on my website but are completely blown

away when they are standing in front of it in person. When they

saw it one my web-site they thought it was a "pretty good shot" or

an "interesting shot", when they see it in person there is an

emotional response that occurs to a degree that just can't

happen when viewing on the web. That was the impetus for my

statement that a web-site doesn't count as visibility. My web-site

basically takes the place of a printed catalog.

 

I also have to agree with Llewellyn in that when I started

displaying my work with a story about the image right next to

it...my sales increased immediately. People are now not only

purchasing what they consider to be a work of art, but also a

conversation piece. In that they know the story behind the image,

and can now re-tell that story when others inquire or comment

about the artwork on their wall.

[ligia_dovale]

Very interesting topic indeed. Looking at images of wildlife can be absolutely boring for a wildlife photographer. Apart from our own ( it is bad enough to spend time and effort in the field just to get boring results,) I would particularly point to those portraits of �wildlife� taken at game farms and zoos. These animals seem to have no life in their eyes, their images are boring and sad to look at. In the case of the game farms, even worse are the images of the animals that are posed in a picture perfect environment. I just see a bunch of photographers at the other side of the image trying to get the same exact picture. Or in the case of a captive, perfectly posed bird, I see the cords that are holding the bird in place (those cords that are hiding in the actual picture ... )

 

Most of us can pinpoint these shots of captive animals and be forever bored, however, the average consumer might be enjoying these images, as pictures like these continue being sold and published

 

And by the way, it is an amazing fact to me that certain publications/organizations keep including the images of captive animals in their �wildlife� calendars. It makes me wonder how difficult it would be to find twelve good images of real wildlife to make a calendar.

 

As for portraits of real wildlife, they do not necessarily have to be boring or static, but 90 % of the images I see could be considered very boring. Again, the opinion of the general public might differ from ours. I have a portrait of a captive Red-tailed Hawk that was voted number one in a popular vote contest. I am not proud of it (just one time I tried shooting captives.) Although the image might be okay exposure and compositions wise, it has no life behind it. When we are able to get an image of a wild animal, either a dynamic portrait or the animal in its environment that conveys a feeling, all the efforts are worth it ... selling it becomes secondary, doesn�t it?

 

Ligia

[christian deichert]

Most wildlife shots bore the hell out of me. Especially the birding shots -- just one shot after another of birds shot with 400+mm lenses on extension tubes, tight cropping all around. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

 

On the other hand, I really enjoy the results when people break the formulae on their wildlife shots. Environmental portraits of animals, dramatic silhouettes, and so forth -- they strive for originality rather than getting one more banal stock photo.

 

I will freely confess to taking a plethora of banal non-wildlife shots; I haven't added much to the genre with my not-so-unique vision of Delicate Arch at sunset or my shots of silhouetted saguaro cacti at sunset. Then again, I mainly take pictures for myself, so when I shoot these oft-photographed locations, I'm testing my skills to see if my shots line up against the best captures for these locations.

 

Using this argument, I suppose I can see why people would want to take photos of birds just like the others: to see how well their skills line up, how good they are at stalking, composition, etc. And I'm all for people using the photographic process to keep learning and growing as a photographer.

 

I suppose that, for photographers, a great part of the allure of photography is how a good picture takes us back to the moment we shot it. So, I can fully understand why people go out and shoot wildlife pictures just like all the others. These shots just don't do it for me, that's all.

 

[For the record, I'm not a professional photographer, although I do sell pieces fairly often. Film don't pay for itself!]

[bill_proud]

All,

 

NGS sent me a copy of their 100 Best Wildlife images as consolation for being rejected. Of all those images I only found four that I would like to hang on my wall. A Klaus Nigge "Stellar's Sea Eagles shot taken in 95, a 96 Chris Johns Kalahari Lion, a 1983 Des and Jen Bartlett Elephant image and a Mitsui Iwago Lioness and cub shot in 1986. Not that the others weren't great but these had what I'll call a "poignancy" to them. Some intangible feel of making me feel I could be there or "am there".

 

I'd also point out that these greatest shots date back 20 years. Of all the wildlife images that have run NGS, the editors had to include ones taken 20 years ago. Great shots don't happen every day. They could be once in a lifetime events for every one of us. Just think, you might get one image in your life that has it all, lighting exposure, focus and that intangible something that draws in to your soul.

 

If you care to see the top 100, the site is nationalgeographic.com/ngm/bestwildlife

 

The other thing that may lead to boring is size of view. We all are viewing a small 5x7 pic. Imagine some of these as 20x24 or larger. I remember being in Tom Mangelsen's gallery. Some of the prints were pretty impressive at that size. My brother in law has a couple of his prints, including the limited edition Salmon in the Grizzly's mouth shot hanging on his office wall.

 

Mark Cicarello, I go to the places for stock where my odds are better to get something usable.

 

Sorry to be so long winded but if you have picked up a camera and been drawn to photograph wildlife, it probably isn't without reason. There is some connection that exists between your eye and the animal.

Boring is part of the equation. Keep at it.<div></div>

[gary_anthes]

I agree that many, maybe most, wildlife images are boring. The reason is they lack context. Go to http://www.jimbrandenburg.com/gallery/wolves/wh03.html and click on the image of the wolf jumping across the water. I defy anyone to call that �boring.� Even though (by my rough calculation) the animal occupies less than 2% of the total photograph, it is unquestionably a wildlife photo.

[gary_watson]

Most are taxidermic, since most nature shooters strive for an ideal/typical rendering of their subjects.Conventional portraiture is much the same.Game parks that present captive animals for close range shots satisfy a huge demand for fake "nature" images among photographers who couldn't survive in many natural habitats,much less afford the costs of getting there and back. I see photo-realistic paintings and prints out-selling photographs by a large margin.

[j._scott_schrader]

Bill's answer made me pull out my copy of that same publication

to see what he thought were the outstanding images, and

compare that with the images that reached down and touched

MY soul.

 

I would agree that th Chris Johns Kalahari Lion is exceptional.

Des and Jen Bartlett's elephants didn't do much for me, but their

ostrich parent with chicks (1982) is an image that would

definitely make it to my wall. I also wouldn't hesitate to have

Barndenburgs' Gemsbok in the Namib Desert (1982) hanging

in my home. Possibly the most powerful image in the entire

publication in my opinion is the George W. Calef image of the

caribou of the Porcupine Herd crossing a snowy river. (1974)

The lioness and cub by Mitsuaki Iwago (1986) was one that I

glanced over three times before I even found it. It did nothing for

me. The Stellar's Sea Eagles by Klaus Nigge also was not

among the ones I would point to as one of the best of the best.

 

I'd be interested to hear others opinions on the most powerful

images in that publication. ...At the same time I don't want to

steer the conversation/discussion away from Bob's original

question.

 

Thanks Bob for the question ...it has been an interesting

discussion thus far!

[carl_donohue]

Quote: "NGS sent me a copy of their 100 Best Wildlife images as

consolation for being rejected. Of all those images I only found four

that I would like to hang on my wall.

 

-- bill proud"

 

 

Well, maybe those photographs are not about 'hanging on your wall' ..I

just looked through it again, and there are plenty of fantastic images

there, regardless of how many people would like them hanging on their

wall.

 

a few:

 

* Mark Moffett's molting tarantula is incredible,

* Lanting's courting albatross,

* Beverly Joubert's lioness catching the elephant calf,

* Des & Jen Bartlett's ostrich parent and hatching chicks,

* Lanting's African bullfrog,

* Lanting's drinking impala,

* Chris Johns' Kalahari lion,

* Lanting's Scarlet Macaw,

* Brandenburg's wolf in the Minnesota woodland is cool, but I'm

uncertain whether or not it's a wild animal or captive,

* Michael Nichols' chimp "frodo" in contemplation,

* Brandenburg's bison in the badlands,

* Sartore's grizzly with salmon at night,

* Sumio Harada's mtn goat in the snow storm, amongst plenty of others

 

those are are fantastic images. Granted, there are some images in that

collection that are surprising to say the least ..

 

* Robert Caputo's young black bear cubs playing, one of whom appears

to be collared.

* Brandenburg's red deer in NZ,

* Jim Dutcher's mtn lion,

* All of the polar bear images, by Flip Nicklin and Norbert Rosing,

* Mitsuaki Iawgo's zebra and wildebeest,

* Mattis Klum's meerkat, etc

 

They're not what I would call 'bad' pics (though the polar bears are

pretty average), but they're a far cry from what I'd expect in a 100

greatest Nat Geo pics.

 

My 2 cents

 

Cheers

 

Carl

 

=============================================================

[bill_proud]

Carl,

 

I hope it didn't sound like I thought the other 96 images were not phenomenal, they were, but those four really spoke to me. I had intended to point out the Mark Moffett macros. They were incredibly sharp, I just didn't see them on my wall.

 

I miss having the whole thread to review when I respond to a thread, especially one as long as this one.

 

Yeah, I did really like the Ostrich shot as well.

 

Someone mentioned the fact that telling the story about how you got the shot helps sell a wildlife image and I have noticed that does help me, although I don't do shows.

[jarnott]

Kids love Wildlife photos. They dont pay much, but that smile is priceless.

[stephen hazelton]

I was just out at Half Priced Books, a huge used-book store in Dallas. They have a Photography Section, where all the "Art" books go. They have a Nature section. "Wildlife Photography" goes in the Nature section, NOT in the Photography/ Art section. Does that say anything?

[drc]

Most everyone agrees that a lions share of wildlife photography out there is generic, often times boring.

 

But please don't let anyone try and tell you that photography (in particular nature photography) in it�s rarest and highest forms are not works of art!!!

 

Mark and Stephen take a good look at Lantings "Twilight Of The Giants"-"Penguins On Iceberg", Manglesons award winning "Arctic Fox & Polar Bear" Hoshinos "Caribou Crossing The River", Johnsons "Moose On Tundra" and a few of Brandenburgs wolf images.

 

David Crossley/Crossley Photography....

 

 

 

www.davidcrossley.com

[jeff_drew4]

Ouch! This one causes me to think! I agree with much of the above. Nearly all of my family finds wildlife photos boring, I've never been able to sell any either, at least not commercially. Most of my shots are boring and generic, but not all. Once in a while, I nail one and it's a keeper! But nobody else cares . . . "that's nice dear, when can you mow the lawn?" So then, why do people spend $thousands on gear and safaris? Jeez, Bob, now I have to ponder this and evaluate! Wait, I know! 'Cuz it's fun! I get out, I get shots none of my friends can get, therefore they don't care, but secretly they are Velvia with envy! They don't dare buy them because that would be admitting they can't do it! . . . or people really DON'T care and all the NWF/Sierra Club/GreenPeace etc politics are for naught, in the end? Hmmm . . . Time to sell my big glass?

[drc]

CORRECTION on my last post. Artist Johnny Johnsons "Moose On Tundra" is actually entitled "Morning Thunder". BTW edition sold out.

 

Reminds me of a quote by the truly great photography art master Ernst Haas-"What better profession could there be than the one of a photographer, almost a painter in a hurry, overwhelmed by too many constantly changing impressions".

 

 

David Crossley/Crossley Photography....

 

 

 

www.davidcrossley.com