Have you passed up a great photo op by choice?

[gearoid_osullivan]

Just wondering if you ever passed up a potentially great photo

opportunity for some reason (morals, ethics etc)?

 

The reason I ask is I came across a fantastic scene, where there were

6 brightly coloured caterpillars arranged symmetrically around a

leaf, with their bodies all coiled in a similar manner too. I can't

do it justice in this description I'm afraid but it really jumped out

at me.

 

I had my camera in the car (and my tripod) but morally I felt I

couldn't take the shot as it was just outside a funeral home, and

wouldn't have been appropriate. I was atemnding a removal ceremony

at the time when I noticed the leaf on a tree beside the building.

Now I could have waited for everyone to leave and gone back

afterwards, but I didn't feel right about that. So chance gone, what

the heck. Other things are more important.

 

Just wondering if other poeple have had similar experiences, and what

kind of shots did they miss??

 

Happy holidays, and good shooting to all.

 

All the best, Gearoid

[larry h.]

Twice, but not for any high minded reasons. Actually, the first was a funeral of sorts. I was hiking with my wife and kids through Corkscrew Swamp in Florida. I had spent a few days there at an Audubon nature photography workshop. Then my family joined me for a hike the next day. As we were hiking, we heard the eeriest wailing call. We couldn't figure out what it was. Eventually, we saw a thin green snake eating a tree frog. My family said it would be cruel to take the picture. So I didn't. The image is burned into my mind, though.

 

The second was returning from a killer whale watch cruise in Puget Sound. I had put away my camera equipment. Then we came upon three bald eagles sitting on a rock just off our port side, not far away and not moving anywhere. I could have dug out my camera, but didn't. But the same thing. I remember that shot vividly.

[art_haykin]

Not if there was money in it!

[gloria_hopkins]

Hi Gearoid :)

 

I stay away from photographing dying or sickly animals, so there have been several kill scenes on which I have passed (I've also witnessed the snake vs. tree frog struggle ... a gut-wrenching scene). Trespassing laws and private property have also stopped me from getting closer to my subjects - several times. And, there have been times when I knew that baiting the bird/animal would help bring it in, but I don't do that either.

[hique]

About money, we cannot just answer like that.

 

It depends on the case; in some cases no money can make one to shoot a subject.

 

And it also matters the amount of money. hehehe

 

Merry Xmas to you all

[art_haykin]

Question: Do you suffer from indecision? Answer: Yes and no?

[davidroossien]

I pass them up all the time. I could hike all over the dunes here in Michigan and chances are that no one else would care. But, I would care. Even if it means missing the perfect angle, I skip it.

 

It destroys the dune grass (which is already struggling to survive in a harsh environment) so I skip lots of spots. I don't climb in areas I know will collapse, erode, etc. I don't pick pieces of grass from the dune because I find them distracting.

 

I figure that I'll be here for maybe 80 years, God willing, but the landscape is for everyone yet to come. It isn't here simply for my personal photographic enjoyment.

[gearoid_osullivan]

Thanks for the replies everyone

 

I couldn't agree more with Larry, Gloria and David's sentiments. As a (former) ecologist (now a lab techie), I like to try and record what I see pretty much as is. Since I am only doing it as a hobby, and have no financial pressures on me to get "The Shot" I don't feel the need to manipulate things for my benefit. I like to think that the vast majority of nature photographers out there are very resposible too.

 

P.S. Art and Marcio, tut,tut,tut! ;)

[chelsea]

Several times. The instance that sticks out the most in my mind was an ovenbird nest, with 3 young...would have been a wonderful shot. The mother had attacked me and flapped around with the broken wing bit when I got within 10 feet, so I stopped and looked around and spotted the nest, with the nestlings sticking their heads in the air, beaks wide open, waiting to be fed. But knowing that raccoons would likely follow my scent during the night, I backtracked and walked in circles away from the nest so I wouldn't lead them there.

 

Some other instances have been in places like a cedar fen where there were interesting orchids like showy ladies' slippers, but to get into position to shoot would have required trampling sensitive vegetation. I was also just out in the south end of Anzo Borrego State Park in California, and passed up some interesting cactus shots, as I would have had to trample some of the wintering dried shrubbery to get into the right position.

 

As far as the snake eating the frog type of shot, I will take those, if for nothing more than having something archived for when our local field naturalist groups give educational presentations. They may seem gruesome, but they help to illustrate some of the predators that frogs face.

[nathan_cohen]

Bottom line: feel out the line of:'to measure is to disturb'. That decides whether you do it 'by choice'.

 

To answer your question (including this caveat), the answer is--yes. When I was young and foolish!:-) Time flies and each moment is unique. Only the young think that we live forever and it is a right to be easily bored:-) IMO, the great appeal of nature photography is that we capture unique moments:-)

[david_chananie]

I often photograph people at the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, DC. Sometimes people will experience a great deal of emotional pain during their visit, mourning the loss of a friend or a loved one. From time to time I choose not to photograph what I see. I include this here under the theory that war and its remembrance is a part of nature.

[david_wilson7]

I chosen other vantage points for shots when the ideal point is covered in plants, which would get trambled by me and my tripod. I try to avoid damaging anything while photographing nature(and have been succesful so far), so some sensitive spots are out of the question. I try to just not think about them, rather then get angry that I can't the shot. I've never had the opportunity, but if I did, I believe I would take the snake eating the frog picture. Nature isn't always pretty and postcard like. This is completely a part of the natural oder of things, and would be a fitting documentation, IMO.

[mbb]

There is something I don�t understand in this tread. Question was asked about morals, ethics etc, stopping photographer from taking the photo.

 

Destroying the habitat, stressing nesting birds etc, is beyond even the need for discussion as we are talking about pure vandalism. But other issues of taking photos of �snake eating frog� or �dying animals� it even sound strange on *Nature Forum*. I was working as a zoologist for the long time in the past and as well I have a degree in that field. Now I do some research on my own and I am facing those natural situations quite often. There is no need to take photo (for me) of the dying animal just for sake to do it. Again IMHO this photo won�t usually bring anything of the value. But photographing the cases to document a new, rare or interesting behavior is what I was trained for. As an example this year I discovered a population of the ant�s species, which has very little publications as far as their behavior goes not to mention lack of the photographs showing their behavior. As an addition to another observations documented on photos (nestmate transport being the most important) I also was trying to photograph as much as I could from their daily activities. Fact that they pray on weak, dying or dead animals is a part of their life. So, again how so many people call them the �nature photographers� and they not even trying to study the subjects of their photos? If they have a problem to observe a dying animal (nobody ask to feel a pleasure to do so) I hardly can understand their interests in nature. Looking just for an opportunity to take a nice pic of the bird in wonderful light is maybe a good goal for an average photographer but not for a nature one (IMHO). Just taking pics of animals and flowers is not enough for me to call somebody nature photographer. Doing this as an addition to studying the subjects is what has a value in my eyes. I am attaching the photo that already brought me some prizes and if somebody thinks is cruel, unaesthetic etc., I just don�t care. It was taken for quite different reason than just to photograph the dying animal.

 

P.S. In the past, at one time, I had a collection of 700 live reptiles in my house (mostly snakes). Snakes eating frog or mouse is not a sensation for me. I don�t enjoying watching it but this is their diet. Most people pay the butcher to kill for them a chicken or cow, so they can have a nice dinner without feeling guilty. We call it civilization, right? But somebody has to do a killing and cutting before we go to the store and get a nice fresh piece.<div></div>

[gloria_hopkins]

Hi Mark: Do you think it's a little ignorant to say that someone is not a nature photographer because they prefer to make beautiful photographs instead gruesome ones?

 

I know the kill scenes happen. I've seen the blood, guts and gore. I've seen the tiny animals overpowered and eaten. There are many people who enjoy that kind of photography. I do not. The name of my company is "Nature's Glory" not "Nature's Harsh Realities."

 

In addition, I feel it is highly undignified to the animal's spirit to exploit the last horrible moments of their life simply so we can say what a cool shot we got.

[nathan_cohen]

Mark--

 

You are exploring the classic conflict of photography for the aesthetic of nature vs the observation of nature. It would be fatuous to assume that one is more valid than the other. We are, thus,in agreement.

 

I interpreted the question to be: 'do you regret passing up an OPPORTUNITY' to take a nature photograph? In that context, we can see that both or either observing or aesthetically capturing, pose opportunities: now; are there times you (or I or they) just blew if off, and why?

 

When I have blown such opportunities it was based on the assumption there would be plenty more exactly the same or as rewarding. In my expanding age, I no longer feel that way. Carpe diem:-)

[nathan_cohen]

RE: 'Fresh Meal'

 

"Taste like chicken!"

[mbb]

<HTML>

<BODY>

 

 

<p class=MsoNormal>Yes Nathan, that is exactly how I see the subjective vision

� nobody point is more valid then the other. This subject is a perfect example.

The only problem is that the side which prefer the aesthetic view is very often

fiercely attacking the �observers� and not a vice versa. I, as an example,

enjoy the pure beauty in nature a lot. The difference is I am not stopping

there but also want to explore the unknown and, as I said before, document it

for others who may have an interest to learn. Expanding the subject, it is a

lot of genres in photography I don�t understand have no feel for it or just

don�t like for a lot of reason and aesthetic is one of them. What I don�t do,

especially if I don�t have knowledge in the subject, I am never putting down

those images. Aesthetic is not a most important criteria for me to prize

somebody�s work. I gave high scores to images (even here) that I would never

take myself and in my opinion were antithetical. But creativity and skills of

the photographer were very high. Nobody, me included, will love everything but

we should at least try to understand other people�s creations or work and prize

them for achievements.<o:p></o:p></p>

 

<p class=MsoNormal>I don�t know about �chicken taste� but some of my friends

who went for a tour to Nam said that lizards are very tasty :). I just never

was hungry enough to try. Not yet. But I tried vodka with the snake in it.

Again, it was not enough of it for me to eat the snake.</p>

 

<p class=MsoNormal>Gloria, you either don�t understand or pretend to not

understand what I wrote. Well, my English is not that good that this also can be use

for an excuse.<o:p></o:p></p>

 

<p class=MsoNormal>First - term <b><i>�ignorant�</i></b>. No, I don�t think it is ignorant to

say what I said. I hope this will answer your question. But what I think, that

ignorant are those people who walk along the road and taking photos of anything

what is moving, flying or swimming without even having a clue what it is. Also

taking those photos just for fun has no real purpose in most cases. OK, than

those people are half-nature photographers, as they don�t document nature, as

it is but only the beautiful part of it. If you study the species in nature you

have to do it from birth do death or your study won�t be complete. Study a few

moment of the specimen when he pose in aesthetical way in good light hardly can

even be classified as a �half� but let it go at that point.<o:p></o:p></p>

 

<p class=MsoNormal><b><i>�"Nature's Glory" not "Nature's Harsh

Realities."�</i></b> But the reality is what makes a life and nature around us.

Dreams and fantasies are maybe beautiful but they are not real. For me the real

beauty is only in real world.<o:p></o:p> </p>

 

<p class=MsoNormal>And Gloria, I want you to know that nothing what I wrote is not

even �a little� in your direction. I just don�t know you, don�t know your true

feelings, and don�t know your background or knowledge.<o:p></o:p></p>

 

<p class=MsoNormal>W. Shakespeare </p>

 

<p class=MsoNormal><b>XXVI. Carpe Diem</b> </p>

 

<p class=MsoNormal><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"><b> </b> </span></p>

 

<p class=MsoNormal><b>O MISTRESS mine, where are you roaming?<span

style="mso-spacerun: yes">   </span></b></p>

 

<p class=MsoNormal><b>O stay and hear! your true-love's coming<span

style="mso-spacerun: yes">   </span></b></p>

 

<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes">    </span>That can sing

both high and low;<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">   </span></b></p>

 

<p class=MsoNormal><b>Trip no further, pretty sweeting,<span style="mso-spacerun:

yes">   </span></b></p>

 

<p class=MsoNormal><b>Journeys end in lovers meeting --<span style="mso-spacerun:

yes">         </span></b></p>

 

<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes">    </span>Every wise man's

son doth know.</b></p>

 

<p class=MsoNormal><![if !supportEmptyParas]> ><o:p></o:p></p>

 

<p class=MsoNormal>Best Regards, Mark</p>

 

 

</BODY>

</HTML>

[roger___3]

Last year I was hiking near a meadow in N. Colorado and glanced up to notice 7 or 8 bull moose grazing within nice photo range. There are times when I might have scrambled for a photo, and I've never seen more than two or three moose together, not to mention so many. This was such a great scene to behold, I chose instead to watch the moose as they meandered toward me and finally right across the trail I was on - one after another only about 30 yeards away. Had I scrambled my camera and tripod together, concentrated on f stops and exposures I have not doubt that I would not have enjoyed this scene nearly as much.

 

My main interest in nature photography is landscapes. I pick and choose other subjects much less seriously. I think photographers as a group feel some sort of compulsion to take nature photos of anything photogenic. There are times when it just doesn't matter if you take the shot or not as long as you are enjoying what you are doing.

 

(I don't know why such a simple subject got so serious so quickly. I thought Gloria's explanation was just great - why take a photo of something your not interested in.)

[eric_thomassen1]

I pass up photo ops all the time, but for no noble reasons. Just last weekend, I could have gone out and take my chances on a grey and apparently lifeless December Sunday afternoon. But I didn't cause I'm too dang lazy sometimes.

 

Eric

[marshall]

<I>Have you passed up a great photo op by choice?</I>

<P>

Many many times. This is partly due to being an amateur photographer, of course, as most of the time I pass up an opportunity it has far more to do with what else is going on (compromising with spouse/friends, time pressures) than with ethical choices about the image or what is required to get it. I've missed a bunch of shots just because I didn't have equipment with me (can't take it with me all the time or to every place).

<P>

But I don't think that that's the point of the original question, and it certainly has little to do with the discuassion that has resulted. It seems we're tied up in some choices about "exploitative" photography and in ethical choices about respecting nature.

<P>

Most people will agree that if you have to harm the nature to photograph it, you shouldn't take the shot. Unquestionably, this is not a black & white line, but rather a continuum. Taken to a possibly-ridiculous extreme, doing any nature photography is doing harm to nature, reliant as nature photographers are on equipment and film built from natural resources and reliant as well on resource-expensive transportation methods to get near enough to nature to photograph it. But it's not my contention that we need to stop.

<P>

I like Rose-Marie's example as a fairly obvious one where the stress caused to the animal, and the potential for further harm, makes it obvious to me that getting the shot is beyond the line. Animals are usually more acutely aware of us than we even realize, but putting them into their defense modes certainly is going too far.

<P>

There are also shots to be missed because they require "breaking the rules." Often, I see people in National Parks or other such places ignoring the signs or otherwise going off the trail to take pictures. Again, not a black & white issue, but those choices are worth considering in terms of immediate harm, danger to oneself, and risk to others by encouraging the breaking of the rules. Sometimes the rules are the rules, and sometimes we get to make choices.

<P>

 

Now about the death-throe shots that have been mentioned, I am not so sure. It's understandable to personify the animals we photograph, but it may not always be necessary. Is taking an unwanted photograph of a person's most horrifying moments different than taking a similar shot of an animal's? In my mind there are differences, though even there I couldn't right now put my finger on what crosses the line and what doesn't.

<P>

Not that anyone needs my opinion, of course, but I will respond to the implication that a photographer is LESS of a nature photographer if s/he only records the beautiful in nature. I don't think it's appropriate to define others interest in nature photography by one's own terms, and that assertion seems to be doing just that. I don't happen to have a tree frog being eaten by a snake in my limited portfolio, and I wouldn't condemn someone for taking that picture, but that's a LONG way from condemning someone to a lesser status as a photographer for not taking it. Each of us must decide for ourselves what our vision encompasses. When evaluating a wildlife portfolio, I understand the role of recording all that nature has to offer, good and bad. I even understand the necessity of those shots for editorial coverage, for education, and for other purposes, and as a photo editor (which I am not) I might well be more inclined to deal with the more "complete" portfolio. None of which means that I would think of the other photographer as half a nature shooter.

<P>

But who needs my rambling opinions, anyway? [And please pardon me for "wittering on at length", as I have been accused of doing.]

[mbb]

Just to make it clear (or trying to in my limited English). Nobody here �condemn� somebody for being a lesser photographer. Photographer can be anyone from a child getting his/her first camera to super pro. Anybody who is taking photos is a photographer. Using the term �half� was a result from the direction this discussion took and was addressed more as a question not a statement. Somehow few people who just want to take only selected photos in the category (�nature� in this case) believe that they have a right to criticize other who is not having those limitations. So in that case just to keep the discussion polite I had a question trying to find out how to call them. If somebody tell me that they only enjoy taking beautiful nature shots it is perfectly fine with me. I fully understand they feelings as I share them myself. When somebody try to tell me that my photos are horrible, non-esthetical etc., because I take the nature as it is in real life then it is a different story. Without exploring the nature in every aspect (at least by some people) we would live in the Stone Age. I can assure you that not that many people dedicated so much time in their lives studying animals as I did. Not many have deeper feelings I have. But for example you won�t find me around the medical or scientific research places trying to sabotage the labs with live animals. I spoke with some of those protestors and they claim they love animals a lot � that�s they life. Most of they know nothing more about animals then several names of their cats or dogs. It is our sole right to do what we like to do but we have no right to criticize others for having different approach especially when is much broader. I had begun to think that discussion like that goes nowhere as too many people are too close-minded to even try to understand different opinions. AND AGAIN do not accuse me that I criticize people taking ONLY a �beauty� shots as I even promote this as a very helpful task to help protect the nature. If this explanation is not enough I will give up any further arguments.

[gearoid_osullivan]

Thanks everyone for your answers, long and short (and I didn't mind you "wittering on" in the slightest Marshall ;) ).

 

I didn't expect what I thought was a simple question to get so serious. Interesting though.