chris_varner1

I come to this Q & A site and I am heartened that a handful of people care about nature photography. The photo editor of Defender of Wildlife may or may not have known or cared that the image was a digital. Many people, including "nature" photographers, either don't know and/or don't care what is nature/wildlife photography and they seriously resent the messenger who tells them. Anyone who surfs "nature/wildlife" sites on the internet knows this. If it is photographed outdoors, it is nature. If it is a non-human animal, it is wildlife.

 

I tell people and give them the link to the PSA nature definition site. In return I get mail telling me to lighten up and/or informing me that this "nature" site does not follow the PSA nature defintion. I have even gotten this response from participants on this forum's "nature photography top level" which rules do state that images should follow the PSA nature defintion. (I had to cut and paste from Bob Atkin's posted comment that domestic animals including cats do not qualify. (The image was a cat lying on the porch.)) Even then I was told that it wasn't my site and therefore not my place to point out the rule and that if Bob Atkins hadn't deleted the image that it must be acceptable.

 

I think that writing to nature magazines will get a similar response but it might enlighten a few people who don't know and who do care.

"I do have some images that have caused some to yell 'fake' or 'set-up' when they have seen them. This pisses me off just as it does with others who do spend the time freezing their butts off in the cold while lying under a rotted out log, or wandering the cold beaches before sunrise or whatever. If you get the good images and get them with hard work, you deserve them."

 

If there were not so many unlabeled game farm shots, set ups, and fakery/manipulated images, people/photographers would assume that any image was an authentic wildlife shots regardless of how unusual. In fact, I'm still amazed by the number of obvious captive and faked images that go unmentioned and unquestioned. The prevailing practice is, "I wasn't asked so I didn't tell," and there are always folks who immediately chime-in with an absolution of "I don't care. It's a good shot anyway," which further encourages the practice not to tell. I, personally, would rather be thought a fool for questioning the circumstance of such an image than played the fool by someone who is attempting to pass a fake as authentic.

 

Many of the people, however, who bait or set up a shot, or manipulate an image feel that since they have gotten up before dawn, become semi-frozen lying beneath a log or rain soaked awaiting their subject to approach the bait, they have worked just as hard to get their images and they deserve full credit. I'm reminded here of a professor's words to me long ago when I lamented my grade and how hard I had worked. He said unflinchingly, "Chris, if the awards went to the hardest worker, the jackass would win every time." Apparently many wildlife photographers don't want to be "the jackass" and so they have found a way to "work smart; not hard." It's all in the rationalization. Anyway, if it is illegal in any of the states in which a photographer is feeding /baiting the wildlife, the photographer may be fined regardless of his/her photographic ethics. Meanwhile this jackass will plod along and question images in which I have a good faith basis for believing are captive, set-ups or manipulations.

Ah, the human's capacity to justify whatever conduct that they wish to engage in but it really would be a smart move to know what you are doing and to what you are doing it to and where you are doing it before doing it. Example, it is illegal to feed wildlife in all national parks located in the United States and in Canada. State law varies. In Michigan there is "baiting" and there is "feeding" and they are defined differently. "Baiting" applies exclusively to hunting. "Feeding" wildlife is for any other purpose other than hunting. Both have there own set of rules which must be followed. In Texas," baiting" whitetail deer is not only acceptable, but often the deer are hunted at the feeders. Colorado calls "baiting" feeding wildlife and it is illegal. A few states permit baiting for all big-game animals. Many states allow no baiting of any kind and others follow a middle of the road approach, allowing baiting for some species, but not for others. The USFWS controls migratory birds and prohibit hunting over baited fields. So before one justifies the ethics, one should find out if it is legal.

Dirk, what I like most about the organization's rule which you mention is that they have it defined in such a manner that the only way the zoo image can be used is to affirmatively disclose that it is a zoo image. Too often, the wasn't asked, don't tell justification prevails. I did, however, know that this thread would quickly turn to a justification for zoo shots even though most zoo animals today have never seen the wild nor were they ever trained in the survival skills of wildlife. Humans have an exceedingly great capacity to rationalize their conduct to fit whatever they need it to fit. Part of the rationalization process is to vary slightly the prohibited conduct so that the definition of the word doesn't quite fit the prohibited conduct. But, of course, that is why national park rangers fine people for "feeding wildlife" who carelessly leave food lying around their camp. It is a thinly disguised way of engaging in prohibited conduct but it doesn't fool the savvy, nor do the zoo shot where there are no visible clues that the animal is captive but there is an innocent over sight in mentioning the location.

 

Under the photographic Society of America (PSA) rules, which is the most widely accepted definition of nature photography and the one to which this forum's nature image critique section also follows, wildlife is included under the nature definition. No captive animal is "authentic wildlife." Authentic wildlife must be living free and unrestrained in a natural or adopted environment to fit within the nature definition. http://www.psa-photo.org/nddef2.htm So the squirrel in the city park or the elk on the golf course green are authentic wildlife. But for the authentic wildlife to also fit the nature definition, there can be no evidence of man in the image, with one very narrow exception which pertains to wildlife images not landscapes images.

 

No there is nothing wrong with zoo or other captive shots but they are about as closely related to wildlife photography as studio portraiture is to photojournalism. My experience has been more often than not, if the wildlife looks as though it were photographed in the wild, the photographer will omit giving a location. As for animals in the wild being harassed and so zoo images should be the more ethical, my problem is that unethical people are unethical. It is illegal in all national parks in the United States and Canada (I haven't checked worldwide) to approach wildlife or to use food to get the wildlife to approach you or to feed wildlife. It is prohibited to feed animals in zoos or to taunt the animals. Do people break the law, of course. Do they feed zoo animals, yes. Do they harass, by throwing, screaming, poking them through the fences, yes. Are zoo animals less able to defend themselves against or to flee the violators than wildlife in the wild, yes. Will photographing zoo animals make an unethical photographer ethical, no. Is it easier to get a good shot of a captive animal than it is to get one living free and unrestrained in it natural or adopted environment, yes.

I don't take "Photo Life" so I had not read the article until the author, Glen Gaffney, posted one of his images along with the link to his article on the PhotoCritique site this week. Article link: http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Gallery/4500/stories.html

 

I am stunned. Mr. Gaffney has truly deluded himself into believing that during the several years that he was putting his portfolio on foxes together that he fed the foxes only in the winter when food was difficult to find in order to keep them alive. These statements were made on PhotoCritique but are not born out by his article. I'm glad to find that the photographers on this site are aware that feeding wildlife is not only harmful to diet and safety of wildlife but also dangerous to the health and safety of people. But no matter what Glen Gaffney's reasons were, pure or selfish, in many places, feeding or enticing wildlife to approach with food is illegal. If Kilamey Provincial Park is a National Park or is encompassed within a National Park system of Canada, then it would be worth if for Mr. Gaffney and others who may consider engaging in this activity to read "Regulations pertaining to National Parks, under the National Parks Act," which can be found at:

http://parkscanada.pch.gc.ca/library/acts/acts%5Fe.htm#reg On that page are many links to various Park Regulations but of specific interest is the click-on-link to "National Parks Wildlife Regulations," then read "General Prohibitions" (4)(1)(f).

The reason John Shaw thought it had been too dry this year for a decent bloom is because the Bluebonnet germinates in the fall and needs rain in the fall to germinate, a cold winter, and rain in the spring to put on a decent bloom. I was through Junction, San Antonio, Austin, to Gruene and back through Fredricksburg, Mason, Brady, Eden, San Angelo, and on into West Texas on 3/11 through 3/16. The best stand of Bluebonnets was along the roadways around Brady. The Lady Bird Wildflower Center at Austin left much to be desired. I carried camera, and tripod, with me through the center grounds but I don't recall taking any images so if I did it was not more than 2 frames. Not much was up, although they appeared to be seeding some large areas (not with Bluebonnets; at least, if it were Bluebonnets, it wouldn't be for a bloom this year.)

Good is better than poor or fair but less than excellent. If he had 40 good images out of 2,160 images, his percentage of good images is .0185 [i.e 1.85% -- moderator], and if only 5 didn't need digital help to be great, his percentage is .0023 [0.23%]. I would expect better results from random probability. I rather suspect he is one of those who wants the public to believe he suffers for art. Or believes that if the viewer knows how many images he has tossed, they will have a greater sense of awe for the remainder and for his dedication. Of course, in reality, the world does not care much about process, only results. (Well, and about the cost to produce the results if they are the payor.) For me, I wouldn't be interested in spending money or my time taking a photo class under this guy.

The national parks pass out literature and post signs: Do Not Feed the Wildlife, Do Not Approach Wildlife, etc.. The problem is several fold. Some people do not read. Many folks who do read do not read with good comprehension skills. Those who do read and read with comprehension, believe that rules and laws apply to the less creative people. That is rules and laws are made for others. Many folks think that you really have to be special to approach wildlife. So in national/state parks where anyone is able to approach the herbivores, people feel that they are great stalkers or one-of-the-choosen when they can walk right up to the wildlife.

 

Sometimes I think that I ought to leave these things to natural selection and let nature select against those who are too stupid to live. But yes, I have tried to explain the prohibition against feeding and approaching wildlife to people. Most peole look at me as though who-are-you-to-be-telling-me-what-to-do. I have even reported a few people along with vehicle descriptions and license plates number to the park rangers. The only time that I "over-reacted," a man was tugging his reluctant and protesting toddler up to a bull bison who less than 20 minutes earlier had mock charged a young man who was using a point/shoot to get a photograph of him. Anyway it scared me so badly when I heard the child cry out, "Daddy, I don't want to. No" and saw that they were within 20 feet of the bull that I screamed out "No" and a warning before thinking. Dad must have sensed my sincerity because he immediately grabbed up his daughter into his arms and went back to the car.

Unless you intend to drive the mountains in New Mexico, the only place that you may have trouble getting through is Rotan Pass. I have made several trips to the Springs from West Texas in February and have had to wait (till the next morning) only once for the snow plows to clear the pass. I ,personally, would fly into Denver and drive to the Springs.

"I'm new to nature photography but my father took me hunting when I was young (I don't like hunting, but I went to be with my dad and I love the outdoors) and claimed that scent was an important factor in getting close to the animals. Any comments?"

 

Anthony, your father is correct about scent and hunting. I, however, have regularly photographed in Fed/state parks, NWR and on a deer/fishing lease (although not during deer season because buck fever will get a photographer killed). On the hunting lease, the deer are accustomed to being shot at and flee at the snap of a twig, any movement, or scent of a predator. I have NEVER photographed a game animal on this lease, regardless of time of year, although I have photographed lizards, snakes, owl, armadillo, coyote, and hare. Federal and state parks and NWR are totally different. I have always tried to stay in the animal's plain view, never worn camouflage, usually had a variety of human scents on me and have even been known to sing to Pronghorns to get them to investigate why anything which sings so poorly would do so. I have photographed all kinds of animals under these conditions.

"Re: Bob's Long Lenses

I was amazed to find that four of his prominently displayed images, which are all full frame, were taken with his Nikon 80-200 2.8. This struck me because I have been of the thought and inclination, since reading postings in this forum, that it was "400mm or bust" as far as nature photography goes."

 

Yes, James some outstanding wildlife images can and are made with a 80-200mm lens. I mentioned this observation in the "BG Wildlife photographer of the Year" thread. Jim Brandenburg referred to himself back in 1997 as one who used to run around with a big lens lens on a tripod but now does landscapes with the animal in it. (I, personally, am bored with seeing head shot after head shot, regardless of the lens focal length that it was shot with. I know what these land mammals (and most of the birds) look like! Where do they live.)

James, I too have had some opportunities to talk with other photographers at art shows about their work and I always found it enjoyable and usually enlightening. Regarding comment under 3, yes, there is always going to be that part in each of us which will not rest untill we find that image that can be critiqued in both of the "one fashion or another." Maybe that is because we need to demonstrate that we have enough artistic appreciation to recognize excellence, but also have enough ego to recognize that other photographers screw up too.

First, I have not had any real experience with photo editors concerning medium format(I shoot exclusively 35mm)images. I do recall reading an article by, I believe, George Lepp, in which he answered this exact question. As you know, and he pointed out, there are top rank nature photographers who shoot exclusively each of these formats. Obviously, their preferred format has had no impact on their sales. Lepp discussed the pros and cons of both format and concluded that sells depend on the quality of the image. (Aside note: To conduct any meaningful data on which format editors, in general, prefer, the tests would involve considerably more controls. To find out what a particular editor prefers, ask. )

In a less crowded world, access to all U.S. national parks would be available to everyone and by private auto, motorcycle, bicycle, feet, or however one wanted to enter the parks. The truth is that shuttle busses are coming and they are coming to all of the more popular U.S. parks and will be coming to a park or national monument near you soon. As one of the other posters previously commented, some roads were built for early autos; none were built for today's volume of park visitors. At the turn of the century the world population was approx. 1 billion. Today it is 6 billion and that population is expected to double again in the next 40 years. Even more disturbing than shuttle busses is that during the lifetime of many of this forum's readers and certainly during the lifetime of the readers' children, access to these parks will be by appointment/reservation only--some reservations will need to be booked a couple of years in advance. Nature photography may become a rara avis. (No pun intended.)

Yes editors publish them. If their files contain the same percentage of each look-alike image as my random selection--10% Delicate Arch--they would have few choices. But with so many look alikes, price would be the only factor determining which one I published. As an editor, I would love this! As a viewer, I didn't open the June issue of "Outdoor Photographer" until November because of Delicate Arch being on the cover. I had judged the book by its cover. To my surprise, however, that issue is the one that has "View to a Kill," by Karl Ammann (BBC images)in it. Now I know why I hadn't seen these images in Outdoor Photographer when someone mentioned a while back that his image had been published in this magazine.

Ever notice how many nature images look the same or similar? Earlier

this week, I counted a total of 7 images of Delicate Arches by

randomly looking at fewer than 60 nature pics. This frequency of look

alikes is not just Delicate Arches, it is also true of slot canyons,

the 2 mittens, etc.. If the world is big, beautiful, and diverse,

why are we not seeing this diversity? Do photographers feel that if

several others have a particular image, then they must have it too?

Is it that a tried and true location along with a tried and true

composition has little risk? Is imagination truly rare? Or is it

that the more nature websites, the more we are seeing the same

frequency of images that editors have been seeing along?

"A good photographer with knowledge of the subject can get great shots with any lens - some of the time!! "

 

My point exactly. The "any lens - some of the time!!" would, of course, include the 600 mm f/4. Great shots are always only some of the time. Although I don't recall any of the mammals, behavior or portrait, which were actually shot with a 600mm, I'm sure a few were. I do recall that the longer lenses were used more often in behavior than in portrait. But the shorter lens which I was referring to was the winning Leopard image shot with a 300 mm ,no extenders, and several which were shot with zoom (?) to 200 mm lens.

 

As to the other collateral comments, yes there are a lot of problems in nature, those who feed and bait wildlife, those who approach wildlife, and those who poach wildlife (The latter so hauntingly portrayed by some of these images.) It is doubtful, however, if penalty of immediate death on the spot for an armed poacher; signs "Don't Feed the Wildlife," "Don't Approach the Wildlife," posted all over state/federal parks, NWR, preserves; huge fines and forfeitures of vehicle and hunting license for various offenses, does not solve these problem that even one of these offenders is going to read a nature photography forum much less decide not to engage in the practices you describe. While I recognize the futility, or at best the preaching-to-the-choir of your statements, I also sympathize with the compulsion to say it.

 

Chris

I wanted to make a few comments while this question is still a recent one. First, I think that everyone should look at these images before concluding that a big lens is a necessity to do good wildlife photography. Some of the wildlife shots were made with very short lenses! Next, and this probably should have been first. I'm not certain that it is clear from the website that these images can be viewed at a larger size with storyline and technical detail. Most websites require that you click onto the image to see a larger version rather than onto a magnifying glass (that looks more like a lollipop) off to the right. So, for those who have been there and said, "Would probably be interesting if you could see any detail." Be persistent. It is worth it. Last, "The World in Our Hands," category is always disturbing. The winner, "Slaughtered Lowland Gorillas" is a particularly haunting image because gorillas are more closely related than many other mammals and because of the "family portrait" composition.

This morning I woke up wondering if I had in hand $8,200.00 to spend

only for nature photography, would I use it to go to Africa, or

Alaska or would I spend it on a big, fast lens. Much as I would love

to have a big, fast lens, I'd go to Africa with the equipment that I

have. A lens, bigger and better, will always be there; Africa may

not. After seeing the 1200 mm lens question, I became curious as to

what others would do--a new lens or a shooting location?

You have gotten some good advice about using another's photographs rather than investing the expense in equipment and the time in making your own images, both of which are in short supply while going to school. I would not, however, use or copy anyone's photographs from any media without permission as copyright law protects all rights, not just commercial use, from unauthorized use.

There is precious little public land in Texas, and with privately owned land comes barbed wire fences. Sorry, Dan, but I've never found it quaint or charming. It is at best, a necessary eye sore. At worst, a reason for tetanus shots. I don't emphasize or use it as a design element. I eliminate it, but not with post shutter manipulation. I shoot over it, around it or through it. If I can't do that, then I move on to another location where I can.

 

Have I ever missed any? Of course, ironically two would've-been-great-shots which immediately come to mind, where I missed seeing a utility pole and in another a fence, were both made in the RMNP. Unfortunately, because it was a federal park, I didn't scan the 4 corners of the image as carefully as I would have on private land before tripping the shutter. Frankly, I can not remember the last image (macro excluded)that I made where 40% or more of the composition was not dictated by the exclusion of fences, buildings, utility poles, and roads. One day there will be no nature images, only outdoor images.

Fall foliage under what conditions? An 81A is a weaker version of the 81B. Both are warming filters to counteract the blue light found in the shade on clear blue sky day or under gray overcast sky. I always shoot a warm based film--Velvia and E100SW--so under most shade (not heavy overcast) conditions the 81A filter works fine. (I know nothing about the 812 since I don't shoot skin tones).

 

If it is sunny, a polarizer is great for gaining more color saturation which might otherwise be lost by removing the reflective glare of the sun from the vegetation. (If you are getting blue (dirty gray) snow when the sun is shinning, you aren't metering for the snow.) I personally dislike over-polarized sky (navy blue)so I don't max out the polarizer when the sky is included in the image.

Yes, John, some people do read old threads, particularly if there is a new response.

 

Yes, nature photography does a poor job of communicating the real feeling of life in an environment; and Cindy Crawford and Brad Pitts do a poor job of communicating the real feeling of genders in real humans.

 

Most people see plenty of real life and they want to see the rare, the beautiful, the exquisite; not the ugly, grotesque, trashed, slashed, burned, drained, and restrained. It is far rarer to see the pristine than it is to see utility poles, city scapes and garbage dumped country sides and roadways. It is also more difficult to exclude these elements in a "nature" image because of their abundance. So yes, we are guilty of searching for beauty, at the sometimes exclusion of truth. And most people, if they are going to spend money, prefer the attractive on their walls; otherwise they open their drapes for free.

 

Yes, I take images of molting/shedding wildlife. I take images of the deformed, and grotesque wildlife when I come across it. I also have photographs of environmental journalism. (But then that's not nature photography.) So guilty of searching "only" for beauty, yes to the "search" because the ugly is so abundant that it doesn't involve a search; but photograph "only" the beautiful, no such luck.

 

P.S. The choice of landscape and/or wildlife tells me more about the environmental conditions than does lighting.

Greatest thrill was finding a Great Horned Owl in the wild. I had been photographing along the creek on a private ranch when twice a Great Horned Owl flew as I came into a certain area. I began to look and found a large willow along the bank with a hollow in it approximately the size of the Owl. The hollow was about 7 feet off the ground. I went up stream and found a crossing. My plan for the next week-end (the ranch is a 3 hour one-way drive from my home)was to cross upstream, walk down stream and set up opposite the hollow. I pre-focused on the ledge of the hollow with finger on shutter and waited 3 hrs.. He came flying, almost silently, down the stream and landed on the ledge of the hollow. It had actually happened. The plan had worked. I was mesmerized. After a few moments, he flew away and I had never moved. I hadn't tripped the shutter! I'd seen it but I had not tripped the shutter!

 

Two weeks later, another trip and 2 hrs. of sitting in a mesquite tree in the drizzle. I was verbally beating myself for having missed the once in a lifetime opportunity when first one and then another ghostly apparition peaked out of the hollow. The owl was a she and she had young. She returned after another 2 hrs. and I got the shot that I had previously missed.

 

I planned to document the developements of the birds and I returned the following weekend (same setup). The next week-end I couldn't get down the ranch road because of 18 inches of rainfall during the week. The next weekend the ranch roads were dry enough to use. I crossed the creek and went down the creek but as I mounted the rise and looked across to the opposite shore, the willow lay on the bank, snapped at the hollow. The swollen creek had been too much. Cobwebs filled the hole.

Although the PSA rules have been rewritten since this thread and the "Evidence of Man in Nature Shots" thread were posted, the PSA nature definition has not made any major substantive changes. The PSA has deleted the wording that domestic animals are excluded and instead used the following: "Photographs of artificially produced hybrid plants or animals, mounted specimens, or obviously set arrangements are ineligible..." They also spelled out that zoo animals and game farm animals are not authentic wildlife and gave a definition for "authentic wildlife." They repeated that human elements shall not be present in a nature image except for one exception pertaining to wildlife and stated that "scientific bands on wild animals is acceptable."

 

Now one would think that would help clear up some confusion but that apparently is not the case. While there are some isolated hair splitting cases under PSA, domestic animals and the prohibition against the appearance of human elements in a landscape image would appear to be straight forward. My question: If this is not "rocket science", why do so many people not understand the simplest part of the PSA or nature forum rules? Is it that they are interchanging words which have different meanings--i.e. using "animal" to mean wildlife or using "free-roaming" to be wild and therefore an animal which is free-roaming (homeless) is wildlife?