fred_vnoucek

I love my d300, and I use the 70-20 VR frequently. Best thing I ever had in my hands (and I had almost everything so far :o))) - never Problems of any kind. The fellow photographers I know most using the d300, never any problems.

Rgds Fred

I guess, you can call a Cat a 'Wild Thing' or something like that, but the definition 'Wildlife' is very much occupied from untamed, free-roaming, shy-of-people creatures out of Human environment. At least, this is how I see this definition.

To photograph 'wildlife' category animals on a wildlife-farm, somehow takes out the 'wildlife' effect of it, even if the settings are natural - but to speak frankly - who gives a rats-ass??? You can sell Pics if they are good, no editor ever ask you where you shot that. So it is more an ethic question. But who can effort to be 'popier than the pope' ???? For myself to speak, I feel challenged for the real 'wildlife', but if the editor ask me for a specific shot and pays for it, I even would go to a wildlife farm. I would SELL that, but I wouldn't post that in Forums and marked as 'wildlife', I would mark as 'animals'.

That was my 2-penny-input. Best regards Fred Vnoucek

Eric, I very much agree with you. Only the result counts, at the end. No matter where it was done, Game Farm or 'out in the wild'.

I guess this is much more an ethics question as it is a business-question.

Wildlife - the word has it in: WILD. For this, taking Pics on a Game Farm isn't Wildlife-Photography, it is ... I don't know? Animal-Photography?

To speak for myself, I do not have any problem with Images taken on Game Farms. The result is ok, so it is fine. I just would have problems if the photographer would tell all sorts of adventurous storys about his work, while sitting in a rocking chair and shooting from the porch of a game-farm. But even this wouldn't turn a good Image into a bad Image, it is just the ethics ....

I do not understand the last part. What is 'real' and what is 'fake'?

For me, fake is not the right word. It is just different. I much more see a difference between Nature-Photography ( all sorts, incl. Game-farms, etc) and art-photography (Studio-work, Manipulations like Photoshop, digital works etc.).

Again to speak for myself, I am very much specialized on Wildlife and Nature, and I cannot find too much on set-ups, studio photography and art-work. But I respect the guys doing this and their skills, even it is not 'my thing'.

On my very begin at photo.net, I wished they would have 2 categorys (art-photos and nature photos, or so ...) but meanwhile I am happy as it is, it is a fine competition between very different 'photographers-worlds', which lot of benefits. Last but not least everybody can 'messure' his work with all other kinds of photography, and this is really great.

Well, Brian, there is the very excellent move. Personally I find it a great step forward.

Have you ever considered deleting unpopular Images after certain time? Let's say, if an Image doesn't receive at least 5 ratings, it will be deleted after a month or so. or if it cuts under average - deleted after certain time.

You must still transport tons of folders and Images no one will ever look again.

Another step I would strongly recommend: to limit the opportunity for rating. Only Patrons can give full comments and rates, non-paying users can just comment. It would be a way to get rid of this fakes which come up occasionally just to downrate (or sometimes uprate ..) and after this lost into Nirwana again.

Rgds

Fred Vnoucek