A good read, for true wildlife photogs.....http://www.audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite1003.html
A good read, for true wildlife photogs.....http://www.audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite1003.html
Very interesting and very frustrating!
I recently had an image of a song bird in my back yard "critiqued" by a co worker. I went out of my way to place a pre-feeder perch in a location which provided a nice smooth green BG created by a lawn about 20 yards away using a 500 mm lens. This was intentional to give the BGs we love. The co worker said "you Photoshopped the background didn't you?". First I was kind of insulted that my image was questioned. Then I was angry that the public has such little respect for the skill and attention to detail we use to create our legitamate images. I did take the time to explain how the smooth BG was achieved. I do believe the "education" stuck. ;)
It does show, however, that everything we do is now questioned by the public. I do believe "Game Farm" images add to the confusion. The do take away the public's sense of how difficult it is to get truly good quality "wild" images of free animals.
Thx for sharing.
Very interesting article Paul, and I had not heard of game farms before.
Ed, I share your frustations - my backgrounds are always questioned, even by my colleagues at Camera Club. As you say, the level of hard work and skill required to achieve these is rarely understood.
Best,
Nicki
Thank you for sharing Paul.
Hi Nicki - Totally agree - Joined the major photographic society in Australia a while ago - first image I submitted - I got a call from the Nature administrator saying "You are not allowed to photoshop backgrounds" to which I replied that is good as I don't to any.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicki Gwynn Jones
He basically accused me of being untruthful and told me it didn't matter anyway as it would be judged that way - and this was from the person in charge of the nature division in Australia!!!
Told him I would happily provide him the RAW file (It was the Gannet that was my Avatar).
There are lots of ignorant people out there.
Interesting read. I actually like people to question my shots. It gives me the chance to really explain what went into getting it. My friends and work mates know me as the nut who waits for days in the freezing cold for a bird that might not show and spends more than their car on camera gear!
As for game farms, its just human nature to want an easier, quicker route to an end product. Sadly, it's also human nature to 'cheat' and not disclose the real story.
regards.
Stu.
Interesting read, thanks for sharing. When I was starting out in photography I took New York Institute of Photography's correspondence course. One of the photos I took and sent in for an assignment was a V of geese silhoutted by the moon. The tape the instructor sent back critiqued my other images and then said he wouldn't be critiquing that image since it was so obviously photoshopped. Little did he know my photoshop abilities couldn't have produced that if I'd tried. I called the Dean up and he switched my instructors.
Eric Virkler
Faces of Nature Photography
www.ericjvirkler.com
Interesting read, thanks for sharing the link. I think full disclosure is the best policy so that beginners don't get wrong ideas as to what is possible.
Thanks for posting this Paul! Full disclosure or bust.
Twenty plus years ago, I took a workshop photographing wolves and Mountain Lions at the Triple D ranch in Montana. It was fun, got great pictures and I have a picture of me kneeling with my camara and a young wolf withits snout right in the camera lens.
No, these were not pictures taken in the "wild". But it was the only way that I was able to photograph these animals at that time. At that time a good deal of the nature postcards, card, etc were of these animals, because you got to recognize them from being up close with them. I agree full disclosure.
Would commercial wildlife sites such as Gatorland, Orlando and Alligator Farm, St. Augustine be considered "Game Farms"? After stooping and staring threw the back end of a lens all year in the hopes of a shot, going to these sites sure seems like cheating.
Not in my opinion. The birds are wild and free.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwhitaker
However, from a personal stand point they are just like "shooting" at the zoo.
I don't find photographing at a zoo as rewarding(personally) or as challenging as photographing in the wild.
At places like SAAF and Gatorland the birds come and go as they please. They are wild. The fact they chose to nest so close to human activity makes it easy for us to be close to them as well thereby increasing the odds of creating above average images.
However, I still find it as difficult to make a good image at any of these locations as I do in the wild. We still have to deal with lighting conditions, bad backgrounds and the like. I do not feel it diminishes the quality of the experience when you do creative above average images at such places though it does make it easier in other perspectives that being proximity and quantity.
Game farms on the other hand I find distasteful and though I have created images at zoos in the past; I have not been to one in years.
As usual Paul, you are eager to teach, educate and inform. A very good read. Thanks for sharing this piece.
Could not agree more you have to work very hard to get good clean images at Gatorland for me I find Ft Desoto to be one of the easiest places to photograph the birds are use to people and once you get low OOF BG are easy to createQuote:
At places like SAAF and Gatorland the birds come and go as they please. They are wild. The fact they chose to nest so close to human activity makes it easy for us to be close to them as well thereby increasing the odds of creating above average images.
However, I still find it as difficult to make a good image at any of these locations as I do in the wild. We still have to deal with lighting conditions, bad backgrounds and the like. I do not feel it diminishes the quality of the experience when you do creative above average images at such places though it does make it easier in other perspectives that being proximity and quantity.
I have been taking photographs of birds for close to 30 years. I love being out in natural settings, it is as important to me as getting a great image. I tell people it keeps me happy - there is nothing like capturing an amazing monent in nature. I would never go to a game farm. Having said that, I love photoshop and am very skilled in its use. I have many images that are as shot, many that are slightly helped by photoshop and some that are very photoshopped. I am as proud of my photoshopped images as the ones that show my skills as a photographer. But here the thing - I never misrepresent my images. That's the key. Its wrong to pretend you have shot that perfect image when you haven't. As an artist I just can not feel guilty about using a tool like photoshop to make something beautiful. What it comes down to is honesty. I have worked just as hard to build my skills in photoshop as I did in photography. My brother was a zoo photographer, he love it and never lied about where he took his photos - he was proud of it. I always think there is room for all forms of expression (game farms not included) as long as people are honest. Photoshop is not the enemy, the enemy is people who misuse it. Hope this does not offend anyone, I am just expressing my opinion. Yes I know that I am opinionated. The article (a great one) got me going. Thank you for sharing it.
Paul,
Thanks for the link.
I had never heard the usage "Ethically challenged". :D Is it not too polite to call such people as ethically challenged?
Cheers,
Sabyasachi
This article really takes it to a new level for me. As a hobbyist I have not been exposed to game farms before. Really diminishes the craving for me. You see great photos and aspire to take some, then learn they are rigged... Ugh! <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
But even in my small little world there is a constant battle of ethics and criteria for “wildlife”. I belong to a local nature photography club. Each month we have a photo contest. Generally there are 50 or so pictures submitted. I bet over half of the animal/bird/insect pictures are shot of captive animals. Now this article is calling out game farms, but hardly mentions zoos. Personally I will not shoot pictures of captive animals. Zoos are out. This month the club has an outing going to the local conservatory where they have an indoor butterfly exhibit. We’ll be inundated with excellent butterfly photos from this trip. I lose my zeal for going and trying to get a wild butterfly and trying to compete. <o:p></o:p>
Personally I am not in favour of using captive and tame animals and pretending they are wild.
My avatar is a fine example of what people claim to be PS manipulation, I can assure you all that it is real, I simply spotted the opportunity and asked my guide to put me in the right position, if people think it is fake then that is their problem, not mine!
I see nothing wrong with photographing captive animals if that's the only viable option.
Sure we'd all LOVE to photograph a cougar, snow leopard, wolf etc in the wild performing the actions we'd love to photograph, i.e. a mother cougar carrying her cub(s) in her mouth, charging, roaring etc, but to see it in all honesty would be extremely rare unless you could afford to spend WEEKS if not MONTHS just following the animal (if you're lucky to find one) around.
Many also don't have the money to travel all over the world for the rare chance to get a glimpse of a species such as the snow leopard.
Plus there is the ever present possibility of danger when photographing wild animals.
I believe that if a photograph, or video of an animal was taken in a captive situation, it should be clearly stated, but that doesn't mean that the animal is NOT what it is claimed to be...a cougar, wild OR captive is STILL A COUGAR!
To me it's all about personal ethics and beliefs. Some may not agree with photographing/video graphing captive animals at any time, and that's fine. To each their own. I do think however that at times we have to look at the BIGGER picture...
...if a documentary or even feature film is produced using some are even all captive or trained animals, yet it EDUCATES and brings awareness of such animals, and their beauty, behavior, and possible endangerment or the risks they face in the world, then I think the benefits clearly outweigh the deception. Even if they disclose that captive animals were used in the filming, which they should, I doubt that most people would care. It's what they actually SEE that they would likely feel is the most important part. THE ANIMALS!!!
Hey we could even say that the animals in Africa are being photographed in captivity...except that WE, the photographers who ride in the safari vehicles are the ones in Captivity.
Also if not for some captive animals, we would never be able to, or it would be virtually impossible to photograph some of the rarest and most beautiful species, such as the magnificent KING CHEETAH, which if I'm not mistaken only exist at cheetah ranches such as DeWildt and possibly one or two others.
I'd rather photograph a captive animal, than NOT photograph it at all.
Sure, we would ALL prefer to photograph ALL animals in the wild, but realistically, given costs, time, and our everyday life, we all know that isn't always possible.
Sorry for the rant, but just wanted to express my views.
This brings up some interesting questions. When I first came to doing nature photography years ago, I was a lifetime hunter and woods wanderer wanting to record on film some of the magical moments and creatures I'd seen in years afield. The questions back then were the ethics of taking a picture of a captive animal in a zoo with some natural looking surroundings vs. in the wild, or "staging" a shot. Other than using our equipment to blur a background, what we got, especially on slide film, was what we got; we were pretty limited in manipulating an image beyond that.
The pressures of life took me away from the hobby for years; when I stepped back in, it was into digital photography today with all the "magic" of post-processing wonders, and to be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about a lot of it. On the one hand, the advances in technology, along with the "game farms" and more training, have opened up the field to many more people, including many who wouldn't have had the time, the fieldcraft, or the physical ability to enjoy it the way it was. There's a lot to be said for that ( for that matter, I can't crawl around in mud and icy water as easily as I used to). There's no question we get more attractive images than we used to, and no question, it still takes skill; all the same, software and computer skill can cover a lot of mistakes. How much is too much? I don't know, and I'm not sure how I feel about that. All I know is that some of it feels like trying to "clean up" or "sanitize " nature for the sake of art, and to me, something about that just isn't the same. I know that's heresy to some; after all, we've always exploited the fact that the camera sees differently from our eyes, haven't we? Then too, I suppose I'd rather see people clone out branches rather than remove them from around a nest, or disturb sensitive habitat, or agitate shy or even threatened/endangered subjects in the wild. All the same, I feel like something has been lost; even more so when so many people look at our images, and wonder to what extent those images are "faked". There are some pretty bright lines between ethical and not; but there are some pretty blurred ones as well.
I know I may be an anachronism, I know I have no financial pressure to "get the shot"; I've probably made some of you angry, and some would say "Go back to shooting film"; but I really would not "rather photograph a captive animal than not photograph it at all". Far be it from me to condemn those who feel otherwise, but that just doesn't work for me; to me the real joy will always be in the work, and the greater the challenge, the greater the joy; if the end result contains a natural imperfection, so be it; nature itself is not neatly perfect, except in our dreams. I don't know if that's an answer, much less "The" answer; it's just how I feel.
I understand, and respect your views, Bill. As I said, to each their own. I don't think any one or more importantly, any one's views are ever going to be 100% correct, when it comes to this controversial subject. As long as everyone respects everyone's views and opinions.
I agree with you when you say the real joy and the thrill will always be in the work, the challenge, the chase etc. If we're nature lovers, it's a no brainer. Nothing would ever equal the satisfaction that would bring. But as we all know, at times that isn't possible or plausible, and then it's a matter of how bad we want to photograph an animal, regardless of whether or not we'll achieve the same level of satisfaction (which obviously we won't) than if we would have photographed it truly in the wild rather than under controlled conditions.
It all comes down to personal ethics and feelings. There isn't one definitive "RIGHT" answer.
One thing I hope that we all CAN agree on though, is our love of nature, our love of photography, and our love of being able to capture nature in all her glory, whether in the wilds, at a game farm, at the zoo, wherever, with our cameras.
Maybe we just spend too much time dilly dallying, or debating about truly nit picking, piddly butt, who really gives a @#%$ about topics. Because in the end, does it really matter?
Let's just go out there and take some beautiful photographs!
