1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Wildlife/Natural history

Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by Seven, May 6, 2011.

  1. Mark

    Mark Well-Known Member

    Interesting discussion!

    Personally, I totally agree with the "as long as you're truthful..." point. I do wonder though just how far most people will take the argument. For instance, should you 'fess up' if - in the wild - you:

    • used a triggering device, IR etc.
    • used a wireless remote control
    • used a flashgun or two (to add light that wasn't 'really' there)
    • used a hide
    In this context, all could be said to just be different shades of grey in this quest for the ultimate photographic truth, or can they? ;)
  2. Larry Shone

    Larry Shone Well-Known Member

    All tools of the trade for most wildlife togs!
  3. Seven

    Seven ..or eight

    Interesting debate and poll, thank you for the links.

    I can see a side to for and against and am firmly in the camp as long as it's declared what it is then that's just fine (as long as no animal is harmed).

    On the topic of feeding common garden birds puts forward a good arguement but these wouldn't have the impact of perhaps a bird of prey, particularly one that isn't often seen in captivity. There is then a marvel at this.

    A comparison - a great shot of a seagull catching a piece of bread v. a sea eagle catching a fish thrown from a boat.

    Hands down for most it would be the Sea Eagle that is marvelled at. So it's with that point that feeding common garden birds doesn't quite equate to something you would find in the wild.
    If no food was involved there would be every chance of a snap of a common garden bird or seagull but what are the chances of a bird of prey or something equally as illusive?

    Btw I hope no one thinks I am having a dig at photography of animals/birds in captivity or otherwise, that isn't my intention and I understand fully that it can be just as rewarding for some.

    I guess it will be a debate that will run and run and that as a viewer I will have to trust in the integrity of the photographer to be honest.
    Or do I, it for me can be quite disappointing to find out the circumstances by which a photograph is achieved.
  4. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member

    Not necessarily true. I considder myself a wildlife photographer and I have never ever used three of them and almost never use flash.

  5. MickLL

    MickLL Well-Known Member

    I'm late into this thread (I'm away from home right now) but as one of the very few dedicated wildlife photographers on the forum have an opinion.

    I agree with many folk here but to put it simplistically don't much care so long as it's declared.

    In competitions you stick by the rules fair or unfair, reasonable or unreasonable. If you don't like them then don't enter.

    In other photography (always without damage/harm to the subject or environment) do wwhatever takes yuor fancy but NEVER pass off a fake as real.

    The reason for that is that many naturalists take photos as representing the behaviour of the subject and argue that a captive or baited animal will not be acting naturally and so the photo for their purposes is worthless.

    I'm in the camp that, provided no harm is done (to animal/environment/fellow competitior/general viewer) then do whatever pleases you. I also have to declare that I have never,and never will, exhibit a photo of a subject that was not 'wild and free'.

  6. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Not just worthless but potentially misleading.

    For example if you poke a springtail with a stick in a lab to make it jump in defence you might, as some appear to have, come to the conclusion that they can't jump with any kind of precision. However, I have observed some species that whilst wild, free and undisturbed have repeatedly performed jumps between points with a most impressive level of precision.

    Now if only I could prove it in pictures;) I can see why being unpredictable when a defence mechanism is triggered would be beneficial but not when you are trying to get from A to B.
  7. AlanClifford

    AlanClifford Well-Known Member

    What is natural? I photographed a sequence which ended with the rhino chasing away the lions. Natural behaviour of animals living in the wild. But we were in a van and the Nakuru National Park is completely surrounded by a fence I believe.

    Photo quality is not very good I'm afraid
  8. Seven

    Seven ..or eight

    Think you answered your own q with saying 'natural behaviour' and I assume no human intervention.
  9. Seven

    Seven ..or eight

    Thing is Mick the rules are there but are being ignored when it's convenient in a lot of cases.

    I think I've now gone off the whole idea of wildlife photography after reading this weeks masterclass in AP :( seems even the leading togs are setting up :( Perhaps I've just been naive but I had regarded wildlife photography as one of the purest forms and had the romantic idea of great lengths taken with a bit of luck to get a great shot!

    I could do what a lot are up too!

    I'm now of a mind that even if it's declared that it was taken with human intervention I just feel let down as a viewer :(
  10. AndyTake2

    AndyTake2 Well-Known Member

    Wildlife photographers have been using setups since the camera was invented.
    Stalking or patiently searching for an animal, especially a rarety is time consuming and can prove less than fruitful.
    It's all down to the degree really.
    Setting food as a lure is great as long as you don't pass it off as a shot of something specific (e.g. a Tiger with a fresh kill), but there's nothing wrong with saying it is a wild animal feeding.

    The use of the picture also matters. setting up a shot of a mouse on top of a teasel sounds like a damn fine plan to me if you're going to sell it for postcards, calendars etc., but again, don't pass it off as if you were waiting in a field for two weaks eating worms to get by.

    The one thing that baffles me is people getting Photographic Awards for camera-trap shots.
    I would certainly accept that knowing where to put the traps, maybe tracking the animals for months deserves credit, but photographically they are a bit of a conundrum - the shot is hardly at the control of the photographer, and the animals ar$e is as likely to be in full view as it's face.

    Personally I do like taking shots of Zoo animals, they're the only ones I can get to in many cases. I actually take pleasure in pointing out that the animal is there for everyone to view - and I see no problem in selling the images as long as it wouldn't be part of a 'wildlife in the jungle 2010' type of publication.

    If a picture can make someone think about the animals for a few minutes, especially when they may not even consider them, that's a good point. Whether captive, or preferably wild, the more attention the wildlife gets the better - they may be there in future for others to see, and may get a better deal than they do now.
  11. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    Over many years I've taken close-ups and macros of bees, bugs and creepy-crawlies in our garden. Without the cultivation and planting most wouldn’t be there. How does that stand? Am I baiting the creatures so the photos wouldn't pass the "true nature" test?
  12. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    In general, I agree with most things that have been written in this thread. I personally care less about awards or competition in this area even more than in general. For me personally, my wildlife shots aren't really intended to be definitive portraits of the subject, merely an image that pleases me - so I'm quite happy to take pics of captive animals. As long as there's no deception that leads to misinformation, I couldn't care less as to how the image is captured.
  13. Seven

    Seven ..or eight

    Personally I think this to be acceptable. It's not as though you are mocking up a garden in a box and enticing the creatures to do tricks to get a great shot.
  14. Seven

    Seven ..or eight

    ha ha morals of a hyena ;)

    Do you feel the same way as a viewer?

    Btw didn't know you were into wildlife shots Nick :)
  15. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    You need to have the actual URL of the JPEG itself. The URL above is for the Flikr page not the image itself. To get the JPEG url you need to go to the 'View all sizes' page, select the size to display and then right click on the image. Select 'Properties' from the drop down menu, highlight/select the 'Address(URL) and press Ctrl+V to copy (or right click over the highlighted address and select 'Copy'). Paste the address between the tags as above.

    The result look like this (img)[URL]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3070/5695447027_f37f90e6e2_z.jpg (/img[/URL]).

    Replace the () brackets with [] to get...

  16. LargeFormat

    LargeFormat Well-Known Member

    Nothing at all wrong with any of those but if you are posting them it is useful information to the viewer. We are all trying to learn.

Share This Page