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

Wildlife

Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by EightBitTony, Jun 11, 2020.

  1. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    These are wild, not so common, and always far too far away

    [​IMG]BV9R0106-2.jpg by Pete, on Flickr
     
    EightBitTony likes this.
  2. MJB

    MJB Well-Known Member

    It took me 2 years of near weekly visits to get the portrait of the gorilla on his small island enclosure. The common blue butterfly that lived on 94,000acres of Salisbury Plain took me 5 minutes. Photographing captive animals is just so easy;)
     
  3. Stephen Rundle

    Stephen Rundle In the Stop Bath

    No, it is not free to roam, wildlife, noun, animals that live independently of people, in natural conditions:

    Wildlife
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, other dictionaries also list this)

    "Wild animals" redirects here. For the film, see Wild Animals.
    [​IMG]
    A tiger (Panthera tigris)

    Wildlife traditionally refers to undomesticated animal species, but has come to include all organisms that grow or live wild in an area without being introduced by humans.[1] Wildlife can be found in all ecosystems. Deserts, forests, rainforests, plains, grasslands, and other areas, including the most developed urban areas, all have distinct forms of wildlife. While the term in popular culture usually refers to animals that are untouched by human factors, most scientists agree that much wildlife is affected by human activities.[2]
     
  4. Craig20264

    Craig20264 Well-Known Member

    And a Game Reserve?
     
  5. SXH

    SXH Well-Known Member

    Wild? I should think it's absolutely livid!

    (go on - guess the reference...)
     
    Zou likes this.
  6. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    That is a special picture of the silverback!
     
    MJB likes this.
  7. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    I have a big issue with zoos in general. Once a creature is removed from its natural habitat what you get is an adaptation of the thing supposed to be conserved. I agree that this doesn't necessarily make it easier or the pictures any less valid, but they cannot be claimed to be everything that their wild cousins are.

    Managed reserves? Trickier, but I think the key part of the equation is are they (the creatures) self sufficient?
     
    Craig20264 likes this.
  8. Craig20264

    Craig20264 Well-Known Member

    Is the correct answer.
     
  9. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    Phew, I was thinking about phoning a friend...! :eek:
     
    Craig20264 likes this.
  10. MJB

    MJB Well-Known Member

    You have a friend? :p
     
    dream_police, Zou and Craig20264 like this.
  11. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    That's why I was concerned!
     
    Craig20264, dream_police and MJB like this.
  12. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    I love the pic, but length of time to get it really can't be a measure of merit. Ditto, how far people travel to get a pic of the Grand Canyon etc.
     
  13. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    Still can't think of any wow shots from there. Overrated!
     
  14. Stephen Rundle

    Stephen Rundle In the Stop Bath


    Think about it, the reserve is still managed by humans, culling takes place

    However I remember being really annoyed with a stupid comment by attenborough when he said that he would let a turtle die when filming and not help it as that is nature, and yet he and the entire film crew were doing just that by being there !!!!!
     
  15. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    I think there's a point at which a species crosses a line thanks to human behaviour, that means we should do whatever we can to preserve the gene pool so that when we learn to behave better, we can repopulate. I think it's also true that 'wild' animals adapt to human presence everywhere, and since humans pretty much _are_ everywhere, it's hard to imagine many places with big animals which are untouched by our presence.

    I think it's all about representation as @PeteRob said, I've got some great shots of a lion, I make no claims that it was shot in Africa but it's still a majestic and beautiful creature.
     
  16. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    Having said all that - shots of dramatic natural behaviour are hard to beat.
     
  17. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    Sure as a shot they are great. But to get same in the wild is a far greater achievement. Shot vs Achievement.
     
  18. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    Only the photographer knows how much effort was involved, and if someone drives you to the airport, flies you to Africa, drives you to a location, points you at some lions, you take a shot, and then drives, flies you home, how much of an achievement is it?
     
  19. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    None at all. You drive yourself out in the wilds, find a lion, get a shot = achievement.

    [​IMG]Morning Lion by Mike Longhurst, on Flickr
     
  20. MickLL

    MickLL In the Stop Bath

    Late to this - sorry.

    In the photographic world there are reasonably clear definitions of nature and wildlife. The wildlife definition excludes pets/zoo and animals under controlled conditions. Google them. The RPS one is as good as any. Nothing at all to do with difficulty of getting the shot.

    Irrespective of any photo definition IMHO one should never pass off a photo under controlled conditions as being wild - you can't be sure that the behaviour is natural or a reaction to captivity. I guess we all remember shots of caged animals pacing up and down - hardly natural and it would be wrong to pass it off as such.

    MickLL
     
    Zou likes this.

Share This Page