Photography Fake

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Gaina

Why not take the credit for his compositional skills rather than lie about being a good photographer? I don't get that.

i'm not necessarily saying this guy fits the profile ( principally because i dont want to get sued ) but there is an increasing ammount of walter mitty type behaviour in wildlife photography.

Andy rouse refers people practicing it as "lifestyle wildlife photographers" that is that they want everyone to admire how big and brave and daring they are, and what wonderful pics they have without actually taking any risks , or spending hours on end freezing cold, boiling hot, or soaking wet in a hide.

Vis the puma photo i mentioned earlier - suposedly the photographer in question took it after "practicing hours of field craft as he crept slowly closer to one of the most dangerous creatures on the planet" now leaving aside that it a puma not a komodo dragon , he also claims it (a frame filling shot) was taken with a 28mm lens - while not absolutely impossible the chances of getting that close to a wild puma without disturbing it are pretty slim, and IMO the chances of also taking a picture of a timber wolf in virtually the same location and pose .... well if hes naturally that lucky I hope hes bought a lottery ticket.

It has also subsequently been alledged in the photo press that the puma in question is recognisably a rentapuma from colarado game farm, and the backdrop is supposedly recognisably there too.

[acherontia]

The truth - a lot of professional wildlife photographers 'cheat'.
'Cheating' can be construed many ways - from baiting (yes some purists even disagree with this) to out and out movement of the subject into a more desirable location, either digitally or physically. If you're good at this a lot won't be able to tell.

Some people even view post processing as 'cheating' ! I've heard many an argument against it - even though it was always part of photographic technique when it was done in a dark room.
I use post processing very little because I'd sooner be outside than in front of a pooter but most digital photography needs something doing to it.
As has been said - if you're honest about what methods you've used and it is ethical (I personally don't view captive mammals as ethical) then that's Okay.

I can think of a really good shot of a toad sitting precariously near to a busy road that speaks volumes about man's impact on wildlife and it was artificially created. Still an excellent image though.

IMHO some of AR's stuff is a bit 'dodgy' and I hate the way he created a fashion for subject isolation when very often more can be said by a quirky view/crop and the subject surrounded by its natural environment.

I'm probably even more unpopular now!!! LOL

Acherontia

[Maccattack1]

Most of ARs talks start with a review of his "style of photo", for the last few years he says he is aiming for environmental shots.Subject isolation is still popular in some photographic circles tho (not surprising if people have bought a 600 /4 )
Nothing wrong in my view practising your photography on museum /zoo animals .
Deception , most people probably agree is a bad thing.

Malcolm

[cosmicma]

Originally Posted by KeenTeen17

What about those unable to afford Top Notch Gear? Theres no way on earth they would be able to get a good photo in competition with a 1000mm lens when all they have is a compact

i remember seeing a photo of an eagle just as it grabbed a fish from the water it was one of those photo's you strive to achieve all your photographic life
it was published in a newspaper i think taken with a cheap snaphot camera with the photographer lying on his stomache the timing was perfect

infact here is the article
Google Image Result for http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_02/eagleDM1706_600x562.jpg

just goes to show the equipment is not as important as the moment

as far as the subject on the fake photo is concerned what goes against the grain for me is the fact that it is published in a magazine about wildlife and the photographer is trying to fool the audience into believing the photo was taken in the wild
this to me is depriving other photographers who really do have photos of wildlife their 15 minutes of fame so to speak a chance they might never get again

using stuffed animals in photography is ok with me as long as we are not trying to be fooled it's genuine it basicly spits in the eye of those who spend a great deal of time getting to know the subject and waiting patiently just for that photo

[Paul mabbott]

True, people take photographs of wildlife to make 'artistic' pictures. Other take pictures for scientific records and, occasionally, biological understanding. While I have no objection to photography as art, I come in the the latter group although sometimes I also manage a pretty picture or two!

If we are taking photographs for scientific record or information then we should interfere with the photograph as little as possible and certainly not remove important features. For purposes of information then living, dead or stuffed organisms may be useful - but obviously such facts should be noted, as, indeed, should other information such as when and where the photograph was taken.

I certainly wouldn't want to advocate returning to the Victorian mass killing as a means of studying animals but we should recognise that a lot was learned from those museum specimens and continues to be so. The only way we can still study extinct animals!

Originally Posted by acherontia

I would argue that good wildlife photography is artistic.

It uses live animals, photographic knowledge and a certain way of looking at things that encompasses artistic awareness backed by depth of knowledge of the subject matter and a good grounding of the history of art and photography.
I think that certain image manipulation, like compositing, can be acceptable if it furthers awareness of our environment by a powerful image that moves us spiritually.

Acherontia

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

True, people take photographs of wildlife to make 'artistic' pictures. Other take pictures for scientific records and, occasionally, biological understanding. While I have no objection to photography as art, I come in the the latter group although sometimes I also manage a pretty picture or two!

If we are taking photographs for scientific record or information then we should interfere with the photograph as little as possible and certainly not remove important features. For purposes of information then living, dead or stuffed organisms may be useful - but obviously such facts should be noted, as, indeed, should other information such as when and where the photograph was taken.

I certainly wouldn't want to advocate returning to the Victorian mass killing as a means of studying animals but we should recognise that a lot was learned from those museum specimens and continues to be so. The only way we can still study extinct animals!

Of course a detailed and accurate representation is essential for identification and scientific purposes - and I didn't mean to detract from the value of these kind of images when I mentioned the 'artistic' side of things.

I know from my partner's work that it requires an awful lot of skill to take perfectly detailed macro images of tiny creatures like newly hatched caterpillars - and a lot of equipment!
But we both also enjoy exercising a certain amount of 'artistry' - especially, for example, when trying to give an impression of the character of a bird.

But IMHO it's very wrong not to be honest about where and how things are produced like 'Mr I don't work for the National Geographic Anymore' did!!


Acherontia