Disappointed - more on honesty in nature photography

[pete-c]

Yes I agree wildlife should mean wild.

Pete

[Jim Ford]

Perhaps take a shot of a chimpanzee or gorilla in a cage in a zoo, and enter it in the same competition next year - it would be just as valid!

Great kite shot BTW!

Jim

[Lancashire Lad]

Just playing Devil's Advocate - Everything is relative. Just how wild is wild these days.

Are not the Red Kites at Gigrin fed copious amounts every day, thus ensuring that they will be in the right place at the right time, and amenable to hoards of photographers?

It is noticable that there aren't half as many shots of other birds of prey, as there are of the ones at such places as Gigrin. Similar situation with baiting for Kingfishers, or photographing at places like Martin Mere where the wildfowl are heavily fed, or even in the back garden at the bird table whith judiciously placed twig perches so that the table full of food remains out of shot.

Please take this in the spirit that it is meant. I'm not criticising anyone here, and the shots posted are far better than I would be able to manage, but it does seem to me that there is a great deal of blurring of the line these days in what is deemed to be truly wild.

Regards,
Mike.

[NicolaB]

No offence taken

I think the difference for me is that the the Gigrin Kites, birds at bird feeders, WWT centres etc spend their lives in the wild when they're not being photographed. They're not kept in an enclosure for the rest of the time, neither are they being trained to "perform" at the places we photograph them. They are there because they choose to be.

I agree that some places are much easier to get decent wildlife shots than others though.

[RoyW]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

So I think captive animals should be ok in competitions so long as:
A) its situation is declared as in it is captive or in one of the hard to define situations
B) the above is considered in judging

This covers it really.

Most (if not all) wildlife photography competitions do make allowances for captive 'wildlife' and for animals that have been temporarily placed in artificial environments for the purpose of photography.
The rules generally make it clear that any shots that have been taken in this way have to be accompanied by the full details when they are entered - how much this is then taken into account is then up to the judges in each individual competition.

The comparison between captive animals placed in a staged enclosure and wild ones attracted to a man made 'studio set' by baiting with food is an obvious one. Both are artificial and can produce more aesthetically pleasing pictures than might be obtained if the wildlife had to enter similar surroundings without any human intervention, so it is difficult to know exactly where to draw the line (personally I think I'm against treating permanently captive animals as wildlife, but I'm not sure where I'd stand on aquatic invertebrates moved to a tank to allow underwater photography!).

One thing is certain (IMO at least) - it is far more rewarding to obtain a single competition standard shot in a completely wild setting than it is to get a series of similar shots in a staged setting. I'm certainly not against photographing wildlife that has been attracted with food, and I intend to use a tank to get photographs of dragonfly larvae. There is a lot of satisfaction through learning where to find your subject, and how to get close to it though - and managing to compose a decent image in unmanaged surroundings adds to the satisfaction!

[silverfox4242]

I agree with you Nicola, the same thing has happened to me in competitions several times this year. Ron.

[gez]

Thats a great pic Nicola.
IMO i agree with nicola in one of her last comments. ie when these birds/animals are not being fed they are wild & can go where ever they wish.
just like the birds at your birdtable yes they come in for a light lunch & you may place a nice perch for them? but then off they fly.
Some of these wildlife shots of the bigger animals which would be very difficult to photo in the wild should be listed as captive to give others a chance.
but the rules in some new comps re baiting now that is a whole new ball game!!!

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

So I think captive animals should be ok in competitions so long as:
A) its situation is declared as in it is captive or in one of the hard to define situations
B) the above is considered in judging

yeah thats my opinion also - some animals would be virtually imposible to photograph in the wild (and moreso without causing them stress or disturbance) therefore it ought to be okay to enter wild looking shots of them taken in captivity so long as this is declared.

at the end of the day it depends on what is being judged - if its purely about the aesthetic merit of the photo then using captive species is just another technique to acheive that. (for example famous heather angel picture of a snow leopard jumping, was taken with a "stunt leopard" after a helicopter ride into the rockies )


Apologies to the mods for the external image , but as its not my copyright i cant load it into the galleries/image files

and so long as you are not pretending that they were taken after an arduous stalk in the wild in order to falsely impress the judges with your derring do, i cant see a problem with them

[Toby]

agree the main thing would be to clearly identify the location/situation be it the British Wildlife sanctuary in Surrey or a game park in Texas.
Insects are possibly another case as the tropical butterflies bred in a Butterfly House are tame enough to land on your hand but many species would be hard to approach in the wild.