Photographing 'Wildlife' ?

[larachmor]

Been away for a while - so I've only just read this. Great thread Pauline.;
For me it's always the satisfaction of shooting (sorry - photographing) any wild subject. I'd rather have a slightly fuzzy shot of a wild eagle than a pin-sharp captive subject.
Honesty makes it more acceptable I suppose, but the captive subject - regardless of how impressive the shot is - simply does little for me. Should I see a particularly good photo of a bird of prey, if there is no declaration that it is captive - I am always suspicious if the bird's ankles are concealed - along with the tell-tale mark of its jesses of course!
My own website has for a long time bore the caption on "wildlife images .. with the emphasis on WILD.. No zoos, no wildlife parks, no captive subjects..Just wild creatures....in the wild." Otherwise it's akin to fishing in an aquarium!
I am sure that there are many stunning true wildlife shots that have been dismissed with the curse of "Captive !!" It's only the dishonesty of some that has brought this about.

[Sanderson-Brown]

Fantastic read! I find it boils down to the photographers conscience in the end. If I were to modify a scene and put an insect into an unusual scenario or take a flower out of its natural environment into a studio set and try and sell it as "wild" I wouldn’t be able to look at the photograph again without a sense of shame. For this reason, I just dont do it, and the personal feeling of achievement being able to work around the given moment (lighting, weather, equipment) and get what I want out of it is much more important to me.
I am sure, if even just deep deep down, the award winning photographers who have "amended" their subject or descriptions of environments to suit requirements feel ashamed that they won by twisting the rules for personal gains. I know what and where I shoot so I need not worry that I will ever feel this way but unfortunately not everyone thinks that way.
Paul

[snake]

This has made for an interesting read so I thought I would add a few of my thoughts.
With the title of this thread being "photographing wildlife" it makes me wonder what people actually class as wildlife.
To me, wildlife is something that exists in the wild, free of any restrictions or restraints and able to behave and move around at its own free will just as nature had intended.
With this view in mind I cannot accept that an animal or bird that is held in captivity can fit this criteria and continue to be classed as wild.
If a photography competition calls for wildlife photos I do not see that there is a place for shots that are taken of subjects that are captive, if it asks for photos of nature then that is a different matter.
Photographing animals in captivity gives a lot of pleasure to a lot of people that do not have access to the countryside and the pictures they take can be simply stunning and should be admired for what they are.
A stunning shot of a truly wild subject I view in a different light and if people that enter "wildlife" competitions are truthful with their entries, I am sure that most people would feel much the same.
To me there is a vast difference between a shot of an animal taken in the wild or one taken in a petshop.
When you look at a photograph, how does it make you feel?
Does knowing how and where it was taken make a difference?
With many aspects of photography it probably would make no difference but I think that with wildlife it does, if it doesn't it should.
The word luck has been used here a few times and I'm not sure its totally true.
There are a number of wildlife photographers out there that consistently come up with stunning photos. Are they just lucky?
With a good knowledge of your chosen subject and fieldcraft the element of luck can be substantially reduced and to a certain extent it is possible to control their behavior.
Being in the right place at the right time is lucky but it doesn't often happen.

When I look at a wildlife photo, knowing how it was obtained makes a difference to the way I perceive it.

[Jim Ford]

Pretty much my feelings on the subject, 'Snake'!

Jim

[Fwuffy]

Originally Posted by snake

To me, wildlife is something that exists in the wild, free of any restrictions or restraints and able to behave and move around at its own free will just as nature had intended.

I can see where you're coming from, and I would agree with your definition of wildlife. But on the other hand I've always taken the term loosely rather than strictly, in the sense that I've never heard anyone describe their type of photography as "animal" photography or anything similar. In the same way for example where I come from, people use "bath" to be an umbrella term for erm, cleaning (ie. it includes bath and shower) and "fridge" is an umbrella term for fridge or freezer (which strictly speaking is correct :P)

But yes, I agree with the definition of wildlife.

Ultimately a competition will decide on their own rules, so that is likely to be a limiting factor.

Another analogy; there are plenty of digitally manipulated images winning photography competitions in this day and age (not wildlife photography competitions, just generally)... whether it's "invisible" manipulation or even arty manipulation that is obvious and intended as such. Is there a place for that in a "photographic" competition?

Originally Posted by snake

if people that enter "wildlife" competitions are truthful with their entries, I am sure that most people would feel much the same.

I agree completely, and as I said upfront, dishonesty is a different matter altogether and one that is inexcusable.

Originally Posted by snake

To me there is a vast difference between a shot of an animal taken in the wild or one taken in a petshop.
When you look at a photograph, how does it make you feel?

That's my point exactly, in a sense. When you look at a photograph, how does it make you feel? As opposed to, when you look at a photograph, how does it make you feel if you take into account whether it was a wild animal or not?

Given some people are suggesting more credit should be given if a photographer has gone through more time and effort to capture an image of a truly wild animal, should the same apply to an image of a truly wild animal that took 3 years in the making, or 3 hours?

Originally Posted by snake

With many aspects of photography it probably would make no difference but I think that with wildlife it does, if it doesn't it should.

This is probably one of the explanations for the difference in perception; the fact that different genres are frequently evaluated differently.

Originally Posted by snake

There are a number of wildlife photographers out there that consistently come up with stunning photos. Are they just lucky?
With a good knowledge of your chosen subject and fieldcraft the element of luck can be substantially reduced and to a certain extent it is possible to control their behavior.

I have made the very point myself in a previous post. Subject knowledge, spending more time in the field, etc, increase your chances of encountering a good photographic opportunity, but ultimately given you cannot plan that opportunity (indeed the implication is planning is... dishonest), there is unavoidably an element of luck.

Money also makes you more "lucky"; you talk about people that are consistently coming up with stunning photos. How many of those people do it for a living, and have the money to travel the world in search of these opportunities most of the year round? To spend a month in India stalking tigers, or an annual trip to the galapagos or the African plains; if I did that I'd automatically come back with a better collection of wildlife photography than I have now. I might go on these trips once in my lifetime, in which case I would need supreme amounts of luck to wind up with a really good image; going twice a year increases that chance no end.

Even though it's "only" the Farne Islands, which some people here barely consider as "wild" (or challenging enough to consider wild?), I still go at least once or twice a season if I can because it's only an hour and a half away from me. For the very reason that the more time I spend there, the more chances I have of observing and capturing something special.

Originally Posted by snake

When I look at a wildlife photo, knowing how it was obtained makes a difference to the way I perceive it.

I understand that, and I understand it applies to a lot of people especially on here. All I'm trying to do is to challenge people to examine the why, rather than necessarily trying to get people to change their mind about it - that might well be impossible at WAB!