Photographing 'Wildlife' ?

[PMG]

I was looking for some specific information when I tripped into Peter Cairns blogg on the webb tonight and followed the link pasted below about so called 'game farm wildlife photography' and the 'perfect picture' which has left me thinking .... thought other wabbers might be interested to read what some - again - so called wildlife photographers are up to ... I found it very interesting to realise that this kind of misconception, trickery, wool-pulling, deliberate manipulation to downright lying about where and when a subject has been achieved has been going on for longer than any of us might suspect. In my case I now can be pretty sure that the images that inspired me when I was young and made me think I was capable of wildlife photography were probably 'cheat shots' of tame animals taken under controlled conditions and passed off as genuine wild aquisitions ..........

It also underlines one of my pet hates which is photographic competitions and winning entries where it is very difficult to estabilish just how that particular shot has been gained ...... and it seems my instincts are right - if it looks too good to be true - it most likely is! I have no problems with people photographing any species providing there has been no harm or distress caused to the animal and that it is declared as a photo shoot image in controlled conditions. Anyone who has been to a raptor photo shoot will know that just cos the birds fly in front of you - several times - doesn't mean you will get a stunning fabulous world breaking shot - or that you will manage to lock on focus and follow the action even!

You could argue that there is a case for using game farm animals instead of hounding really wild afraid pressurised wild animals which could be said to cause a lot more distress and disturbance -lets imagine a scenario where each one of us here went tramping thro genuine wilderness week in week out seeking out these over pressurised creatures ........ it brings a lot of ethics into view ...... and I think the problems loom when you try to find out how these tame animals were aquired in the first place ...... Anyway the article interested me and made me think so I thought I would throw it into the ring here!

Audubon Magazine

Pauline

[Richard G.]

All very interesting.

I think most would agree there are two types of wildlife photographer, those who came to the craft through an empathy, respect and intimate knowledge of the animals and those who were already keen photographers and made a natural progression towards wildlife.

Nothing wrong with either and I would certainly put myself in the latter camp, but if I’m honest, it does mean that my general ignorance of the animal means I’m more likely to overstep the mark than people in the former camp and I’d like to think other people with the same experience, would be candid enough to admit it.

I’m very well aware of this though and force myself to think about the animal before bumbling inconsiderately into its domain. And without a doubt I’m learning more and more about the animals through my photography and this awareness will eventually lead me into the former camp; still a good way to go yet though!

However, I didn’t sign up for wildlife photography without a lot of consideration; one of the first things I did was make a list of the places I could visit and easily take good wildlife images with little or no impact on their welfare. Places like BWC, zoos, deer parks, Bempton, Farne Islands, Donna Nook, Gigrin Farm, even the birds in my garden.

So a fair number of my pictures are somewhat contrived, but I’ve no problem admitting this. I just saw it as the best way, both for me and the animals, to start in wildlife photography. I think any photographer whose primary concern is the photo and not the animal, should give serious consideration to making best use of these ‘artificial’ opportunities and just be happy with the great photo’s they get and leave the truly wild animals to their struggle in peace.

Couldn’t agree more about competition though. I was previously involved in other ‘artistic competition’ for many years and it destroyed my enthusiasm for a pursuit that had taken up many years of my life. I won’t be making the same mistake with photography.

[Hobjob]

In twitching circles there are several cases of fraudulent reports of rare birds.

A bridled tern was seen recently in Northumberland, but there are a lot of doubters.

[GTH]

We were in Scotland a few years ago and watched 5-6 photographers taking frogs out of their natural environment, putting them on a stone within a small plastic Tupperware container,and taking photographs. When we queried why they were doing it the reply was "so we can get the best shots". I have to say this disturbed us, but to these people it seemed a common and regular occurrence by their attitude.

Geoff

[acherontia]

An excellent article - thanks Pam.

There always has been dishonesty and probably always will be. I'm with you on the skill still needed to get the shots of a big cat playing with a ball - but this lot should really come clean - at least to enlighten the more gullible who (as the article says) may think snow leopards and other endangered species are two a penny because there are now so many images of them!

I don't know if you saw the images, a while back, in the 'Maily Dale' that the man 'in fear of his life' took. (Ha Ha)
They were so obviously, to a good photographer's eye, taken in a set up situation and the incredibly bad reporting put it all forward as genuine!! It was that there 'Daily Mail Reporter' again

There was a massive outcry on the DM online and the howls of derision were deafening. Someone even revealed the exact location of the park. I'll wager the photographer in question was rather red faced - and so he should have bee, the big fake. Shame on people like this - and bad/ lazy reporters !

Acher

[zan]

That's a really interesting article, thanks for sharing

I guess it all comes down to shades of grey though really doesn't it? For example, I've taken loads of photos of genuinely wild seabirds around the Isle of Lewis, but most of them I've taken from the back of a fishing boat we used for catch surveys. If I've taken shots of gannets diving at the nets as they're hauled back up or of skuas fighting with gulls over discarded fish, does that make them less 'wild' or the shots less worthy if they were only there because of the boat?

I appreciate there's a huge difference between captive-reared animals \ trained animals and my example, but the difference is less clear when you look at some reserves e.g. the farne islands seabird colonies, which are pretty much like big open-air zoos, and you're virtually guaranteed decent photos if you go there.

I think a lot of it will come down to personal opinion. Where one person sees a legitimate wildlife photo, someone else may see a baited animal for example. Having said that, I think last year's Wildlife Photographer of the Year fiasco has made this a much more public issue, and if it leads to stricter controls over what is and isn't 'wild' then so much the better all round I think.

[DrNickBurton]

For me half the fun is going out without knowing what your going to see, or how close it will come, or what the light will be like, etc. etc.

More than once I've seen stunning shots of foxes/otters/wildcats on peoples photo sites, only to realise that they were actually taken at the BWC. I went there for a photo day myself recently. Although it was good practice, it was just too easy to get frame filling, perfectly exposed, perfectly focused, posed shots. Because of this, I dare say that every photographers shots from those days look pretty much the same!

As for commercial photography of captive animals passed off as wildlife, it is here to stay - so long as there remains a market for it. Magazine editors are the people who can change this. Did anyone else see the letters in BBC Wildlife Magazine recently complaining about the large proportion of captive animal shots?

[pressld2]

Thanks for posting that Pauline - very interesting.

I'm pleased that this issue is getting more of an airing these days. As well as BBC Wildlife magazine, Outdoor Photography has also been debating the ethics of using captive animals or models recently. (That's the UK magazine, not the US one of the same name that was mentioned in the Audubon article.) Most people seem to agree that honesty is the key and that using captives or models is okay provided you say so. One of the problems here though is that even when the photographer is honest, he or she has no control over what is printed in the magazine/book/calendar. But having read the article that Pauline linked too it seems to me that an even bigger issue is the standards of care for the captive animals. Some of that article made distressing reading on that score. The only place I've photographed captive animals is at Wildwood in Kent and I'm satisfied that the standards of care there are excellent, as I'm sure they are at the BWC too. But if there are places in the UK where these standards are not met then they should be boycotted, reported and shut down.

I'm very similar to Richard G (that's a real quality post by the way, Richard) because although I've always had an interest in wildlife, it was my interest in photography that re-kindled my love of nature. I'm sure I've learned more about wildlife in the last 5 years since buying my first DSLR (and the three years since joining WAB) than I learned in the previous 45. I know that I have unwittingly done things I shouldn't have at times: on a recent visit to Minsmere with John and Hobjob I was quietly turning pink when Hobjob politely asked another photographer to stick to the paths. On my first visit I, too, had left the path in more or less the same place when trying to get closer to a green woodpecker. But I was a rookie then and I know better now.

When it comes to cheating in competitions, like the "Storybook Wolf" in last year's WPotY, I just don't see the point. When I win the WPotY (I'm gonna do it one day ) I want it to mean something. Sure the cheque would be nice but the most important thing for me would be the recognition. If I knew it was all based on a lie it would just feel dirty and cheap and I'd know it didn't mean anything. I couldn't stand that.

Dave P.

[PMG]

Some spot on thoughtful replies there already ........

What I guess it all comes down to is shades of grey, or how far does any one photographer think they should go in order to get a photo of something and also what are our individual perceptions of the 'wild' .... If we have the notion that the 'wild' is a pristine place where life is hunkey-dory for the inhabitants and no harm or disturbance or loss is endured until that wildness is penetrated by a human being, then you're setting yourself up to feel uncomfortable, ill at ease, out of place, tresspassing etc. If and I think this is a more realistic view we see that all kinds of things disturb, upset, destroy and interfere with a creatures life on a daily, sometimes hourly basis and is accepted by that creature as a daily normal occurance to be dealt with, then us humans can go out of our houses and back into a wilderness that we first came from - and feel at ease going about looking for photographic opportunities which occur naturally. There is a world of difference between wandering, noseying, looking with keen observation for the tell tale signs that wildlife is going about its business under your nose if you stop and look for a spell and deliberately setting up camp, photographic hide etc without any forewarning for your intended 'target' and camping out 'in its space' until it either moves away, deserts a nest site, moves its young etc. Wandering with slight intent - taking a few photos and moving on does less harm than a gang of walkers passing by, children playing dens, folks having picnics, making love, having a sleep, having a moveable bar-b-q and so on - the list is endless. They don't feel guilty cos they don't know what they may be disturbing - the photographer, bird or nature watcher shouldn't feel guilty just cos they are aware of what is shouting and alarming round them - but they should be prepared to have a look or take a photo and move on. If nature watching in a certain spot for any length of time then its up to you to dumb down your appearance, blend in and keep still - if half an hour has passed and the wildlife around is still trumpeting and alarming then your disguise isn't working and you need to move away and think again better for next time!

The business of baiting wildlife with food intentionally or as a by product of a job you are doing is a case of win/win - you may get a half decent photograph and the creature may get a meal - this exchange is no robbery and no harm done! Its not done against the creatures will or to its detriment and some creatures positively thrive on it as in garden birdtables and urban foxes. A couple of years ago I got tree sparrow and grey partridge pics from the car window and my pop-up hide on the field edge at a little known baited site where someone living nearby had seen the opportunity and decided to feed the same spot in the field every few days. The birds mostly got thro the winter alive and well fed - a few went to keeping the sparrowhawk in fettle ...

Taking stuff out of their environment for a short spell is not neccessarily a bad or damaging thing: catching fish, tadpoles, other aquatic life and keeping it in an aquarium for a spell to observe, breed or photograph is not neccessarily a bad thing provided you know how to look after it and re-release to the wild sooner rather than later.

Catching small mammals and keeping them captive for photographic purposes is being done by photographers .... I'm not sure where I fall on this one - its not much different to me visiting the Highland Zoo and taking pics of wild cat and capercaillie except that the zoo is supposed too know how to best look after these animals in its care. Its an experience I won't repeat as I didn;t like the size of its cages or the obvious distress of some of the inmates: wild cats and snowy owls with haunted 1,000 yard stares are not comfortable for me. I have been to a private shoot with a tawny and a barn owl and a kestrel - these were rescue birds and all performed for food and petting but I haven't tried to pass off my shots of these as wild. What worries me is that some photographers may only be interested in the money or kudos or competition winning shot and may not know or care how to look after a wild animal. I also have trouble with the idea of a healthy creature being imprisoned just for photographic reasons... Injured or damaged creatures being kept and photographed is another matter as at Pensthorpe but again if the creature shows extreme fear and cowers in the corners of its enclosure or tries to hide away then it obviously shouldn't be being used for anything. And so that brings me back to real wildlife and game farm 'wildlife' and the use of animals that have been trained to play and pose .... whether its ethically correct to tame something and keep it domesticated is a whole different question ....... lets face it as far as I know all riden horses have to be 'broken in' their wills bent into shape with our wishes before we can ride one.....

The thing I do take issue with is lying about how these sorts of images have been aquired and the inference that such 'perfect' photography is within everyones grasp if they go into the wilderness with patience.... but even the fact that I know I was guillible when younger and thought that the photos I admired had been achieved in the genuine wild has its positive side - after all if I hadn't admired and desired them I wouldn't be taking the photos that I do now ..............

Pauline

[acherontia]

Originally Posted by PMG

Some spot on thoughtful replies there already ........

What I guess it all comes down to is shades of grey, or how far does any one photographer think they should go in order to get a photo of something and also what are our individual perceptions of the 'wild' .... If we have the notion that the 'wild' is a pristine place where life is hunkey-dory for the inhabitants and no harm or disturbance or loss is endured until that wildness is penetrated by a human being, then you're setting yourself up to feel uncomfortable, ill at ease, out of place, tresspassing etc. If and I think this is a more realistic view we see that all kinds of things disturb, upset, destroy and interfere with a creatures life on a daily, sometimes hourly basis and is accepted by that creature as a daily normal occurance to be dealt with, then us humans can go out of our houses and back into a wilderness that we first came from - and feel at ease going about looking for photographic opportunities which occur naturally. There is a world of difference between wandering, noseying, looking with keen observation for the tell tale signs that wildlife is going about its business under your nose if you stop and look for a spell and deliberately setting up camp, photographic hide etc without any forewarning for your intended 'target' and camping out 'in its space' until it either moves away, deserts a nest site, moves its young etc. Wandering with slight intent - taking a few photos and moving on does less harm than a gang of walkers passing by, children playing dens, folks having picnics, making love, having a sleep, having a moveable bar-b-q and so on - the list is endless. They don't feel guilty cos they don't know what they may be disturbing - the photographer, bird or nature watcher shouldn't feel guilty just cos they are aware of what is shouting and alarming round them - but they should be prepared to have a look or take a photo and move on. If nature watching in a certain spot for any length of time then its up to you to dumb down your appearance, blend in and keep still - if half an hour has passed and the wildlife around is still trumpeting and alarming then your disguise isn't working and you need to move away and think again better for next time!

The business of baiting wildlife with food intentionally or as a by product of a job you are doing is a case of win/win - you may get a half decent photograph and the creature may get a meal - this exchange is no robbery and no harm done! Its not done against the creatures will or to its detriment and some creatures positively thrive on it as in garden birdtables and urban foxes. A couple of years ago I got tree sparrow and grey partridge pics from the car window and my pop-up hide on the field edge at a little known baited site where someone living nearby had seen the opportunity and decided to feed the same spot in the field every few days. The birds mostly got thro the winter alive and well fed - a few went to keeping the sparrowhawk in fettle ...

Taking stuff out of their environment for a short spell is not neccessarily a bad or damaging thing: catching fish, tadpoles, other aquatic life and keeping it in an aquarium for a spell to observe, breed or photograph is not neccessarily a bad thing provided you know how to look after it and re-release to the wild sooner rather than later.

Catching small mammals and keeping them captive for photographic purposes is being done by photographers .... I'm not sure where I fall on this one - its not much different to me visiting the Highland Zoo and taking pics of wild cat and capercaillie except that the zoo is supposed too know how to best look after these animals in its care. Its an experience I won't repeat as I didn;t like the size of its cages or the obvious distress of some of the inmates: wild cats and snowy owls with haunted 1,000 yard stares are not comfortable for me. I have been to a private shoot with a tawny and a barn owl and a kestrel - these were rescue birds and all performed for food and petting but I haven't tried to pass off my shots of these as wild. What worries me is that some photographers may only be interested in the money or kudos or competition winning shot and may not know or care how to look after a wild animal. I also have trouble with the idea of a healthy creature being imprisoned just for photographic reasons... Injured or damaged creatures being kept and photographed is another matter as at Pensthorpe but again if the creature shows extreme fear and cowers in the corners of its enclosure or tries to hide away then it obviously shouldn't be being used for anything. And so that brings me back to real wildlife and game farm 'wildlife' and the use of animals that have been trained to play and pose .... whether its ethically correct to tame something and keep it domesticated is a whole different question ....... lets face it as far as I know all riden horses have to be 'broken in' their wills bent into shape with our wishes before we can ride one.....

The thing I do take issue with is lying about how these sorts of images have been aquired and the inference that such 'perfect' photography is within everyones grasp if they go into the wilderness with patience.... but even the fact that I know I was guillible when younger and thought that the photos I admired had been achieved in the genuine wild has its positive side - after all if I hadn't admired and desired them I wouldn't be taking the photos that I do now ..............

Pauline

I agree with everything you say on every step of the way.

You've put almost every issue I thought of there. On a personal basis - my garden is 'artificially' created in that I put wild plants there (they had been killed by others) and have trees and bushes and a pond to encourage as much wildlife as I hope will visit.

Our garden is an eco-system of its own in a sea of other less friendly gardens (read paving etc) that are in a bigger picture of a village that is rapidly losing any kind of link to the countryside it ever had.
People move here for 'the dream' and then pour concrete and paving all over it. We (poor country type povvies that can't afford expensive pave overs and decking) have a hide in the garden and sit about appreciating and photographing wildlife. It makes my heart sing to see our visitors.

Are we exploitative? I think not- the birds have a choice. I may feel I have a duty but they don't and they are still wild. They can come and go and I, for one, don't expect them to jump hoops and I truly appreciate the visits they make - whether I grab a shot or not!

And when I do get a good shot of , most probably a local garden visitor,I know it is an honest one of of a truly untamed and unexploited feathered friend.

Acher

PS

Acher