Posted by David Kjaer on December 3, 2006 at 8:41 AM
I refer to my recent post of a Long-eared Owl (C) which was so well received and to date has been viewed more times that any of my previous posts (including my previous Long-eared Owl which was taken in the wild). Believe it or not I do find this a little sad that on a Nature Photographers forum a captive species received so much attention when in reality Jeroen's recent post of a wild Long-eared Owl was perhaps more worthy of praise.
At this point some of you must be thinking why do it then. Well in my case I make a living from my photography and I know images like these will sell (even though in reality you would not see this highly nocturnal species sat on an open fence during daylight). Many picture researchers do not care how the image was obtained only that it is aesthetically pleasing and suits the intended purpose. That said I do feel these shoots and the images obtained do have a place in nature photography for many reasons. Two I would highlight are that it gives you the opportunity to show a species off to it's best which might other wise be difficult in the field and when published could be used to help and raise awareness of a species in a very positive way. Also if you are attending a photo workshop or have arranged the shoot yourself for experience, many of the disciplines required to shoot wildlife in the field are also required when photographing captive species and it can be one of the best ways to learn and improve your photography.
A competition that I have great respect for and buy the book every year is the BBC/Natural History Museums 'Wildlife Photographer of the Year' but I must admit on two occasions to being a little disappointed when the overall winners were captive species. In both cases I really rated the images and thought they should have won their respective sections but because they were not taken in the wild should not have been overall winners.
I suppose the point I am making is that captive images do have their place but was very surprised by the interest my image received on a Nature Photographers forum!
By the way thank you for your great comments
David
Posted by Vincent Jones on December 3, 2006 at 9:48 AM
Good topic but the end result I think should be down to the pleasure & knowledge the photographer gets from gaining the image taking in mind the respect given to the subject being photographed. Wild are a challenge yet captive IMO are just as important if used right, both I think have commercial & educational benefits.
With regards to birds at feeders, aren't they simply tame birds without the aviary wire?
The detailed quality of images on here whether wild/captive still take a considerable amount of thought & skill to get the best shot even though the challenge of getting a wild shot is IMO better.
Good subject but are most of the publishers bothered?
To see on here (Example) snap shots of birds of prey tethered to blocks or perches would be out of character that again is just my opinion.
I hope the above makes sense regarding my thoughts on the above
Vince
PS: The LEO shots posted recently showing the wild & captive side do show a lot of respect for the species & are great both for a commercial/educational level, it is far better than the birds being permanently kept in aviaries with food just being chucked in. The wild LEO would have been more excitable for any photographer who had taken it & that's a personal thing I think.
Posted by stewart canham on December 3, 2006 at 10:03 AM
I am glad some body brought this up,as I have had a lot of thoughts about this subject, and feel strongly about it.
Most shots taken of captive birds and animals are very obvious, to any one with some experience, but in my opinion a captive shot is nothing more than that a record of the spiecies,and I have a fair few of them, in fact I am going to the very same Long eared owls to get some images after Christmas, but it will be only to get a few images for my library. Again, I would never enter a picture in a competition if it was of a captive animal or bird, as I feel its lacking in some of the essential ingredients that make a true WILD shot, some thing very special.I think it would also be a good idea if the organisers of competitions had separate categories for Wild shots and captive shots, as I would feel a bit pevied,if a captive shot won a competition, over a wild shot.....This may seem a bit over the top, but its just my thoughts..................... :
Posted by Dave Courtenay on December 3, 2006 at 10:05 AM
I agree with Vince that i would not like to see tethered birds on this forum but disagree about the bird at feeders being tame without an aviary,I dont shoot animals that are captive but may change this in the near future to get images like Vince and David have taken of difficult wild species-You will not get me taking images of captive fox or badger or such like as these are wide spread and not difficult to photograph in the wild if a bit of effort is put in,I agree with David re the WPOTY captive winners and see no room in the competiton for these,Yes it must grate people who put up wild animal images that have taken a great amount of effort to get only to be out done by a captive animal shot,I have not entered some competitions when reading the rules they allow captive shots, I would hope to see this forum remain mainly wild but do see a niche for images like Vince and Davids and as long as they are clearly marked as captive then thats fine with me
While in principle I see no objection to photographing captive animals there should be no objection to people posting images of animals taking in zoos or any other type of captivity (of course it's up to us where we draw the line), photographing captive animals for commercial gain is down to the photographer and their own conscience the line would have to be drawn when anybody passed a image of a captive animal as taken in the wild.
As for birds coming to a bird feeder there is a world of difference we put the food out at feeders to entice, it's up to the animal/bird whether it wants to come and take the food, whereas a lot of the images of captive species/birds, the birds have no say in the matter, you take them out and fly them around in a field for photographers, if they decide to fly off for freedom they stand a great chance of dying of starvation that's if they are not radio tagged and you do not charge around the countryside trying to find them again. Of course there is a small number that are rehabilitated (usually because they have come into contact with humanity ? ) and released to the wild again to which I am wholeheartedly in favour of whether they survive or not.
Phillip.
Ps personally I can see the attraction especially for difficult species, myself I prefer to find them in the wild and take my images of them in the wild.
Posted by Rene de Heer on December 3, 2006 at 11:16 AM
David, Vincent: although i like the technical quality of your captive bird images, they dont work for me personally. I can understand why you want these kind of images as they, i assume, sell.
From an artistic perpective; it just doesnt make me tick. A few years ago i visited Ranua wildife park in Finland. Captive animals in natural surroundings.....mmmmmm.....well i spend the day drinking coffee and editing my images, i just dont get a thrill out of it and i am sure that if i would have taken images, i would delete them upon my return home!
Rene de Heer
Posted by Graeme Lee on December 3, 2006 at 11:56 AM
A very good posting David. I, like Rene, am not inspired particularly by captive bird images. I appreciate the sheer quality of these images from Vincent and others, but I personally get no enjoyment from posting them, so I don't. What others do is up to them. For me, the challenge and the buzz is getting birds in the wild. I, like many others, spend a lot of time (of which I haven't got!!) trying to get the best shots I can, and I get a lot of satisfaction from that. Frustration as well as satisfaction, it must be said!. I have had a bash at some captive stuff and whilst it is a skill in itself and requires very good camera skills for the types of shots that are posted on here, for me, there's an emptiness to the image that I don't like, so I personally refrain from captive stuff. I generally look at all of the images on here and admire them all for different reasons, so it makes no odds to me, but prefer them to be clearly labelled as captive.
Oh, and I too would be miffed to be beaten in a wildlife comp by a captive image...
Hello everyone
Personaly I think there is place for both kind of photography.
Captive or not captive.
I understand that the"buzz" of taking a picture of a wild bird is not the same that taking picture of a captive bird.
On the other end Paying thousands of pound and going in a hide in a foreing country where EVERYTHING is set up for you.....is that Photography????????????
Personally I have got three hide and i do all set up myself, now that is rewarding to me.
Paying hundreds and be told where to sit and when to take the shot, is That photography????
Have a good evening everyone
Frederic Desmette
Posted by David Kjaer on December 3, 2006 at 12:35 PM
I thought this might stir a mixture of views but I would point out again that I feel there is a place for both and I think it goes without saying that if we could get the images we wanted in the wild that would be the preferred option for all of us. Frederick also makes a very valid point that when you go on a trip be it abroad or in this country where everything is set up for you is this true wildlife photography and would you get the same buzz out of processing and posting these images.
I think the bottom line is that as long as you are honest about how you took the shot, I for one will always enjoy viewing and commenting on your images - captive or not.
David
Posted by John Gardner on December 3, 2006 at 12:39 PM
Well, I'm smiling to myself when I read some of the comments on this thread about how captive shots don't have the same ring to them as a wild shot and how captive shots leave people cold and they aren't as good as the wild stuff; BUT there are people regularly posting on here that have posted captive birds and mammals and have written a great deal about how they were done in the wild and yet no-one has spotted it and indeed they received nothing but praise for their skill and dedication
I shoot captive and don't mind admitting it; I do it mostly so that I can create an artistic shot that will appeal to the picture market or the general public and also it is much quicker than shooting wild depending on the species. Is it better for lots of people to get good shots of a captive bird that is used to humans or should we all apply for a licence to do golden eagle at the nest in Scotland? I also think it is can be difficult to make tame birds look wild and there's a lot of effort goes into making a successful shot; Frederic and I worked hard on putting props in to do the long-eared owl (and a lot of other stuff too) and I think it payed off.
I do agree it's not the same buzz as doing a wild bird - ! spent 14hrs per day for three days on the trot in a hide in central Spain to do great bustard and I look at the images with a lot of satisfaction; but I'd do them again under captive conditions on Salisbury plains if it meant I could get an arty shot of one at sunset or whatever.
You may or may not like captive subjects and that's down to the individual, but at the end of the day in this digital age you just can't be sure what's true and what's not. There are professional UK wildlife photographers that are now buying cage-bred bullfinch, hawfinch, redpoll, pied flycatcher and others and doing them in set-ups and passing them off as wild. Wonder how many would pass through UKNPN without being spotted. My guess is quite a few!
I was just about to post a picture of a captive goshawk in full flight but after this thread I daren't
John
Posted by Vincent Jones on December 3, 2006 at 1:40 PM
My god don’t people treat this subject seriously, makes me want to pack up photography or continue to wind the pro’s up.
Amazing to read the responses on here, makes me laugh lol. Wild or captive, who really cares, if it sells brilliant, that’s the bills paid, if it doesn't try again or try something else that does sell. If for any reason personal feelings gets in the way of business then that person would struggle at times to be in business, personal & business doesn't really mix! or does it?
If stalking wildlife for the purpose of self satisfaction I would agree with what’s been stated above, for stalking to get a sellable shot, then the image could possibly end up more important than the welfare of the subject being stalked, this does happen as I have witnessed it. Some might knock me for saying this but if you get to close & you have been spotted then the subject is being disturbed. Hides on the other hand are there for a purpose & keeps you out of arms reach making the subject less disturbed,
Could there be a bit of enviousness or jealousy amongst photographers if someone wins a comp or gets an image printed of a subject of captive origin, oh oh what have I started lol.
By the way, may I state that I take images for pure pleasure & enjoyment, I never enter my images anywhere plus I shoot using small jpeg files. What I enjoy is getting into the detail of the species & capturing an environment or perch that shows the species in what could be its natural environment.
I hope what I have written doesn’t offend anyone, that is not my intention
Hi David, a very interesting thread, and I think it’s very fine you bring it up.
I chose not to comment on the mentioned photo, but sent David a private email instead, in which I explained my opinion on the image. I felt I had aired my opinion regarding these kinds of photos in this forum a year ago, on one of Sean’s Kestrel photos. So I didn’t really want to go through that again. But hey, here goes….
First of all, I think any photographer is absolutely free to do what they want (within the laws of the country, obviously). Therefore I can’t tell anybody what to do. But as this is a discussion and a critique-forum, I also feel it’s fine to argue pros and contras.
Personally I will bait birds with both live and dead prey, I will call them in with voices, I will sit in hides for days, I will find the birds everywhere and in every possible situation. But I will not (so far) work on captives. For me the defining point in Nature Photography is whether the bird is there of it’s own free will or not. As mentioned in earlier posts, some wild situations are obviously more rewarding than others. It’s probably a purist and somewhat naïve standpoint, and easy to have if you don’t have to make a living by nature photography.
If it’s only about making money, then why stop at captives? As I believe I proved last year, a photo of a stuffed bird can also go a long way. But that would probably be considered cheating in most circles – even with a (TS) “taxidermy specimen” in the headline.
What worries me, is that the photo in question is a really fantastic image, and I can’t get it out of my head. It’s possibly the best LE Owl photo I have ever seen, but unfortunately it’s not a nature photo. I feel now, that whatever I do, and no matter how many ressources I apply, I would not get a photo of a LE Owl living up to the standard of David’s photo. That takes some of the joy away…. I’m also afraid that most editors would think the same, - that would take my chances of selling a photo of a wild LE Owl away….
This summer, a leading Danish newspaper as well as Birdlife Denmark printed an article on the return of Sea Eagles. Accompanying the article was a photo of a Sea Eagle flying with jessies and ropes. The photo was provided by a Danish image-agency specializing in nature-images. I found that not just ironic and ridiculous, but outright sad! For that very same reason I chose not to work with that image-agency. As a consumer I would also think twice before buying nature books where a majority of the images are from that agency.
I guess Joe Public can’t see the difference, but I’m pretty sure that if he knew how his nature calendar was produced, - he would mind!
This is a nature photography site and I therefore don’t see any more need for captive animals photography than for photos of our cats, dogs and other pets here. But as long as we are honest about it and put a (C) in the headline I guess anything goes!
cheers,
Helge
Posted by Graeme Lee on December 3, 2006 at 1:48 PM
I think the difference is that there are Pro's and amateurs on this site and for me as an amateur, I don't need to get shots of various birds for a living, so it's far easier for me to draw the line at captive birds. I'm sure as a Pro, I would HAVE TO capture captive birds...but I'm not, so I won't
Good thread.
Graeme
Posted by Vincent Jones on December 3, 2006 at 2:42 PM
The divide, isn't life fun being a photographer, shame that captive wildlife is not nature to some even though I understand some of the points made, which are very valid! Can I ask this? if a captive bred Owl successfully hunts voles or an Eagle Owl catches a Rat without any involvement from its handler is that a nature thing or is it a domestic thing? If I captured the moment on camera would it be classed as staged or natural?
One of the reasons I love shooting motorsport or ball sports is that there's no captive or non captive argument about it. It's just photography.
For some reason that I can't fathom, nature photography seems to attract,( in much greater numbers than any other type of photography) some very high-brow types. Pedantic little things seem to matter so much to them that they sometimes get blinded by them.
I can't understand where this attitude comes from ,and to be perfectly honest I don't really care too much.
Is anyone really sad enough to care?
There is a difference here between captive and free... one is the photography of animals the other 'wild'life photography.
The question is: Is one of them more desirable than the other?
The answer, I have a feeling, is like beauty; it is in the eye of the beholder, but its also, similarly, held to ransom by editorial pressures preying on public gullibility.
I suppose it also depends on what you want to be seen as, a photographer of animals, or, a wildlife photographer?
Regardless, it should be remembered that, it is your pictures that will decide how others see you.
Posted by Graeme Lee on December 3, 2006 at 8:27 PM
No one said we don't enjoy them Vincent, I just don't do them.....appreciation is a totally different thing!
For me, the thrill of seeing these birds is almost as great as photographing them. The captive LEO's and others we've seen here are no less beautiful and inspiring because they're captive. In fact, Vince often states "Captive but not his fault" - I agree!
I certainly enjoy photos of subjects in controlled conditions - because I know that's what they are, and everyone on here are honest and state that in their posts. Passing off a captive subject as wild is a whole new kettle of fish - but that's not really what this thread's about!
John - please post your Goshawk - they're amazing birds!
Personally I do not have an issue with the photography of captive birds and animals, provided that the photographer declares that the subject is captive. In the past I have attended a privately arranged photo-shoot with a chap who looks after owls that have been ‘rescued’. The shoot was enjoyable, and the chap who looks after the owls clearly loved them and cared for them very much. The owls (a few different species) were being cared for as they had suffered injuries after being hit by cars etc. and had had a wing removed and so on.
There were 3 or 4 photographers, and in addition to donating cash to his ‘owl home’ we donated images from the shoot to the chap so that he could use them in advertising etc. in order to raise funds. So by taking (and providing him with) high quality images of the owls (and some publicity shots of him holding them) we were helping the owls, and other owls that he may look after in future. Raising funds is very important to him, and he finds it hard to raise the cash needed to look after them and is constantly living ‘on the brink’, financially speaking. If he had to give up, there’s a good chance that these birds would just be destroyed. High-quality images on his press material look a lot better than the snapshots he could achieve on his point-and-shoot at home. All that is in addition to the cash he was given by us (a significant amount). So rather than ‘exploiting’ these captive birds, I believe we were helping them.
That aside, when it comes to competition, I think that judges should give extra ‘points’ to images of wild birds, due to the additional time, effort and skill usually required. However, if a photographer dishonestly submits an image of a captive bird and claims it is wild, there’s not a lot that can be done, is there?
Helge made a point that stuck out. He said that he doesn’t like images of captive birds, and doesn’t photograph them. But then he freely admits to baiting wild birds using both dead and live animals. Without wanting to sound like I’m picking on him (because I’m not, and I obviously respect what individual practices different people employ – as long as they are legal!), there is quite a high degree of hypocrisy in that (IMO). So although a captive bird is out of the question, it is OK to ‘capture’ a prey animal and leave it out to be killed by a wild bird? Sorry, but unless I’ve missed something, I just don’t get that philosophy. It seems like it is a highly selective approach. Perhaps Helge could clarify this point further?
(And arguments about whether the manipulation of a wild bird by baiting, or the use of live bait, is right or wrong are different arguments for a different day!)
As David has stated, I think there is a place for the photography of captive subjects, but I think most people would agree that, in an ideal world, we’d all prefer to have the time (and money) to pursue subjects in the wild. But not everyone is at liberty to do this, and to look down on ‘captive’ photography is, IMHO, a kind of ‘photographic snobbery’.
These are, of course, only my opinions, and I do not mean ill to those who hold a differing opinion, so please don’t take offence!
Michael... I believe Helge's comment re baiting wild birds of prey refered to using things like road kill as the bait...
A very interesting discussion here and one that could fill an entire forum. I believe we spoke briefly on the phone about this David.... Everyone has their own views on the subject and I do believe that we have to respect those views. However it is important to note that certain circumstances demand the use of captive animals.. an example, I had a brief for Dorling Kindersley which was very specific, plus a certain trademark bg was needed with a very short deadline, at the end of the day the only way the image could be obtained was by using a captive bred animal, to obtain the image in the wild would have been possible eventually but certainly not within the time frame.... recently I had to produce images of deadly snakes, again possible in the wild if we had the funds, at the end of the day it was safer and more convienient for the shoot to take place at London Zoo with the assistance of a highly trained expert (I still used as long a lens as I could )
Where I draw the line is the treatment of captive animals, their well being is just as important as if they were in the wild.....
Both have a place wild or captive, particularly when you are making a living from the images, of course the thrill and excitement of stalking/attracting an animal in the wild takes some beating, but logic sometimes has to come into play, for me at least. I don't post images of captives purely through choice, (just thought most of the Deer images could be classed as captive as many are taken in deer parks, so I change that to I have posted captives )
As long as people are honest I see no problem....
As for people submitting images of captives passed of as wild into competition I can assure you that quite a large number of entries into WPOY were rejected for this reason, although I am sure some will and do sneak through.
All the best
Phil
Posted by Michael Sayles on December 4, 2006 at 11:16 AM
Hi Phil - just to clarify, Helge wrote: "Personally I will bait birds with both live and dead prey"
Good point about deer shots too. Are the red deer in Richmond Park (for example) truly wild? What about the grouse on managed moors? These things are a grey area!
Michael
Posted by chickadee on December 4, 2006 at 1:46 PM
"Amazing to read the responses on here, makes me laugh lol. Wild or captive, who really cares, if it sells brilliant, that’s the bills paid, if it doesn't try again or try something else that does sell. If for any reason personal feelings gets in the way of business then that person would struggle at times to be in business, personal & business doesn't really mix! or does it? " Vincent Jones
You suprise me, when you first joined you defended your right to photograph captive birds for the benefit of The Barn Owl Centre as it was what you were pasionate about and you wanted to support them.
Captive animals as far as I am concerned can be categorized. Animals kept for making money/entertainment, rehabilitation, breeding/research by paying to photograph them you are suporting the animal to be kept in that condition it is up to the individual what they consider ethical to them. I think given wildlife photographers have debates over eg the freezing of insects for photography and there are programs like Im a celebrity....get me out of here that show no concern over how they treat the animals involved and therefore show people how fun it is to treat creatures in this manner. I do think it is important for wildlife photographers to keep having ethical arguments but when compared to other areas we can rest assured that we both treat and portary wildlife in the correct light.
I have seen articles in magazines and books that top photographers have taken wild woodmice to a built set to photograph and it is generally seen as keeping them in the lap of luxury, no mention of the stress this causes. I have photographed woodmice in the wild building different sets and they come to me on their own terms and get the food without the stress. Which is the more ethical? But then just becasue I am "good" with woodmice someone might consider how I go about this or another subject as harmful to them. We cant be good at everything and we all have a learning process of mistakes but as long as we all try to do our best isnt that the point ?
I do think that capitve even if tempoary should be declared as with manipulation it all comes down to ethics. I think most if not all people do wildlife photography because we share a burning passion for the environment and the creatures on it and as such we want to share this with the world.
Posted by Vincent Jones on December 4, 2006 at 1:55 PM
I am struggling to get my head round the above statement, can I ask if you can break it up into paragraphs so I can take what you are saying in. No offence. Cheers
This thread is getting really heavy, my head hurts
I understand why you can believe from my post that I’m against animals in captivity and in favour of using animals as bait, and therefore being a hypocrat.
But I’m not against animals being in captivity (as long as they are treated eticly and correct). It’s a fact that we humans keep animals in captivity for pleasure; it’s also a fact that we kill certain animals for the same purpose. The sports fisherman kills fish which have been baited with a worm, not because he needs to eat, but because he likes to fish. The hunter kills various birds and animals, also for pure pleasure. Likewise a nature photographer takes photos for pleasure (and some as a job), and in that process we disturb wildlife, but hopefully not too much. I’m in favour of using both live and dead bait, but obviously without cruelty to the animal in question. Examples could be (not saying I have tried all that): Using worms to attract bluebirds and thrushes, using dead fish to attract eagles and gulls, putting live fish in a garden-pool hoping for Kingfisher and Heron, releasing a trapped mouse in the woods (just below the Tawny owl), leaving road kills out for hawk and eagles. I understand that if you let your imagination spin you can come up with a lot of very ugly scenarios…. I think the baiting I have done so far have been very responsible and with general animal welfare in the front of my mind.
In my country we are not allowed to hold Danish wild birds in captivity (even if they are born in captivity), therefore there will be no LE Owls, Hawfinches or Bullfinches etc. to work with here. But we are allowed to trap a mouse in our shed, or buy a mouse or a fish in the pet-store. We are also allowed to kill them, but only “humanely”. I believe the owls way of killing ex. a mouse is extremely efficient, and pretty much as quick as it can be (and not worse than the usual destiny for a pet mouse – being a pet snakes mouth).
There are obvious a lot of do’s and don’ts regarding baiting of birds, but lets leave that for now, in order to not completely hijack David’s thread.
I don’t think our discussion is really about the animals, but much more of what to show on a nature photography site. Could I start posting images of stuffed animals in natural settings, or where are the limits ? The point I was trying to make in my former post is that it’s quite different skills which are needed for photography of truly wild animals and animals in captivity. On a nature photography site I think it’s the former skills which are relevant to show, discuss and critique.
Cheers,
Helge
Posted by Gavin Law on December 4, 2006 at 2:16 PM
This is a lively thread!
Rather than go over all the points above again I though I'd mention something that annoys me that is linked to this!
December's Photographer Monthly has the results of round 4 of it's POTY contest. The subject of this round, Wildlife. The winning image a Ring-tailed lemur, photographed at Edinburgh Zoo, of all the beautiful wildlife in the UK let alone the rest of the world the judges picked a captive animal shot to win!! To make it worse the image has been photoshopped to remove an out of focus lemur from the background!!!! Why could the guy even be bothered to take his time and frame a shot with the ideal backgroud, after all the lemur wasn't going anywhere!!!
The winning image a Ring-tailed lemur, photographed at Edinburgh Zoo, of all the beautiful wildlife in the UK let alone the rest of the world the judges picked a captive animal shot to win!! To make it worse the image has been photoshopped to remove an out of focus lemur from the background!!!!
Don't you just love the irony here.
A nature site debating whether or not we should be doing such things and a national magazine sticking two fingers at the fuddy duddies
By the way, thanks for the response Helge. Like I said, I wasn't having a go at you - I just thought it was a bit strange that you should be against photos of captive birds, but not against the use of live bait to photograph birds. But your comments have helped me understand where you're coming from! It's also interesting to hear that you are not allowed to hold Danish wild birds in captivity. That's something I never knew!
Cheers,
Michael S
Posted by stuart scott on December 5, 2006 at 5:56 AM
I find an interesting part of this whole ‘captive or wild’ photography is how non-photographers react to finding out a photograph was taken with a captive animal/bird.
One of many examples that spring to mind, is where some very well known photographers where showing slides to the public and where receiving loads of oohs and aahs.
At the end, questions popped up about how those wonderful images of Golden Eagles where achieved (and a load of other stuff), they had to admit they were captive. You could feel the disappointment ripple through the crowd, which only increased as a number of photographs were also said to be the same.
The images almost changed before their eyes.
Its very common for non-photographers to think it’s a cheat, irrelevant of the reasons.
A very valid point and a point missed by some Pro's who class themsleves as a 'wild'life photographers for when you advertise yourself as something, to physically present something different is usually a folly - especially for your reputation.
That is not to say that these Wildlife Photographers cannot take 'captive' images for their portfolio, but to use them passed off (deliberately or not) as wild will always cause dissapointment and delusion. That is why IHMO it is always better to put the (c), up front, on any non-wild picture .
But what is 'Wild' for it is a defination that we have always struggled with...
My own attempt at its defination, which is open to modification, is
"A wild subject is free living in a state of nature and requires no further human intervention to survive."
Posted by David Kjaer on December 5, 2006 at 7:30 AM
Hi Stuart
A very good point and that is why most photographers are up front about how the image was taken so that it is viewed with this in mind from the outset. However photographers who sell their work have no control over how a publisher might eventually present his work.
To answer 'chickadee's (would be nice if you used your real name) point on captive Wood Mice when your shutter and flash goes off, your mouse doesn't turn around and it runs off, so you have caused it stress.
I must agree with Vince this thread has got a little heavy in places, so my apologies for starting it in the first place. I also think we have to be very careful when we climb on our moral high horses as every time we switch on our electric light, start up our car's or buy a new camera we are making a negative impact on our environment and usually the first to suffer is our wildlife. So I feel we all contribute either directly or indirectly to the demise of our wildlife and it is down to our own conscience as to what is acceptable as every one of us could be criticised.
I for one will continue to take the occasional captive image but to put it into perspective considerable less than 1% of the images I have taken are captive!
As Michael S so eloquently put it, these are only my opinions and I do not mean ill to those who hold a differing opinion, so please don't take offence!
David
Posted by Colin Pickett on December 5, 2006 at 8:02 AM
Hi David
This looks like a very interesting discussion. Whist I really like to see perfect images of captive animals I personally don’t think they have a place on a forum for Nature Photographers. Controlled conditions are fine (i.e. bird tables) as long as the subject has it’s own free will to choose; otherwise you will end up with posts of people pets.
I believe it belittles the person who has done their homework and went out and found their subject and managed to get an image.
That person then posts it for it to get picked apart because there’s a small twig somewhere that may be distracting or its environment may be a little messy.
Then the picture not being perfect it gets labelled an environmental shot and gets eight replies if the photographer is lucky. The shame of it is the picture perfect posed shots get all the praise under the sun.
This is one of the reasons I don’t post so regular any more is I may only get three or four really good images a year which could possibly compete with these posed shots.
Don’t get me wrong as I have many images of animals from parks it’s as it is a great way of getting shots that would otherwise be impossible, but I would not post these as a wild image, even in a park the animal has the free will to walk or fly away.
I guess it’s down to the individual; I would like to be considered as a Nature photographer and not a photographer of animals.
At the end of the day I pack my equipment up and go home. I don’t pack my subject up and take them home as well.
PS For anyone whose interested this maybe a useful link.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature.
Posted by Sean Bolton on December 5, 2006 at 12:47 PM
Hi David, All
An interesting topic, and one of those subjects that can be debated forever and everyone will always have their own personal opinion on the subject.
I still remember the discussions that followed my captive kestrel post last year, it inspired Helge to some very creative Eagle Owl photography
Personally I don't have a problem with captive subjects but for this forum the photographer should explain the conditions under which a shot was achieved. This is also useful for 'wild' shots as well, e.g. was a hide used, was it on a nature reserve, was it baited, etc. As a photographer this information is useful to assess the 'quality' of a shot.
Captive photography poses it's own challenges. The photographer still has to consider the light, the subject, the environment, the background, perches and props, etc in order to create either an aesthetically pleasing image or a commercially successful image.
So long as the captive subject is well cared for then I don't mind occasionally photographing them, it can be fun trying different ideas out with such a subject and trying different compositions and lighting that would be very difficult or impossible in the wild.
When I first started taking nature photographs about 3 years ago I was a bit nieve and was initially blown away by the photographs of Puffins, Sea Eagles, Grey Seals, Bald Eagles, etc I saw on the web and in magazines. I had great admiration for the photographer who took them and I would struggle to understand how some shots could be achieved.
3 years on and a lot wiser I know now that if you want good Puffin shots just head to Skomer or the Farnes, not quite captive subjects but also not exactly a challenging subject to track down.
Bald Eagles, head to Homer in Alska (if your wallet allows) where the eagles are fed regularly in the harbour and can be photographed easily with a 200mm lens. (although this feeding practice is now discouraged I believe).
Osprey's catching salmon, easy, RyanAir to Finland, sit in a hide for a few days next to a fish farm and bingo.
Grey Seals, Donna Nook. Red Deer, Bradgate. Sea Eagles, Norway + boat trip.
My point here is that there are varying degrees of difficulty in nature photography and some subjects are just easier to get access to than others. However coming away with good photographs from any location still requires skill and creativity from the photographer. There are thousands (millions!) of Puffin pictures and it takes a lot of skill to come up with something different from the norm.
Some subjects are much harder to photograph. I was impressed with Danny's Water vole shots earlier this year as I appreciate the hard work that went into getting them. Also Danny and Elliot both came away with good Otter shots from Mull. Again a very challenging subject in a harsh environment and I admire the skills required to get these shots.
However in the commercial world, and often for competitons too, what counts is the end result image. A Long Eared Owl is a long eared owl, whether it is captive or not. If a publisher just needs a good portrait of such a bird it probably is of no consequence that the bird is wild or captive. In some circumstances the location and nature of the photograph is important. If an editor is publishing a article on Antartica penguins I expect they would prefer to use shots taken on location, not some shots from down the local zoo.
The general public is generally not as aware or particulared bothered if an image of an eagle used on a birthday card, or in a magazine, or on a poster, is captive or not.
As photographers I think we all value the skills and dedication needed to achieve certain shots, and that is why on this forum this background information is important.
Waffle over, a good discussion with some interesting comments and thoughts posted.
Ive been wanting to contribute to this thread, but ive found it to be a tricky subject to put my views into words {without an enormous ramble}.
I echo your views entirely, and you make a fine point about captive photography posing its own photographic challenges {not that i am particulary interested in that area of photography though}.
I think it should be said that most of the captive images that have been posted on this forum are of the very highest calibre, and need to be, in order to seperate them from the run-of-the-mill captive shots.
Unlike shots taken in the wild, there is no hiding place for the slightest flaw within a captive image, and i take my hat of to Vince and others who can consistantly produce top notch captive shots {along with their 'wild' shots}.
For me personally, the time and effort leading up to the moment of exposure is as important as the post exposure result, as this for me is the complete 'wildlife photography experience'.
Alan
Posted by Vincent Jones on December 5, 2006 at 2:23 PM
Very well written Sean, I take my hat off to you for your views
Working with captive birds & again I must stress it’s not their fault; to capture the beauty I see in them & share what I see is more of a personally thing, the last thing I wish to do is upset the hardcore wildlife photographers on here or anywhere. When I do post I aways place (c) in the title anyway.
With regards to learning Camera Skills: I have taken loads of images of our birds in the past & present with a large % only good enough for the bin, to come away with a corker makes me feel positive in myself. The skills I gain behind the camera are taken out with me in a bid to get decent shots of wildlife.
I hope the above makes sense
Thanks again Sean & thanks also Alan & others for the nice comments regarding the images I post.
Vince
Posted by Larry Corbett on December 5, 2006 at 4:49 PM
Just took me 2 hours to read this thread, I have a head ache now.
Think of it this way, the availability of captive Owls, Falcons, Hawks, Lynx's etc etc gives people like me (with a full time job and not a great deal of time for field work, photography etc etc) the chance to photograph species that otherwise would be well well beyond our reach.
Provided the bird is treated well and not over worked, given time to settle and plenty of quiet time and provided that the photographer does reaveal in the caption the fact that it was a captive bird then I see no problem.
Having said that I attended a local "Birds of Prey" day a few years ago and had a super time the birds behaved well, but I did feel that towards the end of the day with 12 photographers crowding around the owls this may have stressed them just a bit too much so I decided to back off and took to using my 300 & 500mm lenses, I didn't come away with a great many shots but just seeing the owls up close was reward enough for me, and I felt glad that if they did get stressed then I wasn't the cause.
I feel surprised that David feels it dissatisfying (spelling??) that so many people viewed his post, IMHO it is a stunning image and a joy to view, I myself have viewed it several times already, and feel that many people have probably done the same, whenever David posts an image everyone looks in anticipation of seeing yet another fine image!!
Posted by chickadee on December 5, 2006 at 10:48 PM
Hi Vincent, I wasnt having a go. I admired you when you first joined, you took quite alot of flack because you enjoyed your work with The Barn Owl Centre and wanted to help further by taking photgraphs to sell for the benefit of the centre. That was how I understood it and I understand the comments that you received from the other members also. I supose to me it sounds like you are evolving (sorry I coudnt think of another way to put it).
My all time favourite study is by Danel Goleman(Emotional Intelligence) he tells a true story of how he was in New York (or some other American city) and he noticed how everyone avoided eye contact, kept to themselves,they were downtrodden ect he got on a bus and was greeted in a cheery manner by the driver, the pasengers created barriors by reading newspapers, bags taking up room on seats etc he noticed how the driver gave lively commentry about what was on at the cinema and other interesting facts and how this made the passengers relax and cheered them up. He the devised his own experiment and took to the city streets and would then smile and make a cheery comment when he walked past someone he then observed the effect this had which was as it had been with the driver, infectious. He went on to do other experiments, good book no really, my attempt to explain dosnt do it justice! Anyway I used to have great fun with this type of thing but over recent years have become dissolutioned as to this having an existance in society. Or to put it far more breifly I thought you were the light at the end of the tunnel but your just standing in the middle with a tourch and your batteries just run out No offence.
Or Baroness Mary Warnock 1998 " Without the existance of alturisum as an element in individual charactors,philanthropic (loving ones fellowman) institutions could not exist" What does this leave us with?
David Kjaer I understand the name comment, I could call myself Simon Smith or John Jones if it makes you feel better? Feel free to choose one yourself, just because someone has used a name it dosnt mean it is them!? But if it is general preference I can use one.
I hope you didnt take my comments as being bigheaded. I have always loved being outside and animals, its what I do. I dont do any technology, thats why I dont comment on photographs because I think my photographs are technically poor and the photographs on this site are amazing. I have no right to comment.
The woodmice come out in the day esp in summer due to next doors cats, but I have used flash and I got no reaction. If I was planning a project I would reasurch the creature and so know that eg grooming is a sign of stress and leave as soon as I saw this behaviour. This may be alot of work but I see this approch as being far more benifical, its up to the individual. As for approch in the fist place each animal is different, you just consider the senses, preditors and food. I stuff up, I have days when I go out in the country and im not in the mood and they are the days I do landscape,plants etc because with my attitude nothing would want to know me. Its like Sean says with Dannys water voles, he put in the ground work of finding out about them, put in the effort and as a result they accepted him and he has amazing images as a result ! I jst dont find this rocket science thats all, but when it comes to technology, now that is rocket science !
David Kjaer I understand the name comment, I could call myself Simon Smith or John Jones if it makes you feel better? Feel free to choose one yourself, just because someone has used a name it dosnt mean it is them!?
Chickadee (Whomever)
One of the reasons that I attribute to UKNP, and NPN, being a more civilised forum than most others, is that we all post under our own names as this precludes any form of alterego facilitated by anonymity. It also makes most people more considerate in what they write - that is not to say that you haven't been. I accept that some contribuors have shortened there name to Tom_W, John etc but we all know who these people are and most of their identities have been confirmed.
I would ask you to note that, in a forum when openess is the norm, anonymity breeds suspicion about why that person needs to hide their true identity. Why you would seek to also decieve us further my suggesting the use of a pseudonym just deepens my wariness to your intentions.
Can I ask that you reconsider and post under your own name - which, obviously, we can only trust you to supply correctly.
Posted by Danny Green on December 6, 2006 at 5:11 AM
Hello Everyone
Have I read this thread wrong because to me it has turned into a get Vince campaign or anyone else who posts pictures of captive birds. Who gives a s%$£ what people post as long as the subject has not been harmed in anyway. I know Vince personally and we have become good friends through meeting through this forum. He does more for wildlife than most people on this forum and he doesn't hide behind a false name. I like looking at his pictures because in simple terms he is good at what he does and to me it doesn't matter how the image was taken as long as it looks good. Some of the comments on this thread smack to me as jealously because they are not good enough to come up to Vinces standard.
Hi Danny
I think that you have read this thread wrong!
Frederic Desmette
Posted by Vincent Jones on December 7, 2006 at 5:34 AM
Let me try & explain something & why I do what I do with the aim not to upset people.
Reasons to why I became interested in photography. All started in January 2004 with my first camera being an eBay purchased Nikon D1. I didn't have a clue about cameras, lenses or what settings to use. Looking at people images simply amazed me & because of this I needed to learn, fast!
Before 2004 we use to get outside help from photographers, this was to get pictures of our birds & to capture the work we do at project sites & with rescues, the problem with this is we didn't have any control on the photographer & when we needed a photographer we simply couldn't get one. With regards to images that were taken we simply lost the copyright & people did take us for granted & made money from the shots they had taken for us, this was money & time taken away from our charity.
Internal discussions were made & the conclusion was to set up our own photographer in house, this made sense & for some reason I was the one chosen for the job, talk about being chucked in with 2 feet
During the past 2 to 3 years I have learn so much especially on how the camera controls work & how to try & get a good image. Investment on kit was made, not by the Barn Owl Centre but by me, with compliments of eBay lol.
Now I can say I am reasonable photographer with a skill that can capture what I see & at anytime, this now works brilliantly for us & when we need an image we can take it when we want, rather than waiting for a photographer with free time.
To share my work is all I am doing, some of it can be very educational, some images can be record shots, some could tell a story & some images could be good to sell here at the Centre. With regards to posting on UKNP, this is a place I learnt so much from, especially from people like Paula Graham, Danny Green, Dave K & John Mactavish & others. To post an image on UKNP I think is a good thing as long as I title the image with ( c ) captive.
For the hardcore wildlife photographers on here it’s your choice if you view or comment, I cannot force you as it’s your choice. Moaning about its origin I personally think is out of order & if you enjoy wildlife that much you should offer some respect to wildlife that is captive, it is not their fault as I keep saying, someone as to work with them & give them the respect they deserve. Personally I will always look at a wild or captive Owl/Bird of prey as wildlife, that’s the respect I give them, is their anything wrong with that. I also take my hat of to others who post captive birds on here, the quality of shots I think are brilliant & take away that captive/caged look.
Photography I thought is a skill, in getting the best out of the subject, placing the subject or flying the subject in natural conditions is a good thing, the subject as a brain & to be taken out into wild conditions is good for the mental welfare of the subject!
IMHO both wild & captive have a place in wildlife photography. When a captive subject wins a competition or gets printed how many look at the creativeness of the image & how many look at whether the subject is wild or captive. At the end of the day if the subject is not harmed & people are grabbed by it & it sells, use it.
Vince:
PS: I don't feel I am being picked on, I do feel that I am trying to defend the rights of a captive bird/animal.
" IMHO both wild & captive have a place in wildlife photography."
...this sentence has crystalised my mind on the secondary topic expressed in this thread and on its clarification; the problem is one of semantics.
Now before I explain further, let me say that I have no problems with photographs of controlled/captive animals as long as they are presented as such with the appropiate (c). I enjoy viewing them and appreciate the skill in obtaining the shot. I applaud those who work in the reabilitation of animals for their eventual release and educational purposes. Basically I don't have a chip on my shoulder and hope to do some captive photography soon (with Dave Kj) to enjoy the experience it bestows and fill a market demand - when I have taken these images they will always, like yours, have a (c) in the title.
That said, the difficulty expressed by some of this forum potentially arises from the fact that the dictionary defination for "wildlife" is
undomesticated animals living in the wild, (or alternatively- Ed) Wild animals and vegetation, especially animals living in a natural, undomesticated state.
where domestic's defination is
.... to live in close association with human beings as a pet or work animal and usually creating a dependency so that the animal loses its ability to live in the wild.
therefore undomesticated infers the reverse i.e. the animal has the ability to live in the wild with little association to humans and little dependency upon them.
But the key point is that the subject is living in a wild or natural state.
Therefore anything captive, and yes its isn't their fault, really cannot adhere to the above dictionary definations, therefore, is not truely "wildlife photography" ... WPOY people please take note
That said, it is animal photography and has similar, but not the same, technical skills required from the photographer to obtain some stunning images likeyour recent Barn Owl shot IMHO.
Posted by chickadee on December 11, 2006 at 6:27 PM
Firstly all I have said about Vincent is I admired his attitude when he first joined and was surprised that he came out with the grab as much money and stuff the wildlife kind of attitude that he seemed to be suggesting earlier.
I think you will find that in over two years I have never commented on anyones work and I have only made one comment on how someone goes about work and that was a positive comment about Danny Greeny.
If I posted my name on the website you could find out where I live and that is all it would mean to all members except Geoff Simpson . Very few people have seen my photographs and I rarely have an extended conversation with photographers I meet out. All I wanted was to take part in a pleasant debate if that means 1. that I have to disclose who I am or 2.that I have to put up with an angry mob then forget it. Have you ever considered that it might be a pleasant experience to correspond on the net as you get treated like a person ? The same reason why I like the winter bundled up, hat and scarf you get treated more like a person. A female joins this site you give them a far warmer welcome than if a male does ! I understand you all spend a lot of time alone, fresh air, mating animals all around but is it really impossible for you to hold a polite conversation with someone and leave it as that ? Thanks but I just wanted to escape into another world every now and then not get hassle, if its all right with you I will just continue to enjoy all of your delightful photographs and long may you post them.
Discussion
45 repliesAt this point some of you must be thinking why do it then. Well in my case I make a living from my photography and I know images like these will sell (even though in reality you would not see this highly nocturnal species sat on an open fence during daylight). Many picture researchers do not care how the image was obtained only that it is aesthetically pleasing and suits the intended purpose. That said I do feel these shoots and the images obtained do have a place in nature photography for many reasons. Two I would highlight are that it gives you the opportunity to show a species off to it's best which might other wise be difficult in the field and when published could be used to help and raise awareness of a species in a very positive way. Also if you are attending a photo workshop or have arranged the shoot yourself for experience, many of the disciplines required to shoot wildlife in the field are also required when photographing captive species and it can be one of the best ways to learn and improve your photography.
A competition that I have great respect for and buy the book every year is the BBC/Natural History Museums 'Wildlife Photographer of the Year' but I must admit on two occasions to being a little disappointed when the overall winners were captive species. In both cases I really rated the images and thought they should have won their respective sections but because they were not taken in the wild should not have been overall winners.
I suppose the point I am making is that captive images do have their place but was very surprised by the interest my image received on a Nature Photographers forum!
By the way thank you for your great comments
David
With regards to birds at feeders, aren't they simply tame birds without the aviary wire?
The detailed quality of images on here whether wild/captive still take a considerable amount of thought & skill to get the best shot even though the challenge of getting a wild shot is IMO better.
Good subject but are most of the publishers bothered?
To see on here (Example) snap shots of birds of prey tethered to blocks or perches would be out of character that again is just my opinion.
I hope the above makes sense regarding my thoughts on the above
Vince
PS: The LEO shots posted recently showing the wild & captive side do show a lot of respect for the species & are great both for a commercial/educational level, it is far better than the birds being permanently kept in aviaries with food just being chucked in. The wild LEO would have been more excitable for any photographer who had taken it & that's a personal thing I think.
Most shots taken of captive birds and animals are very obvious, to any one with some experience, but in my opinion a captive shot is nothing more than that a record of the spiecies,and I have a fair few of them, in fact I am going to the very same Long eared owls to get some images after Christmas, but it will be only to get a few images for my library. Again, I would never enter a picture in a competition if it was of a captive animal or bird, as I feel its lacking in some of the essential ingredients that make a true WILD shot, some thing very special.I think it would also be a good idea if the organisers of competitions had separate categories for Wild shots and captive shots, as I would feel a bit pevied,if a captive shot won a competition, over a wild shot.....This may seem a bit over the top, but its just my thoughts..................... :
As for birds coming to a bird feeder there is a world of difference we put the food out at feeders to entice, it's up to the animal/bird whether it wants to come and take the food, whereas a lot of the images of captive species/birds, the birds have no say in the matter, you take them out and fly them around in a field for photographers, if they decide to fly off for freedom they stand a great chance of dying of starvation that's if they are not radio tagged and you do not charge around the countryside trying to find them again. Of course there is a small number that are rehabilitated (usually because they have come into contact with humanity ? ) and released to the wild again to which I am wholeheartedly in favour of whether they survive or not.
Phillip.
Ps personally I can see the attraction especially for difficult species, myself I prefer to find them in the wild and take my images of them in the wild.
From an artistic perpective; it just doesnt make me tick. A few years ago i visited Ranua wildife park in Finland. Captive animals in natural surroundings.....mmmmmm.....well i spend the day drinking coffee and editing my images, i just dont get a thrill out of it and i am sure that if i would have taken images, i would delete them upon my return home!
Rene de Heer
Oh, and I too would be miffed to be beaten in a wildlife comp by a captive image...
Graeme
Personaly I think there is place for both kind of photography.
Captive or not captive.
I understand that the"buzz" of taking a picture of a wild bird is not the same that taking picture of a captive bird.
On the other end Paying thousands of pound and going in a hide in a foreing country where EVERYTHING is set up for you.....is that Photography????????????
Personally I have got three hide and i do all set up myself, now that is rewarding to me.
Paying hundreds and be told where to sit and when to take the shot, is That photography????
Have a good evening everyone
Frederic Desmette
I think the bottom line is that as long as you are honest about how you took the shot, I for one will always enjoy viewing and commenting on your images - captive or not.
David
I shoot captive and don't mind admitting it; I do it mostly so that I can create an artistic shot that will appeal to the picture market or the general public and also it is much quicker than shooting wild depending on the species. Is it better for lots of people to get good shots of a captive bird that is used to humans or should we all apply for a licence to do golden eagle at the nest in Scotland? I also think it is can be difficult to make tame birds look wild and there's a lot of effort goes into making a successful shot; Frederic and I worked hard on putting props in to do the long-eared owl (and a lot of other stuff too) and I think it payed off.
I do agree it's not the same buzz as doing a wild bird - ! spent 14hrs per day for three days on the trot in a hide in central Spain to do great bustard and I look at the images with a lot of satisfaction; but I'd do them again under captive conditions on Salisbury plains if it meant I could get an arty shot of one at sunset or whatever.
You may or may not like captive subjects and that's down to the individual, but at the end of the day in this digital age you just can't be sure what's true and what's not. There are professional UK wildlife photographers that are now buying cage-bred bullfinch, hawfinch, redpoll, pied flycatcher and others and doing them in set-ups and passing them off as wild. Wonder how many would pass through UKNPN without being spotted. My guess is quite a few!
I was just about to post a picture of a captive goshawk in full flight but after this thread I daren't
John
Amazing to read the responses on here, makes me laugh lol. Wild or captive, who really cares, if it sells brilliant, that’s the bills paid, if it doesn't try again or try something else that does sell. If for any reason personal feelings gets in the way of business then that person would struggle at times to be in business, personal & business doesn't really mix! or does it?
If stalking wildlife for the purpose of self satisfaction I would agree with what’s been stated above, for stalking to get a sellable shot, then the image could possibly end up more important than the welfare of the subject being stalked, this does happen as I have witnessed it. Some might knock me for saying this but if you get to close & you have been spotted then the subject is being disturbed. Hides on the other hand are there for a purpose & keeps you out of arms reach making the subject less disturbed,
Could there be a bit of enviousness or jealousy amongst photographers if someone wins a comp or gets an image printed of a subject of captive origin, oh oh what have I started lol.
By the way, may I state that I take images for pure pleasure & enjoyment, I never enter my images anywhere plus I shoot using small jpeg files. What I enjoy is getting into the detail of the species & capturing an environment or perch that shows the species in what could be its natural environment.
I hope what I have written doesn’t offend anyone, that is not my intention
Vince
I chose not to comment on the mentioned photo, but sent David a private email instead, in which I explained my opinion on the image. I felt I had aired my opinion regarding these kinds of photos in this forum a year ago, on one of Sean’s Kestrel photos. So I didn’t really want to go through that again. But hey, here goes….
First of all, I think any photographer is absolutely free to do what they want (within the laws of the country, obviously). Therefore I can’t tell anybody what to do. But as this is a discussion and a critique-forum, I also feel it’s fine to argue pros and contras.
Personally I will bait birds with both live and dead prey, I will call them in with voices, I will sit in hides for days, I will find the birds everywhere and in every possible situation. But I will not (so far) work on captives. For me the defining point in Nature Photography is whether the bird is there of it’s own free will or not. As mentioned in earlier posts, some wild situations are obviously more rewarding than others. It’s probably a purist and somewhat naïve standpoint, and easy to have if you don’t have to make a living by nature photography.
If it’s only about making money, then why stop at captives? As I believe I proved last year, a photo of a stuffed bird can also go a long way. But that would probably be considered cheating in most circles – even with a (TS) “taxidermy specimen” in the headline.
What worries me, is that the photo in question is a really fantastic image, and I can’t get it out of my head. It’s possibly the best LE Owl photo I have ever seen, but unfortunately it’s not a nature photo. I feel now, that whatever I do, and no matter how many ressources I apply, I would not get a photo of a LE Owl living up to the standard of David’s photo. That takes some of the joy away…. I’m also afraid that most editors would think the same, - that would take my chances of selling a photo of a wild LE Owl away….
This summer, a leading Danish newspaper as well as Birdlife Denmark printed an article on the return of Sea Eagles. Accompanying the article was a photo of a Sea Eagle flying with jessies and ropes. The photo was provided by a Danish image-agency specializing in nature-images. I found that not just ironic and ridiculous, but outright sad! For that very same reason I chose not to work with that image-agency. As a consumer I would also think twice before buying nature books where a majority of the images are from that agency.
I guess Joe Public can’t see the difference, but I’m pretty sure that if he knew how his nature calendar was produced, - he would mind!
This is a nature photography site and I therefore don’t see any more need for captive animals photography than for photos of our cats, dogs and other pets here. But as long as we are honest about it and put a (C) in the headline I guess anything goes!
cheers,
Helge
Good thread.
Graeme
The mind boggles to what others think
I would say neither, its instinct: You can remove the animal out of nature, but you cannot remove the nature out of the animal.
Very true words Tom, so they are nature then
I best cancel the trip to Sainsburys for Owl food
Stewart Canham................
For some reason that I can't fathom, nature photography seems to attract,( in much greater numbers than any other type of photography) some very high-brow types. Pedantic little things seem to matter so much to them that they sometimes get blinded by them.
I can't understand where this attitude comes from ,and to be perfectly honest I don't really care too much.
Is anyone really sad enough to care?
John
The question is: Is one of them more desirable than the other?
The answer, I have a feeling, is like beauty; it is in the eye of the beholder, but its also, similarly, held to ransom by editorial pressures preying on public gullibility.
I suppose it also depends on what you want to be seen as, a photographer of animals, or, a wildlife photographer?
Regardless, it should be remembered that, it is your pictures that will decide how others see you.
For me, the thrill of seeing these birds is almost as great as photographing them. The captive LEO's and others we've seen here are no less beautiful and inspiring because they're captive. In fact, Vince often states "Captive but not his fault" - I agree!
I certainly enjoy photos of subjects in controlled conditions - because I know that's what they are, and everyone on here are honest and state that in their posts. Passing off a captive subject as wild is a whole new kettle of fish - but that's not really what this thread's about!
John - please post your Goshawk - they're amazing birds!
There were 3 or 4 photographers, and in addition to donating cash to his ‘owl home’ we donated images from the shoot to the chap so that he could use them in advertising etc. in order to raise funds. So by taking (and providing him with) high quality images of the owls (and some publicity shots of him holding them) we were helping the owls, and other owls that he may look after in future. Raising funds is very important to him, and he finds it hard to raise the cash needed to look after them and is constantly living ‘on the brink’, financially speaking. If he had to give up, there’s a good chance that these birds would just be destroyed. High-quality images on his press material look a lot better than the snapshots he could achieve on his point-and-shoot at home. All that is in addition to the cash he was given by us (a significant amount). So rather than ‘exploiting’ these captive birds, I believe we were helping them.
That aside, when it comes to competition, I think that judges should give extra ‘points’ to images of wild birds, due to the additional time, effort and skill usually required. However, if a photographer dishonestly submits an image of a captive bird and claims it is wild, there’s not a lot that can be done, is there?
Helge made a point that stuck out. He said that he doesn’t like images of captive birds, and doesn’t photograph them. But then he freely admits to baiting wild birds using both dead and live animals. Without wanting to sound like I’m picking on him (because I’m not, and I obviously respect what individual practices different people employ – as long as they are legal!), there is quite a high degree of hypocrisy in that (IMO). So although a captive bird is out of the question, it is OK to ‘capture’ a prey animal and leave it out to be killed by a wild bird? Sorry, but unless I’ve missed something, I just don’t get that philosophy. It seems like it is a highly selective approach. Perhaps Helge could clarify this point further?
(And arguments about whether the manipulation of a wild bird by baiting, or the use of live bait, is right or wrong are different arguments for a different day!)
As David has stated, I think there is a place for the photography of captive subjects, but I think most people would agree that, in an ideal world, we’d all prefer to have the time (and money) to pursue subjects in the wild. But not everyone is at liberty to do this, and to look down on ‘captive’ photography is, IMHO, a kind of ‘photographic snobbery’.
These are, of course, only my opinions, and I do not mean ill to those who hold a differing opinion, so please don’t take offence!
Michael... I believe Helge's comment re baiting wild birds of prey refered to using things like road kill as the bait...
A very interesting discussion here and one that could fill an entire forum. I believe we spoke briefly on the phone about this David.... Everyone has their own views on the subject and I do believe that we have to respect those views. However it is important to note that certain circumstances demand the use of captive animals.. an example, I had a brief for Dorling Kindersley which was very specific, plus a certain trademark bg was needed with a very short deadline, at the end of the day the only way the image could be obtained was by using a captive bred animal, to obtain the image in the wild would have been possible eventually but certainly not within the time frame.... recently I had to produce images of deadly snakes, again possible in the wild if we had the funds, at the end of the day it was safer and more convienient for the shoot to take place at London Zoo with the assistance of a highly trained expert (I still used as long a lens as I could
Where I draw the line is the treatment of captive animals, their well being is just as important as if they were in the wild.....
Both have a place wild or captive, particularly when you are making a living from the images, of course the thrill and excitement of stalking/attracting an animal in the wild takes some beating, but logic sometimes has to come into play, for me at least. I don't post images of captives purely through choice, (just thought most of the Deer images could be classed as captive as many are taken in deer parks, so I change that to I have posted captives
As long as people are honest I see no problem....
As for people submitting images of captives passed of as wild into competition I can assure you that quite a large number of entries into WPOY were rejected for this reason, although I am sure some will and do sneak through.
All the best
Phil
Good point about deer shots too. Are the red deer in Richmond Park (for example) truly wild? What about the grouse on managed moors? These things are a grey area!
Michael
You suprise me, when you first joined you defended your right to photograph captive birds for the benefit of The Barn Owl Centre as it was what you were pasionate about and you wanted to support them.
Captive animals as far as I am concerned can be categorized. Animals kept for making money/entertainment, rehabilitation, breeding/research by paying to photograph them you are suporting the animal to be kept in that condition it is up to the individual what they consider ethical to them. I think given wildlife photographers have debates over eg the freezing of insects for photography and there are programs like Im a celebrity....get me out of here that show no concern over how they treat the animals involved and therefore show people how fun it is to treat creatures in this manner. I do think it is important for wildlife photographers to keep having ethical arguments but when compared to other areas we can rest assured that we both treat and portary wildlife in the correct light.
I have seen articles in magazines and books that top photographers have taken wild woodmice to a built set to photograph and it is generally seen as keeping them in the lap of luxury, no mention of the stress this causes. I have photographed woodmice in the wild building different sets and they come to me on their own terms and get the food without the stress. Which is the more ethical? But then just becasue I am "good" with woodmice someone might consider how I go about this or another subject as harmful to them. We cant be good at everything and we all have a learning process of mistakes but as long as we all try to do our best isnt that the point ?
I do think that capitve even if tempoary should be declared as with manipulation it all comes down to ethics. I think most if not all people do wildlife photography because we share a burning passion for the environment and the creatures on it and as such we want to share this with the world.
This thread is getting really heavy, my head hurts
I understand why you can believe from my post that I’m against animals in captivity and in favour of using animals as bait, and therefore being a hypocrat.
But I’m not against animals being in captivity (as long as they are treated eticly and correct). It’s a fact that we humans keep animals in captivity for pleasure; it’s also a fact that we kill certain animals for the same purpose. The sports fisherman kills fish which have been baited with a worm, not because he needs to eat, but because he likes to fish. The hunter kills various birds and animals, also for pure pleasure. Likewise a nature photographer takes photos for pleasure (and some as a job), and in that process we disturb wildlife, but hopefully not too much. I’m in favour of using both live and dead bait, but obviously without cruelty to the animal in question. Examples could be (not saying I have tried all that): Using worms to attract bluebirds and thrushes, using dead fish to attract eagles and gulls, putting live fish in a garden-pool hoping for Kingfisher and Heron, releasing a trapped mouse in the woods (just below the Tawny owl), leaving road kills out for hawk and eagles. I understand that if you let your imagination spin you can come up with a lot of very ugly scenarios…. I think the baiting I have done so far have been very responsible and with general animal welfare in the front of my mind.
In my country we are not allowed to hold Danish wild birds in captivity (even if they are born in captivity), therefore there will be no LE Owls, Hawfinches or Bullfinches etc. to work with here. But we are allowed to trap a mouse in our shed, or buy a mouse or a fish in the pet-store. We are also allowed to kill them, but only “humanely”. I believe the owls way of killing ex. a mouse is extremely efficient, and pretty much as quick as it can be (and not worse than the usual destiny for a pet mouse – being a pet snakes mouth).
There are obvious a lot of do’s and don’ts regarding baiting of birds, but lets leave that for now, in order to not completely hijack David’s thread.
I don’t think our discussion is really about the animals, but much more of what to show on a nature photography site. Could I start posting images of stuffed animals in natural settings, or where are the limits ? The point I was trying to make in my former post is that it’s quite different skills which are needed for photography of truly wild animals and animals in captivity. On a nature photography site I think it’s the former skills which are relevant to show, discuss and critique.
Cheers,
Helge
Rather than go over all the points above again I though I'd mention something that annoys me that is linked to this!
December's Photographer Monthly has the results of round 4 of it's POTY contest. The subject of this round, Wildlife. The winning image a Ring-tailed lemur, photographed at Edinburgh Zoo, of all the beautiful wildlife in the UK let alone the rest of the world the judges picked a captive animal shot to win!! To make it worse the image has been photoshopped to remove an out of focus lemur from the background!!!! Why could the guy even be bothered to take his time and frame a shot with the ideal backgroud, after all the lemur wasn't going anywhere!!!
Gavin
Don't you just love the irony here.
A nature site debating whether or not we should be doing such things and a national magazine sticking two fingers at the fuddy duddies
Who needs a telly with entertainment like this
J
By the way, thanks for the response Helge. Like I said, I wasn't having a go at you - I just thought it was a bit strange that you should be against photos of captive birds, but not against the use of live bait to photograph birds. But your comments have helped me understand where you're coming from! It's also interesting to hear that you are not allowed to hold Danish wild birds in captivity. That's something I never knew!
Cheers,
Michael S
One of many examples that spring to mind, is where some very well known photographers where showing slides to the public and where receiving loads of oohs and aahs.
At the end, questions popped up about how those wonderful images of Golden Eagles where achieved (and a load of other stuff), they had to admit they were captive. You could feel the disappointment ripple through the crowd, which only increased as a number of photographs were also said to be the same.
The images almost changed before their eyes.
Its very common for non-photographers to think it’s a cheat, irrelevant of the reasons.
A very valid point and a point missed by some Pro's who class themsleves as a 'wild'life photographers for when you advertise yourself as something, to physically present something different is usually a folly - especially for your reputation.
That is not to say that these Wildlife Photographers cannot take 'captive' images for their portfolio, but to use them passed off (deliberately or not) as wild will always cause dissapointment and delusion. That is why IHMO it is always better to put the (c), up front, on any non-wild picture .
But what is 'Wild' for it is a defination that we have always struggled with...
My own attempt at its defination, which is open to modification, is
"A wild subject is free living in a state of nature and requires no further human intervention to survive."
A very good point and that is why most photographers are up front about how the image was taken so that it is viewed with this in mind from the outset. However photographers who sell their work have no control over how a publisher might eventually present his work.
To answer 'chickadee's (would be nice if you used your real name) point on captive Wood Mice when your shutter and flash goes off, your mouse doesn't turn around and
I must agree with Vince this thread has got a little heavy in places, so my apologies for starting it in the first place. I also think we have to be very careful when we climb on our moral high horses as every time we switch on our electric light, start up our car's or buy a new camera we are making a negative impact on our environment and usually the first to suffer is our wildlife. So I feel we all contribute either directly or indirectly to the demise of our wildlife and it is down to our own conscience as to what is acceptable as every one of us could be criticised.
I for one will continue to take the occasional captive image but to put it into perspective considerable less than 1% of the images I have taken are captive!
As Michael S so eloquently put it, these are only my opinions and I do not mean ill to those who hold a differing opinion, so please don't take offence!
David
This looks like a very interesting discussion. Whist I really like to see perfect images of captive animals I personally don’t think they have a place on a forum for Nature Photographers. Controlled conditions are fine (i.e. bird tables) as long as the subject has it’s own free will to choose; otherwise you will end up with posts of people pets.
I believe it belittles the person who has done their homework and went out and found their subject and managed to get an image.
That person then posts it for it to get picked apart because there’s a small twig somewhere that may be distracting or its environment may be a little messy.
Then the picture not being perfect it gets labelled an environmental shot and gets eight replies if the photographer is lucky. The shame of it is the picture perfect posed shots get all the praise under the sun.
This is one of the reasons I don’t post so regular any more is I may only get three or four really good images a year which could possibly compete with these posed shots.
Don’t get me wrong as I have many images of animals from parks it’s as it is a great way of getting shots that would otherwise be impossible, but I would not post these as a wild image, even in a park the animal has the free will to walk or fly away.
I guess it’s down to the individual; I would like to be considered as a Nature photographer and not a photographer of animals.
At the end of the day I pack my equipment up and go home. I don’t pack my subject up and take them home as well.
PS For anyone whose interested this maybe a useful link.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature.
An interesting topic, and one of those subjects that can be debated forever and everyone will always have their own personal opinion on the subject.
I still remember the discussions that followed my captive kestrel post last year, it inspired Helge to some very creative Eagle Owl photography
Personally I don't have a problem with captive subjects but for this forum the photographer should explain the conditions under which a shot was achieved. This is also useful for 'wild' shots as well, e.g. was a hide used, was it on a nature reserve, was it baited, etc. As a photographer this information is useful to assess the 'quality' of a shot.
Captive photography poses it's own challenges. The photographer still has to consider the light, the subject, the environment, the background, perches and props, etc in order to create either an aesthetically pleasing image or a commercially successful image.
So long as the captive subject is well cared for then I don't mind occasionally photographing them, it can be fun trying different ideas out with such a subject and trying different compositions and lighting that would be very difficult or impossible in the wild.
When I first started taking nature photographs about 3 years ago I was a bit nieve and was initially blown away by the photographs of Puffins, Sea Eagles, Grey Seals, Bald Eagles, etc I saw on the web and in magazines. I had great admiration for the photographer who took them and I would struggle to understand how some shots could be achieved.
3 years on and a lot wiser I know now that if you want good Puffin shots just head to Skomer or the Farnes, not quite captive subjects but also not exactly a challenging subject to track down.
Bald Eagles, head to Homer in Alska (if your wallet allows) where the eagles are fed regularly in the harbour and can be photographed easily with a 200mm lens. (although this feeding practice is now discouraged I believe).
Osprey's catching salmon, easy, RyanAir to Finland, sit in a hide for a few days next to a fish farm and bingo.
Grey Seals, Donna Nook. Red Deer, Bradgate. Sea Eagles, Norway + boat trip.
My point here is that there are varying degrees of difficulty in nature photography and some subjects are just easier to get access to than others. However coming away with good photographs from any location still requires skill and creativity from the photographer. There are thousands (millions!) of Puffin pictures and it takes a lot of skill to come up with something different from the norm.
Some subjects are much harder to photograph. I was impressed with Danny's Water vole shots earlier this year as I appreciate the hard work that went into getting them. Also Danny and Elliot both came away with good Otter shots from Mull. Again a very challenging subject in a harsh environment and I admire the skills required to get these shots.
However in the commercial world, and often for competitons too, what counts is the end result image. A Long Eared Owl is a long eared owl, whether it is captive or not. If a publisher just needs a good portrait of such a bird it probably is of no consequence that the bird is wild or captive. In some circumstances the location and nature of the photograph is important. If an editor is publishing a article on Antartica penguins I expect they would prefer to use shots taken on location, not some shots from down the local zoo.
The general public is generally not as aware or particulared bothered if an image of an eagle used on a birthday card, or in a magazine, or on a poster, is captive or not.
As photographers I think we all value the skills and dedication needed to achieve certain shots, and that is why on this forum this background information is important.
Waffle over, a good discussion with some interesting comments and thoughts posted.
cheers
Sean
Ive been wanting to contribute to this thread, but ive found it to be a tricky subject to put my views into words {without an enormous ramble}.
I echo your views entirely, and you make a fine point about captive photography posing its own photographic challenges {not that i am particulary interested in that area of photography though}.
I think it should be said that most of the captive images that have been posted on this forum are of the very highest calibre, and need to be, in order to seperate them from the run-of-the-mill captive shots.
Unlike shots taken in the wild, there is no hiding place for the slightest flaw within a captive image, and i take my hat of to Vince and others who can consistantly produce top notch captive shots {along with their 'wild' shots}.
For me personally, the time and effort leading up to the moment of exposure is as important as the post exposure result, as this for me is the complete 'wildlife photography experience'.
Alan
Working with captive birds & again I must stress it’s not their fault; to capture the beauty I see in them & share what I see is more of a personally thing, the last thing I wish to do is upset the hardcore wildlife photographers on here or anywhere. When I do post I aways place (c) in the title anyway.
With regards to learning Camera Skills: I have taken loads of images of our birds in the past & present with a large % only good enough for the bin, to come away with a corker makes me feel positive in myself. The skills I gain behind the camera are taken out with me in a bid to get decent shots of wildlife.
I hope the above makes sense
Thanks again Sean & thanks also Alan & others for the nice comments regarding the images I post.
Vince
Think of it this way, the availability of captive Owls, Falcons, Hawks, Lynx's etc etc gives people like me (with a full time job and not a great deal of time for field work, photography etc etc) the chance to photograph species that otherwise would be well well beyond our reach.
Provided the bird is treated well and not over worked, given time to settle and plenty of quiet time and provided that the photographer does reaveal in the caption the fact that it was a captive bird then I see no problem.
Having said that I attended a local "Birds of Prey" day a few years ago and had a super time the birds behaved well, but I did feel that towards the end of the day with 12 photographers crowding around the owls this may have stressed them just a bit too much so I decided to back off and took to using my 300 & 500mm lenses, I didn't come away with a great many shots but just seeing the owls up close was reward enough for me, and I felt glad that if they did get stressed then I wasn't the cause.
I feel surprised that David feels it dissatisfying (spelling??) that so many people viewed his post, IMHO it is a stunning image and a joy to view, I myself have viewed it several times already, and feel that many people have probably done the same, whenever David posts an image everyone looks in anticipation of seeing yet another fine image!!
My all time favourite study is by Danel Goleman(Emotional Intelligence) he tells a true story of how he was in New York (or some other American city) and he noticed how everyone avoided eye contact, kept to themselves,they were downtrodden ect he got on a bus and was greeted in a cheery manner by the driver, the pasengers created barriors by reading newspapers, bags taking up room on seats etc he noticed how the driver gave lively commentry about what was on at the cinema and other interesting facts and how this made the passengers relax and cheered them up. He the devised his own experiment and took to the city streets and would then smile and make a cheery comment when he walked past someone he then observed the effect this had which was as it had been with the driver, infectious. He went on to do other experiments, good book no really, my attempt to explain dosnt do it justice! Anyway I used to have great fun with this type of thing but over recent years have become dissolutioned as to this having an existance in society. Or to put it far more breifly I thought you were the light at the end of the tunnel but your just standing in the middle with a tourch and your batteries just run out
Or Baroness Mary Warnock 1998 " Without the existance of alturisum as an element in individual charactors,philanthropic (loving ones fellowman) institutions could not exist" What does this leave us with?
David Kjaer I understand the name comment, I could call myself Simon Smith or John Jones if it makes you feel better? Feel free to choose one yourself, just because someone has used a name it dosnt mean it is them!? But if it is general preference I can use one.
I hope you didnt take my comments as being bigheaded. I have always loved being outside and animals, its what I do. I dont do any technology, thats why I dont comment on photographs because I think my photographs are technically poor and the photographs on this site are amazing. I have no right to comment.
The woodmice come out in the day esp in summer due to next doors cats, but I have used flash and I got no reaction. If I was planning a project I would reasurch the creature and so know that eg grooming is a sign of stress and leave as soon as I saw this behaviour. This may be alot of work but I see this approch as being far more benifical, its up to the individual. As for approch in the fist place each animal is different, you just consider the senses, preditors and food. I stuff up, I have days when I go out in the country and im not in the mood and they are the days I do landscape,plants etc because with my attitude nothing would want to know me. Its like Sean says with Dannys water voles, he put in the ground work of finding out about them, put in the effort and as a result they accepted him and he has amazing images as a result ! I jst dont find this rocket science thats all, but when it comes to technology, now that is rocket science !
Chickadee (Whomever)
One of the reasons that I attribute to UKNP, and NPN, being a more civilised forum than most others, is that we all post under our own names as this precludes any form of alterego facilitated by anonymity. It also makes most people more considerate in what they write - that is not to say that you haven't been. I accept that some contribuors have shortened there name to Tom_W, John etc but we all know who these people are and most of their identities have been confirmed.
I would ask you to note that, in a forum when openess is the norm, anonymity breeds suspicion about why that person needs to hide their true identity. Why you would seek to also decieve us further my suggesting the use of a pseudonym just deepens my wariness to your intentions.
Can I ask that you reconsider and post under your own name - which, obviously, we can only trust you to supply correctly.
Have I read this thread wrong because to me it has turned into a get Vince campaign or anyone else who posts pictures of captive birds. Who gives a s%$£ what people post as long as the subject has not been harmed in anyway. I know Vince personally and we have become good friends through meeting through this forum. He does more for wildlife than most people on this forum and he doesn't hide behind a false name. I like looking at his pictures because in simple terms he is good at what he does and to me it doesn't matter how the image was taken as long as it looks good. Some of the comments on this thread smack to me as jealously because they are not good enough to come up to Vinces standard.
Danny
Real Name Danny Green
I think that you have read this thread wrong!
Frederic Desmette
Reasons to why I became interested in photography. All started in January 2004 with my first camera being an eBay purchased Nikon D1. I didn't have a clue about cameras, lenses or what settings to use. Looking at people images simply amazed me & because of this I needed to learn, fast!
Before 2004 we use to get outside help from photographers, this was to get pictures of our birds & to capture the work we do at project sites & with rescues, the problem with this is we didn't have any control on the photographer & when we needed a photographer we simply couldn't get one. With regards to images that were taken we simply lost the copyright & people did take us for granted & made money from the shots they had taken for us, this was money & time taken away from our charity.
Internal discussions were made & the conclusion was to set up our own photographer in house, this made sense & for some reason I was the one chosen for the job, talk about being chucked in with 2 feet
During the past 2 to 3 years I have learn so much especially on how the camera controls work & how to try & get a good image. Investment on kit was made, not by the Barn Owl Centre but by me, with compliments of eBay lol.
Now I can say I am reasonable photographer with a skill that can capture what I see & at anytime, this now works brilliantly for us & when we need an image we can take it when we want, rather than waiting for a photographer with free time.
To share my work is all I am doing, some of it can be very educational, some images can be record shots, some could tell a story & some images could be good to sell here at the Centre. With regards to posting on UKNP, this is a place I learnt so much from, especially from people like Paula Graham, Danny Green, Dave K & John Mactavish & others. To post an image on UKNP I think is a good thing as long as I title the image with ( c ) captive.
For the hardcore wildlife photographers on here it’s your choice if you view or comment, I cannot force you as it’s your choice. Moaning about its origin I personally think is out of order & if you enjoy wildlife that much you should offer some respect to wildlife that is captive, it is not their fault as I keep saying, someone as to work with them & give them the respect they deserve. Personally I will always look at a wild or captive Owl/Bird of prey as wildlife, that’s the respect I give them, is their anything wrong with that. I also take my hat of to others who post captive birds on here, the quality of shots I think are brilliant & take away that captive/caged look.
Photography I thought is a skill, in getting the best out of the subject, placing the subject or flying the subject in natural conditions is a good thing, the subject as a brain & to be taken out into wild conditions is good for the mental welfare of the subject!
IMHO both wild & captive have a place in wildlife photography. When a captive subject wins a competition or gets printed how many look at the creativeness of the image & how many look at whether the subject is wild or captive. At the end of the day if the subject is not harmed & people are grabbed by it & it sells, use it.
Vince:
PS: I don't feel I am being picked on, I do feel that I am trying to defend the rights of a captive bird/animal.
thanks for ....
...this sentence has crystalised my mind on the secondary topic expressed in this thread and on its clarification; the problem is one of semantics.
Now before I explain further, let me say that I have no problems with photographs of controlled/captive animals as long as they are presented as such with the appropiate (c). I enjoy viewing them and appreciate the skill in obtaining the shot. I applaud those who work in the reabilitation of animals for their eventual release and educational purposes. Basically I don't have a chip on my shoulder and hope to do some captive photography soon (with Dave Kj) to enjoy the experience it bestows and fill a market demand - when I have taken these images they will always, like yours, have a (c) in the title.
That said, the difficulty expressed by some of this forum potentially arises from the fact that the dictionary defination for "wildlife" is
where domestic's defination is
therefore undomesticated infers the reverse i.e. the animal has the ability to live in the wild with little association to humans and little dependency upon them.
But the key point is that the subject is living in a wild or natural state.
Therefore anything captive, and yes its isn't their fault, really cannot adhere to the above dictionary definations, therefore, is not truely "wildlife photography" ... WPOY people please take note
That said, it is animal photography and has similar, but not the same, technical skills required from the photographer to obtain some stunning images likeyour recent Barn Owl shot IMHO.
I think you will find that in over two years I have never commented on anyones work and I have only made one comment on how someone goes about work and that was a positive comment about Danny Greeny.
If I posted my name on the website you could find out where I live and that is all it would mean to all members except Geoff Simpson . Very few people have seen my photographs and I rarely have an extended conversation with photographers I meet out. All I wanted was to take part in a pleasant debate if that means 1. that I have to disclose who I am or 2.that I have to put up with an angry mob then forget it. Have you ever considered that it might be a pleasant experience to correspond on the net as you get treated like a person ? The same reason why I like the winter bundled up, hat and scarf you get treated more like a person. A female joins this site you give them a far warmer welcome than if a male does ! I understand you all spend a lot of time alone, fresh air, mating animals all around but is it really impossible for you to hold a polite conversation with someone and leave it as that ? Thanks but I just wanted to escape into another world every now and then not get hassle, if its all right with you I will just continue to enjoy all of your delightful photographs and long may you post them.