I have been around in a few general photography forums and now and then there are images posted of captive animals - often big cats, polar bears, raptors, etc. and lots of people will comment with "WOW - great wildlife shot" or something similar. In forum photo contests with the theme "Wildlife", usually 9 out of 10 submitted images are of captive animals and most often one of those shots will win the contest.
Maybe it's just me and maybe I'm somewhat picky about semantics - or I simply don't know English well enough - but I just think it is an insult to the real wildlife photographers around.
Is it really right to define "wildlife" as any non-domesticated animal - no matter if it has spent its entire life in a zoo or not?
Wild, tame, domesticated, captive, semi-domesticated, habituated, baited....these are just some of the descriptions I've seen applied to photos of animals/birds.
I think the best thing to do if you're worried about semantics is to become more of a linguist and less of a photographer. Spin, my friend, is how the modern world goes round,
I would think that it is the competition organisers who should determine what is/isn't allowed in a certain category.
it is not only a matter of competitions etc. - it is about attitudes, definitions, etc. which ultimately should be an authenticity stamp that give an audience a possibility to appreciate what they see. It is a matter of being able to trust the image.
What's your oppinion about the question in the title?
Firstly, what is your understanding of the term "wildlife"? If it is (as I suspect) the idea of a creature roaming free of constraint in its natural habitat then this is a very small percentage of the global population and shrinking rapidly.
Let me put it another way.......how do you define captivity? There is the obvious definition as seen by creatures in zoos or small enclosures. What about the idea that any area that is defined by man and managed by man with defined boundaries and controls on what the environment contains is really just an enclosure on a larger scale. There are very few trully wild spaces left on earth. The great plains of Africa are just large areas of national parkland or privately controlled game reserves. They have boundaries and there are controls on what species are within those boundaries. So the species in these environments could be said to be captive.
Wildlife photography is generally accepted as being any species photographed in its natural environment. Whether that environment is trully wild is another argument though.
A zoo is not what I'd call an animals natural environment.
Animals such as rats, feral pigeons, seagulls, crows, bears and others have become "human habituated" so their natural behavior has changed through the influence of humans and their activities. So, bears and gulls have adapted their behavior and diets due to human activities making an easier option than foraging in the wild. There are some issues with artificial feeding such as is seen in Alaska and other parts of the world with species such as Bald Eagle and even here with the Red Kite. There are lots of arguments on both sides and it is difficult to choose who is right.
Don't get me started on the re-introduction of species into an area where they have been absent for long periods of time.
So what do I consider Wildlife Photography? Anything that is currently acceptable to the majority of Wildlife photographers and their followers. This means that the definition can change at any time.
Rob
Posted by Vincent Jones on March 31, 2007 at 9:17 AM
This wildlife topic is a complete grey area with no real answers, sometimes the beauty of what some would define as wildlife is lost anyway because of the way humans like to control things. I agree whole heartily with what Rob states. Just because we have a camera & we like to create a challenge for our selves, does this mean we take away what is left for a captive species.
Why blame a photographer who can see the beauty in a captive species or someone that simply judges a competition or someone that tries to do what they think is right when offering support to a captive species. Ignorance on the whole picture or being single minded is unhelpful to wildlife that is held under control measures, some of which enjoy the life they live.
Personally, wildlife to me is anything that is not human but there again for some it could mean anything that lives & forages on this planet, in a human world our habits are control so as a whole, wildlife as no defence from being locked up or free or both.
Wildlife can come in all shapes, they can have no legs. one leg, 2 legs or multiple legs, wings or no wings, fur, feather skin etc... could us humans also be classed as wildlife? You get wild humans, captive humans & free roaming humans (Gypsy's) etc, to me we are more same as other species that inhabit Earth but more threatening. On the introducing of species, look what happens when a non native human species is introduced into any part of the world, you would think humans could learn from this.
I think I need to lie down
What is a wildlife photographer? Good question My answer: A blind one
Posted by Elliott Neep on March 31, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Oooh, good discussion and sure to get a few heated responses
Dictionary terms: Wildlife = "undomesticated animals living in the wild, including those hunted for food, sport, or profit." or "Wild animals and vegetation, especially animals living in a natural, undomesticated state. " or "all living things (except people) that are undomesticated"
Dictionary terms: Captive = "kept in confinement or restraint" I think from this we can rule out the Serengeti and National Parks, Rob ;-). They are hardly confined and the measure of restraint does not impede and animal to several square metres; strapped to a post; locked in a cage to be realised as when a viewer/photographer decides. This sounds like it should be simple but its not. Just sit back for a mo and try to define in your own words what WILDLIFE means to you. It’s a tough one!
For example, many photographers will start out with pond/lake wildfowl, I did. After all ducks and swans are accessible and wild aren’t they? Well the majority have been hatched and spend all their lives on the lake and they can fly away at any time. However, what about the ones that have been pinioned (wings clipped). Unless you know what you’re looking for they are quite hard to spot and you may inadvertently photo a captive bird. The ‘fine line’ debate for me is that although these pinioned birds can paddle away at any time, they cannot fly. Therefore these cannot be considered wild when they have been so drastically controlled by man. I feel this measure of control can really help define wildlife.
I photograph 'tame' foxes. These are free-roaming, but used to humans so is this still truly wildlife? They could be considered controlled by their dependence and habituation to my human handouts and, as Rob said, they are controlled by artificial, manufactured boundaries. But corner one and you will find out how wild they are! ;-) A distinct difference is that the fox can leave at any time and I cannot stop it, so to me the fox remains (in essence) wild. Zoo animals, falconer’s birds, or the British/Highland wildlife centre… whatever - the subject cannot leave of its own accord. It is prevented my one means or another. This is not true wildlife, whether its background and immediate environment looks wild or not. But people take these images as they can represent a wildlife subject. And with today's trend of diffused backgrounds its difficult to make out where it was shot anyway... coincidence? I don't think this detracts from the viewers appreciation of a beautiful creature. However, maybe the truth would impact the perception of the photographer. Are we happier when people believe us to be scouring the earth and going through true hardship rather than carrying a camera and beanbag around a zoo? Of course we are! The ego is a powerful force
I think there will always be a distinct difference of opinion between purists - who deem wildlife to be of 'a truly wild state', free roaming and uncontrolled - and others that will defer the term 'wildlife' to describe what an image ‘represents’ whether it’s captive or not. There will always be an enormous spectrum of wildlife photographers. Some are happy to shoot zoo animals - others defy belief in there audacious travels through extreme environments in pursuit of wild nature a la Nick Nichols.
I think I understand where you are coming from and I am with you. It is frustrating and confusing to see Wildlife Photography competitions that say 'will accept captive / under controlled conditions.' What's the point of putting so much effort into it when you’re competing with someone who can just pop down the zoo? To be honest though, most people look at photographs like agents and publishers - they frankly could not give a monkey's about where or how it was shot, so long as it is a great image. The best thing to do is to stick by your own morals. Label images with the truth and your conscience is clear.
I would have been surprised if the topic hadn't been up before and, I could of course have searched the forum but I'm in for a 'one free month trial' and unfortunately, the last weeks server problems have kept me from learning to know this community as good as I would have liked.
In any case, I am surprised about the laisse-faire attitude to let words like "Wildlife" become inflated. I would have thought that, in a forum like this, there should be some who would defend the values of a "brand mark" like "Wildlife photographer".
I mean, do those of you who only photograph animals in aviaries, parks, zoos, etc. call yourself "Wildlife photographer".
David Kjaer has a point in the thread you pointed out that the photograph that prompted his OP shows a long-eared owl in a totally un-natural setting - in a way that no wild animal would appear. I would not rank a captive owl as wildlife even if the species lives in the wild just around the corner.
Here in Scandinavia, we have image stock agencies for nature photographs that are specialized on truely wildlife images and the photographers guarantee that certain aethic norms have been followed. Photos of captive animals are allowed but must be specified. Believe it or not, those agencies are selling images and do earn money - despite the flow of staged 'pseudo wildlife' images flooding the general stock agencies. There is a market for truly natural wildlife images and it would have been nice if there was some norm to associate with the concept of "wildlife photography".
However, reading some of the replies above and in the other thread, I am pessimistic about the odds that such a norm will develop. The trend is the opposite in fact.
I would suggest that there are a lot of 'wildlife' photographers still around and defination of that title is debated/defended as you have seen. Remember you can shoot both captive-life and wild-life and still call your self a wildlife photographer for you still do photograph wild-life.
A photographers credability depends upon their honesty - on this forum anything that is captive must have a (c) in the title and the I doubt there are many captive (but not labeled captive) images that actually escape the rumour rounds - in the end the only person who is being fooled is the photographer who omits the (c).
Hello Jens
I would not be disappointed by the replies to this, and the other similar post. I think it demonstrates the honesty and realism of most of the contributors to this forum. As Tom says, a photographer's credibility depends on his honesty and any who try to deceive are discovered sooner or later.
Certainly, the greatest number of images on this forum are of non captive creatures, and I have found that those posting images of captives always use the (c) in their titles.
Best wishes
Phil
Discussion
11 repliesI have been around in a few general photography forums and now and then there are images posted of captive animals - often big cats, polar bears, raptors, etc. and lots of people will comment with "WOW - great wildlife shot" or something similar. In forum photo contests with the theme "Wildlife", usually 9 out of 10 submitted images are of captive animals and most often one of those shots will win the contest.
Maybe it's just me and maybe I'm somewhat picky about semantics - or I simply don't know English well enough - but I just think it is an insult to the real wildlife photographers around.
Is it really right to define "wildlife" as any non-domesticated animal - no matter if it has spent its entire life in a zoo or not?
I'd be curious to hear your oppinions about this.
Cheers, Jens.
I think the best thing to do if you're worried about semantics is to become more of a linguist and less of a photographer. Spin, my friend, is how the modern world goes round,
I would think that it is the competition organisers who should determine what is/isn't allowed in a certain category.
it is not only a matter of competitions etc. - it is about attitudes, definitions, etc. which ultimately should be an authenticity stamp that give an audience a possibility to appreciate what they see. It is a matter of being able to trust the image.
What's your oppinion about the question in the title?
Cheers, Jens.
Firstly, what is your understanding of the term "wildlife"? If it is (as I suspect) the idea of a creature roaming free of constraint in its natural habitat then this is a very small percentage of the global population and shrinking rapidly.
Let me put it another way.......how do you define captivity? There is the obvious definition as seen by creatures in zoos or small enclosures. What about the idea that any area that is defined by man and managed by man with defined boundaries and controls on what the environment contains is really just an enclosure on a larger scale. There are very few trully wild spaces left on earth. The great plains of Africa are just large areas of national parkland or privately controlled game reserves. They have boundaries and there are controls on what species are within those boundaries. So the species in these environments could be said to be captive.
Wildlife photography is generally accepted as being any species photographed in its natural environment. Whether that environment is trully wild is another argument though.
Rob
so a zoo would not be an animals natural environment (except for some house sparrows, rats, etc. )?
Cheers, Jens
Animals such as rats, feral pigeons, seagulls, crows, bears and others have become "human habituated" so their natural behavior has changed through the influence of humans and their activities. So, bears and gulls have adapted their behavior and diets due to human activities making an easier option than foraging in the wild. There are some issues with artificial feeding such as is seen in Alaska and other parts of the world with species such as Bald Eagle and even here with the Red Kite. There are lots of arguments on both sides and it is difficult to choose who is right.
Don't get me started on the re-introduction of species into an area where they have been absent for long periods of time.
So what do I consider Wildlife Photography? Anything that is currently acceptable to the majority of Wildlife photographers and their followers. This means that the definition can change at any time.
Rob
Why blame a photographer who can see the beauty in a captive species or someone that simply judges a competition or someone that tries to do what they think is right when offering support to a captive species. Ignorance on the whole picture or being single minded is unhelpful to wildlife that is held under control measures, some of which enjoy the life they live.
Personally, wildlife to me is anything that is not human but there again for some it could mean anything that lives & forages on this planet, in a human world our habits are control so as a whole, wildlife as no defence from being locked up or free or both.
Wildlife can come in all shapes, they can have no legs. one leg, 2 legs or multiple legs, wings or no wings, fur, feather skin etc... could us humans also be classed as wildlife? You get wild humans, captive humans & free roaming humans (Gypsy's) etc, to me we are more same as other species that inhabit Earth but more threatening. On the introducing of species, look what happens when a non native human species is introduced into any part of the world, you would think humans could learn from this.
I think I need to lie down
What is a wildlife photographer? Good question
Dictionary terms: Wildlife = "undomesticated animals living in the wild, including those hunted for food, sport, or profit." or "Wild animals and vegetation, especially animals living in a natural, undomesticated state. " or "all living things (except people) that are undomesticated"
Dictionary terms: Captive = "kept in confinement or restraint" I think from this we can rule out the Serengeti and National Parks, Rob ;-). They are hardly confined and the measure of restraint does not impede and animal to several square metres; strapped to a post; locked in a cage to be realised as when a viewer/photographer decides. This sounds like it should be simple but its not. Just sit back for a mo and try to define in your own words what WILDLIFE means to you. It’s a tough one!
For example, many photographers will start out with pond/lake wildfowl, I did. After all ducks and swans are accessible and wild aren’t they? Well the majority have been hatched and spend all their lives on the lake and they can fly away at any time. However, what about the ones that have been pinioned (wings clipped). Unless you know what you’re looking for they are quite hard to spot and you may inadvertently photo a captive bird. The ‘fine line’ debate for me is that although these pinioned birds can paddle away at any time, they cannot fly. Therefore these cannot be considered wild when they have been so drastically controlled by man. I feel this measure of control can really help define wildlife.
I photograph 'tame' foxes. These are free-roaming, but used to humans so is this still truly wildlife? They could be considered controlled by their dependence and habituation to my human handouts and, as Rob said, they are controlled by artificial, manufactured boundaries. But corner one and you will find out how wild they are! ;-) A distinct difference is that the fox can leave at any time and I cannot stop it, so to me the fox remains (in essence) wild. Zoo animals, falconer’s birds, or the British/Highland wildlife centre… whatever - the subject cannot leave of its own accord. It is prevented my one means or another. This is not true wildlife, whether its background and immediate environment looks wild or not. But people take these images as they can represent a wildlife subject. And with today's trend of diffused backgrounds its difficult to make out where it was shot anyway... coincidence? I don't think this detracts from the viewers appreciation of a beautiful creature. However, maybe the truth would impact the perception of the photographer. Are we happier when people believe us to be scouring the earth and going through true hardship rather than carrying a camera and beanbag around a zoo? Of course we are! The ego is a powerful force
I think there will always be a distinct difference of opinion between purists - who deem wildlife to be of 'a truly wild state', free roaming and uncontrolled - and others that will defer the term 'wildlife' to describe what an image ‘represents’ whether it’s captive or not. There will always be an enormous spectrum of wildlife photographers. Some are happy to shoot zoo animals - others defy belief in there audacious travels through extreme environments in pursuit of wild nature a la Nick Nichols.
I think I understand where you are coming from and I am with you. It is frustrating and confusing to see Wildlife Photography competitions that say 'will accept captive / under controlled conditions.' What's the point of putting so much effort into it when you’re competing with someone who can just pop down the zoo? To be honest though, most people look at photographs like agents and publishers - they frankly could not give a monkey's about where or how it was shot, so long as it is a great image. The best thing to do is to stick by your own morals. Label images with the truth and your conscience is clear.
Just incase you think that this isn't creating the response you hoped, this particular topic has been discussed regulary.
One of the last times was here.
T
I would have been surprised if the topic hadn't been up before and, I could of course have searched the forum but I'm in for a 'one free month trial' and unfortunately, the last weeks server problems have kept me from learning to know this community as good as I would have liked.
In any case, I am surprised about the laisse-faire attitude to let words like "Wildlife" become inflated. I would have thought that, in a forum like this, there should be some who would defend the values of a "brand mark" like "Wildlife photographer".
I mean, do those of you who only photograph animals in aviaries, parks, zoos, etc. call yourself "Wildlife photographer".
David Kjaer has a point in the thread you pointed out that the photograph that prompted his OP shows a long-eared owl in a totally un-natural setting - in a way that no wild animal would appear. I would not rank a captive owl as wildlife even if the species lives in the wild just around the corner.
Here in Scandinavia, we have image stock agencies for nature photographs that are specialized on truely wildlife images and the photographers guarantee that certain aethic norms have been followed. Photos of captive animals are allowed but must be specified. Believe it or not, those agencies are selling images and do earn money - despite the flow of staged 'pseudo wildlife' images flooding the general stock agencies. There is a market for truly natural wildlife images and it would have been nice if there was some norm to associate with the concept of "wildlife photography".
However, reading some of the replies above and in the other thread, I am pessimistic about the odds that such a norm will develop. The trend is the opposite in fact.
Cheers, Jens
I would suggest that there are a lot of 'wildlife' photographers still around and defination of that title is debated/defended as you have seen. Remember you can shoot both captive-life and wild-life and still call your self a wildlife photographer for you still do photograph wild-life.
A photographers credability depends upon their honesty - on this forum anything that is captive must have a (c) in the title and the I doubt there are many captive (but not labeled captive) images that actually escape the rumour rounds - in the end the only person who is being fooled is the photographer who omits the (c).
T
I would not be disappointed by the replies to this, and the other similar post. I think it demonstrates the honesty and realism of most of the contributors to this forum. As Tom says, a photographer's credibility depends on his honesty and any who try to deceive are discovered sooner or later.
Certainly, the greatest number of images on this forum are of non captive creatures, and I have found that those posting images of captives always use the (c) in their titles.
Best wishes
Phil