I posted a couple of pics of the photographers / puffins on the Farne Islands recently and Vincent Jones brought up a very interesting point regarding the number of people at that site and the effect it could have on the birds themselves.
I posted a reply trying to consider a few of the points and would like to find out what everyone else thinks about the situation.
Are we reaching saturation point when it comes to the regular 'hot spots'?
Has the improvement in technology (which makes photography far easier than it was ten years ago) brought in photographers who do not give as much consideration to their subjects as they should?
Has the 'digital' age had a detrimental effect on wildlife photography. There appears (to me at least) an abundance of "snappers" who can now buy expensive equipment and fire off card after card of images in the knowledge that sooner or later they will get a shot that is good (or can be made good on a computer later).
Apart from the current licensing controls on listed species, should there be any other form of regulation.
It's the "Bill Oddie" effect, perhaps he'll destroy the things he loves. I guess in time restrictions will become common place, I know of places that have tripod charges.
I must admit I also share Vincent's concerns. His reaction seems to have been the same as mine when I saw those images. It's difficult to know what the answer is, other than for those of us with these concerns to avoid such places. To be honest, I'd rather photograph the goldfinches in my garden than queue up like that to photograph some rather bemused puffins.
I should stress that I'm not criticising anyone. Each to their own, and I'm sure the vast majority of photographers behave responsibly and cause minimal distress to the birds (I hope). But that isn't wildlife photography in my book. I just hope the authorities at Farne are on top of the situation.
Matt
Posted by Dawn Monrose on July 16, 2008 at 6:09 AM
Seeing all those photographers there really puts me off going to a place like that. I would definately steer clear of photography hotspots. It must surely be of detriment to the birds. First they have the stress of not being able to find enough food, and avoiding predators, then when they come home they are faced with an army of lenses and hordes of humans jostling to get the best shot.
The aim of my photography is to photograph my subject either having been accepted as not a threat, or just not to be seen, so I can photograph them behaving naturally, and not stressing them out. But as you say, digital is so 'easy' and available, and our natural world is now so well advertised that it seems everyone is keen to try their hand. Trouble is, people can be far to focussed on getting the shot, and not really think about the animal.
I have no idea how it could be regulated. Better education would be a start I suppose, but how to get the message across? Photography permits for certain locations perhaps?
Its great that people want to get out and enjoy our countryside and wildlife, it helps to spread the conservation message, but people need to be educated to be able to enjoy it without harming it.
I've experienced similar concerns on Skomer and on Saltee Islands. Safaris can be similar. To an extent it is the public's enjoyment of these encounters that encourages the best chance for wildlife to survive. We's all like our own bit of exclusive wilderness just to ourselves. Wildlife photographers have a special role in behaving responsibly towards wildlife and there is always a line that can be stepped over in the pursuit of the "perfect shot".
Why do we want the "perfect shot"? Financial gain? Fame? Admiration from our fellow photographers? There is a lot to be said for practicing our skills on captive animals in places such as wildlife refuges IMHO.
Important issues that we each need to think through in our travels through the natural world. Wildlife's main threat is not wildlife photographers however, but war, overpopulation, overfishing, pollution, development, poaching etc etc. Raising public awareness of the beauty of the natural world through photography can be an important strand of conservation as anyone who has attended Wildphotos will testify. If you haven't been, it's well worth a visit.Wildlife in Kenya in under great threat at present until tourists return in numbers. Park fees pay for rangers patrols that keep poachers out.
Peter Barritt
Its a hard balance, you have to strike it between people paying to enjoy the wild and people over exploting it.
Would it be better for the farnes to offer 8 hour access and have lower density of people, or the current 2 hours a day with lots of people?
Posted by Roeland Fort on July 16, 2008 at 7:20 AM
I visited Inner Farne too about a small month ago and was shocked by the amount of people out there! As most nature photographers (I suppose) I don't like it to be photographing in a crowd!
What I wanted to say about this is that it is not only photographers disturbing the birds! Most photographers are looking around and at least seeing the birds and chicks. On Inner Farne I saw LOTS of people who have no clue at all what they are doing. They don't know the difference between a razorbill and an arctic tern. They want to see a puffin. And they are definitely not looking at their feet spotting the tern chicks (or others) running on the walk way, as everybody is asked before entering the island. I am sure many chicks get crushed every week! At a price, of course.
Then I am thinking who is wrong? The photographers? The people who just want to see a puffin and then sit and wait till the boats goes back? Or the "trusts" who are cashing peoples money!
My opinion is that the islands need some better/different management. Charge more and limit the amount of people on the islands. Make photographers days and charge even more and for this price photographers are rewarded with with earlier and later boats, some peace, some space and and a lot more fun while photographing.
Just my thoughts, but untill something changes over there I will spend my time somewhere else.
Wildlife's main threat is not wildlife photographers however, but war, overpopulation, overfishing, pollution, development, poaching etc etc.
An excellent observation and a true context setter when considering the need of additional regulations regarding wildlife photography.
I'd urge people to use their wildlife photography to help fix the above serious issues rather than looking for restrictions that would further imped you from bring these serious issues to the public attention for that would really be 'an own goal' and no help to anybody!
There are regulations enough e.g. WCA81, EPS, Habitat regs, SSSI, SPA's, WHS's, etc and the biggest problem is that the vast majority of public camera pointers ( and possibly this forum ) are ignorant of them - more restrictions/regulation will not help - education will help.
Yes, there are UK wildlife 'hot spots' just as there are UK traffic 'black-spots' - those sensible will avoid them both at times of high conjestion.
It is true is the lack of on-going material costs (film and processing) has removed a fiscal barrier from doing wildlife photography but this was never a barrier to a true wildlife photographer.
I have said before I class those I find with a digital camera taking pictures of nature into 4 categories
a) the public camera pointer
b) a photographer (of nature/wildlife)
c) a naturalist with a camera
d) finally a Wildlife/Nature Photographer
and the potential disturbance they bestow to a subject/area, IMHO, decreases as you go down the list. I would like to hope that we, as a result of this forum at the least, we have nobody intent in remaining in category a)
The above 'Bill Oddie' effect is a potential worry for I have seen a reasonable amount of people (in social hours) without a camera out on Donna Nook sands, albeit the majority would still have a camera and be in band a). If increased legislation was to alienate these people who will suffer most when politicans/developers play; if these people cannot experience and appreciate natures beauty upon what knowledge/emotion would they motivated to object to the desecration of such beauty.
It is a catch-22 isn't it - the trick is, that if there is a problem, to be a group that is seen as part of the solution and not part of the problem - what do you do with your photography?
T
PS I find it interesting that at times of conjestion that some people feel that they will obtain a sellable image - you might, along with your fellow multitude. It is worth noting that your chances of a sale are, among other criteria, proportional to the of the rarity of the image and the quality of the image. H'mm
An interesting point raised by Peter Barritt re tourist money paying to keep wildlife. It can be said (and indeed is) that people paying to hunt / shoot wildlife also pay towards conservation. Is that acceptable or desirable? In the UK, keepered estates would appear to have a correspondingly large wildlife population probably because the general public are not allowed access and the environment is maintained to encourage wildlife. I know that predators are controlled on these estates but then is that because the artificially increased prey items also encourages a surplus of predators. Nothing is ever as black or white as it first appears !
Whilst the above is an pertinent observation, can 'The Mods' request that in any response we do not dive deep into the (previously well aired) hunting/shooting/conservation debate and concentrate on this issues parallel's with nature photography and conservation. - The Mods
I haven't been to the Farnes for some 6 years or so, just before the digital camera revolution really, in those days only a handfull of serious photographers would go there.
Regards disturbance to the birds at this particular site - well actually I don't think there is any, the Farnes have always been a popular day out, the birds have for decades been pretty well accustomised to the regular hordes of people passing within inches of them, if it were not the case there would be no birds on the islands, they would have all deserted by now. Provided everyone keeps within the roped off areas it isn't an issue, it is no different to pigeons, coots or herons in the 3 central London Royal Parks.
Accessability to high tech equipment with good magnification has never been so cheap, it is not surprisng many people are swapping telescopes for cameras now.... I blame Canon for the 1.6 crop pro-am cameras and Sigma for the cheap telezooms and credit cards for instant purchase ability!
In days of "full frame 36 shot cartridge" camera gear, it was difficult to even get to 10x magnification, now 800mm 1.6 crop gear is easily obtainable and yields 25x effective magnification so it is now much cheaper and simpler to get into smnall bird photography, the need for a hide and the art of introducing one is reducing, so more casual nature photographers are coming on stream
Quite what enjoyment people get from standing in a queue taking identical images is somewhat baffling, but I suppose it is the conversion of mans hunting instinct, shooting by image rather than by bow and arrow is the satisfaction quotient and hit rate is relatively good compared to 30 years ago.
.
Posted by Elliott Neep on July 16, 2008 at 7:51 AM
An interesting thread and one that airs my concerns. You could argue that I am a relative newbie, but even in the past 5 years, I have seen an explosion in digital and big glass - whether it is on the plains of the Masai Mara or the bittern watching hide at Lee Valley. There are more would-be wildlife photographers with more disposable income and they can afford the big glass and the wildlife trips.
In my view (and only mine – not wishing to upset anyone, of course!), the digital revolution has definitely had an impact as the learning curve is so much quicker and the results are instantaneous. My ears have also detected the new “machine gun scatter” approach, where photogs shoot 000s of frames in order to capture a select few, rather than picking and selecting those precious moments.
We can't hold back this tide with any regulation because then you would be creating a by-law against one group and that is prejudicial. In my view, it is down to the responsibility of both landowner (to educate) and individual photographer (to educate others and to learn) to govern behaviour, although I agree there is no easy solution. Education is the most important step here. Sites like NPN/UKNP promote awareness by raising and discussing these issues.
The images shot on the Farnes do exaggerate the crowded appearance, but as crowded as it is, people are well behaved. They largely stand still and wait for the birds. It would be catastrophic if the photogs were walking everywhere and chasing the wildlife with small lenses, so the bigger glass is a blessing in a way. Plus, you are only allowed on the Farnes for a couple of hours per trip, which leaves the birds in peace for the majority of the day. If you think it is crowded here, you should see the tiger parks in India… Hoards of screaming shouting tourists and photographers!!!
When I first got into wildlife, I always visited the honey-pot sites (Farne Isles, Skomer, Formby) because they are the easiest places to photograph wildlife, you can rapidly build a portfolio, and quickly learn the required skills. But, when I felt experienced enough, I went elsewhere and now concentrate all my effort on my own quiet haunts - I think it is a life-cycle that most photogs go through.
One consideration is that the more people that visit, the more money is generated to protect, conserve and lobby the governments. Take away the camera-wielding tourist and the parks and sites we love so much may well collapse. The Kenya reserves are definitely a case in point (thanks for raising that Peter).
I guess if you want a more tranquil experience and individual images, then you now need to put in more legwork and visit the more remote sites. Yes, it is harder, but it is worth is. I don’t think we can be angry with others because of the increased popularity of wildlife photography, or because the ‘golden age’ of those honey-pot sites is ending.
P.s. Tom got there before me on several points
Posted by Paul Everett on July 16, 2008 at 11:23 AM
I agree with most of the comments here, we cannot expect wildlife spectacles to be able to exist without generating a raison d'etre, whether it be the Mara, the Farnes or where ever. There is no doubt that digital photography has opened up the art to many new people as lets face it its just easier. We can be po faced about how these places are allegedly being "spoiled" and should be reserved for us more discerning users but the reality of the situation is that they need all the exposure they can get, or else they will disappear. As Elloitt says find your own quieter places, therein lies much of the art, and be grateful that people want to go see these things. Ignorance is their greatest threat.
Paul
Posted by Peter Cairns on July 16, 2008 at 11:31 AM
A very interesting thread and of a tone and flavour that I would personally like to see photographers discussing more often.
Tom, Elliott and Peter raise good and valid points. For me, it's about context. Gannets on Bass Rock are increasing; seals at Donna Nook are increasing - perhaps not because of increased visitation but certainly in spite of it. Within the wider scheme of things, hot-spot saturation is irrelevant and although perceived as 'ugly' in our eyes, such an experience satisfies a growing appetite for encounters with the natural world - an appetite that in part at least, we photographers help create.
I would respectfully suggest we don't get too hung up about the Farnes, Skomer, Donna Nook, wherever and equally we don't get too pompous about our exclusive right to be there. Such a right doesn't exist.
What we should get hung up about is using our images imaginatively to inspire the apathetic teenager to visit the Farnes et al. It seems to me that reading the posts above, many photographers understand this concept and that I have to say, is heartening.
Wildphotos has just been announced for this year by the way!
I for one am slightly worried by the attitudes of a proportion of the modern "snappers" It is more difficult for us older wrinklies who saw nature photography in the " old days" and had to go through all the difficulties that the art demanded in those early days. . It does hurt a little when you see how technology has made a lot of it so much easier.
More worrying is the attitude. It has become like train spotting. Many of the new breed are out to "bag " a species for some sort of collecting mania. Thats why many birders have gone over to moths for example; Its listing..Or chasing birds around to get pics that are "publishable" !)
Like I said the other day on a post on this forum. many don't realise Kingfishers are a Schedule 1 species. Wether you like it or not.. Many of the bird shots with food have been done very near to the nest. To disturb a bird "willfully " near the nest is illegal, and especially on a Nature reserve or designated area.
Its the over riding desire of some to get pics of the "goodies" that worries me somewhat.
I could photograph sparrows all day long.
JR
Too many photographers? - too many people altogether I'm afraid. It doesn't matter what your interest is, there are always too many people in the way. I think they should all disappear except for me and my friends.
I think that eventually yet more rules and more expense will intrude on what we do, and I think Tom is right in suggesting that would be a bad thing for us all.
Digital has made it 'easier' and more accessible and that would probably irritate the hell out of me if I was somebody who had earned a living from wildlife photography the hard way and was now finding my markets flooded by 'snappers'. I am not denying that there might be more good photographs being produced, but I also think that the bar has been pushed right up at the same time. All of us could come up with an A list of photographers whose skill, knowledge and good eye consistantly produce outstanding images and that will always be the case however good the hardware.
There will always be those who consider that the end justifies the means, let's just hope that it doesn't ruin it for us all or more importantly our subjects. Education, education, education - I guess, as I doubt if anybody in that line really wants to cause hardship to puffins do they?
Eric
Great thread, well done to Robert for raising the issue.
Restricting disturbance to a few 'honey pot' sights can help the overall population of a species in some cases - unlucky if you are an arctic tern on the Farnes having your chicks trampled by the 'tourists' (yes, I have seen this on numerous occasions in just two visits), but great for the success of the population as a whole if it remains successful. A managed approach to access has to be the answer even if it gets more restrictive for us photographers; wherever appropriate and possible, giving people an opportunity to see wildlife for themselves is the beginning of getting them to engage in the process of valuing it.
We, as wildlife photographers, have already made a value judgement about the importance our natural heritage on some level, but I'm beginning to question if we (me included) think enough about the impact our pursuit of pictures has. In particular, more and more of us CHOOSE to hop on a plane, to honey pots across the globe with a vague notion/justification that our trophy images may help conserve what we, in the process, are potentially destroying. In truth, very few of us produce images that 'help' conservation. We take pictures for our pleasure, because we can, because it is our hobby, because we might make some cash, because our ego demands it?
I argue, for example, that more pretty pictures of polar bears, to add to the thousands that already exist, will do nothing to halt the decline of this fantastic species, particularly if we've travelled halfway around the world by plane to record them. Are the days of ‘pleasure photography’ in such cases numbered?
If we can't curb our selfish human desire to 'see-for-ourselves' then, at the very least, surely we must be obligated to tell the whole story, not just the pretty bits.
Cheers, Chris.
Posted by Peter Cairns on July 17, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Well said Chris.
We're all guilty of double standards to a greater or lesser degree BUT we could put more thought into how we approach a given subject, where we choose to photograph it and what story is told with the resultant images.
For me, another image of an ice-encrusted polar bear holds little appeal but that's not to say there is no place for polar bear photography. There are hundreds of conservation stories that could be built around that one species. I'm yet to see a good non-National Geographic story on polar bear tourism in Churchill for example. The same could be said of the Farnes. Robert's images of the puffin fly-past could be the beginning?
Perhaps in addition to considering Canon/Nikon, f4 or 5.6, ISO 200 or 400 or whatever technical specification is deemed to be the barometer of an image's success, we should consider whether our images ask questions of their audience?
Discussion
16 repliesI posted a reply trying to consider a few of the points and would like to find out what everyone else thinks about the situation.
Are we reaching saturation point when it comes to the regular 'hot spots'?
Has the improvement in technology (which makes photography far easier than it was ten years ago) brought in photographers who do not give as much consideration to their subjects as they should?
Has the 'digital' age had a detrimental effect on wildlife photography. There appears (to me at least) an abundance of "snappers" who can now buy expensive equipment and fire off card after card of images in the knowledge that sooner or later they will get a shot that is good (or can be made good on a computer later).
Apart from the current licensing controls on listed species, should there be any other form of regulation.
Any thoughts or views anybody?
Tim
I should stress that I'm not criticising anyone. Each to their own, and I'm sure the vast majority of photographers behave responsibly and cause minimal distress to the birds (I hope). But that isn't wildlife photography in my book. I just hope the authorities at Farne are on top of the situation.
Matt
The aim of my photography is to photograph my subject either having been accepted as not a threat, or just not to be seen, so I can photograph them behaving naturally, and not stressing them out. But as you say, digital is so 'easy' and available, and our natural world is now so well advertised that it seems everyone is keen to try their hand. Trouble is, people can be far to focussed on getting the shot, and not really think about the animal.
I have no idea how it could be regulated. Better education would be a start I suppose, but how to get the message across? Photography permits for certain locations perhaps?
Its great that people want to get out and enjoy our countryside and wildlife, it helps to spread the conservation message, but people need to be educated to be able to enjoy it without harming it.
A thought proking post!
Why do we want the "perfect shot"? Financial gain? Fame? Admiration from our fellow photographers? There is a lot to be said for practicing our skills on captive animals in places such as wildlife refuges IMHO.
Important issues that we each need to think through in our travels through the natural world. Wildlife's main threat is not wildlife photographers however, but war, overpopulation, overfishing, pollution, development, poaching etc etc. Raising public awareness of the beauty of the natural world through photography can be an important strand of conservation as anyone who has attended Wildphotos will testify. If you haven't been, it's well worth a visit.Wildlife in Kenya in under great threat at present until tourists return in numbers. Park fees pay for rangers patrols that keep poachers out.
Peter Barritt
Would it be better for the farnes to offer 8 hour access and have lower density of people, or the current 2 hours a day with lots of people?
What I wanted to say about this is that it is not only photographers disturbing the birds! Most photographers are looking around and at least seeing the birds and chicks. On Inner Farne I saw LOTS of people who have no clue at all what they are doing. They don't know the difference between a razorbill and an arctic tern. They want to see a puffin. And they are definitely not looking at their feet spotting the tern chicks (or others) running on the walk way, as everybody is asked before entering the island. I am sure many chicks get crushed every week! At a price, of course.
Then I am thinking who is wrong? The photographers? The people who just want to see a puffin and then sit and wait till the boats goes back? Or the "trusts" who are cashing peoples money!
My opinion is that the islands need some better/different management. Charge more and limit the amount of people on the islands. Make photographers days and charge even more and for this price photographers are rewarded with with earlier and later boats, some peace, some space and and a lot more fun while photographing.
Just my thoughts, but untill something changes over there I will spend my time somewhere else.
An excellent observation and a true context setter when considering the need of additional regulations regarding wildlife photography.
I'd urge people to use their wildlife photography to help fix the above serious issues rather than looking for restrictions that would further imped you from bring these serious issues to the public attention for that would really be 'an own goal' and no help to anybody!
There are regulations enough e.g. WCA81, EPS, Habitat regs, SSSI, SPA's, WHS's, etc and the biggest problem is that the vast majority of public camera pointers ( and possibly this forum
Yes, there are UK wildlife 'hot spots' just as there are UK traffic 'black-spots' - those sensible will avoid them both at times of high conjestion.
It is true is the lack of on-going material costs (film and processing) has removed a fiscal barrier from doing wildlife photography but this was never a barrier to a true wildlife photographer.
I have said before I class those I find with a digital camera taking pictures of nature into 4 categories
a) the public camera pointer
b) a photographer (of nature/wildlife)
c) a naturalist with a camera
d) finally a Wildlife/Nature Photographer
and the potential disturbance they bestow to a subject/area, IMHO, decreases as you go down the list. I would like to hope that we, as a result of this forum at the least, we have nobody intent in remaining in category a)
The above 'Bill Oddie' effect is a potential worry for I have seen a reasonable amount of people (in social hours) without a camera out on Donna Nook sands, albeit the majority would still have a camera and be in band a). If increased legislation was to alienate these people who will suffer most when politicans/developers play; if these people cannot experience and appreciate natures beauty upon what knowledge/emotion would they motivated to object to the desecration of such beauty.
It is a catch-22 isn't it - the trick is, that if there is a problem, to be a group that is seen as part of the solution and not part of the problem - what do you do with your photography?
T
PS I find it interesting that at times of conjestion that some people feel that they will obtain a sellable image - you might, along with your fellow multitude. It is worth noting that your chances of a sale are, among other criteria, proportional to the of the rarity of the image and the quality of the image. H'mm
Whilst the above is an pertinent observation, can 'The Mods' request that in any response we do not dive deep into the (previously well aired) hunting/shooting/conservation debate and concentrate on this issues parallel's with nature photography and conservation. - The Mods
Regards disturbance to the birds at this particular site - well actually I don't think there is any, the Farnes have always been a popular day out, the birds have for decades been pretty well accustomised to the regular hordes of people passing within inches of them, if it were not the case there would be no birds on the islands, they would have all deserted by now. Provided everyone keeps within the roped off areas it isn't an issue, it is no different to pigeons, coots or herons in the 3 central London Royal Parks.
Accessability to high tech equipment with good magnification has never been so cheap, it is not surprisng many people are swapping telescopes for cameras now.... I blame Canon for the 1.6 crop pro-am cameras and Sigma for the cheap telezooms and credit cards for instant purchase ability!
In days of "full frame 36 shot cartridge" camera gear, it was difficult to even get to 10x magnification, now 800mm 1.6 crop gear is easily obtainable and yields 25x effective magnification so it is now much cheaper and simpler to get into smnall bird photography, the need for a hide and the art of introducing one is reducing, so more casual nature photographers are coming on stream
Quite what enjoyment people get from standing in a queue taking identical images is somewhat baffling, but I suppose it is the conversion of mans hunting instinct, shooting by image rather than by bow and arrow is the satisfaction quotient and hit rate is relatively good compared to 30 years ago.
.
In my view (and only mine – not wishing to upset anyone, of course!), the digital revolution has definitely had an impact as the learning curve is so much quicker and the results are instantaneous. My ears have also detected the new “machine gun scatter” approach, where photogs shoot 000s of frames in order to capture a select few, rather than picking and selecting those precious moments.
We can't hold back this tide with any regulation because then you would be creating a by-law against one group and that is prejudicial. In my view, it is down to the responsibility of both landowner (to educate) and individual photographer (to educate others and to learn) to govern behaviour, although I agree there is no easy solution. Education is the most important step here. Sites like NPN/UKNP promote awareness by raising and discussing these issues.
The images shot on the Farnes do exaggerate the crowded appearance, but as crowded as it is, people are well behaved. They largely stand still and wait for the birds. It would be catastrophic if the photogs were walking everywhere and chasing the wildlife with small lenses, so the bigger glass is a blessing in a way. Plus, you are only allowed on the Farnes for a couple of hours per trip, which leaves the birds in peace for the majority of the day. If you think it is crowded here, you should see the tiger parks in India… Hoards of screaming shouting tourists and photographers!!!
When I first got into wildlife, I always visited the honey-pot sites (Farne Isles, Skomer, Formby) because they are the easiest places to photograph wildlife, you can rapidly build a portfolio, and quickly learn the required skills. But, when I felt experienced enough, I went elsewhere and now concentrate all my effort on my own quiet haunts - I think it is a life-cycle that most photogs go through.
One consideration is that the more people that visit, the more money is generated to protect, conserve and lobby the governments. Take away the camera-wielding tourist and the parks and sites we love so much may well collapse. The Kenya reserves are definitely a case in point (thanks for raising that Peter).
I guess if you want a more tranquil experience and individual images, then you now need to put in more legwork and visit the more remote sites. Yes, it is harder, but it is worth is. I don’t think we can be angry with others because of the increased popularity of wildlife photography, or because the ‘golden age’ of those honey-pot sites is ending.
P.s. Tom got there before me on several points
Paul
Tom, Elliott and Peter raise good and valid points. For me, it's about context. Gannets on Bass Rock are increasing; seals at Donna Nook are increasing - perhaps not because of increased visitation but certainly in spite of it. Within the wider scheme of things, hot-spot saturation is irrelevant and although perceived as 'ugly' in our eyes, such an experience satisfies a growing appetite for encounters with the natural world - an appetite that in part at least, we photographers help create.
I would respectfully suggest we don't get too hung up about the Farnes, Skomer, Donna Nook, wherever and equally we don't get too pompous about our exclusive right to be there. Such a right doesn't exist.
What we should get hung up about is using our images imaginatively to inspire the apathetic teenager to visit the Farnes et al. It seems to me that reading the posts above, many photographers understand this concept and that I have to say, is heartening.
Wildphotos has just been announced for this year by the way!
Good thread.
Pete
More worrying is the attitude. It has become like train spotting. Many of the new breed are out to "bag " a species for some sort of collecting mania. Thats why many birders have gone over to moths for example; Its listing..Or chasing birds around to get pics that are "publishable" !)
Like I said the other day on a post on this forum. many don't realise Kingfishers are a Schedule 1 species. Wether you like it or not.. Many of the bird shots with food have been done very near to the nest. To disturb a bird "willfully " near the nest is illegal, and especially on a Nature reserve or designated area.
Its the over riding desire of some to get pics of the "goodies" that worries me somewhat.
I could photograph sparrows all day long.
JR
I think that eventually yet more rules and more expense will intrude on what we do, and I think Tom is right in suggesting that would be a bad thing for us all.
Digital has made it 'easier' and more accessible and that would probably irritate the hell out of me if I was somebody who had earned a living from wildlife photography the hard way and was now finding my markets flooded by 'snappers'. I am not denying that there might be more good photographs being produced, but I also think that the bar has been pushed right up at the same time. All of us could come up with an A list of photographers whose skill, knowledge and good eye consistantly produce outstanding images and that will always be the case however good the hardware.
There will always be those who consider that the end justifies the means, let's just hope that it doesn't ruin it for us all or more importantly our subjects. Education, education, education - I guess, as I doubt if anybody in that line really wants to cause hardship to puffins do they?
Eric
Restricting disturbance to a few 'honey pot' sights can help the overall population of a species in some cases - unlucky if you are an arctic tern on the Farnes having your chicks trampled by the 'tourists' (yes, I have seen this on numerous occasions in just two visits), but great for the success of the population as a whole if it remains successful. A managed approach to access has to be the answer even if it gets more restrictive for us photographers; wherever appropriate and possible, giving people an opportunity to see wildlife for themselves is the beginning of getting them to engage in the process of valuing it.
We, as wildlife photographers, have already made a value judgement about the importance our natural heritage on some level, but I'm beginning to question if we (me included) think enough about the impact our pursuit of pictures has. In particular, more and more of us CHOOSE to hop on a plane, to honey pots across the globe with a vague notion/justification that our trophy images may help conserve what we, in the process, are potentially destroying. In truth, very few of us produce images that 'help' conservation. We take pictures for our pleasure, because we can, because it is our hobby, because we might make some cash, because our ego demands it?
I argue, for example, that more pretty pictures of polar bears, to add to the thousands that already exist, will do nothing to halt the decline of this fantastic species, particularly if we've travelled halfway around the world by plane to record them. Are the days of ‘pleasure photography’ in such cases numbered?
If we can't curb our selfish human desire to 'see-for-ourselves' then, at the very least, surely we must be obligated to tell the whole story, not just the pretty bits.
Cheers, Chris.
We're all guilty of double standards to a greater or lesser degree BUT we could put more thought into how we approach a given subject, where we choose to photograph it and what story is told with the resultant images.
For me, another image of an ice-encrusted polar bear holds little appeal but that's not to say there is no place for polar bear photography. There are hundreds of conservation stories that could be built around that one species. I'm yet to see a good non-National Geographic story on polar bear tourism in Churchill for example. The same could be said of the Farnes. Robert's images of the puffin fly-past could be the beginning?
Perhaps in addition to considering Canon/Nikon, f4 or 5.6, ISO 200 or 400 or whatever technical specification is deemed to be the barometer of an image's success, we should consider whether our images ask questions of their audience?
Pete