I recently got a very rare half-hour of spare time to sit and read, so I picked up a recent issue of a monthly photo magazine. An article, by a regular contributor, featured golden eagle/raptor photography has its main topic of conversation, but the undertone of the piece (to this reader at least) seemed to suggest that using captive, falconer-bred species to produce images of birds of prey for general consumption was undesirable. It even offered advice as to how such images could be spotted.
I read this article on the back of having stood up in front of a class of thirty 11-year-old children as a visiting speaker at a local school (don’t ask . . . . I got press-ganged by my niece). I was there to deliver a talk on how to use PowerPoint - to illustrate what elements to incorporate into a PP presentation, I took the opportunity to show the children a nature-based slide-show. The topic was golden eagles and most of the images were taken form my stock shots of mainly falconry eagles. The kids were blown away! In particular, the image I’ve posted drew ‘wow’, 'awesome' and gasps of approval from them.
Images, be they of captive or wild subjects, can be used to equal effect to inspire. As long as the falconers are responsible and photographers fulfil their obligation to declare when captive subjects have been used, I don’t have a problem. Does it matter that the shot I’ve posted has been hugely cropped, had many, many pixels harmed in Photshop and is of a captive-bred bird? If just one kid joins the RSPB because of it, then my answer is, no.
Canon EOS 1Ds2
500 mm
ISO 400
1/200 @ f4
Tripod
Cropped to the central 20%
Motion-blur filter
It matters a lot. It's fake. The children are saying wow at fakery. When they go out in the wild they are disappointed it doesn't live up to the fake. It also encourages others to trap wild animals for profit from photographers. If just one kid joins the RSPB becuase of this fakery, one kid will be bored to say the least.
It's a prickly subject. Having seen comments on this forum recently regarding the number of photographers at 'honey pot sites' perhaps it does make sense to make more use of captive / habituated animals.
1) A stunning image of an animal is just that, 'stunning'. That it was not taken in the wild doesn't make it any less stunning.
2) Providing the photographer informs the audience that it is a captive animal then I don't see a problem.
3) As for Davids point about encouraging others to trap wild animals for profit I cannot see that that would be a very common issue as most would be captive bred specimens. Anyone who has seen a wild caught animal would know that it would never be relaxed enough in front of a photographer to be worth photographing.
There has also been talk recently of disturbance of a Sea Eagle by a photographer, leading to abandonment of a nest site. Which is best, a good image of a captive bird or putting wild birds / animals under pressure?
How many children watch nature programmes on television not realising the amount of trickery and caniving that goes into getting a lot of the stuff. And how much of it is done in captivity. OSF made a company out of it for one.
Like ospreys catching fish in a programme recently that just happen to be swimming up side down.!!
A lot of life is fake these days I'm affraid.
JohnR
I'm more mammals than birds. Mammals are more expressive than birds and I cannot recall seeing a captive mammal at a photoshoot that looked happy, or behaved in a way that I would expect to see the animal to behave if it was the wild. I think of the snarling wild cat photos from the British Wildlife place in Kent and shudder. So maybe birds just have smaller brains and no emotions, so its OK. Nahhhh, I don't think so.
Such a difficult one this. To me taking a photo of that eagle is not really any different to putting that nice moss covered stick for the kingfisher to land on or any backyard set up for that matter. At the end of the day should the C mean contrived as opposed to captured.
Craig
So if I build a pool to attract birds as well as feeding them it's contrived?
Maybe it is but I don't think it's quite the same photographing them them in a pen or a cage.
(Having said that I still feel that Zoos have an important role to play and for many of us that's the only chance we will get to see certain things. More than ever in the years to come )I think all zoos should ban wire and use glass !
JohnR
In answer to the question; well it depends upon what you told the kids.
I have an issue about captive animals being labelled as wildlife; how can you have captive wildlife – it’s an oxymoron. I would digress but will refrain from doing so...
I have no issues of images of captive animals being photographed as long as we are all honest when we present them to the audience. What is fake about an image of a captive eagle if the image is presented as captive? Can we not marvel at captive animals? Does this captivity make them any less amazing than their wild kin? That said I do not condone unneccessary captivity - but that again is another, non photography, digress..
If we all can meet some of your photography aims by taking images of captive eagles surely this must be better that driving miles and then potentially, as apparently somebody did recently, disturbing eagles on the nest. Just label them as captive. So much of the captive verse wild debate centres around the ego of the photographer and not the actual animal photographed.
Chris, as the children where told the image was captive, and if it inspired any of them want to know more about, let alone to contribute to, any conservation work.... then good for you for that image of a captive subject will have had a more beneficial effect than most images for non-captive subjects; and furthermore probably for less disturbance and probably less environmental impact.
Well IMHO I have always thought that you should judge a photo for what you see in front of you,and if you have taken an image of a captive Bird?mammal or what ever,make that very apparent to your viewers,as it does NOT detract from the photo in front of you,it simply lets the viewer know that the subject is not a wild being,and therefore any young and aspiring photographers wont think that the photographer had spent weeks in the wild working away until they were successful.It also shows that STUNNING photos can be taken using captive subjects,and I for one have learnt so much working with a friend that owns a Falconry ,in particular flight shots,surely one of the best ways to practice,and again I know that now when I am IN THE WILD I am very confident with my settings,and thus get a much better image at the end of the day. I can only say again,judge what you see before,take the fact that an image may have be taken using captive stock into consideration,but its only a very small part of the finished product........
You could go on and on about the ways and where fores of this isssue for evermore. I cant really see what this post is going to prove. I doubt for one minute that Cris O'reilly is going to go away and do something different after reading all of the comments. I thought this forum was about posting images for people to to view and critique instead of that every five minutes we go of on a tangent.. I get no satisfaction from taking images of captive birds/animals and any image posted also echo that feeling. If an individual wants to do that sort of thing then its up to them.
I always feel a tinge of sadness when i see tigers or polar bears on the news born in a zoo after seeing them in the wild-they never look the same to me and dont have 'that' look in the eye, Photographically as long as the tog puts a 'C' then i see no wrong and i guess we have all shot captive animals at some time or other
I doubt that the general public care whether it's a captive or wild creature or if it was baited or not. I think the photographer should be honest about how the image was obtained though. I'm sure that both captive and wild images can help in getting people interested in wildlife. The thing with wildlife photography is that we all have our own reasons for doing it. For some the photography element is more important than the wildlife element whereas for others (myself included) the wildlife side is far more important.
John has mentioned what clinches it for me. The BBC and others use fakery all the time to increase its viewing figures. This is now what the public see as normal (or wild). This is a sham and should not be supported IMO. Yes its easy but the photography has no soul (like the poor creature in captivity).
Too many other aspects of life is an illusion. The future generations are being fooled by the fools! I suppose this is why too many people think that fake or tamelife photography is ok. As for being honest, it's a joke. I see several people's websites on here that have dormouse, field mouse, polecat, weasel, stoat, voles and so on that are CAPTIVE and the caption does not state this! They're after selling these photos to an unsuspecting and gullible public. Profit before ethics.
As for capturing animals to generate income for photography Robert, you need to visit some South African "game parks" as well as places in Asia i've been to. They also like to capture live bait to feed to the tamelife for photographers!
Going on from what Dave has said- I lecture frequently and some of the comments after "last night's nature blitze on the tele " are amazing !
Like " Did you see that thing on moles last night ?! They actually had a camera down a mole run ! The BBC seem to delight in sending remote controlled cameras around looking like ant hills.. Nothing wrong in that because it gets the "up your bottom" pics the public seem to want. Its almost as bad as "waiting 4 months to get a shot of a Kingfisher feeding a young one." ( Todays press) The whole photographic world in my humble view has gone nuts purely because it seems like that's what the public want. As some one has said this topic has wandered off from photography. But it hasn't. I think its a topic we should all look at a little more deeply because it is going to change before long.
Finally on the point about zoos etc. I cannot afford to go to places to see Polar Bears and African stuff and I never will. There are a lot of people that can though and those are often the ones that knock zoos and captive animals the most.
John Robinson
I gave up worrying about these things when a picture of a gorilla in a zoo won the WPOY competition, supposedly one of the premiere wildlife photography competitions in the world and in a stroke gave two fingers to all those people who do spend months and months trying to get a shot in the wild. Its OK chaps trot down to your local zoo, pay £5 and the world is your oyster.
What is nature or wildlife photography these days?, it is whatever you want and gives you satisfaction or a pay cheque.
Its all been said before, but there are basically three things being discussed here -
Photography for the sake of education (OSF BBC etc), Joe public doesn't care how images are made, the important thing is to educate and raise awareness and make some money whilst doing it - very few amateurs make wildlife documentories.
Commercial photography, prefessionsals where time is money, why sit in a hide for 3 months trying to capture an image when you can control the photographic environment and take the same shot in half a day. End result on emulsion print or pixels is the same or usually better
Amateur snappers who are doing it because they enjoy what they do, whether it be at a zoo, wildlife centre, 'honeypot location', a boat off Norway or other provided set up, or by making there own controlled conditions or simply wandering through the countryside enjoying their day out.
Horses for courses
NPN has a set of rules and conditions for submitting images, provided the posting party adheres to those rules there is no issue to discuss.
Posted by Andy Astbury on July 24, 2008 at 3:36 AM
Paul got it right - Joe Public couldn't give a damn one way or the other, John was right, OSF have built a company on it and indeed so has the Beeb - anyone remember Johnny Morris and Animal Magic.
Mike's hit the nail on the head - from the pro PoV it can be born of necessity. I was out a couple of weeks ago with a certain other member who's planning a major publication and they were in a turmoil over a certain species.
They could get guaranteed images at a foreign zoo or invest more heavily with no guarantees in an attempt to get the species in the wild - would I have a problem if the publication images were the former?
My answer was an emphatic NO - but with the caveat that if it worried them so much get the banker shots done at the zoo, then if time and funds allowed try to replace them with wild shots.
This big letter 'C' worries me a bit - yes it should be on the images, of that there is no doubt; but some people may judge captive shots with disdain for the togy, judging it as some indicator of a lack of effort.
A shot of a Golden Eagle is a shot of a Golden Eagle - if it serves a purpose and serves it well then I don't care one way or the other.
I'm just waiting for the rutting season to start and see how many 'C' s get posted on park deer shots - after all, is a cage not still a cage even if it has a big floor area?
Full bore Harris Chris - very effective shot, belongs in Tooth and Claw
An endless and pointless debate. There are a lot of "holier than thou" and "Moral highgrounders" who will condemn all captive (labelled or not) photography. They are normally the wealthy enthusiasts who have plenty of time and money and can spend weeks or months in pursuit of their images. Most of us can't afford to jet off around the globe for weeks or months trying to get that Polar Bear in the far reaches of the Tundra or the Gorilla in the middle of a rain forest in Rwanda.
Not only that but for those people trying to make a living from this photography time is of the essense and most editors will get the most striking shot of a subject. The Stock Libraries are full to busting with stunning images of that Gorilla and Polar Bear (except they were taken in Hampshire or Kent. The editors don't care where they were shot as long as the public goes "WOW" and they certainly don't want to have to wait 6 months and pay a fortune for the trully wild shot taken in the depths of Africa or Artic when they can get it now and cheap as chips.
Most of the respected Pro Nature Togs have got libraries stocked with images of captive and baited (no different really) subjects. As long as they are honest and don't claim to have spent years in the "Wild" to get the shots it is fine.
Rob
Posted by Peter Cairns on July 24, 2008 at 4:53 AM
I'm personally disappointed in Major's comments about this topic being 'a tangent' to nature photography. This issue - and lots of others - are central to any nature photography community. As to what such a thread achieves - well it achieves dialogue and thought provocation as is witnessed by the myriad responses. I feel we should constantly revisit what we do, how we do it and why.
A friend called me the other day and was complaining about Steve Bloom and his (reputed) digital manipulation not being 'right' (this is a bit of a tangent but bear with me..). It wasn't right that he'd sold thousands of books. It wasn't right that millions had visited his street exhibitions. It wasn't even right that he called himself a photographer! My friend is a purist and would not consider captive, controlled or manipulated images.
So, I asked, what has your purist approach done to highlight the plight of the world's threatened species? In truth, very little.
Chris, the shot is a stunner and importantly, you've used it to good effect.
Mostly covered, and I agree with Andy - especially with regards the deer (and by inference Gigrin, Donna Nook and so on). As long as we're honest about where the images are from I don't see the problem. Fundamentally, we (as togs) are judging three different elements when we look at a photograph. First, the 'artistic truth' (does the image capture the spirit of the species? Chris's fantastic image certainly does). Second, the tog's technical skills (a given past a certain point). Third, the nature photographer's field skills (captive, lured, honeypot sites being much lower down the scale than someone who's spent 3 months in a bag-hide in Norway for the same image). I suspect that where people balance the first and last of these elements changes with experience - at first you just want the images, but as one becomes more skilled then things change.
The only problem with this is that we are looking at things from the perspective of the photographer. Once an image is released into the wild, it will be judged on its own merits (artistic and technical), rather than the merit of the person who opened the shutter. This is why images of captive/tame subjects will continue to be made and be successful, irrespective of how we may feel ourselves about their photographic 'integrity'.
My personal example of this is with photographing orangutans. Pretty much every image of an orangutan I've ever seen is of rehabilitated individuals, who are used to people. They're wild in the sense that Richmond deer are wild. My favourite orangutan shot is one of the few I've made of truly wild orangutans - they are very difficult to see and to get close to, and for me that is very different to the rest. No-one looking at my images has ever given it more than a cursory glance, favouring the other images, simply because they're much more impressive. I know which I prefer, but I also know which images other people prefer.
Peter think you are missing my point.
I was on the understanding rightly or not that this forum was for posting images and critique not for having endless debates that finish up at nothing.
I only want to post images not have a free for all that is in my opinion a complete waist of time and energy.
That is my view point and I am entitled to it.
Surely there is another forum for those who want to discuss this matter.
This big letter 'C' worries me a bit - yes it should be on the images, of that there is no doubt; but some people may judge captive shots with disdain for the togy, judging it as some indicator of a lack of effort.
Come on Andy, all that's required for photographing captives is a basic ability to handle a camera. Spend a day at Bradgate Park and you'll be virtually guaranteed to come away with some good images of Red Deer. Then go to Cannock Chase and try to get a half-decent photo of a Red Deer. Then you'll find out what real effort is.
Mark, I know what you mean about your wild Orang photo. It must have been a wonderful experience.
Chris--stunning image. Dave C. I agree about the eye part. I recently did a photo shoot at a Zoo where the animals were kept in very large natural fenced in areas.(2-5 or more acres. I was thrilled not to half to shoot through wire as there were look out,s for awome viewing. I came away with fantastic photographs. Bison, bobcats, cheetahs, bears and many others.I downloaded them to my computer and felt good that the animals had such abeautiful natural habitat to live in. Then--- I saw their dead, lifeless ,hopless eyes. I am still sick form it. One poor bear's
eyes were so blank, I kinda think he was blind. With photoshop I have changed all the eyes, but I am still haunted by the origionals. In all zoo's, etc, my thought are to only keep these animals for a few years then return them to the wild and replace them with more wild animals. I am still hurting form this experience. The photographs -I will edit and use, since the public does not specifically care where the photographs came from, and how I feel isn't going to change how Zoo's operate. Just my thoughts
Again questioning when is a wild animal a wild animal, is not clear cut black and white, there are 4 categories of nature subject I can easily think of;
Zoo/Captive bred
Feral
Wild but accustomed to man
truly Wild
and then there is artificially altering a subjects behaviour by controlled feeding, controlled watering and other luring methods, sound, light or smell (for insects etc), all aimed at attracting a subject to make it easier to photograph under controlled conditions.
These categories blur around the edges and subjects can cross boundaries, an example;
hares - no one would argue that they are truly wild animals, but in Berkshire they are virtually impossible to photograph, go out to the farmlands of East Anglia where they are used to farm traffic and less predator pressure they a lot more approachable to the point they can come within a lens near focus range of a telephoto lens. The former are wily difficult subjects, but the latter are accustomed to man and so easier to photograph, both instances we are dealing with a wild animal.
Without knowing the location of a photograph it is difficult to interpret the 'difficulty quotient' that goes behind getting a shot.
Another example - Barn Owls, again extremely scarce in downtown Mid Berkshire If I presented an image of the owls I took with half a mile of my house in Reading I would be derided as being useless nature photographer (there again I probaly am anyway), but do the same with shots taken at Welney I would be applauded, I know which image I got a greater buzz from when taking the image, and it ain't the perfect east anglian birds
A second example
Avocets, schedule 1 in the UK, there are very few places where you can take an exceptional photograph of an avocet, Phils Shaw's example last year from his own developed nature reserve is about the only eaxample I can think off of a stunning avocet shot taken in the UK. yet 100 or so miles away as the crow flies from Essex you can go to Texel (or used to be able to, I think the particular site may now have changed and become a bit more challenging) and photograph wild avocets breeding without the need of a license and again the birds will come within near focus range at times. Former difficulty quotient high, a lot of time taken to develop the site and great photographic technique in setting up, and executing the final image, latter at Texel is like taking images at a zoo, difficulty quotient negligeable, even me as a part time 'snapper' could take good shots there
NPN asks for captive animals to be identified, but there are instances where a wild animal may just as well have been captive or been in a zoo such is the difficulty quotient needed to take the image ("honeypot" sites if you like).
At the end of the day people are taking photographs for a purpose, either to sell or for their own satisfaction. Everyone has their own goals, budgets and time availability and therefore satisfaction quotient. Enjoy an image for what it is, and not necessarily how it has been taken. You can go to a zoo or honeypot site and still take god damned awfull pictures, there is still a need for intelligence behind the viewfinder to make a good image.
A few points in response:
1. I have mixed feelings about using captive animals for ‘wildlife’ photography – the contradiction is implicit. But used in the right context, such images can be valuable.
2. Unless the animal’s welfare is put first, I wouldn’t consider using any individual or organisation for such photography (the eagle shoot was organised and controlled by people whose integrity I trust). Wild or captive, the animals wellbeing is THE most important thing.
3. I make no apology for using captive animals instead of ‘pressuring’ sensitive wild species –too many photographers think they have the divine right to photograph whatever species they like, whenever they want. In addition to obeying the law, we need to respect our natural heritage.
4. ‘Pointless debate’ – the number of respondents and views suggest otherwise.
The only comments I respond to directly to are those of David Slater, whose dim view on the discernment of children IMO is depressing:
The children I presented to were no less impressed with what they saw because it was ‘fake’. Their board-mindedness and imagination allowed them to respond enthusiastically despite knowing the bird was captive-bred. They were also informed that the chances of seeing a golden eagle in the wild, would be slim, even if they visited the few places in Britain that support populations. That didn’t prevent a couple of them asking me were exactly in Scotland do golden eagles live, so that they could ask their parents for a holiday there.
In the future, the fate of the golden eagle and the environment in general will be decided by such intelligent, articulate, vibrant people – I for one hope they make a better job of looking after the world than we have done so far. If I can help in this process by explaining (with or without 'fakery') what we could potentially lose, then I will.
what a great thread. good to see even those who think it's a waste of time and energy have made the valiant effort to waste their time and energy posting to it
for the viewer i don't think it really matters, as chris said the children loved it, and it will garner their support for conservation in years to come. if i was a child i would have loved it too, and would i have worried where it came from? no.
i choose not to try for captive images. this is not because i want to feed my massive ego. it is because the challenge of having the field craft to get close enough to my subject gives me a huge amount of satisfaction. if i went to the zoo or a raptor centre to photograph something, it would not give me anywhere near the amount of satisfaction that getting suburnt, hungry, cold, frozen, filthy, stung to death, tired etc etc that trying to stalk the same thing in the wild would. but that's purely personal. theres also the angle that i love to be outside and have a general disdain for other people, so i don't really want to spend a day at a zoo. i'd rather sit under a bush or leap in the sea where i can't see, hear or even think about another human being, even if that means me coming home with an empty card (which is regularly!).
i'm quite happy to appreciate a captive taken image, and let it inspire me to continue taking images of wildlife. however i do think that there is a line to be drawn in the competition world, but i don't really know where that line is, or why i even feel that way.
My take is a little different, i have few issues with captive images, as long as the animals are captive for a reason, breeding, conservation,research, rescue etc. I have images from falconry centres etc, which i think are stunning, but they are not in my wildlife pages.
If you had two near identical profile shots of a peregrine falcon. One is of a captive bird, and one of a wild bird. Which is better?
The "buzz" would certainly be higher with the wild bird, but what of the effect of being there, are you causing more damage by possibly disturbing the bird?
Yes ideally we would get in take the shot and get out with out disturbing the bird, but who here can put their hand on their hearts and say thave done that 100% of the time?
Everything has its place.
Posted by Dawn Monrose on July 24, 2008 at 1:38 PM
I think I wrote an essay on this at uni...
My opinion is - whether captive or wild it's your picture that tells a story. There have been some excellent images on here of captive subjects photographed in a clever and sensitive way that depicts the animal in what could be its natural habitat. That way the photographer doesn't give any false information to the viewer, and the pressure is taken off a wild animal. But, as said, the animal comes first, even a captive animal can become stressed with a lens in it's face. Thinking about that, perhaps a captive animal could become more stressed than a wild one, as it has no option to run away.
The photographer has a duty to photograph the animal in an honest and realistic way (whether its c or w), not just to give a true impression of that animal for the general public (Which will ideally inspire them to care for the natural world and take steps to help it - if the image achieves that, then it doesn't matter one tiny bit if it was captive or wild - a stunning or inspiring shot is still stunning and inspiring!), but also for the photographers reputation and commercially.
I personally don't see how baiting a site is the same as photographing a captive animal. At a bait site the animal has a choice, and if it's uncomfortable it can get away. If this is done responsibly, with knowledge of the species, then I see no problem with it.
I'd also like to add that I see the point Major is trying to make, we all have our opions, and I really don't think we will ever agree to a firm black/white, yes/no answer. But hey, it's good to talk...
And, I must disagree with Mike, I don't think hares here in Norfolk are easier to photograph than anywhere else. It has taken me years of research, hard graft, patience, and more patience to start to get decent images of them. It has recently clicked for me and the answer lies in knowing your subject, and knowing your location.
As someone else has said its horses for courses. As long as the animals in captivity are being well cared for in appropriate surroundings that serve a purpose then I think we have to accept it as a fact of life. How interested would people be in the plight of the tiger, for example, if they had never seen one in a zoo? How interested would they be in pandas without the media attention surrounding new births in captivity?
In terms of images for critique, publication, sale etc, then I think as long as it is stated how the image was obtained then viewers can make their own minds up. That however should probably go beyond annotating a (c) for creatures in the most obvious form of captivity such as a cage. As others have said, the purists moan about captive images being "too easy" but then it is only one step down on the continuum from hides set up at sites where species are regularly baited. For example we've all loved the truly great images of Finland's bears posted recently and while I was looking at sites that offer these opportunities (I can dream of enough holidays to fill many lifetimes!) some of them state that they regularly feed the bears.
If we are truly to critique an image beyond the end product then everyone posting should be including at least a sentence indicating conditions and technique used. To single out caged images for disdain is far too simplistic.
Discussion
30 repliesI recently got a very rare half-hour of spare time to sit and read, so I picked up a recent issue of a monthly photo magazine. An article, by a regular contributor, featured golden eagle/raptor photography has its main topic of conversation, but the undertone of the piece (to this reader at least) seemed to suggest that using captive, falconer-bred species to produce images of birds of prey for general consumption was undesirable. It even offered advice as to how such images could be spotted.
I read this article on the back of having stood up in front of a class of thirty 11-year-old children as a visiting speaker at a local school (don’t ask . . . . I got press-ganged by my niece). I was there to deliver a talk on how to use PowerPoint - to illustrate what elements to incorporate into a PP presentation, I took the opportunity to show the children a nature-based slide-show. The topic was golden eagles and most of the images were taken form my stock shots of mainly falconry eagles. The kids were blown away! In particular, the image I’ve posted drew ‘wow’, 'awesome' and gasps of approval from them.
Images, be they of captive or wild subjects, can be used to equal effect to inspire. As long as the falconers are responsible and photographers fulfil their obligation to declare when captive subjects have been used, I don’t have a problem. Does it matter that the shot I’ve posted has been hugely cropped, had many, many pixels harmed in Photshop and is of a captive-bred bird? If just one kid joins the RSPB because of it, then my answer is, no.
Canon EOS 1Ds2
500 mm
ISO 400
1/200 @ f4
Tripod
Cropped to the central 20%
Motion-blur filter
David Slater
Forest of Dean, UK
1) A stunning image of an animal is just that, 'stunning'. That it was not taken in the wild doesn't make it any less stunning.
2) Providing the photographer informs the audience that it is a captive animal then I don't see a problem.
3) As for Davids point about encouraging others to trap wild animals for profit I cannot see that that would be a very common issue as most would be captive bred specimens. Anyone who has seen a wild caught animal would know that it would never be relaxed enough in front of a photographer to be worth photographing.
There has also been talk recently of disturbance of a Sea Eagle by a photographer, leading to abandonment of a nest site. Which is best, a good image of a captive bird or putting wild birds / animals under pressure?
Like ospreys catching fish in a programme recently that just happen to be swimming up side down.!!
A lot of life is fake these days I'm affraid.
JohnR
So if I build a pool to attract birds as well as feeding them it's contrived?
Maybe it is but I don't think it's quite the same photographing them them in a pen or a cage.
(Having said that I still feel that Zoos have an important role to play and for many of us that's the only chance we will get to see certain things. More than ever in the years to come )I think all zoos should ban wire and use glass !
JohnR
I have an issue about captive animals being labelled as wildlife; how can you have captive wildlife – it’s an oxymoron. I would digress but will refrain from doing so...
I have no issues of images of captive animals being photographed as long as we are all honest when we present them to the audience. What is fake about an image of a captive eagle if the image is presented as captive? Can we not marvel at captive animals? Does this captivity make them any less amazing than their wild kin? That said I do not condone unneccessary captivity - but that again is another, non photography, digress..
If we all can meet some of your photography aims by taking images of captive eagles surely this must be better that driving miles and then potentially, as apparently somebody did recently, disturbing eagles on the nest. Just label them as captive. So much of the captive verse wild debate centres around the ego of the photographer and not the actual animal photographed.
Chris, as the children where told the image was captive, and if it inspired any of them want to know more about, let alone to contribute to, any conservation work.... then good for you for that image of a captive subject will have had a more beneficial effect than most images for non-captive subjects; and furthermore probably for less disturbance and probably less environmental impact.
T
David
Major.
Paul
Too many other aspects of life is an illusion. The future generations are being fooled by the fools! I suppose this is why too many people think that fake or tamelife photography is ok. As for being honest, it's a joke. I see several people's websites on here that have dormouse, field mouse, polecat, weasel, stoat, voles and so on that are CAPTIVE and the caption does not state this! They're after selling these photos to an unsuspecting and gullible public. Profit before ethics.
As for capturing animals to generate income for photography Robert, you need to visit some South African "game parks" as well as places in Asia i've been to. They also like to capture live bait to feed to the tamelife for photographers!
Dave
Forest of Dean, UK
Like " Did you see that thing on moles last night ?! They actually had a camera down a mole run ! The BBC seem to delight in sending remote controlled cameras around looking like ant hills.. Nothing wrong in that because it gets the "up your bottom" pics the public seem to want. Its almost as bad as "waiting 4 months to get a shot of a Kingfisher feeding a young one." ( Todays press) The whole photographic world in my humble view has gone nuts purely because it seems like that's what the public want. As some one has said this topic has wandered off from photography. But it hasn't. I think its a topic we should all look at a little more deeply because it is going to change before long.
Finally on the point about zoos etc. I cannot afford to go to places to see Polar Bears and African stuff and I never will. There are a lot of people that can though and those are often the ones that knock zoos and captive animals the most.
John Robinson
What is nature or wildlife photography these days?, it is whatever you want and gives you satisfaction or a pay cheque.
Its all been said before, but there are basically three things being discussed here -
Photography for the sake of education (OSF BBC etc), Joe public doesn't care how images are made, the important thing is to educate and raise awareness and make some money whilst doing it - very few amateurs make wildlife documentories.
Commercial photography, prefessionsals where time is money, why sit in a hide for 3 months trying to capture an image when you can control the photographic environment and take the same shot in half a day. End result on emulsion print or pixels is the same or usually better
Amateur snappers who are doing it because they enjoy what they do, whether it be at a zoo, wildlife centre, 'honeypot location', a boat off Norway or other provided set up, or by making there own controlled conditions or simply wandering through the countryside enjoying their day out.
Horses for courses
NPN has a set of rules and conditions for submitting images, provided the posting party adheres to those rules there is no issue to discuss.
Mike's hit the nail on the head - from the pro PoV it can be born of necessity. I was out a couple of weeks ago with a certain other member who's planning a major publication and they were in a turmoil over a certain species.
They could get guaranteed images at a foreign zoo or invest more heavily with no guarantees in an attempt to get the species in the wild - would I have a problem if the publication images were the former?
My answer was an emphatic NO - but with the caveat that if it worried them so much get the banker shots done at the zoo, then if time and funds allowed try to replace them with wild shots.
This big letter 'C' worries me a bit - yes it should be on the images, of that there is no doubt; but some people may judge captive shots with disdain for the togy, judging it as some indicator of a lack of effort.
A shot of a Golden Eagle is a shot of a Golden Eagle - if it serves a purpose and serves it well then I don't care one way or the other.
I'm just waiting for the rutting season to start and see how many 'C' s get posted on park deer shots - after all, is a cage not still a cage even if it has a big floor area?
Full bore Harris Chris - very effective shot, belongs in Tooth and Claw
Not only that but for those people trying to make a living from this photography time is of the essense and most editors will get the most striking shot of a subject. The Stock Libraries are full to busting with stunning images of that Gorilla and Polar Bear (except they were taken in Hampshire or Kent. The editors don't care where they were shot as long as the public goes "WOW"
Most of the respected Pro Nature Togs have got libraries stocked with images of captive and baited (no different really) subjects. As long as they are honest and don't claim to have spent years in the "Wild" to get the shots it is fine.
Rob
A friend called me the other day and was complaining about Steve Bloom and his (reputed) digital manipulation not being 'right' (this is a bit of a tangent but bear with me..). It wasn't right that he'd sold thousands of books. It wasn't right that millions had visited his street exhibitions. It wasn't even right that he called himself a photographer! My friend is a purist and would not consider captive, controlled or manipulated images.
So, I asked, what has your purist approach done to highlight the plight of the world's threatened species? In truth, very little.
Chris, the shot is a stunner and importantly, you've used it to good effect.
Pete
Mostly covered, and I agree with Andy - especially with regards the deer (and by inference Gigrin, Donna Nook and so on). As long as we're honest about where the images are from I don't see the problem. Fundamentally, we (as togs) are judging three different elements when we look at a photograph. First, the 'artistic truth' (does the image capture the spirit of the species? Chris's fantastic image certainly does). Second, the tog's technical skills (a given past a certain point). Third, the nature photographer's field skills (captive, lured, honeypot sites being much lower down the scale than someone who's spent 3 months in a bag-hide in Norway for the same image). I suspect that where people balance the first and last of these elements changes with experience - at first you just want the images, but as one becomes more skilled then things change.
The only problem with this is that we are looking at things from the perspective of the photographer. Once an image is released into the wild, it will be judged on its own merits (artistic and technical), rather than the merit of the person who opened the shutter. This is why images of captive/tame subjects will continue to be made and be successful, irrespective of how we may feel ourselves about their photographic 'integrity'.
My personal example of this is with photographing orangutans. Pretty much every image of an orangutan I've ever seen is of rehabilitated individuals, who are used to people. They're wild in the sense that Richmond deer are wild. My favourite orangutan shot is one of the few I've made of truly wild orangutans - they are very difficult to see and to get close to, and for me that is very different to the rest. No-one looking at my images has ever given it more than a cursory glance, favouring the other images, simply because they're much more impressive. I know which I prefer, but I also know which images other people prefer.
Mark
I was on the understanding rightly or not that this forum was for posting images and critique not for having endless debates that finish up at nothing.
I only want to post images not have a free for all that is in my opinion a complete waist of time and energy.
That is my view point and I am entitled to it.
Surely there is another forum for those who want to discuss this matter.
Major.
Come on Andy, all that's required for photographing captives is a basic ability to handle a camera. Spend a day at Bradgate Park and you'll be virtually guaranteed to come away with some good images of Red Deer. Then go to Cannock Chase and try to get a half-decent photo of a Red Deer. Then you'll find out what real effort is.
Mark, I know what you mean about your wild Orang photo. It must have been a wonderful experience.
Paul
eyes were so blank, I kinda think he was blind. With photoshop I have changed all the eyes, but I am still haunted by the origionals. In all zoo's, etc, my thought are to only keep these animals for a few years then return them to the wild and replace them with more wild animals. I am still hurting form this experience. The photographs -I will edit and use, since the public does not specifically care where the photographs came from, and how I feel isn't going to change how Zoo's operate. Just my thoughts
Zoo/Captive bred
Feral
Wild but accustomed to man
truly Wild
and then there is artificially altering a subjects behaviour by controlled feeding, controlled watering and other luring methods, sound, light or smell (for insects etc), all aimed at attracting a subject to make it easier to photograph under controlled conditions.
These categories blur around the edges and subjects can cross boundaries, an example;
hares - no one would argue that they are truly wild animals, but in Berkshire they are virtually impossible to photograph, go out to the farmlands of East Anglia where they are used to farm traffic and less predator pressure they a lot more approachable to the point they can come within a lens near focus range of a telephoto lens. The former are wily difficult subjects, but the latter are accustomed to man and so easier to photograph, both instances we are dealing with a wild animal.
Without knowing the location of a photograph it is difficult to interpret the 'difficulty quotient' that goes behind getting a shot.
Another example - Barn Owls, again extremely scarce in downtown Mid Berkshire If I presented an image of the owls I took with half a mile of my house in Reading I would be derided as being useless nature photographer (there again I probaly am anyway), but do the same with shots taken at Welney I would be applauded, I know which image I got a greater buzz from when taking the image, and it ain't the perfect east anglian birds
A second example
Avocets, schedule 1 in the UK, there are very few places where you can take an exceptional photograph of an avocet, Phils Shaw's example last year from his own developed nature reserve is about the only eaxample I can think off of a stunning avocet shot taken in the UK. yet 100 or so miles away as the crow flies from Essex you can go to Texel (or used to be able to, I think the particular site may now have changed and become a bit more challenging) and photograph wild avocets breeding without the need of a license and again the birds will come within near focus range at times. Former difficulty quotient high, a lot of time taken to develop the site and great photographic technique in setting up, and executing the final image, latter at Texel is like taking images at a zoo, difficulty quotient negligeable, even me as a part time 'snapper' could take good shots there
NPN asks for captive animals to be identified, but there are instances where a wild animal may just as well have been captive or been in a zoo such is the difficulty quotient needed to take the image ("honeypot" sites if you like).
At the end of the day people are taking photographs for a purpose, either to sell or for their own satisfaction. Everyone has their own goals, budgets and time availability and therefore satisfaction quotient. Enjoy an image for what it is, and not necessarily how it has been taken. You can go to a zoo or honeypot site and still take god damned awfull pictures, there is still a need for intelligence behind the viewfinder to make a good image.
A few points in response:
1. I have mixed feelings about using captive animals for ‘wildlife’ photography – the contradiction is implicit. But used in the right context, such images can be valuable.
2. Unless the animal’s welfare is put first, I wouldn’t consider using any individual or organisation for such photography (the eagle shoot was organised and controlled by people whose integrity I trust). Wild or captive, the animals wellbeing is THE most important thing.
3. I make no apology for using captive animals instead of ‘pressuring’ sensitive wild species –too many photographers think they have the divine right to photograph whatever species they like, whenever they want. In addition to obeying the law, we need to respect our natural heritage.
4. ‘Pointless debate’ – the number of respondents and views suggest otherwise.
The only comments I respond to directly to are those of David Slater, whose dim view on the discernment of children IMO is depressing:
The children I presented to were no less impressed with what they saw because it was ‘fake’. Their board-mindedness and imagination allowed them to respond enthusiastically despite knowing the bird was captive-bred. They were also informed that the chances of seeing a golden eagle in the wild, would be slim, even if they visited the few places in Britain that support populations. That didn’t prevent a couple of them asking me were exactly in Scotland do golden eagles live, so that they could ask their parents for a holiday there.
In the future, the fate of the golden eagle and the environment in general will be decided by such intelligent, articulate, vibrant people – I for one hope they make a better job of looking after the world than we have done so far. If I can help in this process by explaining (with or without 'fakery') what we could potentially lose, then I will.
Cheers, Chris
for the viewer i don't think it really matters, as chris said the children loved it, and it will garner their support for conservation in years to come. if i was a child i would have loved it too, and would i have worried where it came from? no.
i choose not to try for captive images. this is not because i want to feed my massive ego. it is because the challenge of having the field craft to get close enough to my subject gives me a huge amount of satisfaction. if i went to the zoo or a raptor centre to photograph something, it would not give me anywhere near the amount of satisfaction that getting suburnt, hungry, cold, frozen, filthy, stung to death, tired etc etc that trying to stalk the same thing in the wild would. but that's purely personal. theres also the angle that i love to be outside and have a general disdain for other people, so i don't really want to spend a day at a zoo. i'd rather sit under a bush or leap in the sea where i can't see, hear or even think about another human being, even if that means me coming home with an empty card (which is regularly!).
i'm quite happy to appreciate a captive taken image, and let it inspire me to continue taking images of wildlife. however i do think that there is a line to be drawn in the competition world, but i don't really know where that line is, or why i even feel that way.
well that's all from me for now.
byeeee
If you had two near identical profile shots of a peregrine falcon. One is of a captive bird, and one of a wild bird. Which is better?
The "buzz" would certainly be higher with the wild bird, but what of the effect of being there, are you causing more damage by possibly disturbing the bird?
Yes ideally we would get in take the shot and get out with out disturbing the bird, but who here can put their hand on their hearts and say thave done that 100% of the time?
Everything has its place.
My opinion is - whether captive or wild it's your picture that tells a story. There have been some excellent images on here of captive subjects photographed in a clever and sensitive way that depicts the animal in what could be its natural habitat. That way the photographer doesn't give any false information to the viewer, and the pressure is taken off a wild animal. But, as said, the animal comes first, even a captive animal can become stressed with a lens in it's face. Thinking about that, perhaps a captive animal could become more stressed than a wild one, as it has no option to run away.
The photographer has a duty to photograph the animal in an honest and realistic way (whether its c or w), not just to give a true impression of that animal for the general public (Which will ideally inspire them to care for the natural world and take steps to help it - if the image achieves that, then it doesn't matter one tiny bit if it was captive or wild - a stunning or inspiring shot is still stunning and inspiring!), but also for the photographers reputation and commercially.
I personally don't see how baiting a site is the same as photographing a captive animal. At a bait site the animal has a choice, and if it's uncomfortable it can get away. If this is done responsibly, with knowledge of the species, then I see no problem with it.
I'd also like to add that I see the point Major is trying to make, we all have our opions, and I really don't think we will ever agree to a firm black/white, yes/no answer. But hey, it's good to talk...
And, I must disagree with Mike, I don't think hares here in Norfolk are easier to photograph than anywhere else. It has taken me years of research, hard graft, patience, and more patience to start to get decent images of them. It has recently clicked for me and the answer lies in knowing your subject, and knowing your location.
Nice discussion!
In terms of images for critique, publication, sale etc, then I think as long as it is stated how the image was obtained then viewers can make their own minds up. That however should probably go beyond annotating a (c) for creatures in the most obvious form of captivity such as a cage. As others have said, the purists moan about captive images being "too easy" but then it is only one step down on the continuum from hides set up at sites where species are regularly baited. For example we've all loved the truly great images of Finland's bears posted recently and while I was looking at sites that offer these opportunities (I can dream of enough holidays to fill many lifetimes!) some of them state that they regularly feed the bears.
If we are truly to critique an image beyond the end product then everyone posting should be including at least a sentence indicating conditions and technique used. To single out caged images for disdain is far too simplistic.
Well beyond my litterrery ? powers |!! of english speak ! But I agree entirely.
Cheers
JohnR