A recent conversation with a picture library owner at Wildphotos drew to an end with the thought that using pictures for nature conservation is a double edged sword; show the gloomy reality and people think it is too late to save anything, conversely, show the beauty and it is perceived that everything in the garden is rosy.
As always, I guess the truth lies somewhere in the middle. A photographer who seems to be able to walk this middle-ground with ease is Thomas Peschak; his images and approach are proving highly effective in persuading influential people that certain marine environments are worth saving.
Sadly, my picture library friend informed me that she receives little in the way of "effective conservation imagery" from her photographers; they favour instead "the same old subjects, using the same old approach and as a result, fail to get pictures accepted".
This is something thats been the case for many many years. Which is a heartening thought for me - from a business point of view - because it indicates that that the vast majority of nature photographers have not learned that lesson = more sales for those who have.
10 or 15 years ago I was told by one of the agents I use that they "did not want ANY more african images of lions, elephants etc unless dramatic BUT what we DO want badly are images showing people interacting with such species and particularly images showing the effects of human activity - positive or negative, on the animals".
One of the BBC WIldlife photo comp winners from around that time was a shot of tyre tracks in the sand surrounding an animal in an african game park. Intelligent thought-provoking imagery, but very simple and easily overlooked.
This complaint of a lack of effective conservation imagery is a very very common one.
Hiya Chris,
I have just spent 15 minutes composing a reply to this thread and have deleted it as I realised I was starting to rant. Not being a particularly educated person I find it difficult sometimes to convey my thoughts coherently onto paper.
The majority of photographs shown on here have been taken for personal pleasure. Unless a person is specifically involved in the conservation world there is little chance that any of our images will be seen by anything other than a very small number of people.
There are some fantastic 'conservationally aware' photographers out there. There are many conservation bodies out there who can afford to pay those photographers to take the sort of images they want. If they want a certain type of image then they should stop moaning about it and commission those photographers and don't just sit there browsing through what is often a lot of dross on Alamy and the like. The problem, as I see it, is there are so many people who supply 'copied images' to the all powerful on line libraries in the hope of making a few quid that those organisations no longer want to pay for the images they need.
Better end there as once again I appear to be ranting.
Robert.
I think the point is that the libraries don't have the images that the conservation bodies want to buy ('conservation imagery'). Those photographers that can supply conservation imagery to libraries will be more successful.
Commissioning photographs is not a very cost-effective way of sourcing images, and it's only the larger conservation bodies (e.g. WWF), and those who own commercial picture libraries (e.g. RSPB), who can afford to do it, and even then it tends to be for a specific campaign.
Greg
Posted by Lewis Thomson on October 29, 2009 at 10:05 AM
I agree with the need for more thought provoking conservation images, but I guess situations where such images can be taken by the photographer rarely arise, and when they do I am sure they are taken....? Also I am sure that picture libraries reject some fantastic and inspirational images because they are "not critically sharp" which then leads to the photographer submitting the same old portraits they get from everyone. Surely better communication is needed between photographer and agent, and more importantly, the customer?
We are also forgetting that photographers are human, humans hate change and most are fearful of trying something new!
Lewis.
Posted by Edwin kats on October 29, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Thanks for the replies - some interesting points raised.
Robert: absolutely nothing wrong in taking images purely for pleasure. Nothing wrong in ranting either - it is a right of passage for the middle aged (I should know).
Personally, I don't think it is just up to large conservation bodies to conserve - we as a body of interested people could easily contribute to individual or collaborative initiatives. A recent example is Craig Jones' dipper article: I've not read it but I believe it discusses disturbance to these birds at a Peak District site. Granted, on its own, the article isn't going to turn the situation round but it does raise awareness and gets the topic highlighted and discussed. That is better than doing nothing! I’m sure there are other examples that effect UKNP photographers and their home patches.
Tooth and Claw, the Pete Cairns and Mark Hamblin project, is a 'cottage-industry' initiative, yet it has provided a framework for discussion amongst some very diametrically opposed groups. Again, in isolation, it isn't going to change the world but it is better than doing nothing!
Collaboration is the key. Photographers, picture libraries, wildlife press/media and others who benefit/profit from and enjoy the biodiversity we currently have, have a collective responsibility that has not yet been realised or mobilised. Working in partnerships to steer an agenda that benefits the natural world must surely be the way we can use photography to put something back?
Rant over, hope you liked the images.
Cheers,
Chris
Posted by Paul Rosser on October 30, 2009 at 5:48 PM
One of my favourite animals! Lovely images, I'm jealous.
Regards,
Paul.
Posted by Craig Jones on October 30, 2009 at 6:42 PM
Thank you for a mention Chris, we can all do our bit,from what ever walk of life,and I have had a great response from the readers of the BW magazine forwarded onto me from the editor and I am working on helping to come up with some signs and ideals for the area and also a follow up story in the furture and I am just 'joe public' I have touched on people I would never meet,I have apassion and ref the wolf it should be put back into the wild but it will never happen as 'man' likes to play god over nature and anything we fear or don't understand we get rid of.You are doing your bit too Chris,we can all do something, and now I have learned how to capture the beauty of nature with photography I intend to use that media to help nature,and help others to show what beauty we have around us.
Discussion
9 repliesAs always, I guess the truth lies somewhere in the middle. A photographer who seems to be able to walk this middle-ground with ease is Thomas Peschak; his images and approach are proving highly effective in persuading influential people that certain marine environments are worth saving.
Sadly, my picture library friend informed me that she receives little in the way of "effective conservation imagery" from her photographers; they favour instead "the same old subjects, using the same old approach and as a result, fail to get pictures accepted".
Food for thought?
Cheers,
Chris
This is something thats been the case for many many years. Which is a heartening thought for me - from a business point of view - because it indicates that that the vast majority of nature photographers have not learned that lesson = more sales for those who have.
10 or 15 years ago I was told by one of the agents I use that they "did not want ANY more african images of lions, elephants etc unless dramatic BUT what we DO want badly are images showing people interacting with such species and particularly images showing the effects of human activity - positive or negative, on the animals".
One of the BBC WIldlife photo comp winners from around that time was a shot of tyre tracks in the sand surrounding an animal in an african game park. Intelligent thought-provoking imagery, but very simple and easily overlooked.
This complaint of a lack of effective conservation imagery is a very very common one.
I have just spent 15 minutes composing a reply to this thread and have deleted it as I realised I was starting to rant. Not being a particularly educated person I find it difficult sometimes to convey my thoughts coherently onto paper.
The majority of photographs shown on here have been taken for personal pleasure. Unless a person is specifically involved in the conservation world there is little chance that any of our images will be seen by anything other than a very small number of people.
There are some fantastic 'conservationally aware' photographers out there. There are many conservation bodies out there who can afford to pay those photographers to take the sort of images they want. If they want a certain type of image then they should stop moaning about it and commission those photographers and don't just sit there browsing through what is often a lot of dross on Alamy and the like. The problem, as I see it, is there are so many people who supply 'copied images' to the all powerful on line libraries in the hope of making a few quid that those organisations no longer want to pay for the images they need.
Better end there as once again I appear to be ranting.
Robert.
I think the point is that the libraries don't have the images that the conservation bodies want to buy ('conservation imagery'). Those photographers that can supply conservation imagery to libraries will be more successful.
Commissioning photographs is not a very cost-effective way of sourcing images, and it's only the larger conservation bodies (e.g. WWF), and those who own commercial picture libraries (e.g. RSPB), who can afford to do it, and even then it tends to be for a specific campaign.
Greg
We are also forgetting that photographers are human, humans hate change and most are fearful of trying something new!
Lewis.
Just my thought.
Edwin Kats
Robert: absolutely nothing wrong in taking images purely for pleasure. Nothing wrong in ranting either - it is a right of passage for the middle aged (I should know).
Personally, I don't think it is just up to large conservation bodies to conserve - we as a body of interested people could easily contribute to individual or collaborative initiatives. A recent example is Craig Jones' dipper article: I've not read it but I believe it discusses disturbance to these birds at a Peak District site. Granted, on its own, the article isn't going to turn the situation round but it does raise awareness and gets the topic highlighted and discussed. That is better than doing nothing! I’m sure there are other examples that effect UKNP photographers and their home patches.
Tooth and Claw, the Pete Cairns and Mark Hamblin project, is a 'cottage-industry' initiative, yet it has provided a framework for discussion amongst some very diametrically opposed groups. Again, in isolation, it isn't going to change the world but it is better than doing nothing!
Collaboration is the key. Photographers, picture libraries, wildlife press/media and others who benefit/profit from and enjoy the biodiversity we currently have, have a collective responsibility that has not yet been realised or mobilised. Working in partnerships to steer an agenda that benefits the natural world must surely be the way we can use photography to put something back?
Rant over, hope you liked the images.
Cheers,
Chris
Regards,
Paul.
Cheer,
Chris